This is a great article from Mark Brandon about the need for disruption rather than innovation in the law.
One of the interesting things for me is that the practical need for creativity / innovation / disruption typically comes from two areas: first, where problems or crises mean that you can't proceed with the old ways and have to have a new idea; and second, where there's no pressing need, but a new idea offers advantage and benefit.
It seems to me there are two issues facing law firms in this area: one, do they recognise the need to change; and two, even if they do recognise the need, do they have the skills necessary to deliver the creativity / innovation / disruption required. For too many firms, the answer to both is "no"...
For more ideas and thinking visit www.thirteenideas.com
All the talk in legal circles of late is of ‘innovation’. Law firms should innovate, create, adapt and develop, we hear. A Sword of Damocles simply dripping with the venom of demanding, increasingly wily clients is hanging over firms every minute of every day. There are numerous awards available for the most innovative lawyers. But opening an office in Kettering, Cork or Quezon City is not innovative. Introducing a new client relationship management database or invoicing system is not innovative. Nor is fixed, collared, capped or value billing. Nor is rebranding your banking department the Capital Instruments Risk Assessment Practice. Different staffing arrangements are hardly innovative if they’re doing the same work in the same way, just in a cheaper location
unknownx500
