text:
Levy's Study Doesn't Add Up June 29, 2001
By Sol Stern
Shortly after Harold Levy took over the school system, he told me the worst thing he discovered was that policy is almost never based on accurate data. He has said many times that he is determined to install modern management driven by solid research. And yet, this week we've learned by his own admission that he fudged the numbers on the school construction budget. Earlier, I learned from personal experience that his office had played fast and loose with statistics on teachers going to the suburbs.
Earlier this year, one of Levy's number-crunchers, Andrew Rein, called to ask about articles I had written in City Journal and the Daily News debunking the United Federation of Teachers' claims that teachers were leaving in droves for the higher-paying suburbs. Rein wanted to know how I arrived at my estimate that no more than 700 teachers per year were going to the suburbs. After explaining my methodology, I directed Rein to University of Missouri Economics Prof. Michael Podgursky, who calculated that fewer than 400 city teachers left for the suburbs in 1997-98.
Based on what Levy had said, I expected his staff to get this one right. Imagine my surprise, then, when a New York Times story in mid-April opened: "The exodus of New York City teachers to better-paying suburban districts has accelerated sharply, according to a survey conducted by Schools Chancellor Harold Levy. Nearly 1,700 teachers left the city to teach elsewhere last year, more than four times as many as in 1997-98, the survey found."
So was this an example of gold-standard research? Though Levy's office would not provide it, I eventually obtained the document — seven pages of tables and charts — that had been sent to The Times. The numbers were based solely on anecdotal testimony by more than 1,000 principals who were asked where teachers who left their schools had ended up. But teachers aren't required to tell their principals where they are going. When principals did know, they often did not have a record or were told "Westchester" or "Nassau," making the information impossible to verify.
The chancellor's office did nothing to discourage The Times reporter from confusing the 1,700 or so teachers recorded as going "outside N.Y.C." with the teachers taking a job in the suburbs.
In the tables, more than a third of the departures "outside N.Y.C." included places such as Florida, Georgia, California and 22 foreign countries. The reporter then compared the "outside N.Y.C." category with Podgursky's figure of 400 teachers going to the suburbs in 1997-98 and erroneously concluded that suburban flight had increased fourfold. The chancellor's office knew The Times was comparing apples to oranges, yet apparently let it stand.
I can only guess why Levy chose to pass on this worthless survey knowing full well that it would strengthen the UFT's hand. I do know that if a private-sector CEO who was engaged in contract negotiations with his unionized employees dared do something similar, he would face a stockholder revolt for neglecting the company's interests.
Original Source: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nydn-levys_study.htm
Home | About MI | City Journal | Experts | Publications | Books | Podcasts | Video | Events | Supporting MI
Thank you for visiting us. To receive a General Information Packet, please email email@example.com and include your name and address in your e-mail message.
The Manhattan Institute, a 501(c)(3), is a think tank whose mission is to develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility. Copyright © 2014 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017 phone (212) 599-7000 / fax (212) 599-3494


text:
This is a service fee for processing your race application. Additional technology partner fees may apply.
Events for this Race:
M& K Oil South 4J road
Gillette, WY US 82718
Gillette, WY US 82718
A run/walk n memory of Justin Lamert-Belanger, Morgan McLeland, Cody Brown, Kyle Johnson, Josh Hones, Kevin Salverson, Nick Schabron, and Shane Shatto
A BBQ and Social will follow the run
There is no registration fee. However, donations will be accepted.
Shirts will be available for purchase on day of the event.
Race Contact Info
If you have any questions about this race, please contact the race director at

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Cook bacon in a Dutch oven over medium heat until crisp; remove bacon, and set aside, reserving drippings in pan. Saute onion, carrot, celery, and garlic in drippings 3 minutes or until tender. Position knife blade in food processor bowl; add bacon and... - 40.5633
Dried beans are popular everywhere in the Mediterranean. They also have a flavor a tad different than the fresh bean, which means they are ideal in earthy and deeply flavorful soups such as this one from Granada in Andalusia in southern Spain called potaje... - 37.3802
Feijoada has a grand taste. Feijoada gets its taste from mixture of beef and pork cooked with orange and cornstarch, flavored with bay leaf. Feijoada is inspired by many food joints all over the world. - 45.2865
Classic Brazilian soup. This video prepare authentic black bean soup which incorporates a wide variety of meat from pork to beef. Loaded with the traditional taste, this dish has the rich and smoky flavor making it an absolute gourmet's delight. Serve this... - 119.705


text:
It's one of those fun moments when a friend (or stranger) says "Love your ____ (fill in the blank)". I'm talking fashion here, so whether it's your shoes, bag, bangle, dress or lipstick, I think it feels fantastic to know your personal style is appreciated. It's okay to flash a Mona Lisa smile when complimented, and keep a savvy deal to yourself, but some of us like to dish. So let's play......
splurge or savvy?
One of these lamps runs $469.00, the other is my recent savvy steal at $54.99.
Can you tell which is which?
The clue is in my recent blog post Welcome to the Weekend...{Eye Candy!}. I showed an image of a new lamp I snagged at our local Target store. It was one of those moments....our eyes met, I felt that Kelly Wearstler vibe, and I had to have it. After I shared my post online, my lovely blogger friend, Shelly at LUSH , wrote a comment and complimented me on finding such style and value.
She shared a link to the second lamp.
Imagine my surprise, to see a lamp, so similar to mine
for roughly 8 times the price.
I knew it was a great find but didn't know how great. Thank you Shelly!
(That's right-lamp on left retails for $54.99 and the lamp on right retails for $469.00-wow!)
Retail Therapy Tip #1-There is definitely a time to splurge and a time to be savvy.
In this case, I 'm feeling savvy and want to share more of my finds with you. The hunt is on!
splurge or Savvy?
I put together some of my favorite splurge/savvy finds of the week.
Can you tell which is which?
{Resources and links for the fashions above}
I own the "savvy" black chiffon Mossimo skirt also from Target. It's a very well-priced way to incorporate a trend and not spend a fortune on it.
If you have some hot tips and 'savvy' ideas please share in comment section below.
Wishing you a wonderful weekend-whether it's savvy or a splurge is your choice.


text:
Maybe the reason why I love Goodnoe's is that it's as old as I am - built in 1955 and still going strong. Probably the real reason is that it has a product and a formula Read More
I am a native NYer and I was in Newtown Buck's county this past weekend.What a find!! These guys at Bagel j are NYers as well and they have this 40 seat restaurant hidden Read More
Been there, done that? Do tell us about it! Submit a review of this Newtown restaurant today.
User Rating 3 of 5 stars
Showing All Restaurants


text:
Review Detail
Things on Wheels
2010-05-17 01:07:16
Mad Tracks with just, uh, tracksI'm a huge fan of Load Incorporated's XBLA racer, Mad Tracks. From the standard races to the goofy minigames and even the chaotic foosball with cars, I loved every second of it. Bought both expansion packs, spent hours upon hours playing with friends, and even have it on my memory card on the chance that I visit a friend's place and we need something to play on the 360. So, when I was given a chance to review their second XBLA racing title, Things on Wheels, I was all over it like a Twilight fan on Paramore tickets (shoot me later for saying that). Was this review helpful to you? 01 Comments
To write a comment please register or log in.
LoginTop Indie Games |


text:
Unionized workers of the Bombardier corporation launched a strike Thursday at a rail equipment plant in La Pocatiere, Quebec.
According to CBC News, the 330 members of the Conferderation of National Trade Unions started the plant's first strike over concerns about sub-contracting, pension plans and wages.
Nearly 9 percent of union members gave the union a strike order last Saturday.


text:
Homework Help
Better Students Ask More Questions.
What year did the story take place in The Boy in the Striped Pajamas?
Topic: The Boy in the Striped Pajamas
What year did the story take place in The Boy in the Striped Pajamas?
1 Answer | add yours
The story takes place during World War II in Germany. The war began in 1939 and ended in 1945, so the dates of the story take place between these times. The family moves to Auschwitz (what Bruno refers to as "Out-with" in 1942. This would have been the middle of the war, when the concentration camps were full and the Nazi Jewish extermination plan well under way.
The young boy Bruno is clearly in the dark about what his father does. When Hitler visits his house, he seems unaware of his importance. His mother explains that his father needs to move the entire family to Auschwitz.
"…sometimes when someone is very important, …the man who employs him asks him to go somewhere else because there's a very special job that needs doing there…" (p. 4)
The family does not tell Bruno what he will be doing there, or what the concentration camp is for. When Bruno befriends the little inmates in "striped pajamas" and his friend Shmuel, he ends up losing his life.
Posted by litteacher8 on April 1, 2013 at 11:40 PM (Answer #1)
Related Questions
See all »Join to answer this question
Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.


text:
i-Gaming Legal
Progress report
Birgitte Sand, director of the Danish Gambling Authority and a trustee of the IAGR, provides InterGaming Law with an update on the regulated online gaming market in Denmark.
Israel: licensing of online financial trading
Dotan Baruch looks at the online financial trading market in Israel
The briefing: Effective AML compliance for internet gambling
Certified anti-money-laundering specialist Christine Duhaime looks at
anti-money-laundering measures in i-gaming and the importance of effective AML compliance programmes.
How taxing is remote gambling in Europe?
James Scicluna considers the issue of taxing the European remote gaming industry
A cost benefit analysis
Operating under a gambling licence of the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein.
California Gambling Control Commission
A discussion of the strategic approaches to securing legal internet wagering in the US.
Entering new markets
Challenges in regulation and co-operation for companies eyeing overseas markets.
US Department of Justice targets gaming
Beyond the Las Vegas Sands FCPA disclosure.
A punishing regime
The legal aspects of the new Spanish online gaming market
Social gaming
Laws and regulators play catch-up
Our Publications
InterGame is the only monthly magazine covering the international coin-op amusements and gaming industry.
Learn moreintergaming
InterGaming is the leading monthly magazine covering the international land-based casino and gaming industry.
Learn moreintergamingi
Published bimonthly, iNTERGAMINGi is the leading publication for the growing international online gaming industry.
Learn moreYear Book
An extensive annual review of the industry covering all three gaming sectors and including a global directory of suppliers.
Learn moreintergaming Law
InterGaming Law is a bi-annual magazine, launched to meet increasing demand for an independent international publication dedicated to legal developments affecting the global gaming sector.
