ROSS Intelligence

#legaltechlives, Law

The Human Side of Lawyering #LegalTechLives with Duc Trang, Managing Director of Landon Advisory Services

Duc V. Trang is the Managing Director of Landon Advisory Services, which provides consulting and legal services and professional and leadership training. Trang’s work ranges from providing legal and commercial advice on complex transactions to strategy and human capital consulting for legal services organizations. He also coaches senior counsels and law firm partners on developing leadership and strategic thinking skills to enhance their careers. This piece is part of a two-part series. If you missed Part 1 last week on the Role of Technology in the Legal Profession, read it here.

What will lawyers be doing that adds value for which clients are willing to pay? Is that different from what clients are demanding now?

Listing a set of legally related tasks that lawyers do (e.g., legal analysis, providing legal advice, drafting, negotiating, etc.) is one way of answering that question, but not necessarily the only answer. If that’s the only answer, then we may as well go home because, as you know—aside from very unique legal expertise—most legal knowledge and expertise can be commoditized or replaced by technology sooner or later. I prefer to look at it from a client’s perspective and the question of what lawyers do to add “value.”

Many lawyers, and even some clients, often respond with the stock answer of providing legal advice or legal solutions. I’m generalizing here, but not much. The common complaint, however, is that lawyers provide legal advice, but that in and of itself is not necessarily useful. The reality is that the world in which our clients operate and their problems cannot be neatly separated into legal and non-legal issues. Clients want technical experts, but they value more advisors who solve their overall problem, not just someone who will identify and solve legal problems.

Are we focusing too much on technology and not enough on the human capital side of the legal profession? How should we think about the integration of machine resources and human resources?

When it comes to the human side of lawyering, I return to the foundation question posted earlier—what do lawyers “do” to add value for clients? It’s a simple question, but one that’s not so easy to answer. Once you have a rough answer to that, it’s easier to answer a number of related questions, including those pertaining to technology and how it should be integrated with the people side of the business of law.

To answer that question, we need to look ahead to what the universe of legal services may look like in the future. Lawyer and strategist Kenneth Grady recently compared the medical profession and the legal profession, and I want to expand the illustration here. If you were to get sick today and go to the hospital, you would receive a variety of medical “services.” These range from machine-generated services and information (e.g., MRIs, x-rays, EKG machines) to services delivered by professionals who don’t have medical degrees (e.g., nurses, personal care assistants, physician assistants, etc.). The machines and other humans provide information as well as technical medical services that do not require the full medical degree. The doctor generally comes in at the end and plays a different role. She takes all the information from the machines and knows enough about the technology to assess the quality of the information from each machine. She reviews the services provided by other professionals, considers the unique background of the patient and, along with the other information, crafts potential treatment plans. She will then sit down with the patient and walk the patient through the various options, review the advantages and disadvantages of each option and make recommendations about the treatment plan. None of the options may be perfect, but she tries her best to help the patient make the best decision in light of the information available to the doctor and the patient. The doctor is trying to solve a problem—to cure the illness—by making sense of the information derived from machines and others and, after incorporating the unique background of the patient, exercise judgment and expertise to craft potential solutions. In this ecosystem, machines and humans each play essential, but very different roles. The perception of value for each role also differs.

An analogous scenario is possible for the legal profession. Machines and technology will provide lawyers more and better structured information more rapidly, while paraprofessionals will provide certain types of (non-complex) legal services. The legally trained lawyer will assess information from machines and paraprofessionals and then craft potential solution paths for the client’s problem. That lawyer will need to understand enough of the technology to assess the information derived from it and, like the doctor, will need to gain the judgment and expertise to strategically deploy her skills to design alternate options for the client to consider. Each of the roles are important in the overall ecosystem of legal services, but the market value of each type of service will differ markedly. Similar to the example of the doctor, the highest value-creating role will continue to be the lawyer playing the complex and strategic problem solving role. That said, in that future vision of the legal profession, there will be new roles for non-lawyers, many of which we have not even contemplated.

Many have observed that technology will free up time for lawyers to engage in more strategic and higher value activities. To be better problem-solvers, more commercial and more creative. What do these concepts mean? What kinds of skills are involved?

You often hear clients describe a good lawyer as someone who is commercial, practical, creative, strategic, etc. But based on academic research and surveys of clients, what clients want in a lawyer is a strategic problem solver, especially in ambiguous scenarios and situations. These terms such as “commercial” and “creative” are proxies for problem solving and reflect observations of when lawyers solve a problem, e.g., “He was very creative and strategic in that deal.” If the deal didn’t get done, the lawyer would not be described as creative. Or, the lawyer is described as “commercial” and “practical.” Again, if the overall problem was not fixed, the lawyer wouldn’t likely be described as “commercial.”

