Dare to adapt, innovate and be inspired
As layoffs continue to sweep through Wall Street I got to thinking about our legal world and the movie Indecent Proposal.
There’s a thought-provoking and inspiring line spoken by Demi Moore at the very start of the film. She is reflecting on her (film) husband’s view that 'a life without risk is like no life at all'.
I agree. To truly experience living, and not merely existing throughout our careers, business and life, the progressive evolutionary dynamics of our present decade (and beyond for that matter) are compelling us to get out of our comfort zones, to dare to be different and ultimately, to re-invent ourselves.
In a climate of fear, low morale and the unknown - something we’re all (arguably) dealing with right now - I reckon we need to adapt, innovate and feel inspired by both the finger biting challenges and extraordinary opportunities staring us in the face.
But to do this we will need to take some risks.
Why? Because disruptive forces are sweeping through the entire globe; in particular, the technology world, finance world, political world, business world and legal world (law law land) right now. I also believe and agree with Robin Sharma (a leadership expert and author) that success is driven via evolution versus revolution: 'small daily innovations stack up into stunning results over the passage of time'.
I tweeted this recently which attracted the following response from Professor Richard Susskind: 'Good quotation. I call this "incremental revolution" or "incremental transformation",' (@richardsusskind 11th Aug 2011).
We need to get a grip. We actually need to take complete control of our personal destinies, make the bold choices necessary and ultimately embrace the topsy-turvy changes occurring in our crazy world. Bottom line... we need to continually innovate (more so now than ever) because the world is always innovating. We need to re-invent ourselves and thereby make the transformation required to make a lasting success of our careers, businesses and lives now and in the years to come.
IMHO Susskind’s view sits nicely with that of Whatify’s when reporting on a news source which suggests that there are only three kinds of innovation remaining (Whatify newsletter, 17 Aug 2011); a welcome revelation no doubt for those of us with bad memories or those of us who don’t have time to explore the other five.
The three kinds of innovation are as follows:
1) Incremental Innovation: that is, doing what we have to, to keep existing products up to date. Apparently, many consumer goods companies tend to spend more than half of their innovation budgets on incremental innovations simply because they lack the ability to systematically scan the market for the most attractive opportunities and develop winning ideas to capitalise on them.
Question: does the average law firm and its leaders even scan the market for opportunities and encourage their lawyers to develop ideas, never mind have an innovation budget? Answer: moot.
2) Platform Innovation: this is about coming up with a completely new product. Coke Zero is a good example where the focus here is to grow the innovator’s market share by giving customers a reason to switch from a competitor brand. Now, this is an interesting type of innovation, particularly in the present UK legal market place where we’re seeing strong consumer brands, for example, Tesco, the Co-Operative and AA (to name a few) and new brands such as QualitySolicitors and Face2Face Solicitors enter the legal playing field.
It’ll be interesting to see whether their propositions are compelling enough to entice customers away from their existing legal advisers and how much existing and latent market share these brands mop up.
3) Breakthrough Innovation: this is where we come up with a 'market-changing innovation', for example, the iPad. The test seems to be '…delivering new benefits to customers and creating a new market that the innovator can dominate for some time'. Online legal document services (including legal advice) such as Epoq, Rocket Lawyer, Law Pivot and Legal Zoom spring to mind here.
I am not at all surprised that such groundbreaking innovations can attract staggering amounts of venture capital from the likes of Google Ventures (as in the case of Rocket Lawyer). Only last year Mark Zuckerburg (founder of Facebook) said that over the next five years or so social networking will make it possible to 'pick any industry and rethink it'. Question: could this mean the legal industry? Answer: it’s happening now.
There is an excellent blog post by Jordan Furlong (Canadian legal commentator and award-winning blogger) who looks at these market-changing innovators. Jordan suggests that from now on, lawyers’ and law firms’ profitability hinges completely on what we choose to do and how we choose to do it. I would add that the real game change at play here with regard to profitably will be WHY lawyers’ and law firms’ choose to do what and how they do it.
WHY sits at the very core of an entrepreneurial law firm’s purpose and the very soul of an entrepreneur lawyer’s raison d’etre.