Learn moreCoin–op Community
Coin-op Community is an online marketplace where buyers meet sellers, produced in association with InterGame.
Learn moreOur Partners


text:
Personal Directory Information |
Name: | Andre Zampaulo |
Institution: | University of Wisconsin-La Crosse |
Email: | click here to access email |
State and/or Country: |
Linguistic Field(s): |
Historical Linguistics Phonetics Phonology |
Specialty: | Phonetics; Phonology; Sound Change |
Subject Language(s): |
Portuguese Spanish |
Selected Publications: | Zampaulo, André. 2013. Sibilant Dissimilation in the History of Spanish: An Information-Theoretic Approach. In Howe, Chad, Sarah Blackwell, & Margaret Lubbers Quesada (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2011 Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. |
Courses Taught: |
Introduction to Spanish Linguistics;
Spanish Phonetics and Pronunciation; Advanced Spanish Grammar; Advanced Portuguese Grammar; Portuguese For Spanish Speakers; Spanish Language (All levels) Portuguese Language (All levels) |
Dissertation Abstract: | When Synchrony Meets Diachrony: (Alveolo)Palatal Sound Patterns in Spanish and Other Romance Languages |
Reviewer of: |
Where Do Phonological Features Come From?
(LL Issue 23.438) Romance Linguistics 2010 (LL Issue 23.2093) El español del siglo XVIII (LL Issue 23.3245) |
Add to Linguist Directory | Update your entry |


text:
Lots - Van Buren, AR
You'll love the convenience of this neighborhood! Park Ridge is located in Van Buren and close to Ft Smith but far enough away to avoid congestion. Partially wooded lots with all utilities available. Restrictive covenants , 2200 sq ft min. Get started on
Get a detailed community profile report via email. Click here to get your copy right away.
Data Provided by Fort Smith Board of Realtors
More Information for this listing


text:
Ready? Dive In.
March 7, 2014
Tell Your Representative to Raise the Wage!
With our federal minimum wage stuck at $7.25 an hour, too many people working full-time can't afford to take care of their families and make ends meet. While the cost of living in America continues to rise, big profitable corporations are choosing not to increase their employees' pay.
The Fair Minimum Wage Act would raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10, raise pay for tipped workers and tie the minimum wage to inflation. This bill would give a much-needed boost to 30 million workers, jump-start our economy and take an important step toward ending poverty wages.
Your voice really matters here: lobbyists representing big fast food and retail companies are counting on Representatives John Boehner and Eric Cantor to prevent a vote on this bill. But with just 218 signatures, the Fair Minimum Wage Act can have its day on the House floor.
February 13, 2014
Tell Dirty Jobs Host Mike Rowe to Meet With Walmart Workers
TV host Mike Rowe, a longtime champion for working people in our country, is the voice of Walmart's new PR stunt that promises to bring back American manufacturing by putting more U.S.-made products on its shelves. Mike said he did the campaign because he wants to see Walmart succeed at helping rebuild our country. But we think that rebuilding needs to start with the company paying workers more than poverty wages.
Walmart workers like Janet Sparks understand that all too well – which is why they're asking to sit down with Mike Rowe and talk about how Walmart can really change.
Will you write Mike Rowe and ask him to meet with Walmart workers? Send your email now >>
January 28, 2014
Say NO to Fast Track
Given that we're used to a slow moving Congress, it's understandable that "Fast Track" legislation sounds promising. Unfortunately, Congress will soon consider "Fast Track," which would limit debate and prevent amendments in Congress on trade deals. Such expedited authority would make it much easier to pass future trade agreements, including the proposed anti-worker Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
Jobs With Justice opposes "Fast Track" because it is a license to continue trade policies written by the 1% for the 1% without an ability to hold our country's negotiators accountable for provisions that hurt working families.
Trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, drafted by special interests in the backrooms of power, should be subject to vigorous democratic debate. "Fast Track" limits Congress' ability to oppose specific provisions within trade agreements that would never pass on their own. We know from the record of failed trade deals like NAFTA that these provisions have a devastating impact on workers and their communities.
Americans deserve a fair process that gives Congress the opportunity to influence trade deals and to send bad trade deals back to the negotiating table for improvement. If you agree, join with Jobs With Justice and groups across the country who are calling on Congress this week to say NO to fast track.
UPDATE – 2/6/14: Last week, hundreds of thousands of people across the country attended protests, rallies, and contacted their members of Congress to voice their opposition to any legislative attempts to fast track bad trade deals. In response, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) publicly confirmed he had no interest in advancing "Fast Track" legislation in the Senate, despite the Obama administration's urging.
Unfortunately, there's still momentum to rush through dangerous free-trade agreements in the House of Representatives.
Call your representatives at 202-224-3121 right now and tell them to vote NO on S.1900/H.R. 3830, the Baucus-Hatch-Camp "Fast Track" legislation. (You can look up them up here!)
Learn more about why fast track is bad policy below or in this must-read editorial by former House Democratic Whip and Jobs With Justice board member David Bonior.
December 7, 2013
Take Action: Walmart Is Not Above the Law!
Time and time again, when Walmart workers call on the company to address low wages, erratic schedules, paltry benefits, and unacceptable working conditions, the retail giant has silenced or outright fired them.
It's unfair and illegal for Walmart to retaliate against its associates for speaking out for good jobs that support families. Over a million men and women work at Walmart and get paid such low wages that they can't afford to put food on their tables. Walmart's not just ripping off workers, they're ripping off taxpayers by making their employees rely on food stamps and other public assistance.
We need to make our voices heard so that Walmart does right by its employees.
Find Your Local Jobs With Justice
Jobs With Justice is bigger than just one organization. Get to know your local coalition.


text:
Like butterflies in the Amazon, virtual and crowd-based professional services firms ('NewLaw') are starting to disrupt
Mar 14
Guest Post by Mark Gould in reply to Brian Inkster's latest blog post on The Time Blawg
I am generally nervous about technology evangelism because evangelists tend to assume that their preference should be the same for all, without considering that different people have different needs and perspectives. The sterile debate between Mac fans and Microsoft users has mutated into an equally pointless dialogue of the deaf between iOS devotees and the Android camp. I prefer to see this proliferation of powerful operating systems, apps and hardware as a fantastic opportunity for people to choose exactly the right combination to match their needs.
I had a similar reaction to the recent blog post asserting the laggardliness of Big Law, by comparison with smaller firms.
It is true that larger firms have taken time to wake up to the opportunities of newer technology. But the same is true of many large organisations. Yes, larger law firms are moving slowly from Windows XP to Windows 7 (not even Windows 8). This migration mirrors that of their large clients in financial services and other sectors. There are good reasons for this dilatoriness. Consider the following, for example.
As firms become more complex — both in terms of work done and sheer numbers of employees and business units — the interaction of systems, databases, software and hardware becomes increasingly difficult to disentangle. Systems adopted over many years can seriously reduce the ability to make choices that are straightforward for smaller businesses or for individuals. Moving to Windows 7 is not a simple question of getting Dell to deliver new PCs. It is a major project with significant dependencies — any one of which could directly affect client service. It is no wonder that IT departments tread very cautiously in this respect.
Caution is also a watchword when considering moving to the cloud. The vagueness of the term 'the cloud' in this context is less than helpful, but I assume it encompasses the storage of data on servers that are not directly controlled by the firm. That proposition is a risky one for firms that have to worry about abiding by regulatory burdens over and above those imposed by their own regulator (the SRA or Law Society of Scotland, for example). Clients in regulated businesses (such as financial institutions) will often demand that their advisers work to the same standards as they are bound to by their regulator. More generally, concerns about market abuse and disclosure mean that firms operating at this level can only make decisions to work in a different way (even when new technology is not involved) after serious consideration. Information security and regulatory compliance are increasingly serious concerns.
Even if there were no technological or regulatory hurdles to overcome, should larger firms be adopting new tools as soon as they are available? Possibly, but only if they serve a valid business purpose. There are always lots of shiny opportunities that could be followed up, but most firms will not have unlimited resources to explore all of these. It takes time to work out which will bring the biggest benefit; that is where larger firms will appear to fall behind their smaller counterparts. Inksters can move more quickly because it is essentially more agile, and because instinctive decisions can be tested much more easily.
The legal market (in England & Wales, at least) is becoming increasingly diverse. There are firms owned by a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. There are firms using a business model akin to barristers' chambers. There are firms using Alternative Business Structures to bring non-lawyers into partnership. There are high-performing boutique firms. And there remain some firms that will continue much as they have for decades. All of these will be more or less successful. There will also be some that fail — but I think it is unlikely that the proximate cause of many of those failures will be an excess of caution about new technology.
The diversity of legal structures and market choices will push different firms to choose different models for their technology platform, to ensure that they are best place to serve their clients well. The outcome of those choices cannot be critiqued by a simple adoption curve for one technology. A more appropriate critique needs to take account of how well client demands are being met. It is almost impossible to do that looking from the outside.
About the Guest Blogger: Mark Gould is Head of Knowledge Management at Addleshaw Goddard. This blog post reflects Mark's personal views and not necessarily those of his firm. As Head of Knowledge Management Mark is responsible for finding, developing and promoting ways in which people in the firm can make the most of their own and other people's knowledge. In addition to managing knowledge activities for the firm, in June 2011 Mark took on responsibility for leading the firm's 20 Professional Support Lawyers (PSLs) as a team, focusing them on delivering improved profitability for the firm and their practice groups. Before moving into the central KM role in September 2006, Mark was a Professional Support Lawyer in the firm's Competition, Trade & Regulatory group, looking after the team's know-how and training needs, and developing client relationships in the through knowledge support. Prior to joining Addleshaw Goddard, Mark was a Lecturer in Law at the University of Bristol (1989-2001) and the University of Hull (1988-1989), teaching undergraduate and postgraduate subjects including Public Law, Jurisprudence and EU Law.
NB: Images, captions and credits inserted by The Time Blawg Editor
When I did my legal IT predictions for 2014 I hadn't read the latest editions of Legal IT Today (Issue #4) or the Briefing from the Legal Support Network on Legal Technology in 2014. If I had I may have been a little more conservative about what the future holds especially in so far as it relates to Big Law.
