[Ed. Note: Please welcome Guest-Blogger, Matt Coatney as he gives us some insight on how to deal with the smart machines and AI technologies coming our way.]

Much has been said about how technology will disrupt the legal profession and spell the end of lawyers. From Richard Susskind’s End of Lawyers? to IBM Watson, the future does not look bright for those that practice law. Even experts originally optimistic about the technology boom are now more cautious based on new data. With all the doom and gloom, is there anything lawyers can do to at least postpone the inevitable?

A recent HBR article titled Beyond Automation argues that instead of bemoaning automation, we should focus on augmentation: people and smart machines working together. The authors lay out five strategies people can use to not only stay relevant but thrive in areas where advanced technology threatens to replace them. Here are the strategies and how they apply to lawyers.

1. Step Up

Stepping up in the context of smart machines means to stay ahead of them in terms of quality and sophistication. If technology will one day handle all of our mundane legal work – research, document drafting, and the like – then lawyers can focus more of their attention on business development, running their practice, and handling increasingly complex issues. In other words, lawyers should continue to push down work, but technology will handle more of the associate-level tasks.

What to do: Lawyers need to broaden their skills beyond a firm grasp of the law. They should pursue classes and continuing education in areas like business, marketing and technology. Law schools need to offer and require a more diverse program of classes, and law firms need to make this type of professional development a priority.

2. Step Aside

Smart machines are getting smarter, but for now they do not possess a nuanced understanding of human emotion and creativity (hold the lawyer jokes, please). Stepping aside means leveraging more of our creative, non-analytical thinking. Some areas will remain the purview of people for awhile at least. Take jury trials. Advanced technology will soon take over the role of jury selection by combining big data and predictive analytics. But lawyers will still be needed during the trial, as the complex interplay of judge, witnesses, and jurors requires someone who can relate with people, pick up subtle emotional cues, and control the situation.

What to do: Lawyers should focus on the human aspect of the law, where smart machines cannot compete. Lawyers, schools and firms need to focus education and growth in areas like emotional intelligence to stay competitive.

3. Step In

I have seen people accomplish amazing things working with smart machines. R&D chemists now find new drug leads in hours instead of months, and NGOs enact new policies based on big data findings, without the need for extensive field studies. Lawyers can do the same, and in some cases like legal research already have. Think of what lawyers can accomplish working with systems like the IBM Watson-powered Ross at their side.

Some lawyers, like tech-savvy IP attorneys, will have a leg up on those less familiar with new technology. Lawyers and firms can mitigate this by hiring, training, and leaning on a sophisticated administrative team of technologists and business analysts. But lawyers will need to treat these professionals as equal partners, not subordinates to handle their busy work.

What to do: Lawyers will need to hone their technology knowledge and skills on an ongoing basis. Law schools and firms need to make advanced technology a part of their curriculum and continuing education efforts.

4. Step Narrowly

Thanks to capitalism, there will remain nooks and crannies of the law where smart machines do not go. These niches are too specific for companies to make serious money on their technology investments, and they will move on to bigger opportunities. Lawyers, however, will still be able to carve out a healthy business, especially if they are solo or small firms with little overhead.

What to do: If you are already a lawyer in a high-value niche, congratulations! Stay there and defend your turf. For those in a more general practice, think about what specific areas you are most passionate about and begin to build expertise and a professional brand in that space.

5. Step Forward

As the saying goes, if you cannot beat them, join them. This strategy has lawyers stepping right into the thick of the smart machine revolution. They don’t just use the technology, they help build the next generation of tools. Whether working for a software company or remaining a practicing lawyer who partners with vendors, good work will be had for some time training these machines to be smarter and more human. Lawyers that are able to innovate and create new smart applications can also make significantly more money than the traditional billable hour.

What to do: Lawyers that are tech-savvy can explore opportunities with software companies and other corporations that need people with blended skill sets. Others can look to partner with tech-savvy colleagues or technology vendors. Law schools need to teach more courses on technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship. And law firms need to be open to new business models and ways of doing business.