Accordingly, I suspect that the new game change players will be even more discerning and passionate in their focus and drive for delivering extraordinary customer service. They know that focusing on THEM, i.e. the customer – first, last always – by investing in their people – first, last, always – that the bottom line (profit) will naturally take care of itself.
I would argue that in law law land we’re witnessing survival of the fittest as the strong firms grow stronger and the weak firms weaker largely due to the ‘fittest’ firms adapting to the disruptive forces and competitor ‘disruptors’ by continually innovating. Leading law firms and their innovative leaders are resetting their strategies by taking bold moves.
The key areas ripe for innovating which I believe we should consider that will be fundamental to future firm success and individual success is as follows:
Our law firm business model and umbrella strategy
I read a fascinating, brilliant and entertaining blog post recently by Professor Stephen Mayson entitled Breaking News: Humpty Dumpty Falls Off Wall in which Stephen suggests that the traditional law firm model is well and truly scrambled. I reckon it’s fried.
Sadly, it’s taken a global economic nose-dive off a cliff, smart liberalisation in the form of legal reforms (Legal Services Act 2007 and alternative business structures) and switched on entrepreneurial global venture competitors to prompt traditional law firms and their lawyers to start writing new messages on Humpty’s wall.
As Stephen shares with the reader his expertise on the subject it is apparent there can be a sunny-side up for those firms and individuals who are prepared to re-invent their model and strategies; which in essence, IMHO, is what the strong firms and individuals have done and will continue to do.
Our technology
This is a massive topic in and of itself so I think I will leave this for a future blog post. Suffice to say I reckon Professor Richard Susskind can smile after twenty years of preaching as he begins to witness that his beliefs, research, teachings and drive for a technologically savvy and online legal world is actually coming to fruition.
Hey-ho, we’re getting there in the end, even if some of us are frothing around in the wake whilst others are surfing ahead.
Our marketing and sales strategy
Most firms still allocate prime responsibility for winning new customers and keeping existing clients to the partners and allocate ‘marketing the firm’ as the prime responsibility of the marketing, brand, communications or business development person and/or department; an individual pumping out ‘marketing and PR messages’ about the firm behind the corporate veil. It’s neither engaging nor interesting to the recipient.
Potential and existing buyers of legal advice want to engage with individual lawyers so the lawyer being visible, available and engaging to the seeker is of paramount importance.
It’s time to turn the traditional top down triangle marketing mantra upside down to capitalise on each and every lawyer’s social capital and human capital; two of four essential pillars in a law firm’s make-up which Stephen Mayson highlighted five years ago in his book Law Firm Strategy.
Let’s encourage and support everyone in marketing the firm by re-inventing and marketing themselves. Devise a niche, create your 'Brand, Me' and have EVERYONE embrace new innovative tools such as social media and social networking in order to attract and keep more customers through efficient and effective relationship marketing.
Our core purpose
It appears that at the very core of the successful firm and individual lies passion, energy and enthusiasm for their clients. Integrated Legal Holdings (ILH) and Slater & Gordon (Slaters), the only two law firms in the world that have listed on a stock exchange (to date) are testament that taking a gamble, focusing on innovation and delivering extraordinary client service and care actually pays large corporate dividends.
Andrew Grech, managing director of Slaters, an Australian law firm that became the first law firm in the world to be listed on the stock exchange in May 2007 reveals his secret to success when interviewed by author Simon Tupman in Legal Eagles.
Legal Eagles profiles 16 innovative and visionary lawyers from around the globe who are changing people’s lives and making a difference in the world; they offer candid insights into their careers and share the secrets of their success. Their stories dispel many myths about the legal profession and prove that lawyers can, and do, make the world a better place.
Andrew said: 'Good lawyers care; they give a damn... to be successful, you have to be passionate about the work you are doing for your clients.'
For the financial year ending 30 June 2011, Slaters announced net profits of $27.9 million (up 40.9%).
ILH has recorded a 51 per cent increase in profit after tax for the 2011 financial year. Graeme Fowler, managing director, told Lawyers Weekly that the 'results were realised through a combination of getting the basics right... and continued business improvement'.