When I am referring to Big Law here I am probably doing so in the traditional sense of the larger law firms rather than the BigLaw business model referred to by George Beaton in NewLaw New Rules. That business model can include smaller law firms who operate along traditional law firm lines. Not all of those are as behind as Big Law is when it comes to legal IT, although many certainly still will be.
Legal IT Today and Legal Technology in 2014 Briefing are probably more aimed at Big Law and have, on the whole, contributions from and about Big Law. The picture both paint of the future of legal IT is one that I recognise from several years ago. But then I come from Small Law or perhaps NewLaw.
I hadn't quite realised how far behind the legal IT curve Big Law is.
Apparently cloud is "probably the future for legal". Probably! It is undoubtedly. But it is clear that Big Law is way behind Small Law / NewLaw on that front. I was writing on this blog about my law firm's move to the cloud in 2011.
There is an acknowledgement that the cloud makes NewLaw "as agile, if not more agile, than Big Law". I think much more agile.
However, there is a report on a NewLaw firm that set up as recently as 2011 but decided to "stay on the ground and invest in [their] own heavy duty servers" because the document management system they set their sights on could only unleash its full power if it was installed on the firm's own hardware. I think I would have moved my sights elsewhere fairly quickly!
An article on the cloud tells us that lawyers will be able to work using any connected device. Will! They can. I do.
These articles come from interviews with Chief Information Officers or IT Partners at Big Law. All who are in law firms that are clearly several years behind when it comes to cloud technology.
It is, however, recognised that the problem is that Big Law has invested heavily in non-cloud based technology and needs to "sweat their expensive IT investments" before they can justify a move to the cloud.
So I clearly need to revisit my 2014 predictions on the cloud as I now think Big Law will be speaking about it for years to come and it will not become as ubiquitous as quickly as I predicted.
Apparently Eversheds now have 500 iPads in circulation and it is therefore assumed by the Legal Support Network that the idea has worked. I, on the other hand, would imagine that for most of the 500 users their iPads are nothing more than a plaything perk rather than workhorses bringing real benefit to the law firm. This will be especially true if you are not fully in the cloud where tablet access would at least be somewhat beneficial. It would be interesting to see facts and figures on the actual Return on Investment.
When the iPad first came out Lev Grossman wrote in Time:-
While it's a lovely device for consuming content, it doesn't do much to facilitate its creation. The iPad shifts the emphasis from creating content to merely absorbing and manipulating it. It mutes you, turns you back into a passive consumer of other people's masterpieces.
Walter Isaacson in his biography of Steve Jobs commented on this:-
It was a criticism Jobs took to heart. He set about making sure that the next version of the iPad would emphasize ways to facilitate artistic creation by the user.
I don't think Steve Jobs had lawyers in mind when he did so
However, many tablets have evolved into mini-laptops (at least those that have their own keyboards) and might now be a more all rounded device for a lawyer to whom screen size is not essential whilst working.
It would appear that at least one Big Law firm is "looking at Windows 8.1, the Surface and Windows phone". No need to waste time looking – get on and buy! It is beyond me why any law firm would not be buying Microsoft when it is already so ingrained within the legal profession and actually works well for it. Seduction and perceived prestige over function and practicalities leads to a law firm biting at Apple.
Another area where Big Law is clearly way behind the curve is social media:-
Social media has been on our radar for a while.
That while must be about five years or so!
It is perhaps apt when looking at law firms to quote William Gibson:-
The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed.
Image credit: Diagram (adapted by The Time Blawg for this post with the addition of law firm references) by Craig Chelius (private communication with Craig Chelius) [CC-BY-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Technology-Adoption-Lifecycle.png
Feb 14
New Law New Rules by George Beaton, which was officially launched at Reinvent Law NYC, is a conversation about the future of the legal services industry.
It is a 'thread' book that grew out of a blog post by George on 'The rise and rise of the NewLaw business model'. That post sparked a torrent of comments and replies. These form the basis of this crowd sourced e-book supplemented and linked with other posts, tweets and George's narrative.
George uses the terms 'BigLaw' and 'New Law' to refer to business models. BigLaw and NewLaw do not refer to the size of the firms or when they were founded. BigLaw and NewLaw are distinct and fundamentally different business models.
BigLaw for George is the business model underpinning the operations of traditional law firms. It applies to law firms of all sizes, except solo and micro firms. Whilst the book does not explore solo and micro firms in any detail I would suggest that many such firms may well have the attributes that George gives to NewLaw.
We are told that the BigLaw business model is built on six elements:-
NewLaw on the other hand shares possibly only one of these characteristics, namely the attraction of top legal talent.
In all other respects the NewLaw business model is different. The investors are seeking returns on capital and are separate from the producing staff, so leverage and the tournament are not present. Certainly some, even many of the staff, have a financial interest in the success of their business, but as an asset, not to maximise equity partners' profits each year. The balance sheets of NewLaw business models are as important as the income statements.
And – most importantly – fees are fixed in NewLaw. The provider, not the client, absorbs the risks of under-estimation and poor matter management.
The conversation in the book revolves between these two models with thoughts, comments and predictions on both.
We hear of disruption and of changes that are structural not cyclical.
There is a suggestion that firms that are less suited to handling highly complex matters might be more at risk from NewLaw competition. This may be true of what are real high complex matters. However, in my experience, BigLaw often over complicates reasonably straightforward transactions. It puts a team of half a dozen lawyers in three departments onto a 'commercial' transaction that any competent conveyancer could carry out on their own. When clients begin to realise that NewLaw can simplify the process rather than mystify it then BigLaw may have more to fear than some of the contributors to NewLaw New Rules suggest.
The advantage NewLaw has over BigLaw in adapting technology is discussed where BigLaw have legacy systems that still have to run their course. I will explore this in some detail with reference to Small Law (which could well equate to NewLaw) in my next blog post.
Steven Tyndall thinks NewLaw will better use technology because:-
BigLaw typically asks 'How can I use technology to do what I do better?' Whereas NewLaw simply asks 'How can it be done better?'. The first question results in sustaining technology. The second question does not just reference technology; it is an intrinsic component.
We are told by Peter Carayiannis that client power is reshaping the BigLaw business model:-
Those firms that recognise adaptation is the key to survival and everything revolves around providing the best value to the client will benefit.
The lawyers of the future will also be reshaping things:-
The bottom line is that Gen Y mocks the billable hour and will not spend a career toiling on a billable hour basis. These young professionals have been told they are knowledge workers and that they can work wherever and whenever and need not be fixed to a single location.
Discussion takes place about the need for lawyers to actually change the way they practice law. As Ron Friedmann referencing Jordan Furlong points out:-
90% of what 90% of law firms do today is the same as it ever was. And that's generous.
BigLaw is training lawyers for New Law. Will NewLaw ever train their own? Although as Jordan Furlong highlights the training may not be as appropriate as it should be:-
Large law firms are facing a near-complete transformation of their business models and are mostly ill-equipped to see this process through. Large firm associate training is designed to produce law firm employees, not entrepreneurial lawyers of the future.
Richard Susskind warns:-
If one leading law firm breaks rank and delivers world-class service at significantly lower cost, using alternative methods of sourcing, then the market will change irreversibly.
It is suggested by George Beaton that for BigLaw firms based on business as usual, profit-per-partner will halve within ten years. From anecdotes I have heard concerning BigLaw (at least in the UK or certainly in Scotland) I though that had already happened to many during the recent recession. A further halving in the next 10 years could therefore to many be a quartering from where levels once stood.
Discussion takes place that specialist boutiques ranging in size from a handful of partners to maybe 20 or 30 will form de novo or by breaking away from large firms. I have referred to this a number of times in the past on this blog with reference to the post by John Flood on 'The Rise of the Boutiques?'. This may well result in more and not less law firms as some predict the future of law holds. As John Flood also blogged 'Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom'.
Karl Chapman won't be investing anytime soon in a traditional law firm:-
But, taking a ten-year view I wouldn't invest in a traditional law firm; the competition (which is well capitalised and run like businesses) has only just started to flex its muscles. As Reagan said 'you ain't seen nothing yet'.
Ken Grady thinks that:-
Strong, smart, nimble players will survive; slow, inward-focused and tradition-bound players will struggle and disappear
Peter Kalis from within BigLaw thinks that some (not all) the contributors to New LawNew Rules are "glitterati among the membership of ABLAC". Apparently ABLAC is the acronym for Attack Big Law at Any Cost. Peter makes it clear that he is in the business of serving clients not selling books and he provides a robust defence of the BigLaw business model and its survival. It is likely that with him at the helm his firm has a good chance of survival. However, many other BigLaw firms may not be so fortunate to have a Chairman who actually considers the threats that NewLaw pose. Indeed potential ignorance on that front amongst BigLaw partners is something that comes out in the book.
Richard Susskind in his forward to NewLaw New Rules states:-
This is mandatory reading for anyone who is interested in legal businesses of the future.
I would second that.
George Beaton must be congratulated for putting NewLaw New Rules together. It is the start of a conversation/debate that I am sure is set to continue as NewLaw firms come and go (not all will survive) and BigLaw firms adapt, change, do nothing, vanish or survive.
I have highlighted excerpts from NewLaw New Rules that particularly caught my personal attention. There are many more contributors to the book, in addition to those specifically mentioned by me, with plenty to say on the topic. There is detailed analysis contained in the book that will appeal to a broad range of people involved in the legal industry from TinyLaw to BigLaw and to those already part of or contemplating NewLaw.
George Beaton has very kindly offered to give readers of The Time Blawg a free copy of NewLaw New Rules. This offer is available until 15 March 2014 only.
To receive your complimentary copy of NewLaw New Rules:-
> Go to Smashwords by clicking on that link
> Register with your name and email address
> Search for NewLaw New Rules
> Click on the title
> Enter this coupon number AN37P
> Your free copy will download
Note: This free copy must be downloaded by 15 March 2014 – the offer expires after this date. If you miss the free offer you can, of course, still purchase NewLaw New Rules via Smashwords or Amazon UK or Amazon USA and no doubt also at Amazon's other international sites.
Note about the author: George Beaton is a Legal services industry specialist, Business adviser to law firms, Leader of strategy and research consultancies serving professional services firms, Author, Commentator and Keynote speaker. George is a Partner in Beaton Capital and an associate professor at the University of Melbourne.
