Legal services delivery: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{{a|deveil|}}Of a legal service, to deliver it to a buyer, who will ''consume'' it. Like a pizza. A view of the world that sees a lawyer as a dolled-up courier giggin...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|devil|}}Of a [[legal service]], to deliver it to a [[buyer]], who will ''consume'' it. Like a pizza. A view of the world that sees a lawyer as a dolled-up courier gigging for Deliveroo. | |||
Here’s a quote, from those luminaries of the legal future, ''Allen & Overy'':<ref>[https://www.allenovery.com/global/-/media/allenovery/2_documents/advanced_delivery_and_solutions/in-house-legal-function-2019.pdf ''The future of the in-house legal function: an Allen & Overy perspective on the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead'']. (2019)</ref> | |||
:“More recently the buzz and effort has shifted from innovation in legal expertise (inventing [[derivatives]], [[CDO]]s and so on) to how the services that embed that expertise are delivered.” | |||
The learned authors recognise that true legal innovation, emerging product trends, are — or, in the good old days, ''were'' — less susceptible to the “march of the [[chatbot]]s”, but have concluded, by means of a crystal ball siongularly not accessible to this old fool, that it’s all changed now. One adds value, by supersizing, or adding fries. | |||
But value-added legal work is — always has been — about edge cases: new developments. Bespoke situations. It ought to be a truism that “legal” is not part of the operational infrastructure. ''Legal doesn’t make widgets''. To be sure, part of the mandate should be to commoditise new products, productionise them, and hand them off to operations teams who ''can'' make widgets. | |||
The reason the “buzz” has shifted to delivery is that the people making the buzz — management consultants mostly — have nothing to say about the ''content'' of legal services. It is — by deliberate, cynical design by generation of nest-feathering lawyers — made opaque, baffling, long-winded and obtuse. The answer: not to rationalise it, not to simplify it, not to cauterise the tedious excess with which all legal product overflows — but to parcel it up and outsource it to cheaper units offshore. | |||
Revision as of 11:50, 17 November 2020
|
|
Of a legal service, to deliver it to a buyer, who will consume it. Like a pizza. A view of the world that sees a lawyer as a dolled-up courier gigging for Deliveroo.
Here’s a quote, from those luminaries of the legal future, Allen & Overy:[1]
- “More recently the buzz and effort has shifted from innovation in legal expertise (inventing derivatives, CDOs and so on) to how the services that embed that expertise are delivered.”
The learned authors recognise that true legal innovation, emerging product trends, are — or, in the good old days, were — less susceptible to the “march of the chatbots”, but have concluded, by means of a crystal ball siongularly not accessible to this old fool, that it’s all changed now. One adds value, by supersizing, or adding fries.
But value-added legal work is — always has been — about edge cases: new developments. Bespoke situations. It ought to be a truism that “legal” is not part of the operational infrastructure. Legal doesn’t make widgets. To be sure, part of the mandate should be to commoditise new products, productionise them, and hand them off to operations teams who can make widgets.
The reason the “buzz” has shifted to delivery is that the people making the buzz — management consultants mostly — have nothing to say about the content of legal services. It is — by deliberate, cynical design by generation of nest-feathering lawyers — made opaque, baffling, long-winded and obtuse. The answer: not to rationalise it, not to simplify it, not to cauterise the tedious excess with which all legal product overflows — but to parcel it up and outsource it to cheaper units offshore.