As the Legal Services Act 2007 swings into full action in England in the ensuing months I believe the ambitious and innovative firms in the UK can look to these successful Australian firms for inspiration which have proven that raising external finance via a stock exchange listing (taking a bold move) and adapting their strategies to be totally client-centric does indeed come up trumps.
Even Baker & McKenzie - the world's largest law firm by turnover, where average profit per equity partner rose by seven per cent, to $1.2m - chairman Eduardo Leite says: 'The most important metric is client recognition and that's what we're focusing on. Higher profits and revenue should be the consequence of better client service.'
The Lawyer recently reported (15th August 2011) that the number of firms where partners earn more than £1m has sky-rocketed. What’s interesting and encouraging is the diversity of firms; there are magic circle firms, silver circle stalwarts, niche boutiques and all manner of firms in between.
Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) and SJ Berwin were the standout performers among the City firms in 2010-11. Both posted drastic increases in profitability. At BLP, average profit per equity partner (PEP) was up 57 per cent from £455,000 to £712,000. According to Neville Eisenberg, managing partner, the 2010-11 impressive result was down to investing during the downturn and that the majority of the firm’s increased revenue was due to improving its standing with existing clients so they give the firm more work across a more diverse range of sectors.
Question: what was the end result? Answer: no less than a big fat turbo boost to the bottom line.
If we are to question how and why BLP has been so successful in scooping up a plethora of awards over the past 11 years, including most recently, The Lawyer magazine’s ‘Law Firm of the Year 2010’, we only need to take on board Neville Eisenberg’s professional opinion that 'Law firms are not innovative enough' (and thereby ensuring that BLP differentiates itself from competitors by being innovative) and his personal view that 'there is a need to keep inspired and to continually challenge yourself' (Legal Eagles, 2010).
The innovative moves shown by the likes of Slaters, ILH, BLP, Baker & McKenzie, Epoq, Rocket Lawyer etc (amongst others) reminds me of a telling opinion and quote by Robin Sharma: 'Smart leaders show up on time. The best leaders show up early.'
The same rings true for innovators.
In The Naked Lawyer eBook I ask the reader to question where they would rate themselves from one to 10 on the PEE Poor Work Ethic Continuum (PEE = Passion, Energy & Enthusiasm) in relation to the PEE they have for their role, job, career, clients, people and in other respects. Where do you think you and/or your firm would sit right now?
Our mindset – I reckon some of us could do with a paradigm shift lobotomy. We need to rid ourselves of the fear of failure, our aversion to risk-taking and to change. Ideally we could do with cultivating an environment which loves idea generation. Serial innovators like Google give employees time to explore ideas, even when some of those ideas turn into massive failures, writes Tim Harford in Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure.
Why shouldn’t law firms take on board the same innovative strategy? One thing’s for sure, there’s a reason Google Ventures has backed Rocket Lawyer. Traditional law firms had better be prepared to compete with new entrants who do love to encourage, support and reward their employees in idea generation. As John F. Kennedy once said, 'we need men who can dream of things that never were'. Are you that man?
Chris Marston, CEO Exemplar Law, another visionary legal eagle lawyer named in Legal Eagles feels that 'our industry is plagued by too little push for change'.
He defies the norm and he and his Boston based law firm continually innovate to the extent that he is proud to say that 'some lawyers seem to think offering a service guarantee is risky. In our history we have not had a single customer take us up on this'.
Personally, I came to the conclusion a few years ago that I needed to adapt, innovate and feel inspired by the wonderful opportunities in our present and future. I confess, it was largely because I did not (and do not) wish to end up Fat, Forty & Fired or Overworked and Underlaid – any combination of these for that matter; leading themes in two excellent books that I have enjoyed reading recently by author Nigel Marsh.
I re-invented myself and transformed a whole bunch of stuff in my career, business and life to ensure that I would be in control of my own destiny (arguably, mutiny) and never be tempted to accept an Indecent Proposal of the kind we find in the movie’s core theme. Those of you who have watched the movie know exactly what I mean.
