Having got going with my Blog during December and January by publishing my own content, in the last week or so, I have begun the process of trying to get into the discipline of commenting on the content of others. This to me seems only fair. As I will be delighted if my reflections are read by others, so it seems only fitting to give feedback in return for their interest in you. The trick I now wish to learn is getting words from mind to page quickly and coherently as I read my news aggregator and while the thoughts are fresh in my head. So here goes.
One of many great posts this week was Future Gazing from Rob Millard’s The Adventure of Strategy. While the following may seem a little far-fetched, as Rob himself acknowledges, it does serve to challenge how existing law firms might get from where they are today to a point in the future where they are still in business and still doing well. With the Clementi changes that the UK’s new Legal Services Act will bring when it come into force, all bets about the future are off, save the legal landscape will be dramatically changed. Here is my post to Rob.
“Hello Rob,
Read your Future Gazing "hot off the press" and it struck many chords, given my time in private legal practice in the
1. Coincidentally today, my subscription to FT.com included in my daily Media and Internet email distribution a topical article called 'Novel ideas in the case for legal change', in which the US's very own Ernie The Attorney is quoted. The FT says that it is going to be expanding its Innovative Lawyers report, which it did last year. Watch this space.
2. How do busy lawyers find the time to think ahead even one year, let alone ten or more as you have? I have often wondered how many law firms have an active 'R&D' unit, which constantly thinks how things might be done differently in the future. Is such a concept indeed even compatible with the traditional style of law practice, regardless of size of firm, or only the preserve of a special few? You may have a view or even the odd case study to share.
3. Generational differences, plus the rising economic power of many countries (India, which has been all over the UK legal press in recent months, China, and also the expansion in number of European countries (with the migration within Europe of raw and cheaper intellectual human capital) all spring readily to mind), suggests firms need an active 'cell' of partners and employees within their firms charged with the task of radical and innovative thinking. Such a cell would span the spectrum of ages, but be small and agile enough, and of sufficiently creative tendencies, to spark the creation of new knowledge and new paths of doing business, and to have sufficient influence with the management of the day to experiment within broad parameters of scope and authority.
4. In concluding, I pose this question. Are HR departments (at the behest of the senior and managing partners) actively seeking to identify the set of human characteristics and skills that might be combined together to create such a unit, which might, just might, really deliver in spades for the firm? I am guessing the annual partners' weekend is neither the time nor the place to carry out such important work, though it would be the place to hear from the cell itself."