Yet, when you think about innovation, what does that look like inside a law firm? To be honest, it鈥檚 probably very different than perhaps it should look. These were the headline topics of discussion at last week鈥檚 held virtually with Mark Cohen, Executive Chairman of the Digital Legal Exchange, and Richard Susskind, President of the Society for Computers and Law. In their respective lectures, they laid out in stark fashion where they believe law firms are missing the mark on innovation for their clients.

As was artfully illustrated by Cohen in the first of the two talks, Amazon is a corporate conquistador whose North Star is its customers. His premise is that law could learn a great deal from Amazon, and one day be as much of a disrupting force as the Seattle colossus.

What Cohen suggests the legal industry do, is think more like Bezos. While technology is a core component to the company, it is only an enabler. Where Amazon excels is with data. That means, law firms must get to know their clients much better, in order to delight them, Cohen explains, and that means everything must be measured. 鈥淵ou need to know your customers better than yourself,鈥� he adds.

Unfortunately, very few law firms are operating under this ideal, according to Cohen.

If you think about the entire beginning-to-end process of engaging with that client, can you anticipate how they may feel through each gate? 鈥淚t鈥檚 about what happens when they buy something,鈥� Cohen states. 鈥淚t鈥檚 how they buy something, what they want, and when they want it.鈥� Ultimately, it is an end-to-end customer experience, and tech is an enabler to make it happen.

And Cohen did warn 鈥� if you read the clouds forming on the horizon 鈥� that Amazon law could enter into the legal industry, noting the company鈥檚 early inroads into legal with its IP Accelerator, a trademark registration arm that automates IP registrations for people and or companies. Cohen also mentioned Amazon Marketplace, where legal technology companies can add their wares to a legal app store to be downloaded and used. That means that even though Amazon isn鈥檛 involved in the practice of law, it is integrating into this space by enabling legal technology as part of delighting customers.

In the second section of their talk, Susskind takes law firms to task on innovation, saying many of them have overpromised and underdelivered. Over the last five years, lawyers have spoken a lot about innovation, he said, but it was often vague as to what that meant. For some firms, innovation means process improvement, for others it means transformation, and for yet others it means marketing.

Susskind outlined 10 features that separate law firms on innovation, placing them in two different camps 鈥� second-generation innovation firms that baked innovation into their planning; and first-generation innovation firms that just want 鈥渜uick wins鈥�.

Here, according to Susskind, is what second-generation firms are doing:

1. Process improvement first, rather than new business models 鈥� Often law firms are thinking of innovation as 鈥減rocess improvement鈥�, but that is not enough. Firms need to think bigger and ask themselves, 鈥淗ow might we reinvent the business model to delight our customers?鈥�

2. Marketing noise rather than progress 鈥� One of the most popular first-generation innovation models is the marketing bullhorn. Many law firms still churn out noisy press releases declaring various 鈥減rocess improvements鈥� as innovation. However, if you pull back the layers, 鈥渢here isn鈥檛 much there,鈥� says Susskind, adding that the focus should be on real innovation, with major steps forward in re-examining their business model.

3. Automation v. transformation 鈥� Automation is certainly popular and important, but transformation is even more critical. In the second-generation mindset, the lens is on the long-term vision for the firm 鈥� and that鈥檚 better for the firm and its clients. With second-generation innovation, the goal is to transform the business and the practice of law.

4. Pilot programs rather than fully operational systems 鈥� Pilot programs are playgrounds to learn, even if many of these pilots never make it beyond the jungle gym. And while that is naturally the case with pilots, Susskind emphasizes that second-generation innovation firms push to go beyond the playground. On this new plain, the goal is to learn and create new fully operational systems.

5. Little impact on figures as compared to serious revenue profits 鈥� Another concept Susskind discusses is the idea that innovation will have little impact on returns. Attorneys tend to believe revenue generated from innovation is inconsequential. Yet, if an organization pursues the second-generation path, there can and will be serious revenue profits from these new approaches if they鈥檙e done thoughtfully.

6. Arguments v. evidence 鈥� Many firms are still in the mindset that they can argue for or against the importance of innovation. Indeed, there are many firms that argue against it. Instead, the focus should be using evidence to support the case for innovation, and that evidence is all around us. However, it needs to be uncovered, cited, and then used to support innovative movements inside the organization.

7. Minority of partners involved rather than majority 鈥� In the early stages of innovation, it is usually the stakeholders that support it, Susskind says, but that is not always enough. When a firm sees the majority of partners actually buy in, that is when the real innovation takes place. Firms need a collective majority.

