LloydLaw LLP

The Value of Lawyers

Entrepreneur Martin Rice, co-founder and chief executive of software company Erudine on one of the things he has learned - in the Financial Times.

"Finally, no matter how friendly dealings with a potential customer are at the start, once you start talking to the procurement department of a multinational, it is time to call your lawyers.

Big companies take advantage of little companies if they want something. Once you get to procurement, pay for very good legal advice. I never thought I’d say lawyers are a good thing."

Competition Lawyers Compete

Great little piece in The Lawyer - which I can't find online - about Addleshaw Goddard's touting for work off the back of The Office of Fair Trading's investigation into the construction industry.

According to The Lawyer the firm sent out a "blast" email (whatever that is) to the construction companies involved, offering an hour's free surgery on a strictly confidential basis.

Rival firms were reportedly angry about the "underhand" nature of an unsolicited approach and one (unnamed) rival partner described the bid to "steal" clients as "absolutely disgraceful".

All a bit of a storm in a teacup really, because clients are not tied into firms of solicitors and lawyers now have to operate in such a competitive world, that it would be absurd if they couldn't offer their services directly to other businesses, whether or not they had existing advisers. Whether a "blast" email, which I take to mean a one off email sent to loads of people, conforms with Addleshaw's legal obligations, is something the article doesn't address, but it's something we all need to be aware of.

Great response from Addleshaws by the way. A source is quoted as saying it was ironic that competition lawyers were complaining about competition.

Social Trends and IT Law - Predictions 2008

The Society for Computers and Law has put together an excellent collection of predictions for things that will be happening in the legal world in 2008.  Lawyers change slowly so it's always incredibly difficult to judge how the profession will change and what impact technology will have on the profession and the practice of law. The one prediction that really stood out for me was that of Professor Richard Susskind OBE:

My advice to lawyers and law firms everywhere is to take web 2.0 very seriously indeed in 2008. We are entering a new era of Internet activity, one that will affect the daily working lives of legal practitioners. The impact on the legal profession of social networking and online collaboration will be profound. I am more confident about this than I was in 1996 when I said that the Internet would transform the communication habits (email) and information-seeking habits (the web) of lawyers. In 2008, we will see the beginnings of the legal world embracing Web 2.0.

Other predictions are available on the SCL website.

The End of Lawyers?

For the last six weeks or so, The Times has been serialising Professor Richard Susskind's forthcoming book, The End of Lawyers? It has created a fair bit of comment online, and the final extract - in which Richard responds to some of his critics - has just appeared.

I haven't read the book but all my experience tells me that he is right about the challenges affecting the legal  profession. I was bowled over when I first came across his views at the SCL Annual Lecture he gave in 2006 entitled: "The Next Ten Years". This was the first time that I had heard expressing what I had actually been thinking and in a way that matches up with reality.

As a niche practitioner working in the IT/IP field, it seemed clear both then and now that most law firms, and the lawyers working for them are largely unaware of what is going on in the world of technology, and more often that not, they are resistant to inevitable change.

I am not talking about the rise of email (considered relatively avant garde when LloydLaw started 10 years ago) nor IM (Instant Messaging) nor Blackberrys. I am talking about using the available technology in the interests of society and the profession so that everyone can benefit. If that means, we need fewer lawyers, or lawyers of a different type then the profession needs to address those issues. At the moment, it isn’t really happening.

The fact is that providing services in the way they are being provided is simply too cumbersome and too expensive. And I don't just mean that it's expensive for clients either. It's expensive for lawyers to run profitable law firms that provide their clients with the quality of service that is required. That, of course, is where technology can and does make a difference. As Professor Susskind says, in his final extract:

Open-minded lawyers, and those who genuinely care about the interests of their clients should, in the internet age, continually be looking at ways in which IT can play a more prominent role in their services.

He highlights disruptive technologies such as document assembly, personalised alerting, online dispute resolution, and open-sourcing some of which already exist in various forms, and others which have some way to go. I would also add that both the training of lawyers and the way the profession is both operated and run needs to change to reflect the world we are living in.