Final Thoughts

Lawyers that embrace change and continually look for ways to add more value can stay ahead of the curve. Which strategy is best will depend on the relative strengths and interests of individual lawyers and the firm as a whole. Many of these strategies mix and match well and can be experimented with to see if they are a right fit for your personality and corporate culture.

One thing is certain though: it is a matter of when, not if, lawyers will be forced to compete for business against those using smart machines. Some say we are already at that point. If you watch what IBM, Google, Microsoft, Baidu and others have accomplished in the last few years, especially in the field of deep learning, you may start thinking the same.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Matt Coatney is an AI expert, data scientist, software developer, technology executive, author, and speaker. His mission is to improve how we interact with smart machines by making software smarter and teaching people how to work (and cope) with advanced technology. Great things happen when smart people and smart machines work together toward a common goal.
Follow Matt on LinkedIn and on Twitter @mattdcoatney. Follow the conversation at #BridgingTheAIGap.

A couple months ago, I had a great conversation with Kevin Mitchell of ModioLegal about his product and its “reading the news” concept. He and I talked about the different methods of delivering information and current content to lawyers and we both agreed that we thought the methods of print distribution, email, or RSS feeds allow for massive amounts of information to be disseminated, but that there should be better ways of presenting complex information in a way that is more convenient to access. Kevin’s idea was to produce a way of delivering the information in audio format and providing the listener with a way to consume the content during periods of time where hearing the information is easier than reading the information.

  
I’ve always been one for finding new ways of getting information out to the consumer. The converting text to audio has been something I’ve considered for a long time, but there are obvious issues with converting text to audio, and having it make sense.
  
Some of you may immediately think of a Siri-like voice reading the material to you, but that’s not what Mitchell is doing with this product. As most of you have realized, mechanical voices, no matter how human sounding, just cannot present the information in a way that helps the listener easily digest and understand the nuances of the information being presented. It really takes a person with an ability to read the material in their heads first, and present it in a way that assists the listener absorb the information. For a situation like this, a law student is one of the best candidates for the job.
  
The idea is this:
  • License quality current awareness content that is relevant to the legal industry
  • Pay law students for their time to produce audio narrations of the content,
  • Deliver the audio content through a high-quality, proprietary platform that can be played back on multiple devices ranging from car audio systems, mobile or home devices during multi-tasking activities such as commuting or exercising
  • Give the law students exposure by having them introduce themselves to the audience and provide access to their email address and LinkedIn profile
  • Distribute the recordings quickly so that the information is still current

As someone who used law students to help create the content at the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s online research tool, I thought it was a great idea to leverage the talent that is available and create a situation where the student, the listener, the content licensor and the company benefit. After listening to some of the content, I found it to be very easy to listen to, and easy to understand.

  
ModioLegal is just getting started, so the content is very limited. Right now the legal content is the Audio Edition of ABI Journal, which costs $9.95 a month and comes with a free 1-month trial. I think there is a bit of a “chicken and the egg” issue with a project like this where users of the product will want more content, and content providers would like for there to be more listeners before licensing more content. I imagine that is always an issue when it comes to presenting content in a novel way.
  
Since ModioLegal is a subscription service, I asked if there could be a way for people to demo some of the content without having to sign up for anything or be obligated in any way. Kevin got me a demo login and said that I could post it here and allow the readers of the blog some access to the site. Again, I found it to be very easy to listen and understand the content, so go check it out, perhaps on your smartphone, and see if this type of information dissemination is something you’d like to see more of on the market.
  
username: 3geeks
password: modiolegal
 
 

Dan and Jane return after a very long hiatus.  Inspired by Marlene’s terrific post and the impassioned discussion that it began amongst friends.

Jane: Dan!  I haven’t seen you forever.  How have you been?!

Dan: I’m sorry.  Do I know you?

Jane: It’s me, Jane.  We used to do 3 Geeks Point/Counter-point posts a couple of years ago?  You were the blowhard gasbag that was wrong about absolutely everything!

Dan: Oh! And you were the ignorant fool who incessantly contradicted me!  Yes, I remember now.  How have you been?