8. Intellectual grasp, rather than emotional grasp 鈥� In a very relatable narrative, Susskind talks about stakeholders who 鈥済et it鈥� intellectually, but again, that is not enough. As he physically pounded his chest with his fist, Susskind says he knows when firms 鈥済et it鈥� because that鈥檚 when they get emotional about it. You can see that firms leaders feel it in their guts and understand the importance of innovation at its very core. Then they will make sure it is the lifeblood of the organization.

9. Avoiding competitive disadvantage rather than seeking competitive advantage 鈥� In first-generation innovation, firms are generally attempting to hold their own against their competition, Susskind describes. They simply try to emphasis preservation, such as asking, 鈥淗ow can we stay alive in this pitch?鈥� Second-generation innovation means firms are thinking differently, and asking 鈥淗ow can we steal the business from our competition?鈥� The latter is far more aggressive as a result of baked-in firm innovation that came from long-term planning.

10. Preference for short-term 鈥榯actical鈥� v. long-term 鈥榮trategy鈥� 鈥� Most of the firms that are just wrapping their arms around innovation still think in the short term and tend to be more tactical. Instead, firms should be thinking of how they can think differently along a decade-long strategy rather than a year-to-year outlook that鈥檚 focused mainly on profits per partner.

Cohen summarized the landscape in regard to innovation within the legal industry. 鈥淲e are at the foothills now, and our clients are scaling the mountain.鈥� Both Susskind and Cohen agree that most law firms are lagging behind where they should be in transforming themselves through innovation. And they feel that the Amazon ethos of delighting your customers should be emblazoned on the border bezel of every attorney鈥檚 computer.

Indeed, the acceleration of change is only increasing, and law firms face increasing competition from alternative legal service providers (ASLPs), and the Big Four consulting companies. Clearly, the clock is ticking.

鈥淒on鈥檛 wait to change your model when you get pressure to do so by your competition,鈥� Susskind warns. 鈥淚t will be too late.鈥�

Even while full adaptation of AI is still in its infancy in many areas of legal, there are still stories of ethical problems with the use of AI that have bubbled to the surface. These problems 鈥� including embedded biases in AI-spun algorithms, questions over security and privacy, and uncertainty over the role of human judgment 鈥� have made the full deployment of AI and its far-reaching consequences an area of concern. It鈥檚 even created a new field of 鈥渞obo-ethics鈥� and has piqued the interest of and the World Economic Forum.

, Partner Director of Ethics & Society for Microsoft, how important it is to consider the ethical aspect of expanding AI. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 always see what it鈥檚 doing to us,鈥� Lane explains. 鈥淎I tech can be a power multiplier, and it can help people scale very quickly.鈥� However, she adds, algorithms that are trained on lots of data can also include biases within that data which are then reflected in these algorithmic models.

鈥淲ho will be impacted? What are the unintended consequences?鈥� Lane asks. 鈥淯ltimately, it means thinking about responsibility and accountability.鈥�

To further this critical discussion, 成人VR视频 is presenting a session on ethics in AI, as part of on March 10, a half-day event that will feature the latest insights on the future of the legal profession and the impact of the newest legal technology.

The session will highlight why it鈥檚 important to care about AI ethics, noting that collected data always reflects the social, historical, and political conditions in which it was created. 鈥淎rtificial intelligence systems 鈥榣earn鈥� based on the data they are given,鈥� says Milda Norkute, Senior Designer at 成人VR视频 Labs, a team focused on AI innovation that will be presenting tangible examples of how it鈥檚 applying these principles and processes in practice.

You can register here to attend on March 10.

These pre-existing conditions in which the data is collected, along with many other factors, can lead to biased, inaccurate, and unfair outcomes, Norkute explains, adding that this problem only grows as artificial intelligence and related technologies are used to make decisions and predictions in such high-stakes domains as criminal justice, law enforcement, housing, hiring, and education. 鈥淭hese biased outcomes have the potential to impact basic rights and liberties in profound ways,鈥� she says.

Nadja Herger, a Data Scientist at 成人VR视频 Labs, will walk attendees through how the idea of ethics in AI is considered聽throughout the聽design, development and deployment聽process, showing step-by-step how that high-level聽process unfolds.

鈥淔or AI ethics to appropriately be taken into account, it is essential to reflect on its implications at every step of the lifecycle,鈥� Herger says, adding that means including questions such as: What is the impact of an imperfect AI system? Is there bias in our training data? How are users expected to interact with the AI system? How can we show how the AI system came to a certain decision to strengthen a user’s trust?

