It's personal.....

“We never listen when we are eager to speak” (Francois de La Rochefoucauld); “Many can argue – not many converse” (A. Bronson Alcott); “Communication skills are the lifeblood of a successful life….if you plan on spending any time there” (Doug Firebaugh)

Amidst all the discussion of the ‘Legal Big Bang’ and the implications of both this, and other market pressures, for lawyers, one challenge is constantly referred to; the need for lawyers to set themselves apart. 

Knowledge of the law will be a given for qualified solicitors (as opposed to the large numbers of paralegals and law graduates who may well flood the market to a greater extent in ‘legal roles’).  So although focusing on legal knowledge may set qualified solicitors apart from non-qualified legal workers, it won’t work in the main as a focus for setting themselves apart from other solicitors (though I appreciate that Quality Solicitors might have something to say about this contention).  What about commercial awareness?  Again, I think that this is pretty much a given. Much as lawyers like to talk about this as if it’s a new concept, an understanding of your client’s business has been important since time immemorial.

I think it’s important to go back to basics and this is especially relevant when grappling with issues (as many firms are now) such as where does a solicitor add value.  Ultimately solicitors provide a personal service to their clients. What counts is their ability to interact, communicate and build relationships with their clients.  An ability to communicate well, interact well, and have effective and profitable relationships with clients and potential clients will help to set individual lawyers apart from other lawyers less adept at these skills.  Mastering these softer skills has always been important but will, I am convinced, become even more vital as lawyers attempt to differentiate themselves and strive to be ahead of the pack. 

Another First on the Blocks

Acculaw……….not sure about the name, but what a great idea, especially when the estimated cost for recruiting and training one graduate is £175,000.  Like QualitySolicitors, you may be able to pick a few holes in the concept and the strategy, but you have to applaud Susan Cooper for being a first-mover and taking the bull by the horns.

There is no doubt that many firms wrestle with what is the best and most cost-effective way to go about trainee recruitment and the vagaries of the market make this a moving target.  The benefits that Acculaw aim to provide then, in terms of flexibility and lower cost, are evidently going to appeal to many firms. 

Any extra vehicle through which the overly numerous budding lawyers can ensure qualification and justify the huge expense of their degree and post-graduate studies has to be a positive step for them as well. 

However, I must confess to being surprised at Acculaw’s assertion that they are in advanced discussions with several City law firms and suspect that any involvement from such firms would be fairly one-sided in favour of the firm rather than the trainee.  My experience of these types of law firms (and I trained and qualified at one myself) is that they aim to produce ‘branded’ lawyers at the end of the training process.  By this I mean individuals who are fully steeped in the practices, processes and culture of the firm. Such individuals are also given the benefit of a full in-house training programme during their training contracts, spread over the two-year period.  Surely having trainees ‘dipping in and out’ would hinder this process. My suspicion is that whilst the big firms might look at this type of arrangement as expedient in terms of cost and flexibility (and indeed Tony Angel, former Linklaters senior partner has welcomed the initiative), they would be unlikely to take such a trainee on at qualification. 

Lawyers →→Project Managers?

Picking up on my theme of blank sheets of paper (see previous post) the phrase has been used by Professor Richard Susskind in his afterword to a recent report on General Counsels (GCs).  The context for this reference is the evolution of the relationship between large law firms and GCs with one of the four main strategies that GCs could (and should) be embracing being to start with a blank sheet of paper and undertaking a comprehensive legal needs analysis for the business. 

Of course many of the big in-house teams have been doing this already, as have many of the large legal firms.   I recall a conference two years ago where the head of IT at one of the large City practices discussed the process her firm had recently undertaken of breaking down the value chain and apportioning off work accordingly; apparently the value chain was broken down into ten distinct stages, and the process was pretty searching and difficult.  Professor Susskind refers to this process as “legal process analysis” leading to multi-sourcing, where the legal requirements of an individual matter or a whole business are analysed to determine the most efficient way of sourcing each element of it.  One of the driving factors for this type of process is of course the development in the ways in which ‘legal’ input is provided, from the use of paralegals, offshoring, outsourcing, automation and so on. 

One possible outcome of this type of approach is that lawyers become more like ‘project managers’ and therefore need to develop new skills.  Lawyers could be spending more of their time co-ordinating the legal process as a whole for the client whilst not taking an active part in all the areas of advice.   As with the argument that not all lawyers are good business people, I wonder how lawyers may cope with such a role. 

On the subject of automation, every time I read another press release (or Legal Futures update) on yet another development in the online legal document/automation market, I always think of the Practical Law Company (PLC) and how quiet it seems to be.  Whilst I appreciate that PLC is offering a completely different service (it is a subscription-based service offered to law firms) automated documentation and similar ideas have been available from PLC for a good few years.  When in practice I always had the impression that PLC was taking over the legal world, hence my surprise at its silence now.  With all these new automated document services cropping up, using completely different and competitive pricing structures, I wonder what effect there might be on PLC’s business model.

Fresh start - new entrant or existing player?

One of the things I keep reading about at the moment is the advantage that new entrants to the legal market have in terms of starting from scratch.  The argument goes that existing firms, with their clumsy decision-making structures, established ways of doing things, entrenched office politics, and so on, do not have the vision or agility to take the bold and adventurous decisions necessary to be sufficiently innovative and move their businesses forward in the new competitive market place. 

For someone starting afresh, however, with a blank sheet of paper, it will be much easier to think strategically about what their business will be, and then set up all the necessary elements accordingly.  This includes the business structure, marketing strategy, internal make-up, use of technology, and so on.  By way of example, we all know the difficulties of building up and adding on bits of IT over time – a new business can (finance depending) ensure that it has the required, up to date, technology from the word go, with all the various elements co-ordinating together nicely. 

However, I think an important element to add to this debate is knowledge of the legal world, and most specifically knowledge of what the client wants.  Those who have been practising for a while, especially those who have also been involved in the running of their own practice, will have an important insight into lawyers, the legal market, and how clients interact with lawyers and view them. 

For this reason, talk of ‘blank canvases’ and so on should I think distinguish between those coming into the market for the first time, and existing market participants making a fresh start.  It is the latter category that excites me the most – and the one where I think there is most potential for successful growth in the new legal world.  Lawyers who have entrepreneurial tendencies, who are able to assess the market in a strategic and rational way, but who have the knowledge and contacts/clients that they have built up over their time working in the sector.  Many of these lawyers may well be feeling frustrated in their existing practices (I have certainly met more than my fair share over the last year or so). If they cannot convince their practices to take the new challenges seriously and consider change where necessary, moving on and setting up afresh might be their best option for a successful future in the law.  However, this is obviously something that is easier said than done – starting up a practice takes a certain type of person and no matter how good the business plan, more risk than most lawyers are accustomed to taking. 

There are options emerging in some of the franchise models that we are reading about increasingly in the legal press.  Aside from these, I am fascinated to see how many new, smallish firms are set up by disgruntled associates/junior partners who have a clear idea about the way forward for the future, but a firm unwilling or unable to move in that direction.  All the talk is of the Legal Services Act leading to a loss of 3,000 firms, but it is quite likely that there may be at least some movement in the opposite direction.