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.

Some of the products you can order through Amazon’s Dash Button

Okay… I’m not sure if I’m amazed or a bit petrified of two of the new services that Amazon just launched this week. Probably a bit of both.

First up, Amazon’s Dash Button (only by invitation at this time.) Running low on household items like detergent, toilet paper, beauty supplies, soda, or pantry items?? No problem. Press a button, and your order is placed through Amazon. You get a verification on your phone, just in case your teenager put in an order for 12 cases of Mac and Cheese.

Here’s Amazon’s explanation of how it works:

Dash Button is simple to set up. Use the Amazon app on your smartphone to easily connect to your home Wi-Fi network and select the product you want to reorder with Dash Button. Once connected, a single press automatically places your order. Amazon sends an order alert to your phone, so it’s easy to cancel if you change your mind. Unless you elect otherwise, Dash Button responds only to your first press until your order is delivered.

Sounds really easy.

Next up, Amazon’s Home Services. An “Angie’s List” type of reviewed services like plumbing, landscaping, yoga lessons, computer repair, etc., with the twist of being able to call in an expert right from Amazon. You can even get “Goat Grazing” in some areas. My twisted mind immediately went to the thought of how soon Amazon will put “Legal Services” on this list. Need a will? Click the button on your phone and a lawyer will call you. Actually, that sounds really easy.

Here’s Amazon’s explanation of its Home Services:

Shop for services
It’s as easy as 1-2-3:
 Add the service to your cart.
 Tell us when works for you.
 Only pay when the job is complete.

Coming Soon… a Lawyer is delivered to your door via an Amazon Drone?

via Maya Hsu

My former colleague, Richard Hsu, is at it again. You may remember Richard, and his talented daughter, Maya, from my posts about his One Page Blog, and HsuTube blogs, and the really interesting videos he and Maya produced. I talked with Richard this week and caught up on what he’s up to these days. His new site, Hsu Untied, is Richard’s dive into the audio medium where he records podcasts of lawyers and special guests about their hobbies outside of their daily legal grind. Although Maya is now almost 16 and no longer interested in helping her Dad make topics like “Assignment in a Change Control” actually interesting, she did produce the artwork for the logo on the new site.

Hsu Untied gives Richard a chance to sit down and talk with interesting people about their interesting hobbies. In some cases, the hobbies are now their full-time jobs. When I was talking to Richard, I could really hear the enthusiasm in his voice of how much he enjoyed this new endeavor. For those of us that blog, or podcast, or other types of social media productions, we don’t do it for the fame, or the money, or the business it drives to our ‘real jobs,’ we do it because it is a lot of fun.

For Richard, he told me that he has always wanted “to be an interviewer like Charlie Rose or a Terry Gross” and this allows him to do so, as he calls it, “on a micro scale.” Currently he has around 36 podcasts up and running on his site, but has almost twice that many recorded and ready for production. Because he’s interviewing based on outside interests, there’s no rush for the recordings to go out, so he compiling and releasing them over time.

When he started out, Richard thought he’d be lucky to interview a handful of people. As of this week, however, he is approaching his 100th interview, and it doesn’t look like he’s slowing down. In fact, while talking with him, I immediately thought of a good friend of mine that he should interview, and I have since connected them for a future interview. Richard also mentioned that he gets a few attorneys to contact him directly for interviews, but that his librarian in his office keeps him informed of potential interviewees. Once again, what would lawyers do without a good librarian to keep them up to speed??

So far, Richard has covered a wide range of hobbies including skydiving, mountain climbing, oil painting, magic, astronomy, opera singing, winemaking, boxing, chess and ballet and others. In addition, he has interviewed some Special Guests who left the legal profession to become things like a best-selling author, Editor of the NYTimes Crossword Puzzles, the drummer for Train, and a Professional Poker Player. That’s a pretty good list of very interesting people, and there are so many more lined up in the future.

I asked Richard how long he thought he would keep doing these interviews, and he said that he plans to keep doing it as long as he’s having fun. Well… let’s hope he continues to have fun for a long time.

Toby Brown and I got a sneak peek yesterday at Bloomberg BNA’s new Big Law Business community site, and we liked what we saw. We all know that Big Law is big business, but there are very few resources out there from vendors that cover current stories and trends of the business side of a large law firm, and even fewer that promote a community to comment and contribute. Most of us have relied upon bloggers to fill the gap, but a resource like this coming from Bloomberg Law is a welcome new addition.