鈥淚t is essential for corporations to take a proactive approach with these issues, to ensure sustainable, ethical, and responsible use of AI,鈥� she says.

Eric Wood, a partner at the law firm will also discuss the specific impact of AI on companies and law firms in a discussion alongside Norkute and Herger. This session with attendees will examine topics such as creating AI guidelines for your company, how ethical considerations around AI can come up at work, or whether there needs to be stricter regulation of AI.

Overall, the session will address the most crucial issues faced by organizations when dealing with AI. How do you ensure that its use is being done ethically, and not accelerating the biases and problems already inherent in society at large?

Dr. Paola Cecchi-Dimeglio, a behavioral scientist and senior research fellow for Harvard Law School鈥檚 Center on the Legal Profession and the Harvard Kennedy School, that it鈥檚 very important for legal organizations or companies in general to determine why they are using AI in the first place. 鈥淵ou have to remember that with many legal organizations, the data they are looking at is either what is publicly available or data they have gathered from working with their clients. And when artificial intelligence (AI) starts working with this data, it can be a very positive thing for a law firm,鈥� Cecchi-Dimeglio says, noting that this process allows firms to make better decisions about jurisdictions, judges, and client matters in comparable situations.

鈥淏ut problems arise, especially problems with biases, when the organization isn鈥檛 careful about from where it鈥檚 taking its data or about what portion of data it鈥檚 using and not using,鈥� she adds. 鈥淏ecause if you start out with a biased history, you鈥檙e going to have biased results.鈥�

The COVID-19 pandemic also meant that the annual conference was held online this year, rather than in the Old Truman Brewery. However, the London conference still held true to form and doubled in attendance once again. From across the world, more than 4,000 people joined in online 鈥� a cross-section of legal practitioners, legal operations professionals, technologists, legaltech startup leaders, business executives, regulators, and representatives from courts and government 鈥� along with investors and academic professionals. While some may have missed the conference鈥檚 spiritual home in east London, the online version created the opportunity to have an even bigger, more accessible event that featured global speakers, innovative interactive sessions, and even real-life connections.

This year鈥檚 panelists were keen to stress the ubiquitous and digitally connected nature of their work without mentioning the global pandemic, but the semi-official theme of the conference focused on the start of a new decade 鈥� the 2020s 鈥� with a sense of being on the cusp of an uncertain future. To that end, there was also a welcome focus on well-being sessions that offered many different ways to help manage stress for hyper-connected professions and workplaces.

With all the sessions recorded this year, you can still and access the virtual conference. Of particular note, is the presentation What鈥檚 Trending Now? presented by 成人VR视频 Andy Wishart on the state of the market, featuring legal insights gleaned from data taken from 成人VR视频 and Acritas Sharplegal about what your peers and clients are thinking about right now.

Your workspace may be online, but where is your headspace?

Two different conference workshops looked at some of the challenges that arise in digital product design when you can鈥檛 connect in physical space (i.e., put post-it notes up in huddles around a white board). In a session titled, The Trials & Tribulations of Digitizing a Design Sprint, Jason Dunning, senior manager at , talked about the principles of setting up your idea for a design sprint 鈥� a time-constrained risk reduction process 鈥� and why it鈥檚 not just a case of the facilitator sharing screens over Zoom. 鈥淢y preparation list doubles for online鈥� both in terms of the technology and also the behavioral psychology of being 鈥渢ogether alone,鈥� says Dunning.

By contrast, in the Working from Home, Creating Together session, the Eagle Labs team asked us to think about ideation and design thinking as a sport. Finally, Vijay Rathour, the head of the Digital Forensics Group at Grant Thornton, gave a truly eye-opening session on hacker tools and issues to watch for with virtualized architecture.

Show me, don鈥檛 just tell me

Visual learning and presenting attracted a lot of attention this year as people looked more at good design principles, charts, and a generally more user-friendly experience of workflow. Just because lawyers are very good at digesting massive amounts of text doesn鈥檛 mean they wouldn鈥檛 prefer data to be more intuitive too.

Mo Syed and Daniel van Binsbergen, the COO and CEO (respectively) of U.K.-based legaltech company , shared their process for creating a visual playbook in a talk titled, How to Build a Visual Contract Playbook with your Team in 20 Minutes. Playbooks are ways of mapping out the scenarios for a corporate process or a negotiation; and given that they鈥檙e meant to help solve problems, a visual approach should help greatly to literally get everyone on the same page.

Taking the wider-angle lens, the workshop Devil or Darling: Exploring the Power & Potential of Data Visualisation in an Ethics-Conscious World was an important reminder of how pretty images can seduce us away from critical thinking and how best to explain your choices when picking a style.

