LawHawk Blog

Document automation (sometimes referred to as document assembly) is a way to create electronic documents using computer systems and workflows, instead of the traditional way of manually working through a document, finding areas to be customised, and typing or deleting relevant details.

At its simplest, document automation can include capture and automatic entry of items like party names and dates. Those who have used it in this way often believe that is all it can be used for.

However, modern document automation technology now allows for far more advanced uses, controlling hundreds or thousands of sections of optional text to create highly customised documents in just a few minutes. In this way it allows users to: 

Do you or your team draft or review confidentiality agreements? For something so simple, there’s actually a lot to think about, including things like:

•     Who are the parties, and who should the parties be?

•     What other people are entitled to access confidential information, and on what basis?

•     What’s in the definition of confidential information?

•     What’s out of the definition of confidential information?

•     What purpose can the confidential information be used for?

•     How should the confidential information be kept secure?

•     What should happen if some confidential information is required to be disclosed?

•     Should confidential information be returned or destroyed, and when should it be allowed to be retained?

We’ve created a free guide to confidentiality agreements, which you can access below. It can help you if you’re drafting your own confidentiality agreement, or as a checklist when reviewing one prepared by someone else.

Feel free to share this with your friends, and let us know what you think – what’s missing? Anything you don’t agree with?

The recent comments by NZLS President Chris Moore in Lawyer numbers soar as the law becomes more complex highlighted some significant trends in New Zealand’s legal profession.

Trend one: “Commercial lawyers are valued by clients for their strategic and tactical business advice, and are spending some portion of their working week providing services that were not strictly speaking legal services.”

This is not only true and increasing, but reflects where commercial lawyers should be putting their long term focus.  As more of the document drafting and other traditional aspects of their jobs are sped up by automation or done by clients themselves or by non-lawyers, commercial lawyers will need - and want - to do other work.  Strategy, negotiation, project management and other business disciplines will be areas where commercial lawyers can add real value.

This is supported by Chapman Tripp’s Managing Partner Andrew Pool’s recent comments to New Zealand Lawyer Magazine:

“When I started my career…we gave legal advice. We told clients what the legal answer was; what the latest case law was; what the legislation says. But all of that stuff can be found online now and increasingly what our clients are coming to us for is our judgement, our expertise, our wisdom, if you like, and they want a law firm that really understands their business; really understand their sector, or industry, and really delivers service as well as quality advice, and those are quite radical changes and ongoing significant challenges for all of us.”

The great thing is that these new areas are far more interesting than document drafting, and largely occur in front of and with the client.  It will be much easier to build relationships, demonstrate the value being added, and differentiate from competitors.

You only have to look at the shifts accountants have made following the introduction of Xero to see what a positive change this can be for those who are prepared to make the significant investments to do these things well. 

Richard Susskind in “ Tomorrow’s Lawyers” emphasises the need for real investment in these new disciplines, and notes that what he terms the “legal hybrids” of the future will have to undertake comprehensive and rigorous training.  As a result, they will be “formidably schooled and unarguably expert in their related disciplines and, in turn, will be able to add considerable value to the legal services they offer to clients.”

Hopefully the days of lawyers opening negotiation meetings by saying “Shall we just turn the pages” will soon be a thing of the past!

Trend two: “There may also be an argument that as the number of laws continued to grow, so the number of lawyers needed also continued to grow”

There doesn’t appear to be any sign of the amount of law and regulation decreasing anytime soon, while the penalties for non-compliance with many laws have increased substantially and really focussed the minds of business leaders (the soon to be enacted Health and Safety at Work Act being the latest example).  However, whether it’s more lawyers we need, or more effective use of time by existing lawyers, is more debatable.  Lawyers certainly can, and will, become more efficient and focussed.

Given that half the profession are sole practitioners, and that 85% of all law firms have five or fewer lawyers, staying on top of all those law changes and ensuring they are reflected in precedents and other knowledge management resources could be a real challenge.  Fortunately, in addition to the substantial resources which are available from the traditional legal publishers like LexisNexis, ADLS, Thomson Reuters and Wolters Kluwer, there’s a rapidly emerging number of ancillary support organisations such as ConnectWorks (who provide Trustworks and Companyworks) and LawHawk who can support lawyers in these areas.  With cloud technology, collaboration and sharing of knowledge and resources is only getting easier.

Trend three: “There had been a rise in the number of specialist lawyers as a result.”

This trend will only continue.  With the substantial rise in in-house legal teams, the pressure has been on law firms for some time now to become more specialised.  Many in-house lawyers have come from firms and are very good lawyers with a diverse range of skills.  With limited budgets for external work, when they go external it is often because they are seeking specific expertise.

At the other end of the market, with new non-lawyer providers offering wills and contract reviews cheaper than many law firms, members of the public will increasingly be able to do or source more basic legal work themselves. Lawyers will need to be able to demonstrate that they have expertise which cannot be obtained elsewhere and that they can add specialist value.  