With Demi Moore’s touching line 'a life without risk is like no life at all' in Indecent Proposal, Humpty Dumpty’s Fallen Off The Wall blog post by Stephen Mayson and Richard Susskind’s ‘incremental transformation’ tweet rattling around in my legal beagle mind I find myself inspired to aspire to become a legal eagle (as documented by author Simon Tupman in his book Legal Eagles) who is prepared to take some more risks to ensure that I live a truly fulfilling life.
Can you say the same?
If you find yourself in a place like Mick Jagger where you just 'can’t get no satisfaction' then may I respectfully suggest the following? Re-invent and transform yourself... dare to adapt, innovate, feel inspired and 'don't wait for the light to appear at the end of the tunnel... go down there and light the bloody thing yourself!' (Cameron de Bough - Australian Paralympian).
Chrissie Lightfoot is CEO at EntrepreneurLawyer, a solicitor (non-practising) and author of
The Naked Lawyer eBook, a blueprint in how to get more sales.
Comments
How about the "Naked Editor"?
As it now seems to be fine to use text-speak in posts for the Gazette, how about trying this one for size:- TLDNR.
The Naked Lawyer seems to me in desparate need of a Naked Editor to cut this down into something which communicates a point to the reader clearly and concisely (a fairly important skill for a lawyer?).
Is it really necessary for the Gazette to provide a platform for this kind of advertorial, distilled from nuggets of wisdom from the usual crop of motivational and business authors, backed up by snippets of approval they have received on Twitter?
I'm not a traditionalist, but why can't we have some informed commentary from Mr Eisenberg or Charley Moore (i.e. people who are actually involved in changing the landscape of the legal market)?
Two or three paragraphs from someone like this would have a hundred times more value and substance than this lengthy post, which ultimately seems to be more about buzzwords and promoting the "Brand Me" of the Naked Lawyer than anything original or useful.
According to this post the equity partners at BLP are making a profit of £712,000.
According to the Naked Lawyer website:-
"Throughout my final year as a trainee solicitor and since founding EntrepreneurLawyer (a period of a little over a year during the 2009 recession) I generated and referred £562,000 of new client legal work enquiries."
Profit of £712,000 or "enquiries" with a value of £562,000? I think I would rather take advice from Mr Eisenberg.
Innovative Reinvention?
Well, after reading this article I think I need to retire to a cool dark place for a few hours and restore my inner calm..........
We have law, and we have the business of law. The former has always changed, sometimes (relatively) quickly, sometimes (usually) slowly. The latter has, partcuarly in my career lifetime, quickly evolved, from one end to the other. How many magic circle firms were there in the mid 70s? None. How many firms conducting solely publicly funded work were there? None. Niche practices? A few.
We each must make decisions about where we want our lives and careers to go, and how. My decision was, and remains, to practise law. If i cannot achieve that in the "traditional" manner I will, and do, employ alternative methods and modern technology to do so. I practise in a low profit field - acting for children in care proceedings. I have neither the time nor the ability to float concepts that may end in failure. That is for those organisations whose profits are off the scale.
Does that necessarily and inevitably mean I am doomed? I don't believe it does - and here's the reason. Look at how BHP "turbo boosted" (what's with the car/engine analogy?) its' profits. Investment during a downturn and improving standing with existing clients. Translation - bargaining hard for the necessities when suppliers have no option but to offer compettitive pricing, and maximising the gold in your client data base. That's not reinventing anything. It's not innovative. It's sound business practice that has been around for decades and longer. Granted, not enough Solicitors do it - but that doesn't make it new.
Before I am thought to be a reactionary Luddite, too old or complacent, or plain thick, to change my ways, I ought to say I began as an Articled Clerk in 1977 (yes, I continue to use capital letters as they should be used) speaking into a machine on which a square of brown plastic revolved, so that I could pass said plastic to the person sitting next to me who listened (again) to my words and manually transcribed them with an electrified typewriter. In 1977 that was almost cutting edge technology. Now, I work remotely, connected to case management/back office functions via the internet, without secretarial assistance, with a far lower cost base than just a few years ago.