Understanding the client side

In past conferences we had seen countless examples of how the in-house lawyer is increasingly an innovator, driving changes around procurement, exploring work with outside vendors, or engaging with other professionals in the business. Lawyers in private practice are catching on to this as well. In The New Age of Law Firm & Client Collaboration, Jack Shepherd from Freshfields opened with the provocative statement that lawyers are 鈥減erfectionists, control freaks, and risk averse and鈥� don鈥檛 like revealing gaps in their knowledge.鈥� This combination can make it hard for lawyers to get close to their clients, said Shepherd. His advice? Don鈥檛 guess, feel free to ask, but above all try hard to understand your client鈥檚 world so you can better anticipate their needs.

Indeed, transformation was a real theme of this conference as ideas mature from the back of an envelope (or an email) into an minimum viable product that need testing and more importantly, buy-in. All the sessions and workshops seemed to cover this to some degree, but the so-called Bitesize sessions offered lots of more specific how-to tips and processes if you鈥檙e thinking about how to take legal design principles into your organization.

Picking just a few of these Bitesize nuggets:

• • • Chris Grant and Shara Gibbons, both of Barclays鈥� LawTech unit, gave a talk from the trenches about how they test what clients want;
    • Steve Gong, head of Global Patent Operations, Technology & Tactics at Google, made a compelling argument for how lots of small changes can add up to a whole lot more referencing of .
    • Similarly, Pilot Projects: The Good, the Bad & the Ugly by Rik Nauta, CEO and co-founder of , was the presentation I wish I had seen five years ago; and
    • Outside law and technology, but allied to both, was a fascinating presentation by Dr. Grace Lordan from the London School of Economics on behavioral science that covered issues of resilience, leadership, and group-think which are very relevant when making sure your approach remains human-friendly.

Conclusion

By any measurement, 2020 has been one heck of a year. So far, it has forced change and the need to co-operate upon anyone who still believes in a divide between law and technology. Now, on a daily basis we see that the only things that matter are for solutions to be found, and for us to be kind to people at the other end of a Zoom call who are struggling in much the same way as we are.

Hopefully, those changes will become embedded in the way we tackle problems over the rest of the 2020s.

In the final of a four-part global webinar series,听The Uncertain Decade,听聽brought us of the legal industry, bringing together two of the most respected names in the legal industry 鈥� Mark Cohen, CEO of Legal Mosaic; and Prof. Richard Susskind 鈥� to delve into the how digital transformation impacts the legal function and then peer into the future of legal technology.

The future of legal technology

Machines will dominate the industry, Susskind offered, starting the discussion of what he termed, The First 60 Years, where the legal industry was marked by a time of automation from 1960 to today. While that continues, he emphasized the pivot will be from automation to transformation in the future.

Underscoring this concept, he cited various examples of technology鈥檚 progress, including memory chips becoming cheaper yet larger in capacity, and a 鈥渉uggie bot鈥� that can read human feelings and offer a hug based on perceived emotions of sadness, joy, or comfort.

Concluding with this thought and pushed by exponential growth, Susskind suggested we will see an increasingly capable, pervasive, and connected world pushing legal to change.

Richard Susskind鈥檚 future legal tech

While Susskind raised the concept of virtual reality in legal 鈥� something he said likely will have a significant impact in five to ten years 鈥� he also introduced a tantalizing concept called embedded law. That鈥檚 the idea of placing legal components into everything, Susskind described, drilling into this futuristic idea by discussing how at various times, the law could be baked into the process by being coded into workflow or documentation. Extrapolating out from that, Susskind predicted the legal industry could see algorithms helping to curate current legal guidance. and in turn, the possibility of decisions or recommended advice, also called augmented intelligence. (I would suggest that blockchain may play a significant role in this, especially in the area of .)

It is really about the systems going forward not the lawyer, Susskind said, as Cohen peppered him with questions. Lawyers not close to retirement will have to re-engineer themselves, he explained, adding that at the core of this thought process 鈥渋s how can lawyers deliver the outcomes that clients want.鈥�

With his polite Scottish accent, Susskind further explained that people have been confusing 鈥渙ur services with how we get there and how we have always worked.鈥� While the industry has been about automation for the past several decades, transformation is what will take hold going forward, he noted.

Indeed, law firms have been so keenly focused on the plumbing technology (e.g., accounting, computers, and connections) for the back office that they have missed the boat on technologies to deliver legal advice to their clients and identify dis-intermediaries in the business.

