Lawslot

In today’s FT Michael Peel reports on the very recent Smith & Williamson survey,

The legal industry is heading for a big shake-up as firms merge in an attempt to protect profits threatened by the credit crunch, according to a survey published on Monday.

The annual survey of leading lawyers commissioned by Smith & Williamson, the financial services group, said three-quarters of big firms expected to see more emergency deals as confidence fell, despite the industry’s supposed resilience.

This is not news to us in the profession. It has already started and the current economic mayhem is simply accelerating the inevitable.  In last week’s Law Society Gazette Lord Hunt, about to embark upon his profession-wide review of regulation, is reported as saying,

I will be listening to the views of the whole profession, and that includes the smaller high street firms as much as the global firms. I have a completely open mind about the best way forward. My message is – tell me what you think.

Let’s hope that there will still be some to tell him.

Stefan Stern’s FT column Pssst . . . get smart and wipe out whistleblowing some weeks ago had a telling quote from Dov Seidman, founder and chairman of LRN, a US based business ethics consultancy. After reporting Seidman’s view that ‘ethical clarity cannot be established quickly’, Stern quotes what Seidman told the Journal of Leadership and Organisational Studies,

“Doing the right thing” is not a painless option either. . . I actually think that in many cases doing the right thing is often inconvenient . . . Sometimes that is exactly when you know you are doing the right thing, when it feels so inconvenient.”

I carry around with me a (now dog eared) copy of Practical morality for lawyers by the great Bill Knight, one of the doyens of corporate law in the City. This article is only available by subscription to PLC , which is a great pity as every lawyer should read it. In it he anatomises the dilemma that most of us face at some stage or other in our professional careers, ‘when your client wants to do something which is legal, but in your view highly questionable’, and in the doing of it will be looking to you for help and advice.

As Knight notes

Look hard; this is dangerous territory. One day you’re devising off-balance sheet structures, the next you’re letting the senior executives get rich on them, then you’re shredding documents and, before you know it, you are explaining to your family that you may not be seeing them for some time.

It all seems so easy but sometimes, especially when a valued client asks a favour, and times are hard, it isn’t.

Notwithstanding my injunction to cultivate a habit of optimism, the legal press continues to provide some element of corrective. It is some comfort, though not a lot, to know that lawyers across the piece are having the same problems, contemplating the same actions, and, quite possibly, making the same mistakes.

A sobering article in the FT last month, Redundancy and the threat of a great depression, caught my eye, and in particular the section on employees having to take on an increased workload. Now I have colleagues who think that this is no bad thing, but . . .

The potential for working harder, he [William Shanahan, medical director and lead addictions psychiatrist at Capio Nightingale Hospital] says, is exacerbated by technology: “BlackBerries and mobile phones mean that people are not managing their time well. They cannot relax even on a holiday, which can create problems with families.”

Managing time well is itself one more pressure on lawyers. It is one most of live with and, by and large, we learn how best to do it. It is, however, not just working harder, but also finding yourself with little or no work – and more time than usual. Having said that, writing this post is one way of dealing with the delay in replies from two of my clients on transactions where there is nothing more I can do until I hear from them further.

The first of two interesting facts in the July copy of Wired.

From John Bringardner, Winning the lawsuit, in which he notes that ‘in the US a pretrial discovery request today can generate nearly 10,000 times more paper than 10 years ago’,

So how has this evidentiary deluge changed the practice of law? Consider that five years ago, newly minted corporate litigators spent much of their time digging through warehouses full of paper documents. Today they’re back at their desks, sorting through PDFs, emails, and memos on their double monitors – aided by semantic search technologies that scan for key-words and phrases. In another five years, don’t be surprised to find juries chuckling over a plaintiff’s incriminating IMs, voice messages, video conferences, and Twitters.

I see it coming sooner.

The most recent post on What about Paris?, Dog days: Hot, with increasing chaos later this week sums it all up. And I thought it was just the down turn, and for more on that you cannot do better (or should it be worse) than read Jeremy Hodges’ post in Legal Week today on the trials of the mid tier property sector, Property woes prompt tough times for mid-tier.

Thanks to the link in one of John Naughton’s recent posts in Memex 1.1, a link to Ed Boyden’s post How to think: a fascinating set of rules. Interesting and practical advice, and relevant to every lawyer coming to terms with our changing world of legal services.

Picking up on my immediately preceding post, an excellent article, The road ahead, in The Law Gazette on the future of legal services.

In the present turn down it may sometimes seem difficult to look beyond the month end figures, but long term survival requires it, to say nothing of what the up and coming generation expects.

I cannot do better than paste in the final paragraphs,

For Susskind, the questions he always poses to the profession are: why is it that people pay lawyers good money? What value is it they’re bringing? The best answer he has seen comes from accountants KPMG, whose global mission statement is, he paraphrased, ‘we exist to turn our knowledge into value for the benefit of our clients’.

‘I think it’s a fantastic way of summarising what all of us as professional advisers seek to do,’ Susskind concluded. ‘We have knowledge, expertise, inside ideas that clients want to apply in their circumstances. It doesn’t say we exist to supply one-to-one consultative advisory service on an hourly billing basis…

‘The thing I want people to think about in the future is in the legal market we have to strive to find even more imaginative and creative and, I suspect, cost-effective ways of transferring our knowledge to our clients in a way they can apply in their circumstances.’

To do so, we also have to work out our strategies taking into account three or four key issues

1) The future will not be more of the same. Read Futurewise, Six Faces of Global Challenge by Patrick Dixon.

2) The market for legal services is not effective: if you haven’t yet read Stephen Mayson’s paper Legal Services Reforms: Catalyst, Cataclysm or Catastrophe, you should. The problem? ‘An oversupply of qualified people without a corresponding increase in “qualified lawyer” work’; the result? ‘Too many qualified lawyers, too many law firms, and too many equity partners: and a market ripe for reform. . .  [leading to] consolidation, merger, and, occasionally, failure’.

3) Legislation is simply accelerating inevitable change: the Legal Services Act will open the profession to new entrants, but technology, the great driver of change, is already altering the way our clients seek and take legal services (and this takes me back to The mobile lawyer, posted yesterday).

4) The aspirations and expectations of the next generation, and the one following them, are not the same as those of us who currently determine the course of law firms.