The idea that uless we become evangelists for the brave new legal world we will inevtiably perish is not one that stands up to detailed examination. Yes, we must and will adapt, and adopt new technology and business methods. Yes, we must recognise that competitive threats emerge in more divergent forms at increasing pace, and that standing still is not an option. But as a profession we have never stood still, and we never will. Neither must we allow ourselves to be distracted by the bright lights and glittering promises of the "new dawn". As my (fictional) namesake was repeatedly told by his sidekick, "Don't panic Mr Mannering!".
Innovative Reinvention?
Apologies - the reference in my post to "BHP" should have been to "BLP"
In the law but struggling with the business of being in the law
Chrissie
Great read, long yes but reasoned and so true. The next 18-24 months are likely to be a huge challenge for many a law firm. It is not the end for lawyers for sure, but they will need to change. Can they adapt? Do they know how to adapt?
The future is bright for progressive lawyers and small firms who love the law but recognise the need to deliver the law in a new way. face2face solicitors is an exciting new brand, exciting for our franchisees and for their clients.
Our franchisees at face2face solicitors are passionate about delivering exceptional client service in a new way to their clients. All franchisees are fully supported and receive continual training and mentoring to help them to develop and build their own successful business in the law, an essential part of which is 'brand me'.
Can the Editor of the LSG
Can the Editor of the LSG please confirm that Ms Lightfoot does not recieve any payment for her "contributions"?
She merely re-gurgitates a load of management-speak waffle, interspersed by quoting from fellow-travellers.
As for her pin-up Susskind, he's been predicting ad nauseum for many, many years that the whole legal world would have been "commoditised" long by now - which most assuredly did not come to pass...A case of The Emperor's New Clothes for the good professor methinks...
Ms Lightfoot's entire thesis is based on the ludicrous premise that law firms are not innovating or modernising or embracing technology - all which is so obviously not true that you wonder where she has been looking?
Come on LSG - you can do better than this!
Excellent Article!
I've been practicing law for 25+ years and enjoyed the article. Dead on!
In fact, yesterday I was scheduled to give the invocation at our weekly Rotary Club meeting. I planned ahead and was ready to go with something that was right on point in light of everything that’s happening in Libya. Of course, by the time I arrived at our early morning meeting I discovered that I had left my invocation at home. Before being asked to stand and share that mornings thoughts, my friends at the table asked, “What are you going to do?” I responded, “Go with my plan B… as I always enjoy doing.”
Taking risk and just going for it is what life is all about. I don't care if you're a lawyer or work at Starbucks. That's what makes life interesting, exciting and worth living.
So when they called me name, I stood and walked up to the podium and just did my thing and guess what, it worked out fine. In fact, it was exciting for me to be “pushed” to think on my feet and speak from the heart. I even like it when this kind of stuff happens during trial. It's edgy and keeps you on your toes!
I’m a firm believer that our “Plan Bs” in life are what keeps things interesting. Regardless of how you practice law, market your practice or live your life, never be afraid to just GO FOR IT! Once again, exceptional article!
Hi Michael and Jon - thanks
Hi Michael and Jon - thanks for your positive contributions and for sharing progressive thoughts with the readers.
Dear FacePalm aka no face (also Stephen Mannering and Arthur N - faces alias),
Please do come out from behind your veils so that we can spar face to face.
FacePalm - If you were to take advice from Mr Eisenberg...
Question: who advises the advisor?
Answer: the business authors / motivational experts / consultants external to the legal profession.
In order to keep my (admittedly) lengthy blog post wordage down I omitted to include Mr Eisneberg’s comment that the BLP result was also due to investing in lateral hires.
I would risk (oh-oh there's that naughty word again) my professional reputation and hazard a guess that the leaders / managers / directors of many of the magic circle, silver circle, boutique firms etc - i.e. the ‘strong firms’ I mention in this article - have taken advice from 'outside consultants' and lateral hires (the very people yourself and the anon / alias take joy in admonishing who contribute to the Law Society Blog) which have helped the ‘strong firms’ achieve their positive results.
As for the statistics let's do the math...
Let's round it up shall we?
Take £600k enquiries, assuming enquiry to sales conversion is the average i.e. 1 in 4 = £150k NEW CLIENT work PER INDIVIDUAL by trainee through to partner PLUS 'support' staff - gosh I hate that term; sooooooo derogatory in an age when all (wo)men are equal. Btw, we’re not talking about extracting and leveraging more work from existing clients here...