Richard Susskind鈥檚 future machines

In concluding his vision of the future of legal technology, Susskind said we need to 鈥減ut the fence at the top of the cliff rather than the ambulance at the bottom鈥� 鈥� meaning, we should utilize technology to improve the customer experience by providing preventative guidance and information technology.

For example, he said, several law firms have rethought their office lobby to make it more welcoming as a reception area, sharpening a focus on user-centered design and design-thinking enabled by technology. That will be the future, Susskind noted.

Getting practical with digital transformation

Historically, digital transformation has been under discussion in other industries for years, and now, the legal industry is catching up. Indeed, Cohen cited studies by Gartner that show this is the most important function for businesses, immediately followed by finding talent to provide outcomes for new ways of delivering services to clients.

Cohen further defined digital transformation as being 鈥渁bout customers, by finding new ways of gaining access, ensuring customer satisfaction, and not about the latest technology.鈥� Technology is simply an enabler or tool, Cohen explained, adding that data, on the other hand, is monumental.

Lawyers have traditionally used their gut, which will no longer work, he noted, mentioning that findings from McKinsey & Co. show that those organizations that have performed a digital transformation are 鈥�23-times more likely to acquire customers, 6% more likely to retain customers, and 19-times more likely to be profitable.鈥� Digital transformation also has an impact on diversity, collaboration, and the organization鈥檚 ability to culturally adapt, he said, adding that the industry needs to do a much better job of being inclusive of every group 鈥� lawyers, technologists, data analysts, and people of various backgrounds, genders, and ethnicities.

鈥淥thers out there can do what lawyers are doing right now,鈥� Cohen said. 鈥淟awyers must become aware of digital transformation and either adapt to it or be marginalized.鈥� Unfortunately, again citing a Gartner survey, a very small percentage of the legal industry is ready for change, he added. The industry must be open to new paradigms around who is hired, how they鈥檙e educated, and how regulators could get involved as the industry is moved beyond self-regulation.

This is the central question for legal professionals going forward, both panelists contended. How can lawyers prepare themselves for the future of the legal industry and digital transformation? Both agreed that people need to think long and hard about what a legal career will look like in 2030, and what the reality is behind that. If you are winding down your career, you should be fine, they said, but if you are younger, you may want to rethink your role.

The legal industry鈥檚 openness to the full spectrum of people, cultures, legal and non-legal roles, and technologies will be paramount to its future sustainability, they added. And while the horizon could be fabulous for most, in practice, lawyers in the future will be working to enable legal machines, far more so than today. Fighting that concept is inevitable for some, and losing is almost certain. The winners in this legal evolution are those that find a way to adapt.

These industrious neophytes are marshaling services previously owned by the practice of law stewards, dramatically changing the legal landscape. Another avant-garde concept 鈥� that the current legal educational system is misfiring, proving to be generally antiquated and looking for relevance in to 2020s 鈥� is also ascendant.

These sentiments and a rousing discussion of how the legal profession operates around the world were debated on a recent global webinar. In the third of a four-part global webinar series,听The Uncertain Decade,听 again brought Mark Cohen, CEO of Legal Mosaic, and Prof. Richard Susskind to hash out what necessary skills and education for legal professionals will be in the 2020s. They also provided some fireworks with insights into how the legal landscape differs between the United States and United Kingdom 鈥� all as the Fourth of July approaches.

Legal skills & education

The practice of law has begun to shrink, said Cohen. Focusing on both the skills and education necessary to flourish in the 2020s, he mentioned that a fundamental shift to machines is underway, along with the increase use of pseudo-legal professions. These professions do not require law degrees, but can allow professionals to perform many components of the traditional lawyer. In fact, the UK has empowered this movement by creating a formalized rulebook that outlines six types of work for legal professionals; thus, opening the door to other work outside of the six that can be done by non-legal professionals.

Deloitte observed this change, stating that 40% of all legal tasks will be automated by 2030, said Cohen. 鈥淭his is not the end of lawyers, rather a call to re-tune their skills by learning more about business, technology, emotional intelligence, and collaboration all in an effort to reimagine themselves focused on the customer,鈥� he added.

Susskind agreed that machines are going to become increasing capable, leading to a future of automation, rather than human task. He outlined two divergent paths: one where humans compete against those computers; and another where humans help design those systems. He favored the latter, but understands many will align and fight for the former.