Jane: I’m well, I’m well.  Got promoted since we last talked.

Dan: Well, that makes sense, you do work in a law firm, right?

(Both laugh knowingly.)

Jane: I’m now the Chief Director of Innovative Solutions and Catering.  You know how things are, the firm is consolidating roles. I think I’ve got a new card in here somewhere.  Let me see…

Dan:  Oh, don’t bother. I don’t use business cards. I’ll look you up on LinkedIn.

Jane: No, no, no. It doesn’t work that way! This is a time honored tradition.  I give you a card. You give me a card. A bond is formed and we are connected.

Dan: That’s stupid. Then what do you do with all of the cards you collect?

Jane: I send LinkedIn invites to each of the people I meet and then throw away the card.

Dan: I thought you were one of those eco-terrorists, hell bent on saving the planet one tree at a time.

Jane: My cards are made of sustainable bamboo pulp, thank you very much!

Dan: I bet that costs a fortune.

Jane: It’s not cheap, but some things are worth paying more for.

Dan: At my suggestion, we did away with business cards entirely last year.  No one gets them.  We save about $800 per person per year.

Jane: But what does your firm lose in the process?

Dan: A lot of cards in the landfill?

Jane: No, you moron, in terms of good will and business relationships?

Dan: Uh…nothing?

Jane: Look, when I give you a card, I am symbolically giving you something of myself. I am quite literally trusting you with my personal identification. I am saying this is who I am and I want to share it with you. And then, you reciprocate. That creates a bond, a momentary relationship that cannot be ignored, whereas a LinkedIn invite actually has an ignore button.

Dan:  It does? Why would they do that?  The point of LinkedIn is to have as many contacts as possible. I am currently in second place in my group.

Jane: You are why they have an ignore button.

Dan: So if I take your stupid card and send you a LinkedIn invite, will you accept?

Jane: Are you asking because you want to cement our bond?

Dan: No, I’m just three contacts behind the guy in first place.

Jane: Then no.

Image [cc] Clive Darra

I started a very robust conversation with some colleagues the other day, including Dan and Jane of this site, who I am certain you will hear from soon, about a decision my team made to opt out of business cards. 

The initial conversation came up because I often get asked for cards.  I don’t carry them.  I haven’t for years.  I prefer not to carry paper around.  See, I have kids, and kids get into handbags.  Consequently, I don’t want to carry anything that is not essential, especially things that can be taken and squirreled away as “treasure”, making me spend hours searching for them to the chorus of “I don’t know where it is,” or items that can be can be used as a Chinese Stars or Mini-Frisbees.

 I tried the chic card holder, the antique card clip, stuffing cards in my wallet or pocket–none of them worked for me (the card-in-pocket idea caused a lot of laundry issues BTW).  My team and I discussed adopting QR codes on the cards and apps that scan cards, among other things, and finally came to the conclusion; why not just use our business contact info on our smart phones?

Through my discussion with colleagues, I uncovered a dizzying amount of opinions and questions.  The Artists loved their cards and expressed that when you give a card, you symbolically give something of yourself to the recipient.  The Technologists used LinkedIn (I use this as well).  The Socially-Minded voiced concern that not everyone has a business phone, much less a smart phone—there was also a side conversation here about use of private phones for business purposes,  The Environmentalists expressed dismay about the waste surrounding business cards.  The Opportunists summed it up by questioning how they would get a free lunch if they didn’t have cards to put in the fishbowl.  All valid points and food for thought, readers.

Ultimately, our team decision is an optional one.  No one is required to use their contacts as a connection mechanism, But we are raising it as a consideration.  It saves money and trees and keeps my lint screen clean.  Every little bit counts.

I read Nick Milton’s Must you fail in order to learn? post on Friday with trepidation.  I have written of the importance of failure a few times (In praise of failure, Ryan’s rules for projects) and I talk about it all the time.  I often say my philosophy is ‘to fail quickly’ and after reading Milton’s post, I stand by that.