I was in Glasgow, Scotland yesterday and not New York City, USA. I would have been in the latter attending the Reinvent Law Conference had the organisers invited Scott Greenfield to talk. I gave that promise following Reinvent Law London in 2013. It was not to be despite my proding. So instead I followed the hashtag on Twitter. Not the same as being in the room but it gives you a flavour.
Guess what. You know who sent #reinventlaw trending in the US ? I do. Well done @Popehat. I have spoken.
— Who Trended it ? (@WhoTrendedIT) February 7, 2014
I particularly liked the sketchnotes of the Conference from Margaret Hagan.
Experimentation in a law firm, from @seyfarthshawLLP 's Lisa Damon — a sketch http://t.co/aeG8NTiuck pic.twitter.com/dRz9BwBvYi — Margaret Hagan (@margarethagan) February 7, 2014
I am very much a supporter of the ethos behind Reinvent Law. I enjoyed attending LawTech Camp London 2012 and Reinvent Law London 2013. It is good to see boundaries being stretched and ideas about the future of law formed. Perhaps it gives us hope. I am sure that I will continue going to such events in the future. It is usually a good social event too. I would have met many Twegals (legals who tweet) in New York City. Scott Greenfield still went along for the ride despite the speaking snub.
Official footage of @scottgreenfield at #reinventlaw. Note the name tag. pic.twitter.com/N5wMsIkQqT — Josh King (@joshuamking) February 8, 2014
It would have been nice to have said hello to Scott and to others in person.
One thing about #ReinventLaw, I really enjoyed seeing a lot of old and new friends. — Scott Greenfield (@ScottGreenfield) February 8, 2014
Whilst perhaps not as extreme in my views, or ways of expressing them, as Scott Greenfield ('a survivor's tale') I do agree with him that balance is required and is often lacking at these legal tech / futurist conferences.
@ScottGreenfield has never been so right as he is about #reinventlaw. And I'm actively developing legal technology http://t.co/WmCWLF02xo — Sam Redlich (@SamRedlich) February 8, 2014
This is also true of the LawTech Futures Conferences held annually in London since 2012.
All the #reinventlaw rhetoric ever uttered won't change this: it's about developing actual skills to do actual hard work for actual clients. — Popehat (@Popehat) February 7, 2014
Gizmos doth not a lawyer make. It can be a tad worrying to see the image portrayed to young lawyers being one that involves only technology as the future of law with little or no regard to the art of advocacy or indeed any other skills that a lawyer traditionally is should be equipped with.
If Jamaicans can bobsled, I can do law @agreement24 #reinventlaw — Justin North (@jandersdean) February 7, 2014
Those skills take years of practice and honing. We may yet reach a stage where a computer takes over – but we are a little bit away from that yet.
@richardsusskind #reinventlaw legal expert systems in 2038 fueled by brute force computing, NLP, speech recognition fully developed. — LawPracticeTech (@digitalawyer) February 7, 2014
@richardsusskind: we will interact with systems as though they were human. So I guess "Her" takes place sometime after 2038? #reinventlaw. — Victor Li (@VictorLi_ABA) February 7, 2014
Donning Google Glass will not make you the next Petrocelli. This fact is often ignored. Largely I believe because those preaching don't have those skills (they may well have Google Glasses). They are non-practicing 'lawyers'.
Is #reinventlaw for practicing attorneys or legal tech start ups? — LegalTypist (@LegalTypist) February 7, 2014
To invite up on the stage some actual practicing lawyers would give balance and a dose of reality. Not a bad thing for the young lawyers of today.
How many people are practicing lawyers at #reinventlaw? Ten percent show of hands. Is this a + or a -? — carolynelefant (@carolynelefant) February 7, 2014
And don't think some practicing lawyers (even Scott Greenfield) don't get IT. Scott is a blogger that leaves most all lawyers in the shade. He is a blawgoneer. There is much for the aspiring lawyer to learn from Scott. I am not so sure about the AOL desktop though!
I believe I'm the only one at #ReinventLaw using AOL desktop. I win!!! — Scott Greenfield (@ScottGreenfield) February 7, 2014
Many sole practitioners (solos as I think they call them in the States) are way ahead of Big Law when it comes to IT (a theme that I intend to continue in future blog posts). Those attending Reinvent Law conferences could learn a thing or two from what is actually happening to improve efficiencies and client experiences within 'Small Law'.
Why Doesn't #ReinventLaw Include Practicing Solo and Small Firm Lawyers Or Counter-Views? http://t.co/XdEmzEvNeU via @feedly — Gwynne Monahan (@econwriter5) January 18, 2014
There was also apparently a dearth of women contributing to Reinvent Law NYC.
Only 3 women out of 18 presenters this morning? Let's reinvent the gender gap at future #ReinventLaw conferences. — Janelle Milo (@GreenHaystacks) February 7, 2014
I am sure if the organisers had asked Nicole Black, Betsy Munnell, Stephanie Kimbro and Carolyn Elefant (to name but four) to speak they would have been happy to oblige. Next year perhaps?
Please stop complaining about the lack of women speakers & lack of talk about clients. Everything is awesome, please repeat. #reinventlaw — Brian Tannebaum (@btannebaum) February 7, 2014
One of the better Futurist conferences I have attended in recent times ('Evolution or Extinction') was actually held in Scotland and what made it so was the number of coalface practitioners telling us how they had advanced or were advancing their real life businesses. Traditional law firms can adapt and thrive. There is a lot for law firm partners and new start-ups to learn from such experiences. If they attend or tune in to hear that is!
I suspect there are more practicing lawyers that iron their newspapers than follow #reinventlaw — John Grimley (@JohnGrimley) February 7, 2014
Reinvent Law may need to consider adapting itself. There are things you will not currently hear at Reinvent Law. There are things that perhaps you should be hearing. A balanced view will give Tomorrow's Lawyers a better start in legal life and a much healthier future than a one sided view will.
"Software can't do the shit that I do"…heard in Martin Schwimmer's talk at #ReInventLaw||. There it is. Lawyers: remind your clients. — Betsy Munnell (@BetsyMunnell) February 7, 2014
I have been accused of "mixing good old traditional values with an innovative approach to delivering legal services". You can mix the two. You should mix the two. That is what I call Forward Thinking Law.
After a week of #LTNY #ReinventLaw & #LegalHack #privacyhack I am tired of future thinking. Live in the now. There are no certainties. — Jason Moyse (@jasonmoyse) February 8, 2014
Reinvent Law is a fairly new kid on the block. I am not knocking it. I think it has something to offer. But the organisers should perhaps pay attention to the crowd and let it develop. Originally the talks were crowd sourced. That did not happen in New York City. Perhaps a retrograde move? Perhaps one designed to keep some speakers out? But even when crowd sourced many potential good talks were excluded as those who did most canvasing usually got in. Perhaps a first come first up approach – open up the invites and list the talks as they are entered on the web? Have some invited speakers too (and please do invite Scott Greenfield this time and a few other practitioners from the coalface, especially solos/small law). Perhaps a quota for women to address the gender imbalance? Expand the focus. Oh… and don't forget the coffee and WiFi.
#ReinventLaw no WiFi, no coffee. Shoot me now.
— Scott Greenfield (@ScottGreenfield) February 7, 2014
I might call along Reinvent Law London 2014 to see if Reinvent Law reinvents itself. Or…
What could you be creating if you weren't sitting in this room being told how to innovate? #reinventlaw
— Mark W. Bennett (@MarkWBennett) February 7, 2014
A couple of days ago I looked back to what happened in 2013. Today I will look forward to what might happen in 2014.
I first made legal IT predictions in 2011 on this blog. I will for 2014 follow the same format and topics (with perhaps some extra ones thrown in at the end).
Social Media
I didn't blog at all about social media in 2013. This was a stark contrast from previous years on this blog. Perhaps this means social media has become more accepted and common place amongst lawyers and there is less controversy and hype surrounding it. Or have we just got fed up writing about it! I did, however, participate in a video in 2013 for Sweet & Maxwell on Social Media for Legal Professionals.
Nicole Black has given her predictions for 2014:-
First, let's take a look at social media. Clearly this is a phenomenon, not a fad, despite many lawyers' assertions to the contrary over the years. It's obviously not going away and for that reason, lawyers are now flocking to social media in droves. That trend will continue and lawyers' participation in social media will increase markedly in 2014.
LinkedIn will be the gateway drug, as it has always been, with Facebook coming in second. Participation on both of those platforms will continue to rise. Twitter will also see a slight rise in usage, although not nearly as dramatic of an increase as the other two.
But the true winner with lawyers next year will be Google Plus. I believe that platform has truly come of age and many lawyers will begin to prefer it for online interaction over all others.
In 2011 Nicole was also favouring LinkedIn and Facebook over Twitter. Google+ didn't exist back then. I disagreed with Nicole then and would do so again. LinkedIn is deadly boring, Facebook I have managed to avoid and Twitter is the social media channel that keeps giving. If lawyers want to choose one to concentrate on Twitter is, in my humble opinion, the clear winner. For networking and opportunities of all kinds it has to be Twitter. If lawyers are going elsewhere they are lost or misguided.
My Twitter story of 2013 didn't involve the law but The Pogues. My friend and fellow Shetlander, John Abernethy, was on Mastermind with his specialist subject being The Pogues. I tweeted, whilst watching the TV programme, that I knew John. The Official Pogues Twitter Account noticed this and tweeted asking me if I could get John in touch with them. We followed one another and sent DMs with me texting John (who is not on Twitter) and DMing his replies to The Pogues. The end result was 4 free tickets to see The Pogues in Glasgow in December.
Round 1 on #Mastermind and my chum and fellow Shetlander John Abernethy is in joint first place. Well done John #Pogues
— Brian Inkster (@BrianInkster) November 15, 2013
@BrianInkster Hi Brian. Could you help us get in touch with John Abernethy please?
— The Pogues (@poguesofficial) November 15, 2013
There are similar legal practice related stories that I could tell about Twitter in 2013 but they are all less exciting than that one! The fact is Twitter works and sometimes in weird, wonderful and unexpected ways. Some benefits of Twitter (including having a 'Twitter' phone conversation with me!) were recently set out in a blog post by Dr Renginee Pillay on 'A Very Personal Musing : An Ode to My Twitterati'.
