In an industry focused on revenue and profit, where does something like customer experience stand in the priorities of legal providers? Leigh Vickery, Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer at Level Legal, as well as CEO and founder of Queso Mama, says that we need to look at the corporate and legal industry world differently. Instead of putting shareholders and partners first, they need to fall much further down the list. If you take care of your employees and your customers first, there will still be plenty left over for the shareholders and everyone is better off in the end. 
We dive into the topic of how other industries approach customer data and use the information to create a better experience. Can examples like Eleven Madison Park restaurant teach the legal industry better client interactions? Vickery believes so. Metrics like Profits Per Partner might show the industry how profitable the law firms are, but perhaps we need different metrics to show how satisfied the law firm’s clients really are. See Leigh’s article on Economics of Mutuality.

Information Inspirations
Casey Flaherty has an excellent article on how incremental improvements can create better returns on investment than big moon-shot projects. Check it out, right here on 3 Geeks
Wikipedia biographies are surprisingly difficult for women to not only get them on the platform, but to also keep them from being deleted. UNC Professor Franchesca Trapoti discusses the bias in her paper, “Miscatagorized: Gender, Notability, and Inequality on Wikipedia” and Marketplace Tech breaks down some examples.
Bob Ambrogi’s two-part article/podcast focuses on the unique resurrection of UpCounsel’s “legal as a service” model, as well as the interesting crowdfunding to raise capital. It’ll be interesting to see how well this crowdfunding goes, and if other legal services use this model.
Hey kids, lemonade stands are “legal” in New Hampshire and Illinois.
The Netherlands is using AI to pick up butts on the beach. Cigarette butts, that is.
Listen, Subscribe, Comment
Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple Podcast. Contact us anytime by tweeting us at @gebauerm or @glambert. Or, you can call The Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 and leave us a message. You can email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. As always, the great music you hear on the podcast is from Jerry David DeCicca.
Transcript

Continue Reading The Geek in Review Ep. 126 – Leigh Vickery on Creating Top-Shelf Customer Experience in Legal

“They’re so busy that our practitioners need to realize not a 10% improvement but a 10x improvement in productivity before they will take the time to investigate, let alone implement and incorporate, a new tool” is an observation the always astute Kyle Dumont of Morgan Lewis made to me the other day.

Kyle’s insight reminded me of one of Jason Barnwell’s most quotable lines, “If capacity must increase by 10x, our current approach breaks, as the option of a 10x increase in hiring is simply off the table.” (btw, congrats to Jason for being recently appointed as Microsoft Legal’s first ever General Manager for Digital Transformation—a development worth noting)

Bruce MacEwen introduced his own 10x into the discourse in the conclusion to his excellent post on our scalability problem:

Some years ago the head of “Google X”–the name at the time for its totally out-there incubator for new projects–described their ambitions with an analogy: “If you tell me to build a car that gets 50 mpg, I can do it with off-the-shelf stuff put together with that express end-goal in mind; if the goal is 500 mpg, I need to forget everything I know and leave it behind me.”  (Google X is now named “The X Company,” and they call themselves “the moonshot factory.”)

I concur that the threshold for investing in change is high (Kyle), yet the need for material change is inevitable (Jason/Thanos), and that such change requires a fundamental rethinking (Bruce). But to avoid being too agreeable (#boring), permit me to suggest that, maybe, the way we think about change is rather incomplete—in part, because we underestimate the impact of seemingly incomplete changes.

Simple Math, Hard To Intuit. I’ll take advantage of Bruce’s mpg example as a jumping-off point (for our friends on the metric system, think km/L). According to the EPA, the average new car sold in the United States is rated at 25 mpg. As noted, already available, conventional methods can improve this to 50 mpg. You would, however, need to achieve Emmet Brown levels of inventiveness to ramp up to the 500-mpg moonshot.