It’s not that I strongly disagree with anything he says, I don’t really.  He’s right about nearly everything. Personal failure is absolutely NOT necessary in order to learn, but he tacitly concedes that knowledge itself always comes from failure; either your’s or someone else’s.  

As Milton says:

Learn from the failures of others, not your own failures.

Now, I could be pedantic and argue that learning from the failure of others constitutes true opinion rather than knowledge. But that’s silly. There is a very good argument to be made that in everyday life, true opinion or belief is just as valuable as personal experiential knowledge.

Milton continues:

Learn, try, succeed (then learn again) is a far better approach than try, fail, learn (then try again).

Again, I generally agree, however this approach presupposes that others have failed before you in a similar task and have published or recorded their failure so that you may learn from it.  One should always begin a new task with research to determine if others have attempted what you are trying.  There is no sense reinventing the wheel if it’s already been done, and there is no sense in recreating other’s failures, unless you are looking to confirm their findings.

Milton closes:

Let’s sever this implied link between learning and failing. Let’s embrace “learning to avoid failure”. Let’s not punish failure if it is the result of informed risk taking, but lets not expect it either.

It’s the second sentence that bothers me most.  Embrace “learning to avoid failure”.  In my experience, most people already do this instinctively. They take the route they believe is least likely to fail and avoid the one with the highest potential reward. This is risk aversion causing sameness, stagnation, and a near total lack of innovation. Or, in other words, the legal industry for a long time now.  If you only build on the failure of others, then you will only go so far as they have already gone.  Worse yet, and more relevant to the legal industry, if you only attempt to replicate the success of others, you will undoubtedly fail. Situations are always unique and success is rarely replicable in different environments.

When I say my philosophy is ‘to fail quickly’ it doesn’t mean I am actively trying to fail so that I can learn something, it means I recognize that any project looking to do more than simply maintain the status quo, will have the odds stacked against it.  People will actively try to kill it, unknown unknowns will rear their ugly heads, and sometimes I’ll just screw it up. If that is going to happen, I would rather that happen as quickly as possible, so that I can learn from what went wrong, try to fix it, and go again. To that end, yes, I will try to stress my projects, push them harder than I should, break them if I can, because if I can’t break them, then the partner in the corner office won’t be able to either.

People who are concerned with avoiding failure, do not think this way.  They sweep inconsistencies under the proverbial rug.  They ignore new information that doesn’t fit their current hypothesis.  They rarely admit when they fail, let alone learn anything from it.

Let’s sever this implied link between failing and incompetence. Let’s embrace the ‘learning opportunities that failing can offer’.  Let’s not expect failure, but let’s not fear it either.

Let’s do our research, plan our path, and go confidently into the unknown to learn new things.

Or, 

We can “embrace ‘learning to avoid failure'”.

Image [cc] Rachel

As I was rolling around the Future Law conference via my Beam vehicle on Thursday, Twitter was lighting up with a series of tweets from the actual presentations (as well as about my robot form.) During his State of the Art of Legal Technology session, Professor Oliver Goodenough fielded a question that even he admitted was loaded. “What is the biggest obstacle to integrating technology in the legal field?” Everyone kind of chuckled when they heard the question because everyone saw the answer coming… “Lawyers.”

Now, to be fair to the audience and to Prof. Goodenough, the answer was a bit tongue and cheek, and the good professor did discuss the number of issues and situations that contribute to a lawyer’s inability to fully adapt new technologies, or to take advantage of certain advancements in technology. Not every advancement is practical for the lawyer to adopt. Not every lawyer has the ability, either personally or financially, to jump in and integrate new technologies that might streamline his or her practice. Now… that being said, let’s talk about low level advancements that are really no-brainers for practically every attorney to adapt, but which most are still struggling to adopt.

MS Word

Casey Flaherty’s tweet to Ron Friedmann and I nailed this one. Even if you threw out all the really cool technology advancements in the past ten years, you still have one that most lawyers adopted twenty years ago… Microsoft Word. Casey has sent ripples throughout the legal profession by simply asking lawyers to show they know their way around a few tasks in MS Word. Little tasks such as formatting a pleading or contract in MS Word are things that could save attorneys, and clients, time and money.