I recently read that Facebook is 'dead and buried', replaced by simpler networks. The following exchange of views on this took place on Twitter (would that have happened on Facebook, LinkedIn or Google+ I wonder?):-
MRT @Ju_Summerhayes: study via The Age: Facebook is 'dead and buried', replaced by simpler networks http://t.co/3rBtBRSjII | no big loss imo
— ronfriedmann (@ronfriedmann) December 28, 2013
@ronfriedmann @Ju_Summerhayes Never used it. Always knew it was not the network to waste time on
— The Time Blawg (@TheTimeBlawg) December 28, 2013
.@TheTimeBlawg @Ju_Summerhayes I broadcast on FB; I engage on Twitter. FB 1-way for me; Twitter 2-way.
— ronfriedmann (@ronfriedmann) December 28, 2013
I would agree. RT @ronfriedmann: .@TheTimeBlawg @Ju_Summerhayes I broadcast on FB; I engage on Twitter. FB 1-way for me; Twitter 2-way.
— Betsy Munnell (@BetsyMunnell) December 29, 2013
I probably need to spend a bit more time on Google+ to judge it properly. Initial impressions are that it does not give you anything like the immediate connectivity that Twitter does.
So my prediction for 2014 is that Twitter will remain the best social media platform for lawyers but that won't stop many mistakenly thinking that LinkedIn (or even Facebook!) is the place to be.
There were less Twegal Tweetups in 2013 than in the previous two years. I hope that we will see more of these in 2014.
Back in 2011 I said it was going to be the year of the Blawgs. It wasn't. Neither was 2012 or 2013. Nicole Black in her 2014 predictions doesn't mention blawging at all. She did in 2011. There are not a lot of blawgs out there that have not been about for a while. It is great to see Charon QC back (after illness kept him away and prevented his Red Jag Tour) on top form blawging in his inimitable style.
Law Firm website blogs (which have no doubt increased in number) generally peddle general legal news stories rather than bespoke blawgs. Some might even be flawgs.
I created a Crofting Law Blog in 2013 and see scope for more niche legal blogs like this. It was referenced by MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament) on a number of occasions in debates in the Scottish Parliament during the passage of a Crofting Amendment Bill. Lucy Reed had her Pink Tape Blog quoted in a Court Judgement in 2013. So Blawgs are now getting attention in high places. All the more reason for lawyers to blawg.
New blawgs that have recently piqued my interest include the one I mentioned earlier by Dr Renginee Pillay: Myriad Musings and one by Jon Busby which combines his photography of Faces of Law with his subjects sharing their stories to connect up the past, present and future of law.
My 2014 Blawging prediction is exactly the same as it was in 2013. You can read that here: The Time Blawg – Two Years On (Part 2: Blawging). Perhaps in 2015 I will, like Nicole Black already has, stop making predictions about Blawging!
Despite the fact that YouTube is the third most visited website in the world and the second most popular search engine after Google, the use of videos by law firms remains in its infancy. It will, I predict, remain so in 2014.
Defero Law showcase law firm videos on their site and also had a competition in 2013 for the best law firm TV advert.
My own law firm, Inksters, managed to produce one video in 2013: A Christmas message to tie in with our now traditional Christmas Hats:-
We have three more videos currently in production at Inksters that we will be releasing in 2014.
One interesting video project to keep an eye on comes from Jon Harman #projectmayhem. Here is the taster video with more promised in 2014:-
Legal Documentation Online
Not a lot more than previous years appears, on the face of it, to be happening on this front. But perhaps more is going on in the background than meets the eye. Last year I mentioned LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer making the transition from the US to the UK. One year on and as reported at LegalFutures: LegalZoom soft-launches in UK as Rocket Lawyer outlines plans for major growth. Perhaps 2014 will be the year that this area starts to take off in the UK but I rather think the impact of it will only start to be seen two or three years down the line.
Cloud Computing
After some initial resistance lawyers now appear to be accepting the benefits of cloud computing. I have not heard the excuses for not adopting it in 2013 that I did in previous years. More lawyers are definitely taking it up as they upgrade their IT systems and this trend will continue in 2014 and beyond. In a few years it will be ubiquitous and will no longer feature in annual predictions. Indeed it may well get scored out by me as a topic in 2015.
Mobile Devices
More people in the world now have access to mobile phones than to toothbrushes. So it follows that law firms need responsive design websites that can be accessed on mobile devices. There will be a slow move towards this as law firms upgrade their existing websites but don't expect a rush in 2014.
Paisley Sheriff Court in Scotland has taken the retrograde step of banning the use of iPads by lawyers. I hope this is an isolated case and more courts do not follow suit in 2014.
Whilst the use of smartphones and tablets will continue to rise amongst lawyers I do believe that often these devices are best for consuming information rather than producing documentation. Also lack of WiFi and poor 3G signals within courts can limit their usefulness if indeed the court has not already banned their use.
Many lawyers still have to cotton on to the fact that a Surface may stand them in better stead than an iPad. I don't think that will change dramatically in 2014.
Can anyone tell me why in Pete's name my iPad does not have a USB port?
— Silverman Sherliker (@London_Law_Firm) December 27, 2013
@london_law_firm Because it is not as well equipped as a Surface is #windows
— The Time Blawg (@TheTimeBlawg) December 27, 2013
@TheTimeBlawg thinking about Surface Thx.
— Silverman Sherliker (@London_Law_Firm) December 30, 2013
What about Google Glass? Well a trial lawyer is the USA is trying it out. I don't predict much take up by UK lawyers in 2014.
Last year I predicted that my law firm, Inksters, would have more offices in Scotland by the end of 2013 than QualitySolicitors. We opened two new ones in 2013 giving us four in total. That is four more than QualitySolicitors have in Scotland. I predict that the same will be true by the end of 2014.
Last year Jordan Furlong predicted that QualitySolicitors would "expand its operations from the UK to Canada, offering franchise business support to solo and small-firm lawyers and beginning the transformation of the Canadian consumer law sector". Jordan did say it was his "long shot". Perhaps QualitySolicitors need to crack Scotland and become a UK brand before they head to Nova Scotia!
Law Firm Leadership
However, I will give Jordan Furlong his dues on his 2014 prediction (not a long shot) concerning law firm leadership:-
2014 will be last call for leadership in law firms. Most firms have spent the past several years continually kicking the can a few feet down the road, instituting short-term measures and stopgap solutions to keep profits steady and partners away from the kill switch. The weakest lawyers have now been culled, the least powerful staff have been fired, the most obvious mergers have been concluded, and the shiniest baubles on the free-agent lateral market have been pursued and signed. That's it. There's nothing left in the tactical arsenal. All the time outs have been used up.
Firms are now standing face-to-face with the hard truth they've been trying their best to avoid: their business practices have rendered them uncompetitive. They pay more lawyers than they need to burn up more resources than necessary to produce services of undistinguished quality at an arbitrary, inflated, cost-plus price point. Many of these issues are rooted in a lawyer compensation system that, in the immortal words of Stephen Mayson, "pays out too much too quickly to the wrong people doing the wrong thing."
Law firms need new business practices better adapted to a highly competitive, increasingly sophisticated legal market heavily infiltrated by process and technology. Re-engineering the business practices of a multi-million-dollar professional services firm with dozens if not hundreds of autonomous owners is an extraordinarily difficult task, and only those firms with equally extraordinary leadership and culture will pull it off. 2014 is the year we start finding out which firms have leaders who can rise to this massive challenge — by counting the increasingly rapid downward spirals of those that don't.
We will, I also predict, be unfortunately counting those downward spirals in 2014.
What do you think?
What do you think 2014 has in store for IT and legal practice?
Note: My law firm, Inksters, became, in May 2009, the founding Scottish Member firm of QualitySolicitors. This was before QualitySolicitors became the branded organisation that it is today. We decided not to rebrand as QualitySolicitors Inksters but instead left QualitySolicitors and are building our own unique brand Inksters. I believe that QualitySolicitors could be a good fit for certain high street law firms but was no longer the correct direction for Inksters to pursue. My comments on this blog are not related in any way to Inksters one time membership of QualitySolicitors and if considered in any way to be critical should be taken in the constructive sense.
Jan 14
The Time Blawg was three years old on 1 January 2014.
It is now, at this time of year, traditional for me to look back over the past year on The Time Blawg with my reflections and thoughts on the past, present and future practice of law. So here goes.
In 2013 I blogged less on The Time Blawg than I had done in the two previous years. Indeed last year my review of 2012 was done in 4 parts! This year my review of 2013 will easily fit into one blog post (I will do a second post on my predictions for 2014 as I usually cover that at this time of year also). The reason was not a waining interest in the past, present and future practice of law or of blogging in general. On the contrary my energies have been channelled into the future of my own law firm, Inksters. I have opened two new offices (in Wick and Portree) and moved the firm to a much larger new Glasgow HQ (affectionately known as the Inksterplex!) all in 2013. I will hopefully get around to blogging about the why and how of what Inksters are up to at The Time Blawg in 2014.
I also started a new blog in 2013 on crofting law (a niche area of law that I specialise in) with 37 blog posts being contributed by me to it since it began in March. So I was a bit distracted from The Time Blawg. I did have some ideas for posts and a few were drafted but never finalised. I wanted to write more about my experiences of the Surface. I had more to say about QualitySolicitors. I have been promising for some time a follow up on my Paper.li experiment. I may find time later in 2014 to make amends. Until then what did I manage to cover on The Time Blawg in 2013? Well it was mostly reviews of Legal Technology / Futurist Conferences I attended or books I had read.
First up in February was Avoiding Extinction: Reimagining Legal Services for the 21st Century – Reviewed. I commended this book by Mitchell Kowlaski to any lawyers serious about their future. But I suggested that they don't just read it but act on it. A theme that was to emerge in other posts throughout 2013.
In April I reported on some simple but effective technology being employed by the Scottish Land Court at hearings. It also made me think and ponder on the Blawg about what else the courts could be doing to utilise technology and create efficiencies.
April also saw me review Richard Susskind's latest book 'Tomorrow's Lawyers'. I finished my review with this paragraph:-
As I said about Mitchell Kowalski's book, Avoiding Extinction: Reimagining Legal Services for the 21st Century, with Tommorow's Lawyers don't just read it and hope it never happens. Much of it is already reality and much more will become reality. If you want to be one of tomorrow's lawyers read it, digest it and, most importantly, act on it. Richard Susskind hopes you will "want to be one of the pioneers" rather than respond defensively ("how can we stop this happening?"). I, for one, am in the pioneer camp. Join me for the ride if you dare.