The objective is to consume fewer gallons of gasoline (the constraint). But what if I told you improving mileage from 25 mpg to 50 mpg (2x, +25 mpg) conserves more gas than improving mileage from 50 mpg to 500 mpg (10x, +450 mpg)? For most of us, this violates our intuition—yet it is correct, nonetheless.

       

A slightly different frame may enhance clarity. Once we reduce baseline resource costs by 50%, there is no further improvement we can make—save eliminating the cost entirely (e.g., go electric)—that can ever have an equivalent impact.

That is, many forms of productivity improvements are subject to diminishing returns when solving for specific constraints. Most of the benefits are realized at the low, unsexy end of the spectrum. Thus, improving from 1 mpg to 2 mpg (2x, +1 mpg) saves 500 gallons while improving from 100 mpg to 500 mpg (5x, +400 mpg) only saves 8 incremental gallons on the same 1000-mile trip. The 2x leap from 1-2 mpg at the inefficient end of the spectrum is therefore 62.5x more impactful than the 5x leap from 100-500 mpg at the efficient end of the spectrum. This is an area where our intuitions let us down.

No Time To Save Time. Let’s apply the same calculations to something closer to home.

What if I told you improving productivity from 1 contract per hour (“cph”) to 2 cph (2x, +1 cph) saves more time than improving from 2 cph to 50 cph (25x, +48 cph)?

I presume you already updated your priors. But if seeing the arithmetic helps:

       

Feel free to substitute any legal unit of production for “contract.” The math holds where time is the constraint.

And let us not kid ourselves about the centrality of time as a constraint. Despite our decades of debate as to whether time is a useful proxy for value, time remains, indelibly, a resource cost and rate-limiting factor. As Drucker writes, “Time is the scarcest resource and unless it is managed nothing else can be managed… Everything requires time. It is the only truly universal condition. All work takes place in time and uses up time. Yet most people take for granted this unique, irreplaceable, and necessary resource.”

We are time constrained even where we are not money constrained. One of the better talk tracks I’ve encountered recently is Kira co-founder Noah Weisberg discussing the concept of total diligence. Noah notes that the standard due diligence approach on even the least price-sensitive megadeals results in only a small percentage of potentially relevant contracts being reviewed. Not necessarily because of worries about accumulating too many billable hours. Rather, everyone involved is invested in maintaining deal velocity, which limits the time available to conduct diligence. Yet there can be material issues lurking in the presumptively non-key contracts (Noah shares some striking examples of these “deep holes”). Certainly, AI can be used to review the typical small percentage of contracts faster (and it is). But Noah is keenly interested in using AI to augment the review process so that 100% of contracts can be reviewed in some fashion with minimal additional time—i.e., total diligence.

Time is not the only constraint. But time is a key constraint, even where money is not. There is an underappreciated interplay between better, faster, and cheaper—in part, because a narrow view of, and overemphasis on, “cheaper” often induces a counterproductive myopia.

CONCLUSIONS

We rarely recognize the outsized impact of reducing low-end friction. Less eloquently than Noah, I have long ranted and raved that my obsession with legal professionals improving their facility with the core technology tools of their trade (Word, Excel, Email, PDF) is not about lawyers using such tools more but, rather, about being able to use them less (bc more efficient). This is decidedly unsexy. But it is a simple means to reduce low-end friction—i.e., the type of minor improvement that can deliver massive time savings when starting from a low baseline (e.g., that small but significant leap from 1 contract per hour to 2 contracts per hour).

I share Kyle’s assessment of stakeholders’ demonstrable, 10x improvement threshold for adoption. Spending much of the last decade, including my current role, engaging in these conversations, I am confident the way most decisionmakers think about the 10x improvement is the leap from the 50-mpg conventional vehicle to the 500-mpg moonshot vehicle, instead of the counterintuitive understanding that the more impactful 10x can be the smaller steps getting from 1 mpg to 10 mpg  (depending on what we are solving for).