Adobe PDF

The legal industry is flush with PDF documents, and equally flush with people that don’t know how to do anything much more than open a document in Adobe Reader. PDF documents can be edited, Bates stamping is a common task, and a number of other features that would allow attorneys to efficiently produce documents and file these documents with the court. For many, however, getting beyond scanning existing paper documents and attempting to OCR these (for the really advanced) is the big obstacle.

MS Excel

Being semi-proficient at Excel should almost be an entry-requirement for lawyers, and almost any other employee that deals with budgets or other data driven information. Sorting, filtering, creating simple Pivot Tables, and even some basic function utilities are very easy to learn, and can open opportunities to better understand information in a few simple clicks. Not knowing some of these basic functionalities is a disservice to yourself and your clients.

MS Outlook

This is actually a tool that many attorneys use as an advanced time tracking and document storage device. Which is a great thing to know, but this is the wrong tool for those functions. Gigabytes of data being stored in your profile causes slowness for you and practically everyone else on your network. Learn how Outlook functions with your DMS, your CRM, and your time entry system. It is not a Swiss Army knife.

Document Assembly

I could go on and on about the basic tools that attorneys could use to make their lives easier, cut down on risk, and save their clients money, but I’ll end with something that may seem like a more advance technology tool, Document Assembly. Ron Friedmann jumped on this on twitter in response to Prof. Goodenough’s answer. The fact that attorneys are handling complicated drafting of contracts and other documents without using a document assembly resource is simply risky behavior. For a profession that is so adverse to risk, not using this type of resource is counter to everything we advise our own clients. If you work with contracts and agreements… become familiar with a good document assembly tool.

Where Do We Go From Here?

I’m sure many of you are thinking of other simple or common tools that are underutilized in the legal industry. If we can’t get a good understanding of these basic tools, it erodes the foundation on which we would like to develop and implement more advance tools. So where do we start? I’d suggest establishing an organizational wide strategy to develop training and development for those entering your organization. Clearly established methods of training along with measurable results that show who is understanding these basic tasks, and who needs help. It’s taken us twenty years of using this technology to be this bad at it… let’s set out a three to five year plan to get a little bit better at using these basic technologies.

Your Conference
Robot Overlord

My post earlier this week about Stanford’s CodeX program got me an invite to the conference being held there today. Since I didn’t have enough time (or money) to make an immediate flight to the Bay Area, the conference organizers were willing to “Beam” me into the conference. I have to admit, I was assuming this just meant that they had some type of WebEx or video broadcast that I would use to attend the meeting. I had no idea that I would actually be a movable video projecting, interacting “robot” meandering my way through the other attendees. When I realized this, I completely started geeking out and immediately started telling all my friends that I was now a robot at Stanford.

There’s a lot of good discussions going on in the conference, and I’ll write more about it later, but I wanted to put out a quick post on my experience controlling a device that was 1,900 miles away. I immediately thought I was Howard from Big Bang Theory controlling the Mars Rover (see… geeking out!)

The device is about 100 lbs., and about 5’3″ tall. So, I’m thinner, but shorter. It is really sturdy and very balanced. It moves around at a top speed of 2 mph, and you can control it either from your keyboard (arrow keys or game style left-hand keys), through the mouse, or if you’ve connected a game controller, you can control it through that. It’s actually really easy to move around. I’ve found my way to the back of the room, and was able to find a space and back my way against the wall.

You have two screens to “see” what’s going on. The big screen is landscape and is your main view of what’s going on. The bottom screen is more square and is pointed down so that you can see the base of the device as well as a more horizontal view of the main screen. This enables you to see someone that is standing in front of you from head to toe. It’s really a great way to feel like you are really in front of the person you’re talking.

You get sound from all around. This is probably the part that is the hardest to deal with, especially when there is a lot of room noise. Sometimes the sound is jumbled, but almost all the time I was able to hear what was being said, but you have to focus a bit more than you would if you were there in person.

