Zach -- Were you at the same talk I was?

We said:

1. Law firms are rapidly embracing Legal OnRamp because they see the value, and that most law firms will successfully evolve to deliver more value to their clients.

2. Law is a social profession, so a social architecture is very appropriate and rooted in the history and best traditions of the profession.

3. In law and other fields, social endeavors (ranging from the Oxford English Dictionary to Restatements) are used to create the most intellectually complex work.

4. Technology is not a silver bullet, but judicious use of technology can better align firms and clients, reducing costs, improving value and enhancing everyone's satisfaction.

5. While the first instantiations of these types of systems are in informal, highly open places like Facebook, they can also be deployed in secure, private, single client or single client-firm spaces.

6. These changes are evident in nearly every field but law, they are inevitable in law, and that failure to think seriously about and appropriately manage change is the opposite of being risk-averse, but is in fact very risky.

If someone wants to learn more (and they otherwise meet our membership criteria), we have all the presentations up in a Legal OnRamp Group and can provide access.

Thanks Paul

The practice of law is evolving; it’s no longer enough to make the best argument; the successful lawyer of the future will have to be able to understand and marshal the latest technology. Already it is impossible to handle discovery without use of sophisticated scanning and search tools. It is not possible to fight piracy or counterfeiting without the use of proper technology. Hourly billing is reflective of an era where the product paid for was the lawyer’s ability; today lawyers have to invest in and offer services that combine their ability with the right technology. The market demands it and will eventually pay the right price for it. The question is: what is the right price? Law is not the only industry where professionals are struggling to find a more suitable valuation model to the current practice. Look at medicine, where doctors have to invest in technologies and high malpractice premiums and in return charge these back. Fixed fees are great, but how do you measure them? Contingencies based on outcome may be one solution, but Western legal tradition frowns on contingencies (notice that investment bankers have no qualms with contingencies but lawyers who represent the investment bankers never agree to a contingency based arrangement and are all the poorer as a result).

Social networking sites not only provide a venue where lawyers can discuss the latest and most suitable technology but the social networking site itself is one of the technologies that can assist lawyers in their practice. How do you prevent a cyber squatter in the Ukraine who has copied your client’s website and is spamming your client’s customers? Starting with the right technology to unmask the squatter may be a start, but then what? Perhaps working with a colleague in the Ukraine or a lawyer who has dealt with a similar situation may be the answer. That lawyer is unlikely to be at the local country club but he or she may just pop up on the social networking site. It is no longer a choice; lawyers, whether solo or in mega firms must be able to advise and assist clients that do business in a technical, global world. Social networking sites will allow the correct kind of networking. That Alan & Overy was the sponsor of this event, confirms this.

I very much appreciated Rosemary Martin's perspectived on innovation. We in the in house world see our businesses completely transform their client value proposition, product suite and service delivery model on a regular basis to meet the demands of the market. Is the problem with the 'market' (ie, us - those who are the primary customers of the law firms)? Are we not clear enough about what we need, such that the firms know how to react? Maybe there isn't one clear path to innovation in the law world. In our business, diversified financial services, we use a lot of different models depending on the nature of the legal services needed and the best delivery model. We do everything from personal lending and bank accounts, right though to investment banking, structured products, mutual funds, global private banking, traditional brokerage, and so on. In some areas which favour high volume and standardization of processes, the firms (just a few) handle the whole thing, and have created web based solutions for our bankers in which the lawyers actually do the work on the system in full view of the client, which makes it all so much more efficient for the bankers - and the law firms. Very creative. In other areas, we have flat fee arrangements, in others simple discounts and rigorous demand management by the inhouse lawyers, and so on. Different strategies for different areas. So, speaking for myself, if our firms can't see on clear 'ask' from us - other than 'see the world through our eyes and be creative with us in developing solutions’ - its probably because there is no one single solution. It all depends . . . as lawyers love to say.

I would add a few key take-away points that can be gleened from the presentations:

1) To remain competitive in the global economy, our businesses are adopting productivity improvements at a much faster rate than the legal profession has. This includes process, technology and communication.

2) That imperative has migrated to corporate legal departments, who in turn are pressing law firms to join them in improving legal productivity and meeting company mandates.

3) Law firms, having achieved so much success with the historical approach, have been slower to embrace these changes -- especially since they've been hearing the "siren call" for years, but not much has really changed.

4) But it's fair the say that the "change curve" will be very steep in the coming years (as opposed to linear and gradual). As clients continue to develop better tools to measure and differentiate law firm performance and productivity, there will be tremendous oppourtunity for pioneering firms who best serve client needs in this new era.

5) Legal OnRamp, the Practical Law Company and similar organizations are poised to significantly influence this evolution by presenting a new way of collaborating and assessing the traditional processes.

6) Bottom line -- we are on the cusp of real change ahead, which is both exciting and unsettling, depending upon your perspective.