The site is free to access, but content contribution will be limited to those of us that work within large law firms (AmLaw200), in-house counsel, thought leaders within the industry, and vendors within the industry that want to contribute useful content to the community through articles, white papers, videos, and other (non-commercial) type content.

BBNA’s David Peikin gave us the tour and said that “[T]he community enables legal executives to share best practices leveraging the insight and wisdom of those in similar roles at other firms and supports peer-to-peer engagement with focused, role-based content areas for managing partners, in-house counsel, technologists and marketers.”

There are no walled communities within the site, so everyone can see all the content regardless of what type of role you play within your firm.

The site is now open, so go check it out and see if this is a community you’d like to join. Bloomberg BNA’s press release on the Big Law Business site is below.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:
David Peikin
703.341.5900
dpeikin@bna.com

BLOOMBERG BNA LAUNCHES BIG LAW BUSINESS, 
COMMUNITY WEBSITE FOCUSED ON THE BUSINESS OF LAW

Arlington, Va. (March 5, 2015) — Bloomberg BNA today announced the launch of Big Law Business, a first-of-its-kind online community that helps law firm executives and in-house counsel be even more successful in addressing opportunities and challenges created by accelerated disruption in the legal market related to the business of law.  Big Law Business enables legal executives to learn how to better manage day-to-day business, finance and technology issues while also sharing best practices.

Big Law Business helps legal executives and professional managers better serve their internal and external clients through access to a wealth of targeted content — perspectives, news and insight, data, and resources — created by Bloomberg BNA editors and thought leaders in the legal market.  The community also supports peer-to-peer engagement in focused, role-based content areas for managing partners, in-house counsel, technologists and marketers and also will offer related online and offline programs.

“Big Law Business provides access to a wealth of robust content, including timely news on the business of law from our dedicated editorial staff and the rich data and in-depth analysis the market has come to rely on from Bloomberg BNA and Bloomberg Law,” said Scott Mozarsky, President, Cross Platform Businesses, Bloomberg BNA.  “Big Law Business features articles, podcasts, videos and white papers, enabling legal executives to stay on top of the latest trends affecting the business of law.  And the community will provide visitors ample opportunities to engage with those in similar roles at law firms and corporations and benefit from shared insights and wisdom.”

You can follow Big Law Business on Twitter and LinkedIn.

About Bloomberg BNA
Bloomberg BNA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bloomberg, is a leading source of legal, regulatory, and business information for professionals. Its network of more than 2,500 reporters, correspondents, and leading practitioners delivers expert analysis, news, practice tools, and guidance — the information that matters most to professionals. Bloomberg BNA’s authoritative coverage spans a full range of legal practice areas, including tax & accounting, labor & employment, intellectual property, banking & securities, employee benefits, health care, privacy & data security, human resources, and environment, health & safety.

###

The legal market consolidated a bit more today in Canada
as DLAPiper LLP announced that Davis LLP will be joining the Swiss verein’s North
American arm as its newest member firm in April 2015.  The Am Law Daily, summed up the change in Canada over the past few years
the best:

“DLA Piper is just the latest
firm to expand north, always with struggling mid-tier firms. Two other firms
organized as international vereins—Dentons and Baker & McKenzie—were more successful in
absorbing groups of refugees from the dissolving Heenan Blaikie last year.
Dentons had already entered the market in 2013, combining
with 560-lawyer Fraser Milner Casgrain.

Norton Rose was the first, sealing
a deal with 450-lawyer Ogilvy Renault in 2010. Calgary-based Macleod
Dixon joined
it in 2011, and Fulbright & Jaworski in
2012, bringing yet another U.S. firm under the same global umbrella with a
Canadian one.”

Rich in natural resources and backed by a stable banking
and finance industry, Canada is ever more attractive to companies and law firms
alike. As a resident Canadian amongst the 3 Geeks, I wanted to share and
reaffirm that there is more to Canada than hockey, beer, Coffee Crisp and ketchup
chips and I am not the only one who is taking notice.

