A number of my recent posts have focussed on business systems that law firms have, or should have.  For example, automated precedents, opinions databases, and checklists.  These are all very valuable ways of ensuring that the firm can deliver increasingly better services at better value.

However, as my former Buddle Findlay chairman Peter Chemis said in an interview with the National Business Review recently, "There is always a place for people".  I would add, provided they continue to develop new skills that are relevant to the different types of work they will want and need to do when using new technologies.

In this post, I look further at questions (questions 8 and 9 in my Legal Sausage Factory series) clients could ask their lawyers to see how well they are preparing themselves for these new ways of working.

As noted in recent blogs, precedents and legal opinions are valuable tools for law firms to ensure they are working efficiently and to high standards of quality.  A third tool I believe is essential is having high quality checklists and other guidance, which can help someone work through a processs quickly and safely. 

Like precedents, checklists that are well designed, current and comprehensive can be very hard to update and maintain, but as Atul Gawande shows in The Checklist Manifesto they are not just for inexperienced people, and can be essential to reducing mistakes in all fields, including medicine, aviation, construction, finance - and law.

The next question I recommend clients ask their lawyers to find out how they really work, and to identify law firms that are working differently and better than others, relates to checklists, guidance and other quality control methods.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about a topic dear to my heart - whether law firms are investing enough time and effort in precedents: http://blog.lawhawk.nz/blog/does-your-law-firm-use-precedents.

This week, in the 6th set of questions, I want to look at another core area where an established law firm should be able to provide additional value and benefits to their clients beyond what others can: the legal opinions that the firm's lawyers give on a daily basis. 

In these earlier posts Time to visit the legal sausage factory - Questions for clients to ask their lawyers in 2017,  The legal sausage factory - will lawyers show clients how they make their sausages? and Technology in the legal sausage factory - what is it, and who does it benefit?  we suggested that if clients want to see improvements in the value they get from their law firms, they need to be more assertive and find out how their law firms currently work.  To do that, they will have to ask some harder questions than they have to date. A similar approach is also suggested by Jacob Herstek, vice president and senior legal counsel at HSBC Bank USA in this article To Cut E-Discovery Costs, Legal Departments Question Outside Counsel.  

We have come up with 13 questions that lawyers could ask their law firms to work out if they are modern and efficient, or are a legal 'sausage factory'.

The first questions we suggested asking have been:

1. Can you show us how you actually work?
2. What technology have you already adopted for our benefit?
3. What technology will you adopt for our benefit?
4. How do you keep our information secure?

Next we suggest you focus on precedents.  Do they even have any?  Do they use them? Is your law firm making its sausages from a recipie or are they just sweeping together whatever they can find on the day to get something out the door?

In these earlier posts Time to visit the legal sausage factory - Questions for clients to ask their lawyers in 2017 and The legal sausage factory - will lawyers show clients how they make their sausages?, we suggested that if clients really want to see more value from their legal spend, they need to be more inquisitive and assertive and find out how their law firms currently work, so they can see what changes they require.

We've come up with 13 questions that clients can ask their lawyers to work out if they are modern and efficient firms working towards best practices, or if they are a 'legal sausage factory', churning out a product that looks ok but hoping you never see how it's actually made.

The first question we suggested asking is "Can you show us how you actually work?". 

The next three questions focus on technology, because this is absolutely central to their ability to make major improvements.  It's also the biggest threat to their continued existence because internationally and in New Zealand a substantial amount of legal technology is being developed, which will enhance those lawyers that adopt it and replace those that don't. 

Our technology questions focus on what legal technology they are currently using, and what they plan to adopt (and in each case whether it is for the benefit of the client or the law firm), and how do they keep their clients' information secure?

Last week in Time to visit the legal sausage factory - Questions for clients to ask their lawyers in 2017 I suggested that it was time law firm clients learned more about how their law firms actually work, because:

• it's probably not as good as what the client thinks; and
• the only way that the much needed changes to the legal profession will occur - and which clients say they want - is if clients demand and require it. 

Perhaps a little controversially, I suggested many law firms may be similar to sausage factories - we like the end product, but we wouldn't be that happy if we saw how its actually made relative to standards we are used to seeing in other industries.  This may be unfair on some firms who really do work efficiently, but if that's the case, they're keeping pretty quiet about some real competitive advantages they could be marketing on.

In any event, it should be relatively easy to work out if things are as good as they should be - just ask the right questions.  Law isn't unique.  Clients should be carrying out the type of due diligence they commonly undertake on other suppliers - getting their hands dirty and undertaking site inspections, process analysis, bench marking and regular reviews. 

I've come up with 13 questions.  To get things started, the first question I suggest asking is can you show us how you actually work?  

2017 is when the changes will become real

2017 will be a big year for the legal profession. 2016 was a year everyone talked about "disruption" and all the changes that are going to happen. 2017 will be a year where the changes start to be seen and therefore become “real” in the minds of many lawyers.

Those lawyers and organisations that have been trialling technology will move to more extensive adoption. They will start to publicise it and the benefits they can offer, as they seek to differentiate and profit from it.

There is an increasing awareness of the changes that are coming, as stories like this (Rebooting the Legal Profession) profile what the leading firms in Australia and elsewhere are doing and planning.  Last week's blog (Shit Just Got Real! Changes to law ARE coming) gave a wider view of what is happening.

Yet there is still reluctance to look at new legal technology…

And yet, there is still a reluctance from many law firms to even look at adopting new technology. As one lawyer put it to me in 2015, given they are well paid for taking hours to do jobs that can be done almost instantly with automation, “why would we do anything until the day before we have to?”.

18 months later lawyers are still unsure what new technology will mean for them, and whether it will replace or enhance them. They are waiting to see others move first, so they can be “fast followers”.

Two circuit breakers are needed

This reluctance and uncertainty means that two things will be needed to encourage broader and faster adoption:

Happy New Year everyone! 

Typically the Christmas/New Year period in New Zealand is a time of rest and relaxation after the pre-Christmas rush that occurs every year.  This means it could be easy to miss the large number of interesting articles that surface around this time of the year, recapping on what happened in the previous year and predicting what will happen next year.

It would be a shame to miss these, because there’s still a sense of complacency and lack of knowledge in New Zealand about the amount of change that is coming, and how much time law firms will have to adapt to the change when it arrives.

We’ve captured the most interesting articles we read over the past couple of months and listed them below.  I think it is staggering how much is happening internationally, and have little doubt that 2017 will see a lot more progress than we’ve seen to date. I hope this helps you to see how real these changes are, and factor them into your plans for 2017.

What do you think about this?  Are there any other interesting articles you think should be mentioned?

In these earlier posts I set out 7 Key questions for in-house lawyers considering if document automation could help your organisation, and 8 ways document automation could help your in-house team.

In this post I look at 6 types of documents which your organisation is likely to produce regularly, and how they can benefit from automation:

• procurement documents
• agreements for supply of goods and services
• property documents
• employment agreements and related documents
• checklists
• company secretarial documents

In this earlier post, 7 Key questions for in-house lawyers considering if document automation could help your organisation, I looked at 7 key questions that an in-house lawyer can consider when thinking about whether document automation could help them and the business they support.

In this post, I've set out 8 potential benefits from using a cloud based document automation solution.  While most of these benefits relate to document automation generally, I've also noted some of the benefits in working with a partner like LawHawk which can allow you to access high quality document automation solutions more easily - as a managed service, where you only pay for agreed deliverables, without the costs of trying to figure it out yourself.