Cohen generally agreed. but with a caveat. The law is 鈥渁 noble profession,鈥� Cohen observed, adding that it has many paths, but if people expect the same passage as other generations, 鈥渋t鈥檚 not going to happen.鈥�

Law schools at a crossroads

Law schools are detached from the legal marketplace and therefore will not be the only group educating the legal industry going forward, Cohen claimed, adding that education is more a process than a place, and upskilling will be omnipresent for all parties. As lines blur among industries including data analytics, computer science, and lawyering, legal professionals must understand culture and the diversity of the legal ecosystem, by becoming more aware, embracing, and utilizing new cross-industry models. If not, lawyers will be marginalized.

This is the age of the customer, Cohen noted, and so, legal needs to be better aligned with them.

Susskind agreed, saying that 鈥渘othing has changed in the last 30 years with most law school training.鈥� All of this concerned him deeply, Susskind added, noting that we are not putting in place a pipeline of what we will need in the legal industry going forward.

Indeed, he surmised that if law school fail us, there will be other groups that fill the void, candidly purposing, 鈥淲hy don鈥檛 we get the best person online and bottle that, compared to the our current model of sage on stage, who might just be average?鈥�

Overall, Susskind and Cohen agreed on the education and skill tests for the future workforce, saying that both are integral to the business and they are dismayed by what they are seeing from universities at the moment.

UK v US 鈥� the legal landscape

Framing this conversation about the matchup of jurisdictions, Susskind suggested that we think about this in reference to technology and change, and ask, which side is better prepared? Susskind鈥檚 famous drivers of change include: more for less, new providers in the marketplace, technology, and the newest addition, COVID-19. Through that lens, he spoke about eight areas to determine who is better prepared, the US or UK.

1. 1. 1. Leading law firms 鈥� In the 1980s and 鈥�90s, the US was better positioned; however, in the 2020s the UK is leading the way by using better innovative technologies. There is an arms race among UK firms, which further push those firms toward advancement. UK wins.
      2. General counsel 鈥� Neither country is ahead. In fact, Susskind found that GCs are very conservative and are simply too busy to change, which is likely a result of many coming from the larger conservative law firms. Tie.
      3. Chief operating officers 鈥� These people are responsible for procurement and are typically committed to bringing about change. The theory is that they are well positioned to push law firms harder on costs and use of technology. Susskind said that the US is ahead of the UK by bringing all COOs together in better collaboration, and the US has more of them. US wins.
      4. Court rooms 鈥� This one is a challenge to compare because of jurisdictional variances. However, the UK government is bounds ahead of the US with redesigning the way disputes are resolved. UK wins.
      5. Regulators 鈥� The UK has liberalized many components of the legal system, especially compared to the US. This has brought about heavy use of alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) on a totally different landscape, including venture capital inflows in the UK. UK wins.
      6. ALSPs 鈥� In the UK, the Big 4 accounting firms are clearly ahead in utilization. That said, there is a larger presence in the US of ALSP organizations, which are probably more advanced in the US than in the UK and are used more in the US. US wins.
      7. Legal tech startups 鈥� There is an explosion in both countries, but the difference is that in the UK the emphasis is on service delivery to clients, and in the US, it is on tools for traditional lawyers. Tie.
      8. Law schools 鈥� Both countries are rather lackluster, and much more needs to be done according to Susskind. The UK is slightly less active on change, so the US is a bit better positioned. US wins.

And the Winner? It鈥檚 a draw, 3 to 3, with 2 ties.

At the end of the day, there is not a huge divide between the US and UK in the legal market, said Cohen, adding however, he is envious of the regulation in the UK, which has set up the legal industry there for success.

Both Susskind and Cohen suggested that in the coming years they anticipate a huge inflow of capital into the legal industry by private equity, which could further improve the position the UK.

Not surprisingly, many GCs felt that individual client needs ultimately superseded the ALSP v. law firm rift when looking at the legal landscape beyond the Covid-19 pandemic.

In the second of a four-part global webinar series, The Uncertain Decade, again brought Mark Cohen, CEO of Legal Mosaic, and Prof. Richard Susskind to dissect what clients want and need now and breakdown the hope and hype of ALSPs.

The survey responses from GCs about how they鈥檙e managing their own in-house legal teams caused some eyebrow rising. While the 鈥渨orry of people, cashflow, and uncertainty persist; the newness of remotely running the team, advising the business, and getting law firms responses, have been quite successful,鈥� said Susskind.

