You may have seen me talk about using legaltech to achieve great outcomes.  You may have nodded your head in agreement. After all, who wouldn’t agree that getting a great result is, well, great?  But what does this actually mean?  

There are a lot of legaltech options out there.  If you’ve tried one piece of legaltech, and been left feeling like the guy on the right, you’re not alone.  This happens all too often.  With so many providers (sometimes appearing to offer the same solution), you have to find one that can solve problems you have, in the way that suits you, in the way they said they would.  Don’t part with your money or your time, until you know this will be the case.

Just under a year ago when I launched LawHawk, in an interview with LawTalk I said that “Document automation will be the way lawyers work – the key is how you will do it.” 

I also said “I know people have been saying ‘change is coming’ for years without it happening, but this time it really is.”

“Yeah right!” a lot of lawyers would have said. 

But things really are changing quickly in this space, and you can see this in the exhibitors at LawFest, New Zealand’s leading legal technology conference. This year there will be three specialist document automation solutions that I am aware of, none of which were available in New Zealand this time last year.  Automation of legal documents is becoming mainstream. It is happening, even if you cannot see it, as this example demonstrates. 

[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?

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.

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?

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:

“With LawHawk, I see an opportunity to provide the tools to close the gap between what the client expects from its lawyers and what the lawyers can deliver.  Even better, there is an opportunity to allow lawyers to exceed expectations.”  

I had a role I enjoyed with a global investment bank in London, one of the financial centres of the world.  I gave it up to take a position with a little known legaltech startup on the other side of the world, trying to solve complex problems that others haven't been able to.  Here's why.