AdvanceLaw

Subscribe to AdvanceLaw via RSS

Clients too often ignore law firm incentives and market power.  They also substitute management for leadership.

Editor’s note:  This post returns to a subject first addressed here in Posts 029, 030, 031: successful law firm convergence and the management of law firm panels.  In this article, Dan looks back over AdvanceLaw’s work in the intervening five years and identifies four of the most common and consequential flaws in corporate law firm panels.  What follows draws on input from the staff of AdvanceLaw, where Dan is a Managing Director.

Why law firm panels matter

Law firm panels are a primary client strategy for controlling legal spend, but they also help stimulate innovation.   Innovation matters because panels wouldn’t be worth the effort if they didn’t produce better performance, which requires changes in how things get done.  Yet as Legal Evolution has documented in its posts on diffusion theory (tip: start with Post 001 and read chronologically),  many forces resist innovation in legal services, and those forces can only be overcome by sustained change management efforts from both law firms and clients.  Neither firms nor clients will commit to this effort if their relationship is temporary or poorly defined, so structured approaches like law firm panels are necessary to create the conditions under which innovation is at least possible.
Continue Reading The four fatal flaws of law firm panels (297)

Lawyers are trained to be good at what machines can’t do.

Will the world still need lawyers once AI gets really good?

The short answer is yes—and I believe it will still be yes no matter how good AI gets.  My view is not universally accepted, so I will need to lay it out, and that will involve some claims about what humans are and whether a machine can ever be like that.  This will shed considerable light on what lawyers essentially do, and help us to see how machines can help us to be better lawyers.
Continue Reading Legal’s AI rocket ship will be manned (book review) (232)

How legal services will be evaluated in 2021 and beyond

NewLaw is not what you think it is.  It is not a label to be applied only to new companies with trendy names.  It is a business model that any legal services provider can, in theory, adopt.  Cf. Post 055 (discussing clear evidence that “legal operations is a discipline” for buyers and sellers of legal services and thus not just a role within a legal department). But, while new companies built for it, others have to overcome how they created themselves in the first place.
Continue Reading Metrics of the NewLaw Model (206)

Will 2020 unleash a long-awaited wave of legal innovation?

Law firms offer a bundle of services tied tightly together, and most lawyers think of this bundle as a naturally integrated offering.  But innovators have long believed that the legal services bundle is actually composed of a series of largely unrelated capabilities, and the true flowering…

Photo by Ed Robertson on Unsplash

This week, I’m pleased to welcome back occasional contributor Dan Currell, who in today’s feature post reviews the recently published book, The Trust Revolution, by M. Todd Henderson and Salen Churi. See Post 130.

Dan’s return provides an opportunity to explain his mysterious title (Former Managing Director, AdvanceLaw) in the right side bar.  Dan’s current title is Senior Advisor in the Office of Finance and Operations at the U.S. Department of Education.  But to post that title would arguably require a clarification that Dan’s views are his own and not necessarily those of the current Administration or the Department of Education (in the unlikely event either has views on legal innovation). 
Continue Reading Dan Currell’s insightful views are his own (129)