I am confident most decisionmakers think this way, in part, because of most of us think this way about most things, and are mostly correct to do so. Indeed, remaining acutely aware of the unavoidable implementation dip, there is wisdom in demanding fairly substantial ROI on any improvement initiative that consumes finite time and attention, especially in an environment of significant opportunity costs. Most marginal improvements are, in fact, marginal. If you are already driving the 400-mpg vehicle, the modest gas savings of upgrading to the 500-mpg vehicle is unlikely to be cost-effective—better to spend that energy investigating going fully electric. But this can go too far. We encounter too many instances of professionals stuck in a 5-mpg antiquated vehicle unwilling to upgrade to the available, if conventional, 50-mpg alternative because, as they correctly point out but too heavily weight, it is not in fact a 500-mpg moonshot.

Our intuitions are mostly reliable. But we remain subject to some predictable irrationality where they fail us. We frequently fail to recognize sources of low-end friction, let alone understand the outsized impact this friction has on the allocation of our finite resources.

We don’t need to do it all at once. The other day, I committed the minor sin of straining a sportsball metaphor (apparently, I’m a “big metaphor guy”). In my defense, he started it.

I was speaking to a formidable in-house leader who made an observation similar to Kyle’s. He insisted with respect to expectations around innovation, “Our stakeholders will not be content with us just hitting singles.” (I’m paraphrasing)

I pushed back, respectfully, “If the singles are in separate innings, probably not. You will just strand runners on base. But if you string together singles in the same inning, you put runs on the board, which is key to winning the game.”

There are passing few grand slam opportunities. But there are many opportunities to put runs on the board. If we make potential grand slams our threshold for taking a swing, our strikeout percentage will be high, and we will miss out on many wins.

Just like the steps from 5-mpg to 50-mpg, the leap from the 50 mpg  to 500 mpg would not be the result of an isolated grand-slam innovation but the combinatorial result of many complementary innovations (cumulative innovation and the expansion of the adjacent possible). The aggregate impact of marginal gains can be significant when they compound.

As Alex Hamilton writes in his new, must-read book Sign Here, “We need to recognize that there is no sweeping fix that will make everything alright and that instead, we will have to make lots of small changes to keep improving how we work…so, while it is very human and understandable to wish it weren’t so, there is no silver bullet that will solve everything.”

Alex consoles us, “You might find it depressing to discover that that there is no single solution…but there is good news here, too: because many changes can be made as relatively small tweaks, they can also be cheap, fast, and low risk.”

Indeed, many of the success we see are not the wholesale replacement of an entire process/system (though, sometimes, this is simply unavoidable—for example, a legacy DMS or CLM) but, rather, successes building on each other as teams re-engineer pieces of their process/system until, eventually, they have developed something entirely new without any single, iterative improvement making it feel completely different (the Ship of Theseus effect).

There are many interconnected pieces in our processes. We should consider all of them, and prioritize the limiting factors—i.e., the key constraints—in constructing optimal, integrated operating environments.

Towards this end of thinking in integrated processes, systems, and, ultimately, platforms, I commend to you Rob Saccone’s exceptional exploration of interoperability.

Indeed, let me conclude with a sentence from Rob that made me smile so much I stole it for the title of this post, “Succinctly stated, we need to advance our thinking about how humans and technology can better work together, as humans alone are not going to be able to compete against humans + technology….Let me repeat the key part: we need to advance our thinking.”

This post was originally published twelve years ago today. However, as I ponder the topic posed by Northwestern Law Professor Michael Zuckerman about how law students shouldn’t use automated writing technology because they will miss out on learning how to do initial drafts, this post seems as relevant now as ever. – GL]

I read a lot. But, I don’t usually read the same book twice (because I already know how it is going to end!) But, I do love me some SciFi and Vampires and Humor, so when I get that all rolled into one, I make an exception and read the book again. I do it for fun, not for business research or to get some type of deep philosophical experience out of the deal. However, coming in on the bus this morning, and re-reading Christopher Moore‘s 1995 book Bloodsucking Fiends, I read a passage that made me put the book down and really think. (You can read the passage starting at page 84 via Google Books.)