Assuming attracting new clients in NOT the role of the majority of employees in law firms at present save for partners and associates upwards (which is the norm), let's imagine that ALL employees in a silver circle firm (approx 2000) followed the ROAR model marketing and sales process which I devised and carried out to achieve £562K as a trainee (NOT my role remember to bring in new clients), as it becomes their role (as roles will inevitable evolve and change due to market forces and business model requirements in the present and future)...
Now - 2000 x £150K = £300,000,000.00 new client revenue pa.
Now - presuming 50% don't / won't do it (I’m being kind) = £150,000,000.00 new client revenue pa.
Now - assume contribution to costs is 50% = £75,000,000.00 EBIDTA
Now - assume shared amongst 100 partners = £750,000.00 EBIDTA from NEW CLIENT revenue / profit
Here's an idea, let’s take advantage of ABS. What if we shared the £75,000,000.00 EBIDTA amongst all the people in the firm - the 1000 who did contribute to the NEW CLIENT income / profit – kind of like how John Lewis, the Co-Operative and other employee owned companies do it - as a big turbo boost bonus to the troops = £75,000.00 EBITDA each...
Ok now, I know I’ve just used some crude figures and assumptions, but I trust you get the picture and my point – clearly and concisely.
Btw – ironically on Wednesday (the same day 'Dare to adapt, innovate and be inspired' was published) there was an article in the Observer with the title “How the internet created an age of rage”. Something which struck me was the statement 'the worldwide web has made critics of us all. But with commentators able to hide behind a cloak of anonymity, the blog and chatroom have become forums for hatred and bile...'
Let’s not be part of that... I’m a lover, not a fighter... and life really really really is too short...
Veil?
Chrissy,
I am not behind a veil, I am not using an alias and I am certainly not hiding - this website enables that to be done quite easily if I wished. Look me up on Linkedin - my profile is there for all to see. Check me out on The Law Society website
I put my name to all of my posts on this site, and am quite happy to have a debate.
I really do not believe you believe you can publish an article such as the one above and receive nothing but positive comment. If you care to read my post carefully you willl see that I took care to illustrate my attitude is not one of regression and resistance to change, and your attempt to portay it in that light does you no favours.
Admittedly I am not a fan of "hype", and if anyone attempts to convince me of anything by using it they'll have a mountain to climb. If you like I'm part of a demographic whose boat is not floated by that.
You suggest that I'm opposed to risk. You are wrong. Read my post carefully and you will see that I made a big change and put my livelihood on the line by becoming a "virtual" Solicitor.
I work in an area of fixed fees. Every case I take on involves a risk that I will if I'm not careful carry out a fair wodge of unpaid work. I don't believe risk to be a "naughty" word and I don't believe I should be belittled by you or anyone else for daring to venture a view that is not anything other than 100% behind your own approach. I'm not alone in believing that ABS is all good and not some not so good - read the editorial of the LSG for this week for a balanced view.
You may be right and I may be wrong. That is irrelevant. I was critical of your article, not insulting or derogatory towards you.
I believe that blending the old with the new whilst retaining and reinforcing (needed clearly now more than ever) core professional and ethical principles and duties is the way forward. If you think differently that's your prerogative.
I'm now left feeling confused. You invite your critics to "come out from behind their veil so we can spar face to face", but also declare "I'm a lover not a fighter". Apart from that contradiction, you appear confuse reasoned crticism and debate with fighting. There is a world of difference, as litigation Solicitors know.
It is unfortunate that your response did not confine itself to debating the issues and facts.
Oops...
Hi Stephen
Thank-you for clarifying and my apologies if I misunderstood in relation to your alias / veil. I, similarly, was confused as you ended your original reply saying 'my (fictional) namesake was repeatedly told by his sidekick, "Don't panic Mr Mannering!" ' and usually one can click through where the name is displayed; 'Stephen Mannering' is not linked anywhere unlike Michael's, Jon's and mine.
As for the rest of your 2nd response, all fair points and reasoned. I couldn't agree more re. your point about 'blending the old with the new whilst retaining and reinforcing...is the way forward' I share your view and it is at the heart of the ROAR model.