April was a month of sadness when I heard of the death of Elizabeth Miles. I put my thoughts down in a blog post about 'a true Twitter friend'.
Whilst I did not blog about it at the time 2013 saw the sad loss of others I had become acquainted with through Social Media.
In November Gianni Sonvico's body was found in the Thames. Gianni was only 23 and had just been called to the Bar. He was a young lawyer with a bright future ahead of him. That future was very sadly brought to an end. I had the good fortune to meet Gianni once when a few of us went out for a curry in London after a Twegals Tweetup. It was a very amusing and memorable evening.
November also saw the untimely death of Paul McConville at the age of 47. Paul was well known for his blog: Random Thoughts Re. Scots Law. I met Paul only once when he visited me to pick my brains on something. He was a very likeable and intelligent lawyer. I think we picked one another's brains that day. Ian Smart, who knew him much better than I did, blogged on Paul McConville's passing.
The anonymous editor of Blawg Review died in October. Not many had met Ed or knew who he was. He did a great job over the years in bringing law blogs to the attention of many by encouraging blawgers to write blawg reviews. In recent times these reviews had unfortunately dwindled in number. Not because there were less blawg posts to review but because, I think, there were a limited number of blawgers willing to put in the time and effort to write the reviews. I know, having done one for UK Blawg Roundup (The Time Travel Edition), that it is a time consuming task. I do, however, now regret not writing a review for Blawg Review. Ed asked me and I said I couldn't at the time but would do so at a future date. I didn't realise the future for Ed was not going to be a long one. Some of the stalwarts of Blawg Review created a final edition in Ed's memory. Starting with Scott Greenfield's post, each chapter linked to the next, before returning to the post by Colin Samuels on Blawg Review and "closing the loop one last time".
In April I attended the biggest legal technology event in Europe. I blogged about it: LawTech Futures 2013 Reviewed: The one with the neocortex. On the 'neocortex' keynote talk by Ray Kurzweil I blogged:-
For most lawyers struggling to decide whether to upgrade to Windows 8 from XP (having missed Windows 7) or just wait for Windows 9 it was all a bit too Dr Who.
In June I was speaking in Edinburgh about Cloud Computing for Law Firms.
Also in June I was at the Reinvent Law conference in London. I blogged about that: Reinvent Law London 2013 Reviewed: DO – don't just talk. Again the clear message was "Reinvention is Doing Not Talking". The next Reinvent Law conference was at that time planned for November 2013 in New York City. That was subsequently postponed to February 2014. New York criminal defence lawyer, Scott Greenfield, reckons Reinvent Law requires "balance instead of just cheerleaders". The organisers of Reinvent Law New York City have an excellent opportunity to include that balance by inviting Scott to speak. I said I would book a flight for it if they did. Alas they have not done so as yet despite my proding:-
Pity that @ScottGreenfield is not on the speakers list for #ReInventLaw. Said I would book a flight to NYC if he was: http://t.co/NFYPn0paY3
— The Time Blawg (@TheTimeBlawg) December 20, 2013
@reinventlaw 3 more added but still no @ScottGreenfield?! http://t.co/CsmS6EPOHu #reinventlaw NYC
— The Time Blawg (@TheTimeBlawg) December 22, 2013
In a recent blog post on 'Innovation – of course, it's what we all do, isn't it?' Paul Gilbert said:-
We have created a sort of pointless coin toss – "heads" we talk of change endlessly, but "tails" let's defend the status quo. All this tossing about has resulted in two very irritating side-effects. The first is the rise of the "thought-leader" – a small self-appointed cohort of media savvy preeners, masticating the bleedin' obvious and expectorating platitudes. The second irritant is the rank NIMBY-ism of so many lawyers; they sit, metaphorically arms folded across their chests, demanding that others impress them with innovative thinking failing which they conclude they must be doing just fine…
Finally the endless chatter about change has paralysed our ability to think for ourselves. The epitome of this nonsense is the evermore flaccid agenda for over-hyped conferences on change/new thinking. These are empty vessels devoid of anything more compelling than half-hearted networking…
Sometimes the networking is the best part of these conferences. Meeting Scott Greenfield in person would have made Reinvent Law NYC a worthwhile event to attend. I know, roughly, what his talk would probably have been about. Others might have benefited from hearing that also.
In September I attended a debate on Law Firm Mergers at the Royal Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow. Was it "better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven"? In 2013 we saw plenty of law firm partners in Scotland handing over the keys to law firms in England. We are likely to see more of that in 2014.
That brings me nicely onto the last post of 2013. A conference on Evolution or Extinction for law firms organised by the Law Society of Scotland. One thing that set this conference apart from some of the others I attended in 2013 was the high percentage of speakers who had been there (some were still there), done that and bought the T-Shirt. They brought actual experiences from the coal face of running and growing very successful law firms. A lot can be gleaned from such experiences. Conference organisers don't always appreciate that. I finished my blog post with this paragraph:-
So will we lawyers evolve or face extinction? I have no doubt, as we heard at the conference, that there are many opportunities to evolve if you have the resolve to do so. But those not prepared to adapt may well face extinction. A look around the room or a read through the delegate list showed that the evolutionists were preaching to the converted. Those that are likely to face extinction don't know it yet. They were not there to hear why.
I do believe that there are benefits to be had from such conferences even if it is just confirming that you are on the right track in what you are doing within your own law practice or in benefiting from those networking opportunities mentioned earlier. Occasionally you may even pick up an idea or two that you can adapt or apply for the benefit of your own law firm. This will be especially so if the speakers have real life experiences to impart. The important point is to act and do following the conference. I will no doubt report on more legal technology / futurist conferences in 2014 but that does not look like it will include Reinvent Law NYC. I'll book my flight when they book Scott Greenfield.
On 24 September 2013 I attended the annual flagship Law in Scotland Conference organised by the Law Society of Scotland. This year the conference was held in Glasgow and theme was Evolution or Extinction.
President of the Law Society of Scotland, Bruce Beveridge, opened the conference by telling us "It is the species that is most adaptable to change that will survive" (a quote or misquote of Darwin). We were told that whilst optimism in the legal profession is low the fact of the matter is that the number of solicitors is at an all time high, unemployed solicitors are comparatively low in number and there are more traineeship opportunities. From a recent recruitment exercise at my own law firm, Inksters, it was heart breaking to see the number of applicants who were unemployed. From the number of CVs we get each week from aspiring trainees and knowing who have and have not got traineeships within my tutorial group at the Diploma of Legal Practice at the University of Glasgow I think that traineeship opportunities need to be much better. Perhaps comparisons were being made with numbers two or three years ago but I would be surprised if they could be compared with pre-recession days.
The first keynote of the day was delivered by Richard Susskind who was introduced as a technology geek for having a Blackberry and an iPhone. However, Richard is probably simply evolving his mobile phone usage as the former becomes extinct! Richard's talk was very similar to the one he gave recently at Reinvent Law London. I have also reviewed his most recent book, Tomorrow's Lawyers, on this blog. Some points I particularly noted, this time around, as I tweeted were:-
Richard gave many examples of different ways of working in today's legal world. Many were from England or the USA. There were no Scottish examples other than perhaps the latest outsourcing venture from Ashurst in Glasgow. Are Scottish firms behind the curve? Are we always a few years behind our English neighbours?
Ahead of the conference Richard told the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland why tomorrow's lawyers can expect a world radically different even from the changed times of today: Moving up the gears.
Richard suggested that the last time he spoke at a Law Society of Scotland Conference (2009) no one had heard of Twitter. Not quite correct. I specifically recall tweeting from that conference and interacting with CharonQC about the lack of any mention of Twitter at it! Facebook, I recall, was flavour of the day back then and/or the next big thing. A search through my Twitter archive reveals the relevant tweet from 9 May 2009:-
Richard Susskind asks how many delegates are on Facebook but does not ask this question about Twitter. Did he assume there would be none?
— Brian Inkster (@BrianInkster) May 9, 2009
But it is true that very few lawyers were using Twitter in 2009. My Twitter archive shows that 9 delegates at the 2009 conference were on Facebook. The figure today (although it was not asked) is likely to be considerably higher. A poll of hands showed 20% of the delegates were now (at the 2013 conference) using Twitter. When Stephen Gold asked the same question in the afternoon only two hands (including my own) went up. So a good few Twegals (lawyers who tweet) must have flown from the conference early.
On the subject of Twitter: at the outset of the conference I asked @LawScot what the hashtag for the conference was. In the absence of any reply I made up my own: #lssconf (shorthand for Law Society of Scotland Conference and in keeping with the previous evening's official #lsssgm: Law Society of Scotland Special General Meeting). Later in the morning I noticed @LawScot tweeting using the hashtag #LawinScotland. By then I had tweeted quite a bit using my own hashtag. It was also a good bit shorter which is always a good idea with conference hashtags. So I kept using it. A suggestion for next year would be for the Law Society of Scotland to fix on and advertise an official hashtag before and at the conference. How about simply #LawScot or, if need be, #LawInScot?
A Dragons' Den style session saw a panel pitch to the audience (the Dragons) ideas for the future health and wellbeing of Conveyancing in Scotland. This covered standardisation of documentation, a quality assurance scheme, one central universally used online dealing room, greater collaboration between the Scottish Property Centres and overcoming conflict of interest concerns. The latter seemed to get the Dragons vote, possibly as a result of the vote against separate representation the previous evening.
Eric Wright of The Business Champions Limited had a practical session on how to negotiate with your bank. An important area for any law firm in these days of squeezed finance. The message was one of being organised and prepared. You need good housekeeping, planning and to prepare thoroughly. You should speak to your accountants, know your numbers and be a smart operator. Although Eric didn't say it I was thinking that it was those types that always get the backing they are looking for when they go into the Dragons' Den. Same principle whether it is private equity or bank loans you are after.
Eric continued with questions to ask yourself: What do you really need? Can you service the debt? What security is available? Eric pointed out that it was better to have a deal than no deal! But don't threaten your bank as to do so is likely to result in a 'lose' situation. I know from recent personal experience in obtaining funding for Inksters' continued expansion and in particular our new Glasgow HQ that Banks do, understandably, want a significant amount of detail, facts and figures. Present them with that and if it all adds up chances are you will get the backing that you need. We certainly did and refurbishment of our new offices are currently well underway thanks to the Bank of Scotland.