Battery life on the device is a max of 8 hours. Unfortunately, mine didn’t start off with a full charge today, so I had to put it back on the charging base for about 30 minutes to an hour. Luckily, that’s long enough for me to write this post, and go grab some Thai food for lunch before beaming back to Stanford this afternoon.

My overall experience so far? This is really amazing. I can see a number of uses for this at conferences and meetings all over the world. Eventually, I’d think that conference centers would start having these set up at their facilities and charging people to use them, or allotting a number of devices to the conference presenters to allow people that cannot travel to the conference to still “be there.”

Being Interviewed by Mike Swift of MLex

I’ve been asked already how people are reacting to the device. I’d say that at first I was very reluctant to “meet” people because I wasn’t sure about the “space” I was taking, or how loud I would be, or how I would be able to hear them. Sarah Glassmeyer was gracious enough to help me walk around, and after just a few moments, people were coming up to me. David Curle said I was “creepy” but I’m hoping he was talking about the machine, and not me… I really hope that’s the case! People very quickly adapted to seeing the machine zipping around, and while it was probably still creepy, curiosity overwhelmed some and they came up and started chatting with me.  My quest for this afternoon is to attend a session, and then ask the presenters a question at the microphone. I’m very curious as to how the audience will react to the Robot Overlord coming up to speak at the mic.

I’d like to thank Erin Rapacki, Director of Marketing, and Klaudia Warren, also from suitabletech.com for setting me up with their Beam device. And to Nicole Shanahan, CodeX Fellow and Founder/CEO at ClearAccessIP for their help in allowing me to attend the CodeX conference remotely.

Image [cc] photologue_np

Over the past few years I have been less than impressed with the types of new research tools that have entered the legal market. Especially from the major players. In the past five years, all of the major vendors have re-vamped their flagship products, or have merged with other companies and have updated the interface, and the back end. This makes for a slicker look and feel and some enhancements on the user’s experience, but when you really break it down, it’s really just the same concepts with a few new features and (hopefully) better functionality. When I worked for the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network, way back between 1999 and 2002, I felt like the legal technology field was on the cusp of something really great. Thirteen years later, I feel like I’m still waiting on that greatness to actually arrive. It’s been over a decade of technologies just not quite reaching that threshold, but maybe my wait is finally over.

In the past week I’ve talked with a number of people that have come out of Stanford University’s CodeX, the short name for The Stanford Center for Legal Informatics program. It may be the first time in a decade that I’ve actually gotten excited enough about legal information technology that I thought I need to quit my job immediately and find a way to get involved in these start ups coming out of California. The ideas coming out of CodeX are actually novel concepts, rather than what we’ve seen for many years of simply repackaging old ideas into cheaper, better, easier, or more accessible platforms. CodeX is having a FutureLaw Conference this week, and I’m sorry that I’m not going to be there to see first hand what is the latest technology being incubated in CodeX.

I want to touch on three products, not as a full product review of those products, but rather just from the idea of how they are looking at things differently. All got their start through the Stanford program, and all have some truly unique and original concepts of how to pull relevant information from legal documents.

First up, Lex Mechina.

Lex Machina isn’t new on our radar. We did a bit of a review on this last year. The idea comes from what they call “Legal Analytics” of parsing large amounts of information about judges, lawyers, and other points of data regarding IP Litigation. The concept of analyzing the data to help “predict the behaviors and outcomes that different legal strategies will produce.” The most impressive review of Lex Machina came from an attorney that told me he was tired of getting beat by opposing counsel because they had this product. That is perhaps the best quote to ever hear from your attorneys when you are contemplating buying a new product. It’s hard to argue against.

Second is Ravel Law.