Of course, I expect criticism and debate... and welcome the very same. Through this we all learn and grow and it makes the whole debate more interesting - it would be a poor debate if we all agreed, n'est ce pas?
And that's the point of writing these posts and engaging and getting involved. One cannot proffer ideas and expect people to agree. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' where ideas are the essence of the content. The post content together with the interaction between author and reader is intended to elicit thought, feeling and action - some readers will agree, some will not... and some will sit on the fence in relation to the ideas. Great. Sometimes the responses will be positive and sometimes negative, naturally.
As for the "lover not a fighter" comment - a quip / metaphor re. sparring, nothing less.
If you note in my initial response I was dealing largely with FacePalm's reply and the issues and facts appertaining to the same.
My final point is that I never take anything personally; we are debating professionally and I trust that you do not take my comments personally either.
I shall look you up on LinkedIn and look forward to continuing our engagement there perhaps in due course...
Best intentions
Chrissie
Oops
Chrissie,
Apology gratefully accepted.
Stephen
GSOH
Stephen
And your GSOH duly noted :-)
So disappointing that Ms
So disappointing that Ms Lightfoot failed to use "moving forward" and "blue sky thinking" in her article. Don't you just hate it when lawyers embrace managerial speak. I am surprised she didn't manager to work emotional intelligence into the article too.
Debate
Well done Chrissy you certainly prompted debate.
Huh? Disappointing? Re. managerial speak?
Hi Ev
Thanks for your comment and getting involved.
In reply: maybe if more lawyers used 'managerial speak', read more managerial pieces, listened more carefully to management consultants and improved their management, leadership and business savvy the profession would have moved, and be "moving forward" a heck of a lot quicker - particularly as the skills and role of the lawyer in the present and the future (as we become marginalised as technology comes ever more increasingly to the fore with regard to the online delivey of legal services) will demand management skills, such as project management, IT management and CRM.
As for emotional intelligence (EI), quite right. I'd have loved to include it in this post but a) it was already rather long (as FacePalm pointed out) and b) it's more fitting to be placed in the follow-up post (out soon) alongside artificial intelligence (AI). You may wish to read and comment on it when it's published...
Rgds
Chrissie
Yes indeed, management speak
Yes indeed, management speak has made the UK the world beating economy that it now is!
How the rest of the planet must envy us our cutting edge language as they sell us products people actually want to buy, and get richer by doing it.
Management Speke
As someone who was the technology & practice management contributing editor on the Gazette on and off for about 15 years until 1995 (I think the current editorial team would have still been in short trousers) I can only congratulate the editor for running this piece. I had a whole 500 words a week to cover IT & business development.
More to the point, it doesn't matter whether you actually agree with Chrissie L or not – the key point is it has got your attention and got you reacting. During my time on the Gazette we received only two letters of comment. The first was from a sole practitioner who had visited a larger firm and noticed there were a lot of these 'television thingies' on lawyers desks (he meant computer VDU terminals). The second was from a managing partner who said the reason he entered the legal profession was because he didn't want to spend his time running a business.
Let's not lose sight of the Message
I'd never really looked at the Gazette Business Blog before seeing one of Chrissie's tweets and going to read this blog on her EntrepreneurLawyer site. Having enjoyed the blog - because it made me think - I was prompted to look at the blog on this site and what surprised me most was the depth of feeling the post had generated.
I know the whole sector is being bombarded by the need to change as the market evolves with ABS and increasing online activity etc...and maybe because the hype has been around so long with little impact to date people may have become complacent. But surely, to act like King Canute can't be a long term solution for any practice.
I do have some sympathy with some of the commentors as it is too easy to slip into the use of buzzwords and (sorry Chrissie) not be as succinct as you could be but the basic message seems to me to be a good one.
I suppose my overiding thought is that law firms really need to focus on constantly evolving and not be too precious about their markets or services. The work that you have this year may not be available to you in the future.
Prescriptive solutions laid down in textbooks rarely provide the complete answer, I think practices simply need to be open to all opportunities and prepared to change to address them. It’s a big challenge.
Chrissie
I really enjoyed the article, and the debates !!