(Very Slightly Premature) Obituary for a Dominant Law Firm Technology

April 27th, 2011

Back in the day, when my Mom was a Real Estate partner at Ropes & Gray in Boston, she had in her skyscraper-ish office an old, golden-oak rolltop desk.  Though it was usually buried beneath similarly skyscraper-ish piles of documents, each evidencing some sort of arcane sewer easement or memorandum of preexisting non-conforming use, the desk itself always had a welcoming charm.  Looking back, it still seems to me like a stately reminder of a more genteel time, when well-mannered lawyers provided unhurried counsel to longstanding clients, behaving generally like characters in an Edith Wharton novel.

Fast-forward to one day late in my Mom’s career.  (No…not the day she told an already mega-famous Jim Carrey, “They tell me you’re a comedian.  Good for you.  You’re such a polite young man; just stick with it and things will work out for your career.”  While true, that’s a story for another blog on another day).  I’m talking about the day she arrived in her office to find an alien device blinking soullessly on her beloved antique desk.  After regarding this intruder for a few minutes, she called Technical Services to determine its provenance and whether it posed any threat to her well-being.  She was informed, “Oh…didn’t you see the memo?  That’s your new computer.  We’re all going to be using them to keep track of our time from now on.”

I will leave aside any ironic comments about timekeeping being the first use law firms made of the greatest time-saving device ever invented.

Ever polite, Mom listened carefully to the voice from Technical Services as it extolled the virtues of the unwelcome newcomer.  Then she said, “Well…that’s lovely.  Thank you.  Now please come and take it away. I can’t see my rolltop desk because of it…And it’s blinking at me.”

Nothing against my Mom.  Got herself from a modest background through Vassar College and Yale Law School on scholarships.  Clerked at the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts.  Started at Ropes & Gray at a time when there was precious little support or opportunity for female attorneys.  Had five kids in six years, leaving the firm for a while in the middle of this run (but helping organize the Peace Corps during her “time off”). Then returned to work.  Then had a sixth kid. Then shortly thereafter, becoming the firm’s second female partner ever.  All the while doing a great job raising my five siblings, and a marginally okay job raising me.  So, y’know, hardly a woman afraid of challenge or change.  Just one who didn’t want a 20th-century device on her 19th-century desktop.

This mini-parable of the blinking-computer-on-the old-oaken-rolltop-desk always reminds me that no matter how accomplished or intellectually curious a person may be, once they get used to doing things a certain way, it becomes difficult to get them to change that way.  Actually, it turns out that the more accomplished a person is, the more pronounced their resistance to change may be.  ”I have been successful when I do X, therefore X is the way to be successful.”  This is hardly surprising.  Evolutionary biologists correlate the degree to which a species has adapted to its environment with the likelihood that species will “win” by out-competing neighbors for resources within that environment.  Whether you’re a finch in the Galapagos or an fifth-year at Goodwin, the more fundamentally you adjust to the rules your survival depends on, the more likely you are to survive.  Seems logical enough, right?  Finches and fifth-years who morph to fit in live to have baby finches and become sixth-years. 

Precisely because of their high level of adaptation to their environments, however, evolutionary “winners” find themselves especially susceptible to environmental change.  If a finch’s beak is perfectly adapted to crushing seeds, they’re in trouble when drought or disease or new competition remove their one food source.  When you succeed because you are so tied into doing things one way that works in your world, you tend to miss out on changes to that world…even fundamental changes that threaten survival.  There’s even a technical term used across a range of disciplines–hysteresis–that describes the state where the rate of change in some organism or entity lags behind the rate of change in the environmental factors that act upon that organism or entity.  