Trend four: “Moore praised the small town "generalist" expected by their clients to help them with all their legal needs. The rising complexity of law meant they had to be talented individuals, he said.”

When viewed against the trends outlined above, it is particularly challenging for the small town “generalist” to cover all of a client’s legal needs, and it’s actually not required.  With greater connectivity and collaboration facilitated by technology, it is easier for more generalist lawyers to locate specialists (who aren’t a threat to the wider relationship because of their specialisation) and outsource key components of the job (effectively unbundling and project managing it, while still retaining overall responsibility for the client relationship and delivering an outcome that the client needs).  An example of this trend is specialist employment barrister, Mark Donovan, who blogs regularly on employment law issues and is using technology to make it easy for people to engage him, wherever they are. Interwoven is another good example of specialist firms working together to serve clients better.

Public Trust’s offering of “ Executor Assist” to law firms to work with them to manage estates demonstrates the shift in mindset that is occurring.  As Public Trust note, they are aiming to move from “arch enemy” to ally.

A collaborative approach, as required, may in many cases be better than trying to maintain an in-house capability, just in case.

In addition, a range of technology tools – many cloud based - do enable the generalist lawyers to do a broader range of work faster and better – with more time to research and check to ensure that the end product is as good as it needs to be.

Whether it’s accessing technology tools, or forming networks and alliances with other professionals, collaboration is much easier for the small firms, and lack of size is no longer the disadvantage it once may have been.

 

When I first read this article in HBR, Why Your Innovation Team Needs a Lawyer, I liked it. All lawyers have probably experienced at least once the dismay of being brought in at the tail end of a new initiative, when all the key decisions have already been made and the deadline for sign-off is…5pm today. Nobody wants you to ask any questions, they don’t want to (and probably can’t) make any changes, and they’re scared that you will “kill the project – or reduce it to a shadow of its potential”. All they really want is a sign-off.

So an article identifying that the real problem is often that “not a single legal representative had been involved in these new business initiatives from the beginning” is a good thing. As the article says

This is where the opportunity lies – in collaboration that includes the final approvers, embedding the legal teams in the design and innovation process.

The problem is that the more I reflect on it, this article – and many people’s views of lawyers in general – is based on a view that the lawyers need to be on the team so they can understand it – if you explain it in simple terms - and not kill it, but there is no suggestion that the lawyers might themselves have the creativity to actually add to and enhance the underlying initiative.

 

In my earlier blog on how to attract and retain staff, I noted that there are 5 key factors that I tried to focus on to make work more satisfying for myself and my team, and which will help with attracting and retaining staff. One of these is variety of work.

This is a difficult one to manage, as there is an inherent tension between variety (which most people enjoy) and increasing demands from clients for genuine specialisation and expertise. I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago in Are you straddling in your legal practice? You have to get the balance right, and it will vary from person to person.  Here's my thoughts on how you can do this. 

Great to chat with Giles Beckford of Radio New Zealand's Business News  recently about the opportunities legal document automation creates for New Zealand's predominantly smaller legal practices.

You can listen to the interview here:

A transcript of the interview is set out below:

 

Is your firm one of “a surplus of similar companies, employing similar people, with similar educational backgrounds, coming up with similar ideas, producing similar things, with similar prices and similar quality.” (Jonas Ridderstrale and Kjell Nordström, Funky Business).

One of the key challenges any law firm (and any business in general) faces is working out where to play. There are a number of approaches.

 

Last week, I wrote about the opportunity to create substantial savings for banks and their customers through use of common documents. Advantages would include:

• reducing the substantial costs banks incur in preparing the documents;

• reducing the costs of updating and maintaining them, and increasing the number of people with incentives to continuously  improve them;

• making it much faster, easier and cheaper for lawyers to advise clients on the terms of loan and security documents – meaning borrowers can access their money quicker, and with lower costs; and

The article below on how law firms can thrive in disruptive times was published in the latest LawTalk magazine.  You can also read it here.

The inspiration for the article came from a 2 hour session with Gary Bolles.  While there are some excellent legal training courses offered through NZLS, ADLS and others, given the vast range of new skills that lawyers can and should develop, it's worth looking more broadly as there are some great courses at very good value.  For example, 2 hours with Gary Bolles, which was organised by Biz Dojo's Collider Programme and Callaghan Innovation, was only $25.00. Creative HQ's Startup Garage also offers some excellent events.  Look into them!  

Seven takeaways for lawyers

Despite nearly 20 years working as a banking and finance lawyer, one thing I have never understood is why banks in New Zealand all have their own terms and conditions for security and loan documents. If ever there were documents that were well suited to industry standardisation, they would be it. Consistency of documentation and processes in areas where the banks do not compete – like this - would reduce transaction costs, and free them up to focus on areas where they could innovate and compete.