Another session on banking had two bankers, James Oliver and Scott Foster, from The Royal Bank of Scotland tell us how to manage the bank manager. There was a degree of overlap with what Eric Wright had been telling us and I was wondering as to the benefits of having both sessions at the same conference. A couple of points that I noted that perhaps were not covered by Eric were (1) are you still using only 30% of your computer systems?; and (2) the benefits on cash flow of accepting credit card payments. It is a certain that most lawyers are using only a small percentage of the computer power at their disposal. I know that at Inksters we could be doing much more than we currently are with the systems we have. However, we are constantly working on improving on and increasing that usage. It takes time, planning, buy-in and resources. But well worth it when you see the systems deliver results for you. On the second point it amazes me that some law firms are not in this day and age taking credit card payments. It is a no brainer. We have been doing it at Inksters for at least a decade and online via our website since 2008. I can't see how you can run a business today without offering card payments.
Greg Shields told us how we could compete with the big brands. Greg was CEO of Forster Dean – the largest high street law firm in the UK – for the past 7 years and has recently founded myblui.com. I always like presentations from those that have been at the coal face and can tell of their real life experiences. Some highlights from Greg's talk that I tweeted at the time:-
I have read Bruce MacEwen's blog at Adam Smith, Esq for some time and was looking forward to hearing him speak. He didn't disappoint with the second keynote of the day: 'Growth Is Dead: Now What?' Some highlights, again as tweeted by me at the time:-
Bruce MacEwen's book 'Growth Is Dead: Now What?' was given out to delegates at the conference so I am looking forward to reading that.
Ros Taylor was the third keynote speaker of the day with 'Ten commandments for success'. She had interviewed many of the most succesful business people in the world. She told us that a leader's behaviour influences profitability by + or – 15%. Successful people are good at what they do. They don't have personal goals but business ones. Networking, surprisingly perhaps, is not a priority. They do, however, possess great interpersonal skills. Her research shows that consistently these people have the following attributes:-
Ros also had us drawing our own train with the people who have most influenced us on it. Most forgot to put themselves on the train – driving it. This could have been a significant omission apparently. We also found out what type of person we were: based on whether we liked a square, rectangle, triangle, circle or squiggle! I am a triangle if you were wondering. That makes me a leader apparently. It should also mean that I drive a sleek sports car. I don't. I catch that train I'm not driving instead! See: What shape is your personality?
You can always rely on Stephen Gold for a good talk on managing your law firm. Stephen has been there, done that and bought the T-shirt. He transformed Golds from a Glasgow suburban sole practice to a cross-border market leader that merged with Irwin Mitchell. I always enjoy a chat with Stephen and it was good to hear his words of wisdom at the conference on 'Take the High Street! Success, not just survival in the new normal'. These, again as tweeted by me at the time, are:-
Another successful Glasgow lawyer is Austin Lafferty. Again with him you get the coal face stories and he is still chipping away at that coal. He wrapped up the conference well with 'Not just surviving, but thriving. A High Street blueprint for success'. Once more you get Austin's words of wisdom by way of my tweets:-
@TheTimeBlawg I supplied my own computer (laptop) when started as Assistant in firm – no-one in firm thought Solicitor would want/need one!
— A Lawyer (@HighlandLawyer) September 24, 2013
The conference was brought to a close (as it was opened) by President of the Law Society of Scotland, Bruce Beveridge. My review covers all the sessions at the conference that I went to. There were, however, other streams and so my apologies to those speakers whose talks I have not covered but I couldn't have been in two or more rooms at once unless I had used my Tardis and it has been playing up of late
So will we lawyers evolve or face extinction? I have no doubt, as we heard at the conference, that there are many opportunities to evolve if you have the resolve to do so. But those not prepared to adapt may well face extinction. A look around the room or a read through the delegate list showed that the evolutionists were preaching to the converted. Those that are likely to face extinction don't know it yet. They were not there to hear why.
[Image Credits: Dodo in a lawyer's wig from Duhaime.org: The Lawyer Witness: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde - inserted into gallery scene using PhotoFunia; Dragons' Den Chairs: ©BBC]
Sep 13
A debate on Law Firm Mergers was held at the Royal Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow on 5 September 2013.
Chaired by the President of the Law Society of Scotland, Bruce Beveridge, the debate saw differing opinions expressed by the two speakers: Austin Lafferty and Gilbert Anderson.
Austin's view was that it was "better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" (John Milton – Paradise Lost). As an aside Steven Raeburn told us, via Twitter, that in the Star Trek episode 'Space Seed', Milton is referenced by Khan and quoted by Kirk.
Anyway, back to planet earth and Austin was telling us that running a law firm was not about being a good lawyer. Management and business skills were equally important. A recurring theme in posts on this blog. If you deal with the business aspects of running a law firm you will have a better business. Austin was of the opinion that you should look inward and see what you can improve within your own firm before you consider merger as an option – or the last throw of the dice. Many mergers are to do with safety, security and making the best of a bad lot. None of us make the best out of clients that we can. If your starting-off point for running a law practice is your client's best interests, you can't go far wrong, as long as you see that term and its meaning in its widest context.
Gilbert Anderson knows law firm mergers first hand: his firm, Andersons, merged with DAC Beachcroft. He believes that the merger has benefitted the firm's clients. If the clients benefit then the firm does through client retention and more work. The benefits have been an ability to deliver a wider and better added value service to clients. This has in turn produced more work.
With insurance being Andersons core work (80% or so) and insurers reducing their panels of solicitors then merger was perhaps inevitable. They had a number of key clients with DAC Beachcroft and a merger enabled them to offer cross border services within the UK. This may also be true of the merger announced this past week of Scottish law firm Simpson & Marwick with international law firm Kennedys. This is the latest in a series of Anglo-Scottish mergers following on from the recent mergers of Shoosmiths with Archibald Campbell & Harley, DWF with Biggart Baillie, Pinsent Masons with McGrigors and TLT with Anderson Fyfe. There have been less notable purely Scottish mergers but one in recent times was Burness with Paull & Williamsons.
Gilbert Anderson mentioned boutiques emerging in niche areas and then merging with larger firms. My own view is that boutiques may be better off remaining independent and not merging. John Flood joined in, via Twitter, to comment that boutiques "can foment more boutiques!" I have made reference before on this blog and will do so again to John Flood's post on The Rise of Boutiques? Again on Twitter Matthew Denney thought if boutiques merge then they risk losing the reason they existed in the first place. Continuing the Twitter debate, Jon Busby tweeted "merging, I suspect, is the end of the ideas road for firms". Some more from Jon on mergers can be found on his blog at Legal 2.0: Digging a hole? Back to Twitter and Simon Arkell tweeted "for a boutique, merging could lose identity and will not necessarily fix financial woes".
Back in the Royal Faculty (rather than on Twitter) and Walter Semple pointed out that most of the law firm mergers we have seen in Scotland in recent years have been driven by the banks and not necessarily the desire of the firms involved. As Steven Raeburn put it in a tweet: "They have all been panic takeovers, with the exception of Burness-Paull & Williamsons". That exception to the general rule was, Steven reckoned, "just a good, organic business fit that both wanted but neither needed".
Andy Todd tweeted: "more time will be spent talking about the new name than new opportunities".
Discussion took place over the lack of investment by law firms in their future. New entrants (ABS) will reinvest profits in their future. If we keep the model we have now we won't get anywhere. There is huge potential. We must do something rather than giving up. We must climb down from a position of perceived superiority and start again from a different mindset. Indeed, as I blogged in my last post, we must do - don't just talk. If law firms did so then they may find that they have less need to consider a merger.
What do you think?
I attended Reinvent Law in London on Friday. It had the same organisers (Daniel Katz and Renee Knake of Michigan State University College of Law in partnership with the University of Westminster) and style as LawTech Camp London 2012. Basically the same concept but with a new name.
So pretty much every tweeting legal is here at #ReinventLaw – nice full room, great atmosphere
— Mark Smith (@intchallenge) June 14, 2013
I enjoyed LawTech Camp London last year so was looking forward to it. On the whole it delivered again this year although I did hear noises from some who thought last year's event was better. Perhaps it was more novel to us last year and so was more compelling first time around? What I particularly like about Reinvent Law London is the North American dimension. Many of the presenters were from the other side of the pond bringing some fresh ideas to this side of it. They probably think the same but the other way around.
"Technology is not the solution, people are." Steve Jobs #ReinventLaw
— The Time Blawg (@TheTimeBlawg) June 14, 2013
There was a packed schedule with 24 speakers to get through. Many of these were in the short (6 minutes long) 'ignite' format. I am not going to attempt to review all 24 talks. What I will do is mention a few that caught my attention in one way or another. This does not mean those are any better or worse than ones I do not mention – simply they were more my thing.
Has anyone at #reinventlaw mentioned that the winning law firm will be more like IR and Thunderbird 2? — Jeffrey Brandt (@jeffrey_brandt) June 14, 2013
Craig Holt, Chief Executive of QualitySolicitors, was first up. I had tweeted before the Conference that I was a bit surprised to see QualitySolicitors on the Bill. Were they not old news by now? Renee Knake when introducing Craig did confess that she had been attempting to get him to speak at a conference for several years and he had eventually said yes.
QualitySolicitors may have been fresh and of interest to many of our North American friends in the audience but I suspect most from this side of the pond had already heard about QualitySolicitors ad nauseam. I am as much at fault for that with several blog posts on The Time Blawg about QualitySolicitors and another coming your way soon.
However, not to be too unfair to Craig Holt he still made some interesting points in his talk – although the solution to most is in the hands of law firm owners willing to effect change and it does not follow that this means being part of a branded umbrella organisation.
Craig discussed services sold by law firms as often being a mystery box. You don't really know what you are getting or how much it is going to cost you. Craig used the analogy of lawyers being like taxi drivers with the meter running (I have a blog post on that lined up for The Time Blawg).
Craig Holt from QS has an R&D department! A law firm with R&D–miracle! #reinventlaw — John Flood (@JohnAFlood) June 14, 2013
QualitySolicitors have a Research & Development Department that calls other solicitors to assess the service being provided by them. Craig played us a recording of one such call where the solicitor couldn't tell the caller what a divorce would cost. This same theme came up in later talks as a reason why people don't like to engage a solicitor.