 

Okay… it’s Friday. It’s snowing in Dallas, and it’s a bit slow around the office. But, when I saw that Reed Elsevier was going to change its name to RELX, I thought maybe it was a joke to draw attention away from the black/blue vs. gold/white dress discussion. Apparently not.

I’m sure there was a big Think-Tank of Marketing Gurus involved in this decision, but on the surface it looks like it was a room of Gen Y’s that had never heard of the band Frankie Goes to Hollywood… otherwise, they would have seen snarky posts like this one… or this one… or this one, coming.

Not sure what CEO Erik Engstrom is trying to pull off here, but I think for the next few weeks, he’s going to catch a bit of ribbing for this decision.

Does R E L X stand for:

R: Reed
E: Elsevier
LX: LexisNexis??

If so, then maybe those of us in the legal industry can RELX… I mean, relax. The RELX Group, plc became official on February 26th, with the official, and final move to the name coming on July 1st this year. The relxgroup.com website is already active. Quite Frankie… I mean, frankly, it’s a bit confusing.

As we find out more behind the decision to change the name to a four-letter acronym, let me leave you with some great lyrics to a great song, and see if Mr. Engstrom is up to make making it his intention, and keep scheming those schemes.

But shoot it in the right direction
Make making it your intention-ooh yeah
Live those dreams
Scheme those schemes
Got to hit me
Hit me
Hit me with those laser beams
 
 
Good luck getting rid of that earworm.

Image [cc] slworking2

Recently I participated on a panel on the future of the profession for the National Conference of Bar Presidents and walked away thoroughly convinced the profession is doomed.

For those of you unfamiliar with how bar associations make decisions, I offer the following story:

If someone asked for permission to go to the bathroom, a bar would form a task force (or commission) to fully examine whether going to the bathroom was a good idea and to highlight all of the pitfalls around bathrooms. After 18 months they would issue a report stating that going to the bathroom is generally a good thing and should be promoted to those who need to go, but only if all of the potential negative impacts have been understood, limited and communicated to those considering bathroom breaks. The report would not actually authorize the request to use the bathroom. It would be left to the Bar Board to actually enact a rule permitting said activity. The Board rarely follows up as they are busy forming the next task force and would not want to take any heat for authorizing such a dramatic change.

In the meantime, the guy who made the original request either went, or died.

The presentation panel actually offered a real-life example, that broke this mold – at least in some fashion. The panel participant from Washington, discussed how they are implementing Limited Licensure Legal Technicians (LLLT). That effort began in 2001, culminating in the first licensees coming online this Spring. But in this circumstance, the Supreme Court actually pushed this through, against the wishes of the bar. The result was one small change to the market that took 14 years to implement.

And here is where things got ugly – the audience focused in on the details of the LLLT program, trying to poke holes in it. This audience was made up of Bar Presidents and Executive Directors. These people are well positioned to drive change across the profession. But instead of talking about how they could adopt similar changes in an accelerated fashion, they were looking for ways to kill it.

I sat there as long as I could listening to this. Finally I could take it no longer and interjected. I “suggested” that a failure to drive disruptions would lead to others moving in and taking over the legal market. With some internal fortitude, I was able to avoid using swear words.

After the presentation a number of attendees from state bars sat down to chat with me about all of this. A universal theme was that whatever they might do to disrupt the market and drive innovation will be met with strong resistance by the bar membership. As I see it, bar associations have little to gain by pushing on this issue, even though they have a lot to lose by doing nothing. Their members will not abide any efforts short of turning the clock back. I gave numerous suggestions for how a bar might drive change to the group. All were met with exacerbation and a recognition that any efforts will be met with broad and strong resistance.

For a long time I have held out hope that the legal profession would step up and address the needs of the market: for both lawyers and clients. After this experience, I have come to the hard conclusion: That is not going to happen. As smart as lawyers are, their training and experience have made them a reactive and dogmatic group. In their minds, the way they have been doing it is the only way to keep doing it. Anything else is a threat to the profession and their practice specifically.

This all saddens me. Lawyers hold a sacred duty to the rule of law. Their inability to act means the rule of law will be handed off to someone else – someone without that obligation. As a society we will all be worse off.

If the medical profession is any indicator, we should fully expect insurance companies and or perhaps banks to become our future legal service providers.

Welcome to the future.