11 of the most interesting things I've heard as a lawyer on #BLTF2019

Yesterday I was present at the British Legal Technology Forum of Netlaw Media, claimed to be Europe’s largest legal technology conference and exhibition, with about 1200 visitors from all over the world, more than 100 exhibitioners and about 50 speakers. That’s a lot to process in one day, that’s for sure. It was a rush from session to session, I’ve even got no time to eat, but it was exciting.

What strikes me everytime is that it doesn’t really matter in what country or law system you are attending a conference about the future of lawyers or law firms . The challenges and trends are all the same.

Now, what are the most interesting things I’ve heard today, as a lawyer? Some bullet points.

1.      Clients first, but don’t ask them everything?

Not very new to me, but very alive and kicking on the event: everything starts with the client. Clients want to solve a problem. They are not seeking for innovation or technology.

Professor SUSSKIND, also conference chairman of the conference, said it a few times today: clients don’t want lawyers, they want (legal ) help. The outcome.

Emily FOGES (Luminance) said the client wants trust: ‘Become that trusted advisor again’. It made me think about an article I wrote a few weeks ago, inspired by professor John FLOOD (Griffith University), who said the same thing.

Clients first – approach will be a big gameplayer in the shift to a future law firm. But: don’t ask them everything. Clients don’t always know the answer. Andrew HASLAM (Squire Patton Boggs) referred to Henry FORD ‘If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses’. On the other hand, Ryan COX (Infotrack) told not to underestimate clients. In his view, customer experience will be the key brand differentiator, more than price and the product itself.

The ultimate customer experience should be created by using techology, providing an integrated experience, staying social, focusing on employee engagement and by creating a successful customer community.

2.      Run, elephant, run!

There is, at least in the UK, less doubt about the fact law firms ‘know’ they need to change. The biggest challenge is getting them ‘doing’ it. Like Lisa SEWELL (Dentons) said: for getting that elephant (read: law firm) run, you either can get it angry, or make it ‘want’ to run. It’s not only about knowing the problem, but actually try to solve it.

While trying, failing is OK. Here’s a massive opportunity. It’s all about leadership and accept failure of implementing tools or ideas in a world that is very risk avers from nature.

Law firms don’t like to be the first one. ‘Does that tool really work? We did not yet see it operational in practice’, is often heard.

3.      The double diamond.

Darci DUTCHER and Karen WALDRON (Lexis Nexis) gave an insight in their toolbox to understand customers needs and a new one for me was the ‘double diamond’, that perfectly fits as legal design thinking.

In the first diamond (‘the problem diamond’) they collect all the problems that are going on, and then they advice to narrow down to one problem that can be solved. In the second diamond (the solution diamond) you need to get as many solutions as possible for that problem in function to narrow down (decline) again to that one solution. 

Ow yes, and don’t fall in love with an idea is crucial, they said.

4.      Automation in law firms? Yes! Transformation of legal services? Not yet.

In his keynote professor SUSSKIND answered the question: ‘has legal tech arrived?’ His answer is clear: not yet. The real challenge of technology is not to focus on the automation of law firms, but focus on the clients to transform how we consume legal services. Now we are still basically automating old processes in law firms, how they work and always worked. That is not transforming the services.

5.      Create a parallel vehicle.

I also learned from the keynote of professor SUSSKIND that change a law firm by transforming the way they provide legal services, remains difficult. Not impossible, but a real challenge. ‘It’s like changing a wheel on a moving car’, he said (it’s possible: he showed us this YouTube video).

His advice is simple: create a separate (new) vehicle to transform legal services. And there the ‘outcome thinking’ comes back in the game. How we will solve problems in the future?

6.      AI was still all over the place.

Is AI a hype or not? Or still a hype? It doesn’t really matters, because it was all over the place yesterday. In a lot of sessions, AI was, again, the talk of the town. It kind of suprised me, because I thought the use of AI in law services is still limited. F.e. the story of Luminance is at least very fascinating to follow, though probably focusses on the very top segment of global law firms.

In the paneldiscussion, led by Richard TROMANS (Artificial Lawyer, his review of yesterday here), Kate TOMLINSON (Norton Rose Fulbright) warned for the high expectations of AI. There is too much of a hype. There is still human effort needed with these tools.

AI is a tool, that can be used on the right spot in a specific process. Nothing more, nothing less. A beautiful quote of Matt ARMSTRONG-BARNES (Hewlett Packard) yesterday was: ‘It's like a hammer. You only use it when a nail has to be knocked’.

7.      The importance of cybersecurity is still heavily underestimated.

The opportunities in cybersecurity are massive. At the conference, they created an awareness for this topic, which is good. Craig D’ABREO (Masergy) pointed out a cybersecurity workforce study 2018 that shows that globally about 3 million jobs in cybersecurity are waiting to be filled. Tip for your kids!

Jessica BARKER (Cygenta) said security bij default is needed and Raj SAMANI (McAfee) told about the ongoing fight between the industry and the ‘bad guys’, who are very innovative. The ‘bad guys’ have the time and the opportuniteit to read everything from the industry. More than the industry itself, he said.

8.      The Manchester Law and Technology Initiative.

Professor Claire MCGOURLAY (University of Manchester) talked about the Manchester Law and Technology Initiative, which is launched in September 2018 and serves as a dynamic platform between industry stakeholders, regulatory communities and academics within the Alliance Manchester Business School, Department of Computer Science and the School of Law.

With Future Lawyers Belgium, last month we had a talk with Marion Debruyne, dean of the Vlerick Business School, because we believe a crossover between law schools and business schools would be an exciting perspective. Well, here it was.

I understood that it not only creates future skills for the students, but also gives acces to students for research purposes. The biggest problems for this education programs seems to be the cost of it and the lack of interest of law schools.

9.      Just wait untill the old ones retire?

From the incubators panel discussion, with Shruti AJITSARIA (Fuse, Allen & Overy) and Nick WEST (MDR Lab) it came clear that the innovation and progression vibe in law firms is not connected to the age of the lawyer(s). While professor SUSSKIND expects that the young generation of law graduates will create a need in law firms to change, the incubators told that the will to change and participate is very personal.

10. Legaltech’s, the challenge is also yours!

We often speak about the challenges for law firms, but legaltech firms also have a lot of challenges themselves. Legaltech companies are often not used to work with lawyers and need to understand the world of lawyers, and the way lawyers work. In that perspective, Shruti AJITSARIA (Fuse, Allen & Overy) pointed out the importance of the team. They need to be reliable and relatable (‘we get the problem’.).

Lisa SEWELL (Denton) noted that their business plan is a real challenge, because law firms, potential clients, expect a real survival option of the startup that tries to sell a product.

11.  Acces to justice is a fight lawyers have to engage in.

Last but not least. Worldwide there are probably more people who have acces to the internet, than to justice. Mindblowing. I think, as lawyers, we need to help to close the justice gap.