Survey results saw general counsel in both the US and the UK in ominous accord 鈥� a majority on both sides of the Atlantic described the level of change from this current crisis as 鈥渟ignificant or massive.鈥�

In another revelation from the survey, UK GCs noted that ALSPs fell short of expectations during the crisis, which contrasted Cohen鈥檚 findings of GCs in the United States where law firms fared poorly and ALSPs flourished. The two panelist grappled to find just rationale for the variance, eventually settling on possible cultural differences. 鈥淢aybe the US is more pragmatical about the relationships,鈥� Cohen suggested, adding that ALSPs in the UK can be subcontractors of law firms where in the US they are often more organic, outside of the Big Four.

Finally, the survey results left the GCs on both continents in ominous accord 鈥� a majority on both sides of the Atlantic described the level of change from this current crisis as 鈥渟ignificant or massive.鈥�

More for less

The idea of getting more quality legal service for less spend is a central theme repeated by Susskind and Cohen, underscoring their overarching thesis for the webinar: Legal operations are paramount. Cost cutting has become table stakes; and now it falls upon the chief operating officers (COOs), to devise new business models, direct and enable innovation, and reluctantly, ruminate about the next calamity. 鈥淟egal expertise used to be the primary focus,鈥� Cohen explained. 鈥淣ow business acumen and technological tools used by operations can help clients.鈥�

Indeed, legal organizations have to reimagine the art of the possible and transform, he added. While the end goal is an elated client, there are far more fluid paths combining 鈥渓ess expensive people using better technology鈥� to achieve that, said Cohen.

A polling of webinar attendees on desired topics of discussion, pivoted Susskind to deliberate on the impact of start-ups on the legal landscape. A few years ago, a few hundred emerged, now there are a few thousand legal technology businesses. Bluntly, he stated that most of these companies will not last as each try to be the next Amazon.

What did surprise him, was the primary focus for these embryonic upstarts, as the majority of these companies endeavor to solve law firm back office functions, Susskind said, adding that the amount of effort focused on helping the client is actually pretty low.

Cohen agreed, saying much can be done in this space to focus on helping those in need of legal services. 鈥淭here is far too much law for those who can afford it, and far too little for those who can鈥檛.鈥�

Both panelists spent a significant amount of time on the question of whether most ALSPs were more hype or hope. For example, Cohen sees the outgrowth of ALSPs as a byproduct of unmet market need. Since the 2008 crisis, ALSPs have led with a different DNA. More business than law firm, they breathe process design, project management, and technology to help their clients. This corporate model, which has 鈥渃ome of age鈥� in the last few years, is providing legal services which are better, faster, cheaper, and more customer-centric, explained Cohen.

Project managers utilize data-centric analysis, to oversee risk management; and what was once thought of as a junior varsity, ALSPs should no longer be seen this way. In fact, based on Net Promoter Scores, these organizations can often prove their value empirically in serving their customer. UnitedLex and Axiom, for example, are poster children for this data-centric service model. Highly competitive, Axiom only engages with one out of every 20 lawyer applicants it receives, and practices law in more than 90 countries, though not in the US. Both companies leverage their corporate structures, allowing flexibility and reinvestment while dismissing the partnership model of law firms, said Susskind.

As they concluded their discussions, both Cohen and Susskind surmised that the focus will always be on the client of course, but how those clients are serviced has changed. Cohen reminisced that once 鈥渓awyers had to practice or leave,鈥� but now they need to meld many different components together, such as technology, operations, and analytics.

Susskind ended with his impassioned beliefs on mindset shifts, suggesting that lawyers have to be open to new things, be entrepreneurs, musicians, and artisans. They should not assume that everything will look like it looks today.

Tomorrow鈥檚 lawyers must try to avoid their traditional mindset trap 鈥� that 鈥渢he best is the enemy of the good,鈥� said Susskind, adding that perfection at the cost of agility and creativity is no longer sustainable.

In the first of a three-part global webinar series, The Uncertain Decade, sought to shed some light on these questions, bringing together two of the most respected names in the legal industry 鈥� Mark Cohen, CEO of Legal Mosaic, and Prof. Richard Susskind 鈥� to delve into how law firms, courts, and the general population are facing unprecedented legal challenges in the current crisis environment.

Cohen began with a historical perspective about the COVID-19 crisis, citing four previous transformative events after which the legal community bounced back, with one exception. The global financial crisis that began in 2008 permanently altered the way law firms function and interact with clients.

Such transformative events force law firms to reconsider the traditional model of work, birthing a 鈥渘ew era of legal operations,鈥� said Cohen. Historically, what stood out is what failed to change, he explained, adding that law schools and the courts returned to normal, greatly unaffected by the financial crisis.

Why is now different?