Lawyers tend not to be as up-to-date on their hysteresis analysis as they perhaps should be. But after a few years and with the benefit of perspective and the clarity of hindsight, even these firms come to see how short-sighted their “X is the way to be successful” refrains really were. If you were around when lawyers resisting the adoption of email, then you know what I mean. It wasn’t all that long ago that I was told by (former) outside counsel that they were afraid that email would lead to clients sending new matters to them at 4PM on a Friday afternoon. It’s hard today to imagine practicing without it.  (It’s also hard today to imagine wanting to prevent clients from sending new matters to you).

Which perhaps is why we were struck by yesterday’s almost-true news that the world’s last typewriter factory had closed its doors for good.  (We say “almost true” because it appears that Chinese and Indonesian factories still make a vestigially small number of typewriters.  But not, it seems, for long. 

Dinosaurs have been gone from this world for a very long time.  But they ruled it for a much, much longer period–sitting atop the food chain for a period of time about  100 million years longer than the period from their extinction until now.

The same concept holds for typewriters.  They seem like such distant anachronisms now, but they were the predominant means of law firm document production for–what?–seventy or eighty years?  And have now been gone  for maybe twenty? For decades, law firms couldn’t have imagined getting work done without typewriters.  Now they can’t imagine getting work done with them.

So, to honor the almost-dead typewriter, do this…Look around your desk–rolltop or otherwise.  Take a peek around your office.  Walk the halls a bit.  Look for all the pieces of technology you use everyday.  Now try to pick out the ones mostly likely to make you look back on in a few years, unable to remember how you ever got anything done with it around.  Fax machine?  Desk phone?  Desktop computer?  Laser printer?  The evolutionary clock is ticking on all of them. 

Except the coffeemaker.  If Darwin wants our coffeemaker, he can try to come down here and pry it from the hands of our Director of Product Design.

Ezekiel 25:17 (or, Rich Baer is tryin’ real hard to be the shepherd, Ringo)

April 18th, 2011

If you’re interested–really interested–in how to bring innovation to the delivery of legal services, and if you haven’t thoroughly checked out Rich Baer’s blog, ‘Reliance on Counsel” yet, you should stop reading this right now and go there.  Now.  Seriously…go on.  Go. Don’t worry….we’ll wait for you. 

[Why are you still here?  You shouldn’t be here.  Go here instead.  C’mon…go…]

—————————————— 

Good.  They’re gone.  Let’s talk about Pulp Fiction until they get back.

You remember 1994’s Pulp Fiction,right?  By Quentin Tarantino? When it hit movieplex screens Pulp Fictionchanged how popular movies tell their stories.  Since the early Greek tragedians, popular storytelling in visual media was always structurally the same: events occured chronologically across a three or five act story arc while tensions built and then ultimately resolved.  You might get an occasional flashback (Godfather II), or an out-of-sequence coda (the burning Rosebud in Citizen Kane) or an onstage recitation of pivotal off-stage occurrences (“Sorry Hamlet…Rosencrantz and Guildenstern ain’t coming down for breakfast no more.  Time to move to plan B”).  Basically though, on stage or screen, plots and themes and characters always just progressed sequentially and in rigid lockstep with each other.  Beginning.  Middle.  End.  Always.  Why such predictability?  That’s basically the way we humans operate.  A formula for doing something just builds by inertia, accreting over the years and hardening to the point where it seldom gets challenged, even after it has long grown stale.

Quick side thought:  If this could happen in a the theater and movie industries, which are ostensibly built on originality and individualism, how might the forces of inertia and accretion stifle innovation in an industry built on adherence to precedent, observance of community standard, and strict avoidance of risk?  Hmmm…let’s put that thought aside for a bit.  Maybe we’ll think of just such an industry.

Pulp Fiction abruptly changed this rigidity.  In the film, events occur in almost random order.  Plotlines just barely interrelate. Characters die in one scene, and then appear in later scenes that chronologically took place earlier.  Basically, it’s a complete re-shuffling of the traditional movie structure.  But it works really well because when Tarantino tosses out the accreted form (sequence…sequence…beginning, middle, end…), he focuses instead on the underlying purpose: storytelling.  Because of this focus on story over form, and because of Tarantino’s skillful technique, the center holds: characters develop; plot strings come full circle, tensions rise and resolve, all with great poignancy and salience.  As NYT reviewer Janet Maslin noted at the time, “far from confusing his audience, Mr. Tarantino eventually makes the film’s time scheme crystal clear, linking episodes with dialogue that may sound casual but sticks indelibly in memory.”

