You can lead a horse to water: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
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>


So, here is the inhouse dilemma insofar as it relates to [[legaltech]]: The legal ops team is ''fixated'' on legaltech. This is not just because legal ops personnel are easily led, but also because they have been told: “GET OUT THERE AND 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.” That, in turn, is predicated on the belief, widely held thanks to [[Thought leader|thought leaders]] and [[Daniel Susskind|wishful academics]], that [[legaltech]] is a cheap and easy way of replacing lawyers. Thus: legaltech must demonstrably, and quickly, ''save hard dollars''.
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 productivity does ''not'' save hard dollars. To the contrary, the eye-watering licence fees for [[Software as a service|legaltech “as a service”]] applications ''cost'' hard dollars. ''Lots'' of hard dollars. [[Legaltech]] increases bottom-line spend. As soon as this dawns on the Legal Ops team they will stampede to remove it again.
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, in which case you can guarantee noone 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 is user productivity booster —a formatting fixer, or a deltaview application, management will quickly implement a use monitoring process with the express goal of concluding noone is using the software, so it can be junked in a cost saving drive.
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}}
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=You_can_lead_a_horse_to_water"