What the client is looking for lawyers to do is solve a problem. These problems invariably have a legal component, but there are likely other elements wrapped up in it—financial, interpersonal, lack of information, etc. Clients need an advisor who can navigate the linkages and interdependencies among these elements and make recommendations. Excellent lawyers, from the client’s perspective, help clients make better decisions in complex scenarios that are ambiguous or unclear by mapping out the various considerations in a matter, only a portion of which may be legal.

The challenge is that unlike the technology field, the profession has not invested much effort into deconstructing what good judgment or complex problem-solving looks like. If we as a profession do not break down the the different components that make up complex problem solving, then it’s difficult to train people for it. That’s the landscape we face today if you look at how we educate and train law students and lawyers.

Technology will get information to lawyers more quickly, which will improve their ability to rapidly respond. It may also be cheaper for clients, since it won’t take teams of lawyers to do low-level or repeatable work. However, it’s what lawyers do with that information that is going to define the value for lawyering, now and in the future. Technology won’t take away the most valued role of lawyers as a strategic problem solver.

Why is it that lawyers are not already playing a strategic role?

There are a couple reasons. First, our law schools and law firms are good at teaching lawyers subject matter (legal) expertise, but not problem solving in complex environments. We leave the latter to experience and natural abilities, which from a cognitive science perspective is inefficient and not an effective way to train and teach.

Second, many lawyers complain that they don’t have time to be strategic and solve difficult business problems, in large part because they spend too much time on mundane grunt work. I think that’s partially true. And one of the promises of technology is that technology will take much of that drudgework away and free up time for lawyers to spend on higher value, strategic work.

That said, while many lawyers say they want to be strategic advisors, I question whether some actually want to play that role. Doing so requires certain skills and a different mindset. It’s easy for lawyers to hide under the shield of legal expertise and even the drudgework, because we’re generally good at being legal experts; then anything that’s not “legal” is for someone else—it’s a “commercial” decision. But for most clients, every problem that needs to be solved is a business issue; from a client’s perspective, there’s little distinction between legal and non-legal problems.

One of the silver linings of technology is that it will refine the different career paths in the legal profession. Those who want to stick with providing legal expertise can do so but will generally face a flattening career path. Those willing to play a strategic role will be even more valuable. But this requires a change of mindset from being just a technical expert to a problem solver. Being a problem solver requires deep legal expertise and other skills, and the courage to step outside the comfort zone of technical expertise to take positions of informed judgment.

A change of mindset is required, but it is not enough. Lawyers also need to be equipped with the right skills. Do our law schools and law firms train people to do so? The answer is no. We do a good job teaching technical expertise and what I call individualized problem-solving (e.g., answering a technical question on whether an activity violates a law). But we don’t do a good job of providing the commercial or business-based problem-solving skills that clients seek. Much of the investments by law firms and in-house departments in training is in the areas of subject matter expertise and practice skills (e.g., drafting, negotiating, etc). But these do not necessarily develop business acumen or problem solving skills. For example, firms and companies send their lawyers to be trained in financial literacy. While that is important, knowing how to read a balance sheet does not teach the commercial context or acumen to know when to strategically apply that knowledge to obtain the desired business result for the client. We need to develop new theories to arm lawyers with the foundation to help them decide when and how to exercise those skills. That’s where I’ve been dabbling as I described earlier—providing lawyers with pattern-based tools or algorithms in analyzing the business context so they can apply their legal skills strategically.

Except for really complex, unique legal issues, most clients want their lawyers to play a strategic role. Clients do not want just a legal analysis or to be told that non-legal issues are “commercial” issues for them to decide. If we don’t make lawyers better at strategically exercising their legal and other skills, then having access to better structured information more quickly due to technological advancement won’t necessarily make lawyers more valuable to their clients. Additional investments in doing the same thing (e.g., more training in financial literacy, etc.) also won’t solve this problem. This area of learning and development cries out for deeper collaboration between law schools and the practicing profession.  

CEO & Co-Founder of ROSS Intelligence. International speaker on the subjects of AI, legal technology, & entrepreneurship and has been featured in publications such as The New York Times, BBC, Wired, Bloomberg, Fortune, Inc., Forbes, TechCrunch, the Washington Post, and the Financial Times.

Related Articles

Recession Proofing – An Update
Law | Jul 30

Recession Proofing – An Update

In late February 2018, I released a column titled “Recession Proofing – Why Now? Perhaps the Better Response is Why Not?” It struck a...

Law Firms In Transition
Law | Jun 20

Law Firms In Transition

The Altman Weil, Inc. 2018 Law Firms in Transition survey that was recently released contains a number of thoughtful insights including perhaps capturing the...

WANT TO CONTRIBUTE?