\n<\/p>\n
\u201cThe future is already here\u2014it\u2019s just not very evenly distributed\u201d observed William Gibson<\/a>, the noted science fiction writer. He was not referring to the legal industry but could have been. While there is no shortage of self-proclaimed \u201cdisruptors,\u201d \u201cinnovators,\u201d and \u201cvisionaries\u201d in the legal space, the industry is a digital laggard<\/a>, misaligned with the needs of business and society.<\/p>\n Law is an analog function in a digital world.<\/p>\n Why is the legal industry clutching the short end of the future stick? After all, lawyers are highly educated, trained to think critically, and \u00a0high- achievers. They have well above-average IQ\u2019s, are focused, and have a strong work ethic. Most are aware of the convergence of \u00a0macroeconomic changes<\/a> that are transforming lives, business, and the planet. Can the myth of legal exceptionalism, hubris, and other denial mechanisms convince lawyers that what they do is somehow immune to these seismic changes? For some it can. Others, notably many legal \u201cleaders,\u201d are either \u201ctoo busy to change\u201d and\/or unclear about how.<\/p>\n The lawyer mindset has been forged by legal education<\/a>, indoctrination, and time served in the profession. Most lawyers have been economically rewarded and, until recently, have seldom been questioned about how, why, with whom, and at what cost they deliver their services. Until recently, lawyers sold to other lawyers, so buyers and sellers had a tacit understanding not to question the process. Law\u2019s insularity has produced a cosmetic brand of legal change that is more for show and internal efficiency than paradigmatic change that positively impacts clients, business, and society. That <\/em>is what will raise the curtain on law\u2019s future.<\/p>\n The legal profession\u2019s collective stasis raises several ethical issues. Lawyers commit<\/a> \u201cto seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession.\u201d They swear an oath<\/a> to protect and defend the Constitution in all situations.<\/em> They also commit<\/a> \u201cto improve the law and the legal profession and to exemplify the legal profession\u2019s ideals of public service.\u201d Discharging client and societal obligations are the cornerstones of the profession and what it means to be a lawyer. So too is service<\/em> to clients and society. Many lawyers are not discharging these non-delegable duties, and the profession is failing to take concerted action to ensure that they do.<\/p>\n Lawyers Embrace Change\u2014For Others<\/strong><\/p>\n Lawyers are not resistant to transformative change provided that it does not involve their professional activities<\/em>. Most lawyers \u00a0have embraced transformative change as consumers but continue to resist it as providers of legal services. Why do lawyers make data-backed decisions, rely on peer reviews, gravitate to companies that value transparency and consistently provide superior end-to-end customer experience as buyers but resist the application of those practices to their professional roles? Why do they patronize disruptive-model companies but not emulate what they like about them as lawyers?<\/p>\n There are many explanations: mindset<\/a>, culture,<\/a> legal education\u00a0<\/a>and indoctrination, greed, short-term horizons, fear of redundancy, hubris, the myth of legal exceptionalism, and professional blinders (myopia), to cite a few. Lawyers are trained to adhere to precedent and to avoid making \u00a0mistakes, not to challenge paradigms and innovate.<\/p>\n Law has operated like a professional cult; it is insular, homogeneous, lives by its own standards and rules, controls admission, and has resisted influence of the \u201coutside\u201d world (\u201dnon-lawyers). Lawyers have been ingrained they are uniquely qualified to determine what is a \u201clegal\u201d problem, how it should be managed, valued, and billed. \u00a0They have used self-regulation<\/a> to thwart competition, proscribe ownership, and retain control over not only the practice of law, but also the business of delivering legal services.<\/p>\n Law\u2019s future has been delayed by the legal profession, not by the absence of tools, resources, and a digital transformation roadmap. What other trillion-dollar industry shares law\u2019s dearth of performance metrics<\/a> and standards, transparency, lack of data agility, collaboration, multidisciplinary workforces, innovation \u00a0fragmentation, and customer-centricity<\/a>?<\/p>\n Law\u2019s legacy stakeholders\u2014tenured law school faculty, firm partners, regulators, and the judiciary\u2014have staid the legacy course, each operating separately\u2014not collaboratively\u2014in its own self-interested fashion. \u00a0They have been the judge and jury of their own performance and have, over time, lost sight of the purpose of law and lawyers, not to mention its social compact with society. The legal industry as a whole <\/em>has failed to coalesce around its purpose and to adapt\u2014using available resources\u2014 to the changing needs of its customers and society. Law is not an ecosystem; it is a collection of fiefdoms. In a world with challenges that require scalable solutions, law remains artisanal.<\/p>\n The legal profession\u2019s purpose\u00a0<\/a>has been shrouded in hubris, self-interest, and greed. It is manifest in its institutional stasis that has not served the profession, clients, or society well. This has contributed to an erosion of the rule of law\u00a0<\/a>and a\u00a0threat to democracy<\/a>. The legal profession is well-aware of its \u201cwicked problems\u201d but has failed to take concerted action to address them. Here is a partial list of those unmet challenges.