I ran across an article by Paul Lippe in The AmLaw Daily titled "Welcome To The Future: Brains That Can Change." Paul, CEO of Legal On Ramp, provided a taste of changes that had occurred in the past few days:
• Goldman Sachs reported a $2 billion loss
• Google cut spending
• The American Bar Association announced a Web 2.0 collaboration system targeted to students, smaller firm lawyers, and nonlawyers.
• Sam Palmisano, the CEO of IBM, declared about the financial crisis, "you can retrench, pull in your horns, protect the balance sheet, and preserve cash. Or you can realize that this is about humanity screaming for change."
• While The New York Times headline read "At GM, Innovation Sacrificed to Profits," the CEOs of Ford, GM, and Chrysler agreed to take $1 salaries, re-tool their fleets to be green, and drive those green cars (instead of boarding private jets) from Detroit to Washington, D.C., to present Bailout Plan II. The Big 3 are making a huge effort both substantively and symbolically to be …Toyota, a company that has mastered change because it started out with far fewer advantages.
Paul then discusses the comparisons that have emerged between the current environment and 1933, including relaying some compelling personal anecdotes. He concludes with some observations on the magnitude of changes his grandfather experienced . Paul ends with this observation:
Let me suggest that 2008-20 will witness the greatest change the world has seen since 1933-45. If the Big Three CEOs can loosen up their brains to comprehend and lead that change, I know smart lawyers can, too.
I venture into disagreement with Paul with great trepidation. But I would make this observation. Being a son of Detroit and having spent a lifetime marveling at the ability of these behemoths to turn lemonade into sand, and then try to drink it, I do not for a minute believe that the Big 3 will turn things around. They are simply playing politics now, and even with their survival at stake, the level of insight into the changes needed is less than what one would expect to hear from any–yes, any–person who works on the factory floors. I fear the same for great swaths of the legal profession.
Paul has an addendum with this:
One can’t help but note that all of the passion, empiricism, and conversation is on the pro-change side. So if there is a vigorous, fact-based, enthusiastic defense of the status quo out there, it’s pretty darn quiet. To stimulate it, I’ll repeat the offer I’ve made elsewhere: if anyone wants to take the "pro status quo" side in a debate, I’m happy to engage with you at your partners’ meeting, bar association, local pub, or favorite Web 2.0 site. But if all you can offer is a skeptical harumph, perhaps that tells you something.
I certainly won’t debate the change issue. Regrettably, I have to take the "con" on the change argument vis-a-vis lawyers. I am too much the skeptic to believe in it until I see something real.