Moore’s characters, a bum who is known as the Emperor of San Francisco [who I later learned was fashioned after San Francisco citizen Joshua Abraham Norton], and a young aspiring writer named C. Thomas Flood are discussing the well-dressed business folk who are scurrying about. The Emperor calls them “Fallen Gods” because the things that have made them successful are going away and they will soon be losing out to the “chinless techno-children… and their silicon-chip reality.” Then the Emperor says something that really got me thinking. “Uncreative thinking is done better by machines.”
Now, skip ahead 14 [26] years and the chinless techno-children are now seen as the new Gods. The old Gods and their ability to push paper around has been replaced by the new Gods’ ability to push large amounts of data around. The new Gods’ success has simply been to find a more efficient way of pushing information (a.k.a. ‘paper’, ’emails’, ‘databases’, etc.) around. But, has the increase in efficiency helped make either man or machine more creative thinkers? Or, have we created a situation where we’re still on an uncreative path, but making up for it in volume?
When we look at technology in the legal setting, whether it is legal research, knowledge management, or electronic discovery, we’ve seemed to have taken the last 14 [26] years to increase the scale of what we do. We can now push more information around — We can now store Terabytes of information — We can now virtually capture every keystroke that an attorney makes. But, have we made ourselves more creative, or have we simply increased the volume of information each of us can access? Uncreative thinking is still done better by machines. What we really need to ask is whether we are using the efficiency of the uncreative machines to push these tasks off of our people and allowing them to use their creativity to come up with better and more effective solutions?
Thanks to a book about vampires, I was reminded that machines (computers, software, databases, etc.) are efficient yet still uncreative in handling information and should be designed for our human resources to be more effective and creative in accomplishing their work. So, when you’re ready to upgrade that hardware or software, you really should sit down and ask yourself this: “How does this make my people more creative and effective?”

 


Suffolk Law Professor Shailini George joins us to talk about her new book, The Law Student’s Guide to Doing Well and Being Well. Professor George talks about the need for law students to take better care of their mental and physical health in order for them to not only do well in law school but to be better lawyers once they enter the profession. Whether it is stopping task switching, setting boundaries on their time, or allowing themselves to be bored, she lays out a guide for students to do better, by being better to themselves.

She shares some of the techniques and projects she developed in her classroom, that help law students better understand how they need to focus on the task at hand.  And, how to reduce the number of distractions that call out for their attention. This Fall, Professor George begins teaching a new course based on her book to help students create healthy habits and lifestyles and to develop coping mechanisms to better handle points of crisis that may come their way.

Apple Podcasts LogoApple Podcasts | Overcast LogoOvercast | Spotify LogoSpotify

Information Inspirations

Products like Casetext’s Compose and Brieftext.com worry Northwestern Law Professor Michael A. Zuckerman that law students will use these tools to work around the practice of drafting documents, and learning the process through doing. We think that perhaps technology doesn’t have to be seen as replacing the learning process, but rather enhancing it.

We’ve heard a number of legal tech stories, mostly involving men, but in this Women Love Tech articleLaura Keily explains how she developed Immediation in 2019, while also raising two young children. When COVID hit in 2020, Immediation suddenly became a very big deal.

Greg discovered that the big push to come back to the office can open up unexpected opportunities, including artificially increasing those serendipitous interactions by hanging out near the ice cream machine.