One indelibly recurring nugget of such dialogue conveys much character growth.  Throughout the movie, Samuel L. Jackson’s hitman character, Jules, recites, and alludes to off-camera recitations of, Ezekiel’s emotional prophecy against the Philistines (Ezekiel 25:17).

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.”

As he profanely informs us towards the movie’s end (I won’t link to it, but if you search Youtube for some combination of the words Pulp-Fiction-Ending-Diner-Scene, you’ll find the scene pretty quickly), Jules is at something of an inflection point in his life when he drops his last Ezekiel 25:17 on us.  He’s been through a lot in the course of fulfilling his duties to his employer.  Now, he’s just going to walk the earth for a bit.  He doesn’t exactly know where he’ll end up or what he’ll do as he moves away from his previous role (a role he excelled at, by all accounts).  But he recognizes that he wants to guide others with what he has seen and learned. He’s trying real hard to be the shepherd.

And that’s really all I wanted to say about Pulp Fiction.  By rearranging the stale and accreted practices of his industry, Tarantino revitalized moviemaking, spawning scores of imitators and—for while anyway—making movies a bit less rigid and a bit more interesting.  He also makes us remember that it’s never really the existing structure that drives innovation, it’s the characters who emerge from that structure.

——————————————  

Oh.  You’re back.  See what we mean about Reliance on Counsel?  Someone who actually knows what they’re talking about writing succinctly and well about deep-rooted structural inefficiencies in the legal service delivery model. And then (wait for it….) actually suggesting solutions and offering to help.

Different, huh?  Better, right?  As we’ve noted before, too many legal blogs are thinly veiled attempts to get the reader to buy whatever legal service or technology the writer is peddling.

Baer isn’t selling anything. As Qwest General Counsel and Chief Administrative Officer he just quarterbacked the massive $20B M&A deal whereby his company got A’ed by and M’ed with CenturyTel without getting F’ed by the government. So, he’s sold enough for a few hundred lifetimes, thank you.

Because of the high-profile jobs he’s held, Rich has been in a unique position to observe how legal services can sometimes do disservice to the clients they’re supposed to serve.  Because of how well he did his last job, he probably has an audience that will listen to his suggestions about how these service providers need to adapt.  If he’s offering his help now in shepherding industry change, we should all be listening.

So, we encourage you to start reading and keep reading Reliance on Counsel.

Or we will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger.

Typical Law Technology/Service Blog

April 17th, 2011

Most legal service provider blogs go pretty much like this…

Here is a headline from a recent article about event X.  Here is an expression of disconcert over event X.  Here is a flimsy and overreaching analogy between event X and legal industry condition Y.  Here is an ill-fitting causal connection between X and Y, expressed with a metaphysical certainty not supported by the facts in evidence.  Here is a brief pause for the audience to consider the grave and far-reaching implications of the foregoing.  Here is a statement concluding that the legal industry just needs to buy more Z in order to resolve condition Y and prevent recurrence of X. 

Signed, Person, who happens to be CXO or VP of Marketing for Company Z and who is just writing this self-interested, time-sucking contrivance so you will buy his/her stuff.

 [And here, growing quietly in the mind of the audience, is the sense that they’ve just endured an infomercial…one that’s light on the info and heavy on the mercantile.]

 Here’s our promise: we work at the intersection of law and technology and economics and process.  We’ll try to write mostly about people and events that land within a few blocks of that intersection.  And we’ll try not to prescribe what we do as the remedy for everything from the financial meltdown to rogue, killer asteroids to the deforestation of the Amazon basin (although…now that we think about it, your firm or department would almost certainly use less paper if you signed onto Brightleaf).  

