LawHawk Blog

“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?

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?

 

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.

I recently wrote an ebook on technology, and how it can help lawyers be more successful, after speaking at a conference and finding there was real interest in the topic.  Covering more than 50 different technologies, it has been downloaded many times, but the Law Society was also interested in adapting it into an article for LawTalk, which they have now done.

You can read the LawTalk article here, and it is also set out in full below.  The full ebook (which contains some more detailed information, a number of graphics, and more hyperlinks to the various suppliers) is also still available for download here: http://info.lawhawk.nz/tech-and-disruption-ebook.

I recent had the opportunity to talk with Tao Lin from Stuff about the changes that are happening in the legal profession, and how they can benefit small businesses here in New Zealand.  She has published a story  "LawHawk spreads wings with online legal templates" which you can view in full here.

It's great to see the continued interest in LawHawk as we continue to spread the word about automated online legal documents in general, and what we are doing at LawHawk in particular.  It's also good to see recognition of the great work that Simmonds Stewart have done in making quality legal documents more available - in New Zealand, and now in Asia.  Andrew Simmonds and his team have led the way in seeing the issue of availability and doing something significant about it.

As Andrew and Katherine Beck both note, the real opportunity is not to replace the relationship between clients and lawyers, but to create opportunities for a better relationship.  More informed clients, working with efficient lawyers who can do work for them a lot more cheaply - and still make a good profit.

You can read the full story below.

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.

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