US Attorney General Merrick Garland laid out some new standards for the FBI to use in order to confiscate journalist’s information. The balancing of the First Amendment and the need for FBI investigations seems to be shifting in the new administration.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment
Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple Podcast. Contact us anytime by tweeting us at @gebauerm or @glambert. Or, you can call The Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 and leave us a message. You can email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. As always, the great music you hear on the podcast is from Jerry David DeCicca.
Transcript

Continue Reading The Geek in Review Ep. 125 – Shailini George on Law Students Doing Well and Being Well

Dentons Nextlaw LabsMaya Markovich understands that rational lawyers would observe market dynamics and client pressures to weigh the costs and benefits of adapting their behaviors to survive change, stay employed, and make their work more fulfilling. But, people don’t always make rational decisions. And, law firm’s economic structure incentivizes lower efficiency as a method of obtaining higher revenue. 
Wordrake‘s Ivy Grey thinks that firms need to stop thinking of short-term gains at the expense of necessary long-term changes that will help lawyers create more value with their time. This shift really helps clients with their overall legal needs, not just the immediate need.
Join us as we walk through issues of change management, behavioral science, ethical fading, and legal industry business models and where Markovich and Grey believe the industry is headed in the not too distant future.
Check out Maya and Ivy’s three-part blog series:

Apple Podcasts LogoApple Podcasts | Overcast LogoOvercast | Spotify LogoSpotify

Information Inspirations
It’s the legal innovation’s Oscars time of the year. Many of our friends and colleagues have made the list of this year’s Fastcase50 and College of Law Practice Management Fellowships. Congrats to them all!!
Legal Innovators have some habits they need to change. Victoria Hudgins addresses those in her article on CIOs Reveal 4 Mistakes Every Law Firm Innovation Leader Should Avoid.
Speaking of bad habits, Zack Needles discusses the very bad habit of law firms who want to bring in the hot new CINOs (Chief Innovation Officers) to help advance innovation within their firms, but cannot see past the yearly budget, revenues, and profits to let the innovators try things that may fail before they succeed. Needles worries that this will cause a revolving door for CINOs with little chance of being given enough room to actually bring about innovative change in the firms.
Listen, Subscribe, Comment
Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple Podcast. Contact us anytime by tweeting us at @gebauerm or @glambert. Or, you can call The Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 and leave us a message. You can email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. As always, the great music you hear on the podcast is from Jerry David DeCicca.
Transcript

Continue Reading The Geek in Review Ep. 124 – Maya Markovich and Ivy Grey on Creating More Value with the Time You Have

When we all started working from home last March, we each did something to help us keep sane and stay engaged with our families, our friends, and our peers. Eugene Giudice found a unique way of doing just that with a daily note to all of the above. After more than a year of these daily inspirational emails, he put them into a book called Reflections During a Pandemic: Thoughts While Sheltering In Place. Eugene’s writings mark places in time and bring back memories of those periods of hope and despair. As we begin exiting the pandemic, it helps to reflect back on where we were, and how we managed to get through it.

Information Inspirations
Wolters Kluwer just released the results of the 2021 Future Ready Lawyers survey: Moving beyond the pandemic. Marlene presented this week on a panel to discuss the findings.
There are three sessions (Marlene’s is on June 30th)
Roger Williams Law School in Rhode Island is requiring all of its 2Ls to take a course on “Race & the Foundations of American Law” starting this Fall Semester. To learn more about Critical Race Theory and how it is taught in law school, listen to Cheryl Harris discuss her program at UCLA Law School.
Foley & Lardner presented a session on Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT) and the new areas of legal practice that are to follow along with this blockchain technology.
Private company ownership of law firms may be expanding into Florida soon. The subcommittee of the Florida Supreme Court just returned its recommendations (“in concept only”) to follow the Utah Regulatory Sandbox. TO learn more about what Utah is doing listen to Lucy Ricca’s interview on Pioneers and Pathfinders.
Listen, Subscribe, Comment
Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple Podcast. Contact us anytime by tweeting us at @gebauerm or @glambert. Or, you can call The Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 and leave us a message. You can email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. As always, the great music you hear on the podcast is from Jerry David DeCicca.
Transcript

Continue Reading The Geek in Review Ep. 123 – Eugene Giudice on Reflections During a Pandemic