 We want you to buy our stuff too.  It’s pretty awesome, document automating stuff. We just don’t feel like we should try to lure you into thinking that everything under the sun is referendum on that stuff.

Boo

April 6th, 2011

Much ado about the Big Busy today: more AmLaw firms…and a teeming throng of Venture Capitalists to boot. (Which reminds me…pride of lions, gaggle of geese, pod of whales…what is the proper collective noun for Venture Capitalists anyway?).  

Anyway, in the midst of all that was going on, I did notice this bit of legal marketing dissonance:  

not funny

 

Okay. The public is a bit frothed about radiation in Japan. And people love to make distant events about themselves. But come on…was this subject line really necessary?  

Just not funny.

 

  

Now I don’t think the author is being politically incorrect. A bit tone-deaf, sure. Captivated by their own self-sense of whimsy? Yup. Cringe-worthy unfunniness fanning the flames of hysterical overreaction.  Affirmative. 

And for the record, I think the collection noun should be “a cram of VC.”

PRESS RELEASE: Conan on Legal Documents, LegalTech, and Brightleaf

January 31st, 2011

 As promised, here’s the full video of Conan discussing (perhaps a bit tongue-in-cheek), LegalTech, Brightleaf, and how legal documents get done in the land of multimedia megastars.  Or maybe how they should get done.

Check out the whole story…and visit LegalTech booth #1504 for more interviews and analysis.  Stayed tuned here for a MAJOR product announcement later today!

Conan on Legal Documents…and LegalTech

January 29th, 2011

Brightleaf Corporation just released a preview of its video “What Conan O’Brien knows about legal document processes…and what he thinks about LegalTech. The preview, available below, features a quick (and perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek) overview of the talk show host/comedian/contract imbroglio veteran’s view of this weeks gathering at the New York Hilton.

The full video (and much more) will be available at booth 1504 when LegalTech kicks on Monday morning.  Stay tuned here for more.

Intro to Trinity Law Group (video)

December 30th, 2010

At Brightleaf we’re big Trinity Law Group fans: they’re super-sharp, well-connected, deeply experienced business lawyers with a model that perfectly suits entrepreneurial tech companies.  Nice guys, too. Also, TLG co-founder Walter Wright co-hatched the idea that became Brightleaf and in our early days patiently raised and fed the fledgeling company until it was ready to leave the nest and take to the skies.  So you know that: (a) they really “get” technology companies, and (b) they aggressively pursue cutting-edge solutions on behalf of their clients.  To our mind, they’re a perfect mix of experience and innovation. 

In this video, Trinity’s Dan Ryan talks a bit about the firm and its philosophy.  It’s worth watching, especially if you’re in the market for some business lawyering.  Also, check out Dan’s writings at (Lexis-Nexis Top 25-rated) The Business Law Blog here.

Mad Money Men (or Feld McFadden Mendelson Levine)

December 30th, 2010

We privately offered congratulations to our friends at The Foundry Group a few months back when they raised their new fund.  That’s testament to their record, their investment philosophy, their insanely hard work, and their overall coolness.  As further evidence of that coolness, check out how their website has gotten a sweet makeover, going from ”Reservoir Dogs” to Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce (Feld McFadden Mendelson Levine???) in one take.  We’re still not sure how they got Brad into a suit, but it’s a damn good look, and we’re glad they didn’t take us up on our “Jersey Shore” suggestion.