<\/p>\n The foregoing problems have metastasized because of neglect, a patchwork of ineffective palliatives, complacency, and a fragmented collection of legal factions unable to coalesce even as to their purpose. These challenges are no longer law\u2019s headaches; they are incapacitating societal migraines. That is one of many reasons why business<\/a> is taking the reins and will lead the legal function into the future.<\/p>\n Business Will Usher Law Into The Future<\/strong><\/p>\n If lawyers do not lead the legal function\u2019s future, business will. Business is pragmatic. It is keenly aware of the threat that climate change, war, social upheaval, and other geopolitical risk places on supply chains, the ability to conduct business, and the stability of capital markets. It has a vested interest not only to protect its workforce, but also its shareholders and the societies it operates in. The legal function should play a key role in preserving respect for the rule of law, honoring contracts and trade agreements, and a host of other commercial functions. Without the assistance of business, it may not to be up to the task. That is why business engages in \u201ccommercial diplomacy\u201d and other measures to backstop Governments and lawyers.<\/p>\n This is not to suggest that business minimizes the importance of law. To the contrary, it is beginning to recognize the latent potential of the legal function. It no longer regards law as a self-contained \u201clegal\u201d resource operating as a cost-center<\/a>. Instead, business sees law as a business function\u2014part of a larger enterprise whole\u2014 comprised of \u00a0integrated, data-sharing business units.<\/p>\n Business is encouraging\u2014in some instances demanding\u2014legal teams to operate proactively, predictively, quickly<\/a>, efficiently, collaborativel<\/a>y, and in data-backed fashion. The expectation is that the legal function will morph from self-contained cost center to collaborative catalyst for enterprise and customer value<\/a> creation. .<\/p>\n This is law\u2019s future. It\u2019s not as far off as some might think. For example, a recent study by The Digital Legal Exchange\u00a0<\/a>revealed the C-Suite is expanding its remit for legal beyond financial and operational issues. The research found that 97% of business respondents said they wanted the legal function\u2019s success metrics to be aligned with business goals. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of business respondents said it is important\/extremely important for legal to create revenues and new market opportunities.<\/p>\n To achieve the elevated expectations of business, the legal function must undergo a mindset change. Legal must function as an integrated team internally and with its supply chain. Then, it must integrate, with other business units that have already begun their digital journey. That transition requires the legal function to replace its insular lawyer-dominated, narrow \u201clegal\u201d role with a far broader, business and customer-oriented, multi-disciplinary, cross-functional one. The transition requires a holistic, end-to-end re-imagination of the legal function from the enterprise, end-user, and societal perspectives<\/em>. That means asking questions such as:<\/p>\n \u201cWhat do customers and society expect from the legal function and what\u00a0differentiated\u00a0<\/a>role can we play?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWhat kind of talent do we need to meet and exceed those expectations?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWhat kind of culture and workplace must we create to attract the talent we need?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWhat is our purpose and how do we create a culture that will attract, retain, and up-skill<\/a> a digital workforce<\/a>, supply chain, and strategic partnerships necessary to drive positive business impact and experience for our customers? \u201d<\/p>\n The legal function\u2019s latent value will be extracted when it ceases to operate in isolation and aligns with the enterprise and its customers. The end result will be a legal team that collaborates with and positively impacts numerous business units across the enterprise (like technology). The legal function will help to detect, deter, mitigate, and accelerate solutions to business challenges and capture opportunities. It will be a proactive, positive force in the enterprise, not a reactive, \u201cdepartment of no.\u201d<\/p>\n Driving impact to business and its customers is one part of law\u2019s future. The other is the reclamation of its purpose to better serve clients, those in need of its products and services, society, and the rule of law. Paradoxically, law\u2019s transformation will take it back to its service and \u201chigher purpose\u201d roots.<\/p>\n Law\u2019s impact on its clients and society will be driven by human behavior and adaptation. It will be enabled and scaled by technology, data, process, agility, integration of law with other functions, multidisciplinary collaboration, customer-centricity, and a commitment to constant improvement for the benefit of clients and society. These change components are inter-connected and interdependent. Law\u2019s future is a mosaic, not a disparate collection of isolated elements.<\/p>\n Conclusion <\/strong><\/p>\n The legal maxim \u201cJustice delayed is justice denied\u201d is apropos. To further delay law\u2019s future is to deny society a reimagined legal function that will better serve us all and the democracy<\/a> so many take for granted.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Author\u2019s Postscript<\/strong><\/p>\n No discussion of the future of law would be complete without reference to Richard Susskind, \u201claw\u2019s Nostradamus.\u201d He has written and spoken on the topic insightfully, provocatively, and engagingly for decades. Susskind\u2019s work has been published in 18 languages, and he is the world\u2019s most cited author on the future of legal service (IBA Research, 2017). The Third Edition of his bestselling \u201cTomorrow\u2019s Lawyers\u201d is coming out in February,<\/p>\n\n