You can lead a horse to water: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
''But [[In-house legal eagle|inhouse]], it is assuredly not.'' [[Inhouse counsel]] ''don’t'' generate revenue; they are not ''allowed'' to. They ''cost'' revenue. This is not just ''by coincidence'': the [[legal department]] is ''by its very [[ontology]]'' a cost centre.<ref>As the JC is fond of saying, the last time a big firm tried to turn one of its [[control function]]s into a profit centre, [[Enron|''it didn’t work out so well'']].</ref> | ''But [[In-house legal eagle|inhouse]], it is assuredly not.'' [[Inhouse counsel]] ''don’t'' generate revenue; they are not ''allowed'' to. They ''cost'' revenue. This is not just ''by coincidence'': the [[legal department]] is ''by its very [[ontology]]'' a cost centre.<ref>As the JC is fond of saying, the last time a big firm tried to turn one of its [[control function]]s into a profit centre, [[Enron|''it didn’t work out so well'']].</ref> | ||
Yet the legal ops team remains ''fixated'' on [[legaltech]]. This is not just because its personnel are easily led, but also because they have been told: “GET OUT THERE AND [[Innovation|INNOVATE]] SO HELP ME”. This is, needless to say, management code for, “you must use [[legaltech]] to shave 15% of the legal budget and at the same time make us look like digital wizards.” | |||
But boosting inhouse | That, in turn, is predicated on the belief — widely held, thanks to [[Thought leader|thought leaders]] and [[Daniel Susskind|wishful academics]], however patently absurd — that [[legaltech]] is a cheap way of replacing lawyers. This is the general counsel’s depsperate hail-Mary: some snappy [[legaltech]] will demonstrably, and quickly, ''save hard dollars''. | ||
But giving productivity-boosting tools to inhouse lawyers does ''not'' save hard dollars. To the contrary, it ''costs'' hard dollars. ''Lots'' of hard dollars. As soon as this dawns on the [[Legal operations|legal ops]] team it will stampede to remove it again. | |||
Our metaphor of the [[bucket painters]] refers. | Our metaphor of the [[bucket painters]] refers. | ||
Line 17: | Line 19: | ||
{{bucket problem}}}} | {{bucket problem}}}} | ||
Unless it is a management-sanctioned monitoring or measuring tool, like time recording of document management | Unless it is a management-sanctioned monitoring or measuring tool, like time recording of document management (in which case ''no-one'' will use it, but the [[middle management ouija board]] will bloody-mindedly persist with it in the face of utter failure) — that is, if it ''really'' boosts productivity: a formatting fixer, a deltaview application or something of that nature — the moment the first invoice arrives management will implement a use-monitoring project with the express goal of concluding no-one needs it, so it can be junked in a cost saving drive. | ||
Now: could someone pass me a bucket? | |||
To ''paint'', obviously. | |||
{{Sa}} | {{Sa}} | ||
*[[Legaltech]] | *[[Legaltech]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} |