Leading a professional association over the past year has been tough. It’s like getting all of the work, and not getting any of the fun experiences of traveling to meet people around the world. For the American Association of Law Libraries’ President Emily Florio and President-Elect Diane Rodriguez, they’ve made the most of the situation they found themselves in. (Hat tip to the past-President Michelle Cosby, too!) As Florio and Rodriguez prepare for AALL’s second remote annual conference in a row, they are leveraging the experience from last year’s remote conference to make this year’s experience even better. A longer conference. More individual interactions. A virtual tour of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. And, expanded vendor opportunities. In July, the favel will be passed to the new president, but Florio still looks forward to sticking around for another year as the association and the executive board begins the process of getting back to face-to-face interactions, and an in-person conference in Denver in July of 2022.
Links:

Apple Podcasts LogoApple Podcasts | Overcast LogoOvercast | Spotify LogoSpotify

Information inspirations
Reuters Legal News commentator, Jenna Greene, seems to have cracked the formula for AmLaw 100 firm’s slogans. It’s actually more of a haiku.
Remember those ads in the 1980s of “This is your brain on drugs”? Well, the 21st Century version could be “This is your brain on email.” The Innovation Hub podcast discusses Cal Newport’s study on how distracting the constant checking of email is to productivity.
Jon Greenblatt and Bryan Parker over at Legal Innovators put on a heck of a webinar last week featuring the deans from UConn Law School, William & Mary Law School, Howard University School of Law, and The George Washington School of law. Even these forward-thinking law school deans admitted that the students are ready for more “change” than they are providing. Just remember law firms… these students are coming your way.
Marlene shares her experience with Andrew Lawless’ Introduction to High-Performance Habits, and how it helped her focus on areas like influence, self-care and productivity, and expertise.
Listen, Subscribe, Comment
Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple Podcast. Contact us anytime by tweeting us at @gebauerm or @glambert. Or, you can call The Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 and leave us a message. You can email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. As always, the great music you hear on the podcast is from Jerry David DeCicca.
Transcript

Continue Reading The Geek in Review Ep. 122 – AALL’s Emily Florio and Diane Rodriguez on Leading an Association Remotely

As we make our way to the next version of the workforce in a post-pandemic world, we look back at a discussion of the Delta Model Competencies with Northwestern Law School’s Alyson Carrel and Vanderbilt Law School’s Cat Moon. This interview from November of 2019 is possibly more relevant today than it was when we initially recorded it. While we typically focus on the T-Shaped lawyer model of being an expert in certain areas of the law, and knowledgeable of the necessary disciplines and technology. Moon and Carrel add a third layer to this model to cover the personal effectiveness skills needed to provide effective legal services.
In their recent substack articles, Moon and Carrel have continued expanding the Delta Model competencies to fit the current disruption in the legal services industry. While the pandemic is the most obvious disrupter, there are many other factors within the work environment that make the Delta Model even more useful today as it did in its inception.

Listen on mobile platforms:  Apple Podcasts LogoApple Podcasts | Overcast LogoOvercast | Spotify LogoSpotify
Listen, Subscribe, Comment
Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple Podcast. Contact us anytime by tweeting us at @gebauerm or @glambert. Or, you can call The Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 and leave us a message. You can email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. As always, the great music you hear on the podcast is from Jerry David DeCicca.
Transcript

Continue Reading The Geek in Review Ep. 121 – The Delta Model Lawyer with Cat Moon and Alyson Carrel

Summer Associates and the upcoming Fall Associates had a unique experience with their On-Campus Interviews (or OCI) over the past two years. Some of the recruits still have not actually met face to face, the members of their firm who hired them. We talk with Kerry Benn, Director of Series, Surveys & Data at Law360 about Law360 Pulse’s recent survey on this topic and see how the firms, the students, and the schools adjusted during the pandemic. The survey of over 1,200 law students breaks down the popular firms and practice areas, how COVID impacted the process, and how things look as students make their way into the firms this Summer.

