Law clients are demanding improved efficiencies and greater value from lawyers
Law clients, especially corporate ones, are demanding improved efficiencies and greater value from their lawyers. One response among the large firms is to implement ‘Legal Project Management’ (‘LPM’). What is LPM? Should we be welcoming it? Are lawyers likely to resist or embrace LPM? How should we and might we go about managing this change? And what does this mean for law schools thinking about incorporating this discipline?
These questions were addressed at the Law Society’s recent inaugural FLIP conference by Dr Justine Rogers, deputy director of the Law Society of NSW's Future of Law and Innovation in the Profession (FLIP) stream, UNSW Law, and Peter Dombkins, head of Legal Project Management at Gilbert + Tobin.
Dr Justine Rogers explained some of the causes of LPM: “Underpinned by corporate clients who are - and can be - more demanding, other drivers for LPM are the changing legal marketplace: intense competition between existing firms, market share gains by new-law providers, increasingly sophisticated - and commoditised - enabling technology platforms, and the increasing sophistication of in-house legal teams."
“Also in response to these pressures, firms themselves are focusing upon increasing their internal productivity to maintain profitability as well as quality of life, and thereby their ability to attract and retain top talent."
‘LPM’ is as, Mr Dombkins described, a "suitcase word" that encompasses "the application of various management approaches to improve legal service delivery. LPM draws on the disciplines of project management and organisational design.”
"LPM is a systematic approach; for strategising, planning, tracking and reporting upon legal work; within agreed constraints; that involves teams; and that also captures data and lessons learned in order to enhance future performance."
Dr Rogers examined the empirical research for the effectives of LPM and its level of adoption. She concluded that it is still at the ‘early adopters’ stage, but that most firms have certain components of LPM, if not Legal Project Managers, and almost all agree on the need for improved efficiencies.
Mr Dombkins provided attendees, who were practitioners from a range of areas, with examples of LPM tools and techniques for them to implement right away.
Nevertheless, one the main themes of the talk (and the paper on which it is based) is about the likelihood of successful implementation: LPM represents a significant threat to the professional identities and work contexts of lawyers, even ’simple’ forms of LPM.
As Mr Dombkins explained, "Since the level of resistance is largely a subjective matter determined by each individual lawyer, what objectively may appear to be a simple change program unlikely to challenge lawyers’ identities and context, may subjectively for a specific individual (or group) be perceived as a highly complex change which presents a significant challenge across any or all LPM dimensions. This is fundamental challenge of change management."
Dr Rogers, showed how lawyers - and law students - are typically not well-equipped for change, no matter its degree of complexity or even its potential benefits. “Research shows how the personality traits that correlate to a negative reaction to change, even when those changes might be beneficial are: routine seeking, an anxious reaction to change, short-term focus, and cognitive rigidity."
"The research on lawyers’ personalities repeatedly identifies excitability, which can led to being tense and critical, high pessimism, cautiousness and scepticism - doubtfulness of the intentions of others, including those bringing in change - and an urgent work style.”
Dr Rogers and Mr Dombkins then explained how these qualities are not good for change generally and not good for LPM in particular.
The discussion ended by reflecting on whether LPM represented, rightly or wrongly, the balance shifting too far in favour of the client, in a wider context in which the values, expertise and special position of the lawyer are being seriously challenged.
The 5-year FLIP research program is structured as a main topic with smaller projects for each year.
The main topic for 2018 is Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession, with the smaller topics including Legal Project Management, Alternative Fee Arrangements, and Unbundling of Legal Services.
The FLIP research is directed at the profession, the academy, government and the wider public.