Now, however, the reckoning has arrived. In a matter of weeks, law schools converted to online education, something they had resisted for more than a decade. Courts too, have begun to adjust adapting latent technology that had emerged from 鈥渙ther industry use鈥� to their new reality. 鈥淚t simply needed to be turned on,鈥� said Cohen, adding that ultimately, these older components 鈥� physical classrooms, some in-person courts, and in-person client meetings, are no longer necessary.

It is 鈥渁 bright light being shined on how we can do things differently in legal,鈥� he said.

When asked how much of the physical nature of the practice of law do we really need now, Cohen pointed out that the entire legal workforce became a remote workforce almost overnight and in general, it seems to be working.

What is the impact to industry components?

The bellwether for change is the general counsel, Cohen continued, adding that GCs have already been doing more with less for a time now 鈥� truly being 鈥減roactive enterprise defenders.鈥� Now, all legal service providers and vendors need to look toward the GC and senior legal teams because they are 鈥渓iving law鈥檚 future.鈥�

Cohen then broke down the industry components into four main areas:

Consumers 鈥� Individuals in need of legal counsel are driving change. There is increased access to information and platforms where data is available, and that鈥檚 driving process. People will now make decisions based on competency, metrics, and expertise as data accessibility is universal and process is increasingly coveted.

Academia 鈥� The universities will need to rethink their curricula. Education is a lifelong pursuit, and newer programs will need to incorporate many disciplines beyond the classics, including marketing, technology, and business.

Legal Service Providers 鈥� Cohen said for legal providers, the main theme is an emphasis on customer-centric models, more than ever before. While new solutions will be data-driven, it is about vendors learning and understanding more deeply about the customer and thereby driving more value to them.

Courts 鈥� In the short term, 鈥渃ourts have been crippled,鈥� said Cohen. He then brought up a concept using the Chinese word for crisis 鈥� 奥茅颈箩墨, explaining that crisis has two meanings in Chinese, 鈥渄anger鈥� and 鈥渙pportunity鈥�. The courts and associated lawyers find themselves in 奥茅颈箩墨 at the moment. The courts now are paralyzed, of course, but they could seize the opportunity and transform the entire industry with intelligent adoption of technology and process.

On the state of the market

For his part, Prof. Susskind views the current legal market conditions in several phases. Initially, the legal industry had to mobilize to enable work to be produced. Currently, he sees this lockdown phase as a test which provides an inordinate amount of valuable data. In his grander vision, we have an impromptu Proof of Concept at hand, Susskind observed. 鈥淲e should be capturing as much data as possible and seeing which innovations could work going forward鈥� during this lockdown, he explained. Eventually the third phase, emergence will come; however, this will be complicated by a bifurcated marketplace of individuals empowered to return to the office and those forbidden from doing so. Fundamentally, legal work be done differently going forward, and face-to-face interactions may no longer dominate, Susskind said.

While most managers in the legal sphere are focused on the here-and-now, Susskind argued that people 鈥渘eed to be looking at the long term and asking themselves to what extend have things really changed?鈥�

For example, Susskind noted the absence of recent artificial intelligence chatter and believes that the urgency of AI might will die down for the next 18 months. Since AI is less tangible for most day-to-day operations, it makes sense that it could fade as a focus for law firms and the courts.

Indeed, all the current attention in the legal industry surrounds basic technology that enables job function. While the future of people working from home with basic technology has arrived, it is built on a 鈥渉ouse of cards鈥� and 鈥渟tuck together with bubblegum,鈥� stated Susskind. The legal industry will endeavor for practical secure and permanent work from home (WFH) solutions; and therefore, the more nebulous, dreamier innovations that might on day again push the limits of the law and technology are on hold for now.

The call for remote courts

What was thought to have been a 10-year plan to move the world鈥檚 antiquated court system to a remote one actually only took a few weeks, said Susskind. Now, he said his preoccupying thought remains: Is a court is a service or a place? And if the latter, do we really need that place?

To that end, courts around the world have morphed into three possible types: Audio, where some of the events are either entirely or partially access by telephone; Video, which mirrors audio in its use; and lastly, Paper, which still requires submissions to the court be in written form and the judges respond in kind.

The early evidence of these new court systems are very positive. To the surprise and skepticism of many, 鈥渋t seems to be generally working,鈥� said Susskind, adding that people were distrustful of this shift, as we have seen little change on this front in more than 150 years.

Rapid transformation is upon us, Cohen and Susskind agreed. In a matter of weeks, the legal industry experienced more change than it had in previous decades. The light is bright on how things can be done in legal, but much more data needs to be digested to see the resulting outlines of the industry鈥檚 still murky future.