Really nice job guys.  Now the pressure’s on us to come up with a similarly hot-and-identifiable pop culture reference for our next site re-spin.  Hmmm…gotta go pitch the boss on a “Real Housewives of Bevery Hills” theme.  Wish me luck…

WSJ: Law Firms Doing More With Less

December 28th, 2010

Now that we’re done shoveling snow, we can turn to this interesting article from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal.  The theme suggested by its title, “Big Law Firms Keep Lid on Associate Bonuses,” is hardly new or suprising.  Given the overall economic climate, nobody really expected associate compensation to skyrocket.  What’s worth noting however is this little graph from the Citi Private Bank Law Firm Group:

[LAWBONUS]

Basically, there are 6.7% fewer associates than there were a year ago.  And each of the remaining associates is billing just over 7% more hours that they were a year ago.  Cool.  Let’s do the math.  If you have 93.3% as many associates now as you did in 2009, and if each of those associates is doing 7% more work, then that’s (93.3% workforce) x (107% of your baseline utilization rate) = 99.85% of 2009′s total production billed in 2010.  So, despite all the upheavals in the industry, despite the layoffs and the client demands and the loss of transactional work, associate hours at the 50 highest-revenue firms ended up exactly where they had been the year before.  Within fifteen-hundredth’s of a percentage point, anyway.

Neat, huh?  Like much of the rest of the economy, large law firms contracted their work forces and are now trying to squeeze additional productivity out of their remaining employees…except in this case, “squeeze additional productivity” seems to exactly equal “make them work longer.”  And last year they managed to do so in such a way that they ended up with the exact same aggregate productivity as the year before.  Which begs this question:  how sustainable is this?  While those with jobs are certainly glad to have them, the article suggests that the associates are less than thrilled with the new math.  Associate job satisfaction is at its lowest point in six years (despite the just-be-glad-you-have-a-job effect) and fell last year at 109 of 124 surveyed firms.  That indicates that another 6.7% de-leveraging probably won’t lead to another 7% increase in associate utliization.  Further deleveraging will likely impact revenue.

So, assuming that firms may be approaching their maximum utilization rate for associates,  here’s the question that they face: as the economy recovers and client work picks up, will these firms re-leverage their way back towards previous, full employment levels?  Or, like other businesses, will they explore technological innovation and process efficiencies and other new ways to become more productive?

Stay tuned…

NVCA ASAP: Welcome to the future of VC deal drafting

November 4th, 2010

Automatically draft all your deal documents at the same time!

If you’re a corporate lawyer whose life involves deal work for growing companies, chances are you’re intimately familiar with the National Venture Capital Association’s model legal documents.  This set of eight documents is immediately recognizable to most firms that practice in this space, and whether firms use the documents in their original form or modify them to suit their preferences, most would agree they are the gold standard for venture capital investment transactions.

The NVCA says these documents “are intended to reflect current practices and customs, and . . . one of our goals in drafting these documents is also to reflect “best practices” and avoid hidden legal traps.”  The documents contain explanatory footnotes and are widely believed to present a fair balance between VC- and company-favorable terms.  According to the NVCA, use of these documents is also intended to “reduce transaction costs and time.”

And that’s where we come in.  At Brightleaf, our goal is to bring intelligent document automation to lawyers everywhere.  For law firms, this means helping them respond to client demands for increased value and efficiency in the way they produce documents.  And the NVCA’s data shows that firms are producing a LOT of their documents.  Even in 2009, an admittedly slow year, law firms drafted documents for deals representing over $15 billion in venture capital investments.  And most people agree that the current production method for these documents is inefficient at best.  According to the NVCA, “our industry on a daily basis goes through an expensive and inefficient process of ‘re-inventing the flat tire.’”  The NVCA responded to this problem by drafting form legal documents everyone could use, and we’re taking the next logical step: automating the NVCA documents.

How did we do this?  Our team of experienced corporate lawyers reviewed and identified each of the substantive questions and structural possibilities in the NVCA documents.  They then used our Microsoft Word-based Template Factory to turn these documents into automated templates for law firms to use.  There was no programming involved and the process took days, not months.  The result?  With just a couple hours of training, lawyers can now log into Brightleaf and draft the NVCA financing documents in a way that’s more intelligent and efficient.  That makes the lawyers AND their clients happy.  And we think this is pretty exciting.