Driving Change: Chicken or Egg, Client or Law Firm?
The Greatest American Lawyer contains a very thoughtful post on the issue of whether law firms will ever lead change in the manner services are provided to clients. The GAL posits that "[i]t has been suggested that until clients demand that law firms deliver lower cost and higher quality services, law firms will not be motivated to act. While there may be something to this notion, I am not buying it." The GAL concludes with this:
So, what needs to change in the legal market in order to for innovation to ensue? Does the change have to come from the client side? It is my belief that law firms and lawyers will have to employ traditional marketing and sales people who can go out into the market without the demands and pressures of having to bill time or work for clients on important matters and evangelize what they are doing. Without a marketing and sales force, the reach of any particular law firm to distinguish themselves in the market and reach new clients is extremely limited. The market must be educated as to how and why the flattening of the world and the availability of technology can revolutionize the way law is practiced. Without this important piece of the puzzle, the legal market will continue to be the caboose of the global train of innovation and technology adoption.
I'm not sure I can agree. The implication of GAL's post is that there really isn't competition now for business. That certainly isn't true. In my view, the problem remains one of economic incentive. Law firms have no reason to embrace technology or the efficiencies it creates more than is minimally necessary because technology costs them money and doesn't generate revenue. Clients make the hiring decision and law firms offer what they think the client needs from them, and no more. If clients demanded the types of efficiencies GAL discusses ("do this or you are fired") and followed through by hiring only those who provided the innovation, the level of innovation would increase dramatically because it would be the price to play. Now it isn't. I leave with this thought: if clients don't insist on change now, why will they hire based on that differentiator if the pitch is made by a professional seller?
You post, "I'm not sure I can agree."
A ray of hope. Why is it that people believe that market forces don't impact lawyers when the law business is perhaps the most competitive business in America? There are no real barriers to entry. Forget the old saw about licenses. One must have a license to have a tv or radio station. Would anyone argue that TV and radio are not completely shaped by competition?
Second, stop worrying about something over which you have no control. If clients want technology they will ask for such and pay for such. Technology is a means not an end. You don't get a shorter sentence or a better divorce because of technology--in fact you may get a worse deal, due to bias and prejudice.
I and most good trial lawyers still use legal paps and pencils for a reason. All you need to do is see a jury turned off by a public defender tying on a lap top during trial