The problem is with the law firms and not with the lawyers Craig told us. As law firms (pre ABS) are owned by lawyers might there not be some fault at lawyer level I wonder? Craig thinks that law firms need to be reinvented so that lawyers can be adored. He showed us a slide of the word lawyer changing to adored one letter at a time:-
Lawyer > Sawyer >Sawder > Sadder > Ladder > Lander > Gander > Gender > Render > Reader > Header > Headed > Healed > Sealed > Scaled > Scared > Scares > Scores > Scorns > Acorns > Adorns > Adores > Adored
One step at a time was a theme that ran through several talks including Craig's one. It is not necessarily about the next big thing but taking small steps that together build into something greater than the parts. Jon Busby has blogged about Improving. I also believe that many law firms could do well to improve on where they are currently at, a little step at a time, rather than attempting to completely reinvent themselves overnight.
RT I think its a longer journey than that @andrewdlevey: Craig Holt taking us from lawyer to adored in 23 steps. #reinventlaw — Jeffrey Brandt (@jeffrey_brandt) June 14, 2013
Speaking of Jon Busby, he was quoted by Craig:-
If I had to pick just one central theme for the future of legal services delivery it would be this; Lawyers will delegate more routine process to the customer (free) leaving them to focus on the high value intellectual stuff (paid for). That delegating will be enabled by technology and driven by you and me.
That, said Craig, is what QualitySolicitors are doing by way of their tie up with Legal Zoom. The sceptic in me wonders if this will be as fruitful as their tie up with WH Smith (no mention of that one at Reinvent Law!).
Key message from QS opener at #ReinventLaw: lawyers not accessible enough & pricing not transparent enough, and tech can help change that. — Tim Bratton (@legalbrat) June 14, 2013
However, to be fair again to QualitySolicitors, at least they are experimenting and whilst some of those experiments will fail others will, in all probability, work out for them. Legal Zoom, with proper execution, has more to offer their members than WH Smith ever did. It may not be the case though that each of their ventures is right for each of their member firms. That is, no doubt, a difficult balancing act for the umbrella organisation to play as it decides what its next step will be.
The very clear thrust of Joshua Kubicki's afternoon talk was "Reinvention is Doing Not Talking" and at least QualitySolicitors are doers as well as talkers. The need to do is the punchline in my recent reviews on both Avoiding Extinction: Reimagining Legal Services for the 21st Century and Tomorrow's Lawyers.
One thing very clear to me from #Reinventlaw. The winners will be the doers. And not all the talkers will do. — Tim Bratton (@legalbrat) June 14, 2013
Moving onto the ignite sessions, it was the one by Lah Leutrim Ahmeti that kept me (and I think most of the audience) entranced. His presentation was about the 'UrLaw app' which would be an app that allows you to access consumer contract terms, engage a solicitor and settle disputes all from your mobile phone.
What was impressive about this presentation was the fact that the presenter never opened his mouth once. Instead he did a robotic dance and mime to accompany his slides. If this was the law industry equivalent of Britain's Got Talent he would have earned a wink from Simon Cowell. I trust a video of it will be posted soon.
Looking at the #reinventlaw tweets….. I am calling a psychiatrist — Charonqc (@Charonqc) June 14, 2013
Mark Smith also provided a very engaging presentation. He told us the story of Amy Li from her birth to becoming General Counsel at IBM. It held our attention and the punch line was that she achieved this success without any formative training in the law.
@intchallenge Amy led to legal department re-engineering without legal training. #reinventlaw` GC of the future might not be a lawyer.
— Larry Bridgesmith (@lbridgesmith) June 14, 2013
Martin Langan guided us through how his online service, Road Traffic Representation, works. It has a free diagnostic tool which, once you have answered relevant questions, provides advice on possible outcomes and penalties if convicted. It also allows you to access telephone advice and instruct a barrister if required.
Barristers are impressed by the level of detail in the instructions they receive via the system – often better than being instructed at the last minute by a solicitor with a "here is the file, get on with it".
We weren't naval gazing with Martin. We were seeing the law reinvented today. Martin hinted that he would be moving the system into other areas of legal practice.
Electronic brief automatically generated by website – looks like great quality brief – would love to get sent one like this!! #reinventlaw
— Lorna Borthwick (@lorna_borthwick) June 14, 2013
Alice de Sturler (aka Nic H. Vidocq or Vidster or @Vidocq_CC) gave a talk on "Using Blogs to Give Cold Cases a Web Presence". Some of the audience may have been surprised to learn that Vidster is a women. Until now Alice has blogged at Defrosting Cold Cases anonymously and the persona adopted by her appeared, on the face of it, to be male.
"Be more innovative with existing technology" -Alice de Sturler on giving cold cases a web presence. Fantastic. #Reinventlaw
— Ciara O'Neill (@CiaraOneill7) June 14, 2013
What I enjoyed about Alice's talk was that this showed what can and is being done using the world wide web and social media on a practical level. Lawyers can learn much from others that are more advanced in their use of available technology. More practical examples of this ilk wouldn't go amiss at future Reinvent Law conferences.
The title of Richard Susskind's talk, which rounded off the day, was "The Past, Present and Future of AI + Law". Very much in keeping with the theme of this Blawg so pleased to be able to journey back and forth in time with Richard in his Tardis. We heard about Richard being involved in the development in 1988 (when I was still a law student) of a computerised diagnostic tool: Latent Damage Law – The Expert System. Richard had expected 25 years later for there to be many more systems like this. There are some (we heard about Road Traffic Representation earlier) but not that many. Richard thinks the reason it didn't happen was because of hourly billing. There was no need in law firms for efficiency. As we know that is now changing. Richard discussed the 4 stages of acceptance of technology:-
Many law firms are still nowhere near stage 4.
Like last year #Reinventlaw gives you glimmer of understanding just how much tech will change legal services. We have only just started
— Neil Rose (@legalfutures) June 14, 2013
Thanks to #ReInventLaw my lunch was tea and sweet pastries.
— Zeribe Nwachuku (@ZeribeNwa) June 14, 2013
Last year in my review of LawTech Camp London 2012 I mentioned the lack of nourishment of the edible kind. Thankfully with a little help from LexisNexis we had this year not only pastries at our tea breaks but also wine, beer, spirits and canapés at the after conference reception. Well done. Also the sponsorship element did not colour the ethos of the conference in any way. The LexisNexis slot was an informative and interesting talk much like all the others and in no way felt like an advert break.
For those in need of even more refrehments there was a Twegal Tweetup organised by Shireen Smith at a nearby pub after the Reinvent Law reception.
The next Reinvent Law
Reinvent Law is going to New York in November 2013. New York criminal defence attorney, Scott Greenfield, reckons Reinvent Law requires "balance instead of just cheerleaders".
@ValoremLamb @jeffrey_brandt It's up to #ReinventLaw to ask if they want balance. I'll take their call. But I won't hold my breath.
— Scott Greenfield (@ScottGreenfield) June 15, 2013
Scott is not going to pitch a talk and wait for votes. He has, however, made an offer to talk if invited but thinks there will be no takers. I do hope Renee and Daniel make that call. It would add a very interesting dimension to Reinvent Law New York. I would book a flight for it.
[Photo credits: Main photo (header): Daniel Katz - Reinvent Law; Do: Lexis Nexis UK; UrApp: Computational Legal Studies; AI and Law: Computational Legal Studies; Twegal Tweetup: Jonathan Lea]
On 19 June I will be in Edinburgh speaking about my law firm's experience of moving our entire IT system to the cloud at a Conference organised by Denovo Business Intelligence in conjuction with RSM Tenon, Inksters and RISE. This is the programme:-
Scottish Legal Conference
Maximise Fee Income using Intelligent Cloud Computing
09.30am, 2.00pm or 5.30pm
Claim CPD Time
Recent research has shown that most legal firms are not capitalising on their fee income. Yet most law firms focus on new client capture whilst not charging accurately or timeously for the work already carried out.
This is due to a variety of factors such as:-
Lack of accurate time records, outsourcing to third parties such as law accountants, lengthy time delays between case completion and billing, fee disputes with clients, lack of interim billing, excessive discounting of fees and the list goes on……………………………
How can your law firm CAPITALISE on these opportunities?
At this conference we will answer this question. We will look at practical methods which will enable you to harness your already existing billing potential.
Angela Mitchell CA CTA, Tax Director, RSM Tenon, will discuss tax tips and planning opportunities for legal practices in order to reduce partners' exposure to higher rates of income tax.
Brian Inkster, Inksters Solicitors, will present his practical experience of implementing "Intelligent Cloud Computing" and the positive impact this has had for his firm.
James Henigan, Managing Director, RISE, will present a summary of the Rise cloud platform (DataCenter on Demand) and their partnership with Denovo, focusing on adoption trends of the SMB marketplace and why companies should not be fearful of trusting their data to cloud based infrastructure and the inherent benefits that can be realised by doing so.
Margaret Buchanan of Denovo Business Intelligence, will demonstrate a cost-effective way to outsource the burden of managing and maintaining hardware and software platforms, by showing live access to "the cloud" and by using a couple of work type examples demonstrate WIP Limits being reached, Accurate Charges being Captured, Automated Production of Bills and automation of government forms and documents.
The Conference is at the Apex International Hotel, 31-35 Grassmarket, Edinburgh EH1 2HS on 19 June. The programme is repeated in three slots (9.30am, 2.00pm and 5.30pm) during the day so you can choose the time that suits you best. You can book to attend here: Maximise Fee Income using Intelligent Cloud Computing


text:
Beautiful New McKinney Office Now Open
Mckinney, TX
We have relocated and expanded into a beautiful new office overlooking the Stonebridge golf course. Our new space features stunning visitor spaces and incredible private offices full stocked including company computers. Our agent lounge has tons of space to work on the wireless or utilize our tech bar computers and work space. This office has doubled their last year business year to date under the leadership of our new manager, Deborah Diviney. Come see the exciting new face of Coldwell Banker Apex McKinney. We would love to give you a private tour. No obligation. Call 214-534-9215 today.
Coldwell Banker Apex, Realtors
7290 Virginia Parkway Mckinney, TX 75071
See All Opportunities with this Company
7290 Virginia Parkway Mckinney, TX 75071
See All Opportunities with this Company