Jean O’Grady has reviewed and talked about Ravel Law, so there’s no need for me to rehash that here. As with many law librarians, sometimes we have to see with our own eyes before we actually “get it” when it comes to new products. I have to admit that happened to me with Ravel Law. I saw Ravel Law’s Co-Founder and CEO, Daniel Lewis, present alongside Fastcase’s Ed Walters at the ARK Group’s Law Library conference back in February, and have to say it was at this time that the “light went on” in my head that we were looking at a different approach. Information laid out in a readable and effective method, along with visual representations that allow a researcher to quickly spot the relevant information quickly and move in a non-linear method toward additional information. The Judge Analytics is one of the most interesting ideas I’ve seen in a while.  It was pretty amazing to watch it all unfold, and come to realize that they were definitely on to something with this product.

Finally, there is Casetext.

Just as with Ravel Law, I just didn’t immediately “get it” when it came to Casetext. However, after having a two and a half hour long call with Pablo Arredondo last week, I immediately became a fan. Just as with the other products, the information is compiled and displayed differently than we typical researchers are use to seeing. Heat maps and summaries and context and innovative citing methods are used to create visually stimulating and logical organization of the information all within the visible screen area. Add to this the ability for users to add in relevant information, upload briefs, and join communities, it just shows the potential of this platform and a truly novel approach at leveraging a community of legal researchers and practitioners.

Are We Seeing the First Steps Away From Keywords?

This is something I think I will come back and visit in later posts, but I wanted to touch on it here. It is my belief that in the next five to ten years we will no longer look at keywords as the primary way to research legal information. I think we are seeing the genesis of that concept here with these three products. In a way, we are looking at a high-level of compiling documents, information, topics, and insights through advanced algorithms or crowd sourced trends and actions. Think of it as the traditional digest system, only automated and always morphing as new information is added or the actions of individuals change throughout the research process. It is a fascinating idea to contemplate, and I really think that we are on the edge of a monumental change in how we typically “find the law” in legal research.

Content Is Still King

What I’m seeing with these product is that we are simply scratching the surface of what is coming next. Lex Machina is taking a tiny slice of the legal information world with its IP Litigation docket process. Ravel Law and Casetext are doing great things with a core set of case law. Imagine what would happen if these and other products start parsing larger amounts of data. No one seems to be touching statutes and regulatory information. Dockets are a logistical mess, but the potential is huge. News, law reviews, blogs, internal documents, state, federal, and foreign and international information are ripe for exploitation from these new thinkers. It will be interesting to see if there are ways that these powerhouses of idea generations will be able to team up with the mega information holders, whether that be governments or private holders, and really test the limits of how we conduct legal research in the future. I, for one, am excited to see what’s next.

When I started in law firm competitive intelligence (CI),
there were few of us doing it and making any headway at the time.  Over time, lots of people have tried to do
legal CI, Librarians, marketing folks, even seasoned CI professionals from
other industries have tried their hand at it, but eventually walked away.  There are certain nuances to working in a law
firm outside of the practice of law, which I won’t get into here, but which
extend to the practice of CI in law firms as well.  Over the years, I have been asked what works,
how can law firm CI be a success, and I have written or spoken about various
aspects. I’ve explained as many other before me did, that CI is not only about
monitoring competitors, but about the competitive landscape (Blue Ocean
strategy anyone?) and the markets in which law firms operate.  We’ve talk about changing the C in CI from
competitive to collaborative, and encouraging a breaking down of the various
silos that exist in law firm administration in order to successfully manage a
CI program. And I still believe that collaboration is fundamental to CI
success. But there is more. 

We’ve also seen CI in law firms morph into or cross the
line into BI and MI, I think my title actually changed to market intelligence
or marketing intelligence once too for a brief while to prove the point.  But whether the title is CI, BI, or MI, the
end result is the same. Intelligence is about cutting through the vast amounts
of clutter or data to produce insights and analytics to drive business. Whether
we are talking about structured (quantitative) or unstructured (qualitative)
data, the role of the intelligence practitioner is to help the firm avoid
surprises, make actionable recommendations and inform decision making.  But still, I would argue there is more. There
has always been something more to legal CI. Something that sets legal CI apart,
something that may well be a part of other industry CI functions, but from what
I have seen, read and experienced of late, should be the cornerstone of legal
CI, something that I have been unknowingly practicing for years but have only
recently begun to articulate. Legal CI is client
intelligence, or CRM plus. 
 