Of course, the answer to his (rhetorical) question “The End of Lawyers?” is that there will be no end, but new beginnings.  Whether it will be what he describes as multi-disciplinary "hybrid" advisers, I don't quite know, but rest assured the changes are coming.

Web Apps and Lawyers

Some very sensible comment -
helpfully reported by Suw Charman at Strange Attractor -  from Matt Haughey at the Future of Web Apps ("FOWA") held in London last week:

Legal problems. Anything multi-user will have legal issues. Comes up more often that you think. You make a multi-user apps, and it's used by the world, so try to understand which laws apply. Find a well-versed internet lawyer. Might take a while to find someone but worth finding someone who understands the internet. Set up a business to give protection to your own personal life. Terms of Service and Privacy Policies - be clear about what you are going to do with people's contributions. Get a lawyer to help on language with that. Copyright law, e.g. DMCA in the US. If you're accepting content from people you could put yourself in legal hot water if someone uploads copyrighted materials.

From the lawyer's perspective, it is vital that clients are clear about what they are going to do with both their service and any content provided. It's all too easy to cut and paste someone else's terms and conditions, but there's a risk attached to that. Other people's terms rarely work the way you want them to work.

Lawrence Lessig Changes Focus

No one who has been involved in the legal issues surrounding intellectual property law over the last ten years could have failed to come across Lawrence Lessig. A US lawyer and academic, he has been at the forefront of thinking on intellectual property issues through his books and blog, and the Creative Commons campaign amongst other things.

Surprisingly, he's just announced on his blog that he's going to change direction and the focus of his attention will now move to what he calls "corruption in the political process". He's still going to act as the CEO of Creative Commons and head of the Stanford  Center for Internet and Society, but he describes the move, as a "decision to change channels".

This new set of issues is, in my view, critically important. Indeed, I'm convinced we will not solve the IP related issues until these "corruption" related issues are resolved. So I hope at least some of you will follow to this new set of questions. For I expect this forum will be central to working out just what I believe, just as it has in the past.

There's clearly elements of both the professional and personal in his typically open explanation, but it will be fascinating to watch where this new journey takes him.

Should more City Lawyers sit on Boards?

Earlier this week there was a debate at the Said Business School in Oxford exploring the notion, supported by Bill Knight, that more City lawyers should sit on the boards of private companies and public sector organisations. This is an interesting notion, because as much as I admire the intellectual capacity of many of my legal acquaintance, I am not convinced that they would make the best of directors.

Some of the issues that were explored in what I think was an unreported debate included: 

• Is the shortage of boardroom lawyers due to lack of demand?
• Do chairs prefer to avoid them as board members?
• If so, what do lawyers do wrong? 
• And how can lawyers change their reputation?
• Or is it a lack of supply? 
• Do lawyers think they are just too busy, or are the problems of conflicts of interest insurmountable?
• How can we demonstrate the value of broadening lawyers’ outlook to encompass these roles? 
• Where are the roles that do not cause conflicts of interest?

These are all important questions both for lawyers and the businesses and organisations they serve.

I don't really know how non-executives are recruited although I suspect it's through informal networking, like so many other things. What I would suggest is the killer issue is the lawyers' natural scepticism best expressed by David Maister in this article. As he says:

In a room full of lawyers, any idea, no matter how brilliant, will be instantly attacked. Lawyers are expert loophole finders, trained to find counterexamples of or exceptions to any proposition. Accordingly, within a short time, most ideas, no matter who initiates them, will be destroyed, dismissed, or postponed for future examination.

My personal view is that lawyers acting in lawyer "mode" will only act as a brake on any board deliberations and that won't always be in the best interests of the organisation.  Indeed this point is picked up on by Bill Knight in his FT article when he recognises that:

The first thing is for lawyers to take a step away from the law - to change their minds and broaden their horizons.

I mentioned that the debate had gone unreported, but I am not sure that's the case. It was held under the Chatham House Rule which I thought meant that the whole debate was off the record. In fact, it appears that is not the case. The Rule - and it is singular - is:

"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".

I have to confess that I have absolutely no idea why the Rule is required in such a debate which I would think requires a high degree of transparency and openness and in the absence of an explanation I can only assume that it was suggested by a lawyer.

