New Directions in Legal Services (EPUB) von John Alber

New Directions in Legal Services examines the fast pace of change in the legal services sector, driven in part by new technologies, and considers what the future holds.

Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viiAbout the authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiChapter 1: Why the developments to the competence divide (and notthe digital divide) will make or break the law fi rm business model . . . . . . . . . .1By Emma Ziercke, research assistant, and Markus Hartung, director, at theBucerius Center on the Legal Profession (CLP) at the Bucerius Law SchoolFrom information asymmetry to the closing competence divide:An elusive aspect of the law fi rm paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1How legal technology will change the business of law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Is legal technology really changing the law fi rm model? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Information equilibrium, but in a dynamic market? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Chapter 2: AI and fi ve new business models for legal services . . . . . . . . . . . .11By Joanna Goodman, writer, editor, and IT columnist for the Law SocietyGazette and the Guardian Media NetworkNew business model 1: The lawtech start-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13New business model 2: The legal chatbot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15New business model 3: Online legal advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17New business model 4: The legal platform as a service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19New business model 5: The legal engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Chapter 3: What is the next big thing for legal services? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23By Chrissie Lightfoot, CEO of Robot Lawyer LISA and CEO of EntrepreneurLawyer LimitedSuspicions and reinventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24From AlphaGo to AlphaLaw? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Four aspects of legal services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Time equals money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27ContentsNew-Directions_RO_2017.indd iii ew-Directions_RO_2017.indd iii 27/07/2017 13:23 7/07/2017 13:23Evolving legal artifi cial intelligence from carthorse to racehorse . . . . . . . . . 28Inviolable lawyers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Paper-pusher pushout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Renovating private practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Chapter 4: The missing ‘E’ in legal innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33By John Alber, futurist at the International Legal Technology AssociationInnovation talk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Apple innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Design Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36A new model? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Chapter 5: The evolving legal talent pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41By Debbie Epstein Henry, founder of DEH Consulting, Speaking, WritingChapter 6: Rethinking pricing and profi tability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45By Michael Roster, co-chair of the Association of Corporate Counsel’s ValueChallenge steering committee; previously managing partner of Morrison &Foerster’s Los Angeles offi ce and GC of Stanford UniversityThe historical problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Use of market data to determine pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Matrix budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47The three Es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Multi-disciplinary practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Chapter 7: A new business model for a sustainable future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51By Martyn Caplan, founder and director of Lawyers Inc.The traditional legal model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Potential threats to the fi nancial stability and future of a legal practice . . 52Creating a different business model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55It’s good to talk – and we will listen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Chapter 8: Evolving business models in legal services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59By Janvi Patel, executive chairwoman and founder of HaleburyTraditional law fi rms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59The in-house model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Unbundling legal services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Our evolution – The Halebury model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Next stage of the evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67New-Directions_RO_2017.indd iv ew-Directions_RO_2017.indd iv 27/07/2017 13:23 7/07/2017 13:23New Directions in Legal ServicesChapter 9: Law fi rm-client collaboration through the managed legalnetwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69By Richard Tapp, company secretary and director of legal servicesCarillion plc and Fleur Kitchingman, senior vice president of legal andcorporate secretary, Carillion CanadaIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Agenda for change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Our aspirations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Our processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Reflections on collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Chapter 10: Business model innovation – Implementing andsustaining change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77By Mike Polson, director of Ashurst Advance and co-head of innovation atAshurst, and Christie Guimond, R&D strategy manager at Ashurst AdvanceDrivers for change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Traditional Big Law vs Evolving Big Law models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78The evolving business model in practice – Ashurst Advance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Implementing and sustaining change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Parallels from the past? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84