A month ago LawHawk and Succeed Legal released a free will that anyone in New Zealand can use.  You can read more about this in this earlier post: Half of Kiwis over 18 don't have a will - what are we going to do about it?

We decided we would run the free will as a trial through to 30 April to begin with, as we wanted to be sure that it would work well in practice, and there weren’t any issues we hadn’t foreseen.  Well, a month in we are very happy with how it has gone and have decided to keep it going.

In this blog, I look at what our objectives were and the extent to which they were achieved.  In particular, I look at the current and future role of lawyers in relation to drafting and advising on wills and how that could change when the drafting has been automated.

“Not surprisingly (in hindsight, at least), his first initiative was to implement document automation.  This was almost eight years ago!”

Over half a year on from leaving London, I ask myself:  what did I learn from my time in London?  Perhaps I can best answer this question by first asking myself: what did I expect?  Global market-leading bank, hundreds of years old, based in London - everything must go faster and run more efficiently than in little New Zealand, right?  Well, sort of.

As I noted in my earlier blog (Half of Kiwis over 18 don’t have a will – what are we going to do about it?), a lot of New Zealanders don't have wills.  It's not really clear why that is, but one reason is that a lot of people think they haven't got enough assets to make it worthwhile.

With the growth of KiwiSaver balances, that is often not the case.  Average KiwiSaver balances are now approaching $15,000, which is the threshold for administration of an estate without a will.  Above that figure, and the family has to go to court to have someone appointed as the administrator.  Stuff recently drew attention to this issue, and also to the free will that we recently launched with Matt Hay.

You see see the Stuff story here, or read it in full below. You can try the free will here.

“It’s those with the most experience that can contribute the most knowledge to new technologies.”  

There’s been a lot of press in New Zealand recently about the growing division between the baby boomers and millennials/gen Y.  For example, Bill English has said the age of eligibility for superannuation will rise to 67 from 2037 (i.e. it won’t directly affect the baby boomers).  For a few years now, the house prices in the most popular areas of NZ have been out of reach of most millennials.  This blog isn’t intended to discuss the economic and social arguments behind these situations we find ourselves in.  I am, however, interested in how the stereotypical differences in mindsets between the generations can make innovation tricky within organisations.  How do we get the best outcomes, in light of these differences?

[This blog was updated on 9 July 2017 to remove earlier references to a limited trial of the free will during April 2017, and to link to the positive customer feedback we have received on it.]

In 2012 it was reported, based on a Public Trust survey, that over half of New Zealanders over the age of 18 don’t have a will! Since that time it appears little has changed, as Public Trust referred to the same statistic in its 2016 Annual Report. It’s even worse for younger people, where 66% of 25 to 39 year olds don’t have a will.

Given that wills are so important, how can this be?

The most interesting developments in the last month...

It’s been quite a month for legal tech in New Zealand, with several announcements by New Zealand firms that are worth of mention.

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. 

Many people are still asking whether Legal Tech will completely replace the flesh and bones lawyer.  We don’t think so, and neither do most of the legal tech commentators we’ve come across in the last month.  Technology will sit alongside humans to provide better outcomes for clients, not replace humans.  As we note in our comments about Synergist below, we believe that over-reliance on technology may compromise effective outcomes when people still need to build relationships and work together.