Thinking about Clients

Matt Homan, a US lawyer who blogs at the [non]-billable hour, has created his own "Client Manifesto". It's food for thought for lawyers and clients:

15 Rules for Clients:  A Mini Manifesto

You are a client.  You need a lawyer.  Here are 15 rules (guidelines, actually) that may help you find and understand your lawyer:

1.  You have wants.  You have needs.  Focus on the needs first.  Wants are bonus.

2.  If you are seeing a lawyer because your dispute is “not about the money, but about the principle of the thing” don’t be surprised if your lawyer runs away. You can never be satisfied.  Also, it’s really about the money.

3.  Your case/matter is the most important thing happening to you right now.  It is not the most important thing happening to your lawyer right now.  It may not even be in his top ten.

4.  If you think your lawyer is trying to kill your deal, remember this:  though there may only be a “one percent” chance your deal will go bad, your lawyer sees that “one percent” over and over again. She’s looking out for you.  She cares about you and your business. She also doesn’t want her malpractice premiums to go up.

5.  You want to buy results, not time.  Most lawyers sell time, not results.  Make sure you both understand the difference before your first bill arrives.  You will certainly understand the difference after.

6.  If you want to find a lawyer who sells results, look hard. There are a few of them out there.  They are the ones who can still smile because they get to see their children before 9:00 at night.

7.  Big firm lawyers are not more efficient.  Or smarter.  Or cheaper.  They are certainly not cheaper.

8.  Make sure your lawyer understands your business.  If your lawyer doesn’t understand your business, find out if he’s going to learn about it on his time, or yours.

9.  You are your lawyer’s boss.  You are not her only boss.  She has hundreds of other bosses too.  Each one of them thinks their matter is more important than yours.

10.  How messy is your lawyer’s desk?  When they bill you for thirty minutes of “file review,” how much of that time was spent looking for your file?

11.  When you call a lawyer for the first time, how long does it take for him to return your calls? After you hire that lawyer, expect it to take at least three times as long.  Same goes for e-mails.

12.  Does your lawyer have reputation for being a “bulldog?”  That probably means they are an asshole.  To everyone.

13.  Look for a lawyer with a technology IQ no more than fifty points less than yours.  If you live in e-mail and your lawyer doesn’t, learn to like your mail carrier.

14.  If you hate your lawyer, fire him.  He probably deserves it, and you aren’t getting his best work anyway.

15.  You wouldn’t automatically marry the first person you date, so don’t automatically hire the first lawyer you see.  A great lawyer-client relationship can last a lifetime.  Your lawyer can be your advisor, counselor, confidant, and friend.  Most lawyers are good people genuinely interested in their clients’ best interests.  Find one you like, stick with him or her, and spread the word.  Oh, and stop telling lawyer jokes.  They aren’t really that funny.  ;-)

This Life + 10

I am intrigued to see that the BBC programme "This Life" is making a return to our television screens this evening some 10 years after the original series was first shown. "This Life + 10" is a one off reunion programme which brings the characters back together again.

It goes without saying that as a 30-something lawyer, I was fascinated by the series and its treatment of the lives of young, prospective lawyers, and I look forward to seeing what they've got up to. Of course, it prompts some reflection in me, not least for the fact that LloydLaw's offices are only a few yards away from the house that the lawyers lived in on Southwark Bridge Road. How did that happen? The house, as is reported in Wikipedia, is now flats, which tells its own tale.

It's on BBC2 at 9pm.

Struggling to find a place at the bar

The news that only 18% of students on the Bar Vocational Course got an offer of pupillage is pretty shocking. Whilst the legal profession has changed dramatically in many ways over the last 20 years, becoming a barrister does appear to be harder than ever. Is this important? Well, probably yes, because barristers are still the main advocates of choice in a lot of courts, and still predominate in the ranks of the judiciary. If the Bar is restricted to those of a certain background, then that will have implications in the future.  That said, the statistics do suggest a fair amount of diversity in those trying to become barristers which the Bar Council describe as "encouraging". Not if they don't get jobs, it isn't. Heaven forbid, some of them might have to become solicitors.