Listen on mobile platforms:  Apple Podcasts LogoApple Podcasts | Overcast LogoOvercast | Spotify LogoSpotify
Information Inspirations
Our previous guests Cat Moon and Alyson Carrel are teaming up with Dennis Kennedy later this month for a TRB (Thorn, Rose, Bud) Retrospective. They are asking for law students, legal educators, law school administrators, and education experts to apply for this three-hour event to be held on June 24th and share their COVID era experiences and talk about what they should STOP doing (thorn), KEEP doing (rose), as well NURTURE (bud) once the pandemic comes to a close. 
The offices may be reopening in some areas, but in the theme of “let no crisis go to waste,” Perkins Coie and some other firms are using this transition back to the office to test things like hoteling, reverse hoteling, and telepresence rooms. There won’t be a return to a normal office routine, but the next year is going to show us what is “next” in how we work in a post-pandemic legal industry.
Back in Ep. 112, we talked with Dan Packel about FisherBroyles’ desire to show that a distributed law firm could compete with the AmLaw200 firms. Well, it turns out that they can. FisherBroyles came in at #198 this year and showed that alternative methods to the traditional law firm works. This is making other firms take notice of the competition.
Trailblazers in diversity efforts want neurodiversity included in the conversation. Last week’s guest is one of those trailblazers. In her recent Medium article, Dr. Caitlin Handron openly discussed her battle with bipolar disorder, and “outed herself” to her boss and to the world in order to take steps toward normalizing the discussion of neurodiversity in the workplace. Let’s all learn from her bravery and willingness to be vulnerable, and continue this conversation with our colleagues at our own workplaces.
Listen, Subscribe, Comment
Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple Podcast. Contact us anytime by tweeting us at @gebauerm or @glambert. Or, you can call The Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 and leave us a message. You can email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. As always, the great music you hear on the podcast is from Jerry David DeCicca.
Transcript

 

Continue Reading The Geek in Review Ep. 120 – How COVID Changed Law Students’ On Campus Interview Experiences with Law360’s Kerry Benn

Dr. Caitlin Handron

When Ropes & Gray launched their R&G Insights Lab consulting arm, one of their goals was to create a dynamic legal team with specialized expertise in analytics, behavioral science, and strategic consulting. Dr. Caitlin Handron completes the behavior science part of that mission, and she talks with us about how that expertise helps guide clients on issues of risk and compliance, DEI goals, and cultural assessments. Dr. Handron’s experience at Stanford University’s SPARQ “Do Tank” prepared her for applying behavioral science to the real world of the corporate environment and put those scientific techniques into practice. While it may seem strange for a law firm to apply these types of scientific principles to the advising of clients, Dr. Handron mentions that the legal environment is really not much different from the rest of the world… as much as we lawyers would like to think we are.

Listen on mobile platforms:  Apple Podcasts LogoApple Podcasts | Overcast LogoOvercast | Spotify LogoSpotify

Information Inspirations
In a recent Bloomberg Law article, former TGIR guest, Olga Mack discusses no-code and low-code processes will be the key to automating tasks, and that a recent Gartner report pointed out that these processes will help reduce legal tasks in in-house legal departments by 50% in just a few years.
Ryan Steadman writes that the rising costs of mental fatigue us costing us dearly at law firms, and that technology is both a solution and a problem.
The Artificial Lawyer took a look at Wilson Sonsini’s Build-A-Bot program and how Summer Associates are required to design bots to improve their processes by using tools like Contract Mill and Documate.
The prosecutors in the Rudy Guiliani case have once again shown that redaction only works when you actually properly use the redaction software. Otherwise, you end up with embarrassing details uncovered on CNN.
Listen, Subscribe, Comment
Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple Podcast. Contact us anytime by tweeting us at @gebauerm or @glambert. Or, you can call The Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 and leave us a message. You can email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. As always, the great music you hear on the podcast is from Jerry David DeCicca.
Transcript

Continue Reading The Geek in Review Ep. 119 – Law and Cultural Psychology with R&G Insights Lab’s Dr. Caitlin Handron