Since the economic collapse in 2008, and the subsequent
recovery, the legal industry has changed and clients are largely driving that
change.  Law firms know this and have thus
turned to keeping better tabs on their clients. Last week, I sat through the
launch of the Acritas Canadian Brand
Index and while the results were interesting, more interesting to me was the
increased expectation of clients, that firms know their business.  Clients want to work with firms who know their
business. What does knowing a business mean? 
I think it means understanding the client’s market, their business
issues, their liabilities, their risks and their successes. Knowing the client
is about having a grasp on the client’s business that goes beyond the most
recent press release issued or its website home page. Knowing a client is about
making the client feel like you work at their place of business every day.
“Business Savvy” is a 25% driver of law firm recommendations from
General Counsels interviewed by Acritas. Furthermore, when GCs were asked about what additional skills
they would like to see the lawyers they work with on a day to day basis have
additional training or development in –the top answer was ‘understanding the
client’s business’.  That, to me, is
where CI comes into play (client intelligence, that is). The role of CI in law
firms is to help lawyers understand their clients business so that the lawyers
and firm as a whole can serve to their clients in a proactive and advisory manner.  Knowing the client’s business – the
successes, the failures and everything in between will be a reflection on the
lawyer’s business savvy and will then have a snowball effect that will impact a
firm’s own position and ability to be and stay competitive. 

So while I may not be changing my business cards anytime
soon I have started to think of the C in my title as Client rather than
Competitive.  It seems to be the
most compelling and competitive way forward. 

Image [cc] Ana C.

It seems that Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. is not a fan of law reviews. Back in 2011, Roberts joked that he found law reviews irrelevant, and found no need to know why there was any influence on 18th century Bulgaria by philosopher Immanuel Kant. In fact he went further and said “I would have to think very hard” in order to recall any recent law review articles he read, or found useful.

Ouch.

Let’s admit it, most of us outside the ivy covered walls of Academia rarely rush to the library to grab the latest law review before our peers in order to have a competitive advantage. To be fair, however, law reviews are kind of like archives. Most of the time, you never need anything from the archives, but when that need arises, you sure are glad it is there. Whether law reviews are relevant, or useful, or readable is beside the point here. What is interesting is that Roberts’ comment was actually about a real law review article, written by George Washington University Law Professor Orin Kerr. And, as any good writer will attest, always take advantage of the opportunity to turn one piece of writing into two pieces of writing.

Kerr is publishing an answer to Roberts’ comments in an upcoming law review article in The Green Bag. I’m actually looking forward to reading that one from this unconventional law review. One side note for The Green Bag…  please update that awful looking website. Just because your law review was created in 1997, doesn’t mean your website needs to look like it was created that same year.

Sorry. Got off topic.

Kerr got the idea of writing the response to Roberts when he was named a scholar-in-residence at the Law Library of Congress in 2012. In an interview to the National Law Journal (h/t to Rich Leiter), Kerr mentioned that the staff at the Library of Congress was amazing, stating that “They can find anything.” That without the help of the Library research staff, specifically Peter Roudik, the article couldn’t have been written. Then came the quote that I’m printing out, framing, and hanging on my office wall:

“The lesson of the article is that you can do anything with an amazing research librarian.”

As happy as I am to see this quote, I have to really as Orin Kerr one thing, “you’re just now figuring that out??” I bet there are some folks back at George Washington that would love to introduce you to the research librarians at the law library. Helping you find the obscure text from 1859 is something that many of us do on a regular basis. In addition, we can probably get it to you overnight (or within hours), without costing you a fortune. Law Librarians, and Researchers have connections, and those connections have connections. I hope for Kerr’s sake that he’s located the law library researchers back at GW when he got back from the Library of Congress.

So let this be a lesson to all of the Professors out there writing the next great Law Review Article. Go find the law library and introduce yourself to the research staff. Tell them what you’re working on, and make them a part of the team. They probably won’t be able to make your article any more appealing to Chief Justice Roberts, but they will definitely help you thoroughly research the topic.