82,891
edits
GSV questionnaire: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Background narrative | ==Background narrative== | ||
Lawyers are being asked to do more with what they have. | |||
: | :'''New products''': crypto, deFi, DAOs | ||
: | :'''New risk environment''': more volatility (energy, crypto, equities, inflation), more risk of default (archegos, [[GameStop]], evergrande, supply-chain disruptions | ||
: | :'''New/fracturing regulations''': Brexit aftermath, China clampdowns, regulatory investigations in aftermath of Greensill, Archegos, etc. | ||
Lawyers are expected to be agile, tech-literate, process focused, and avoid getting bogged down in lower value work where there are more effective/efficient alternative solutions. | |||
==A thought experiment== | |||
{{subtable| | {{subtable| | ||
'''Fever dream''' | '''Fever dream''' | ||
It is 2525, the age of Aquarius. and the atmosphere is suffused with nanobots, pleasure-droids, self-aware microbes and [[Artificial intelligence|artificially intelligent]] homunculi floating on the ''aether'', doing everything, and carrying out every factotal task ''except'' the formulation pure essence of brilliant, ineffable [[eaglery]]. | |||
In that Utpoian world,<ref>Bear with me, okay?</ref> what ''[[res legis]]'', the disembodied essence of lawyer, uploaded to the matrix and at one with the worldwide [[Singularity]], having solved all possible triage, exhausted all outsourcing oppounities, and infinitely divided labour, still have to do? | |||
And how does that compare with the non-platonic reality of how it is today?}} | |||
What operational processes and process regularities are | ==Messy reality== | ||
What operational processes and process regularities are lawyers currently involved in | |||
*Approvals | *Approvals | ||
*Escalations | *Escalations | ||
* | *Certifications | ||
*Executions | *Executions | ||
*Regular | *Regular working-groups | ||
* | *Recurring diary events | ||
As how these could be reorganised to empower others and take legal out of the loop | As how these could be reorganised to empower others and take legal out of the loop? | ||
Opportunity to reassess/redefine legal role against that background to be: | Opportunity to reassess/redefine legal role against that background to be: | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
*Identify process waste and overproduction | *Identify process waste and overproduction | ||
*Reset incentives inside the firm | *Reset incentives inside the firm | ||
==Organisational principles== | |||
*'''The risk environment is [[complex]], not merely [[complicated]]''': Risk-management by rule works for BAU but not for edge cases. Edge cases require expertise and skill. | |||
*'''Complex environments have long tails'''. Complexity differs from complicatedness on the tails and at the edges. The risk is in the tails. The middle is BAU. | |||
*'''Legal’s maximum value is addressing edge cases, not BAU'''. This implies: | |||
** Legal should skew senior, not junior. | |||
** Part of legal’s function should be converting edge cases to BAU and [[Operationalisation|operationalising]] it | |||
** If properly operationalised, business teams can understand and manage their own BAU legal issues. | |||
* '''(Almost) all rules can be simplified''': humans are expensive button-pushers. | |||
** A complicated set of rules implies: | |||
*** A failure to make difficult decisions when building a process; or | |||
*** bad feedback loops when running a process | |||
*'''Over time teams skew ''senior''''': They get better, more experienced: | |||
**less dependent on lane barriers and training wheels. They also get less inclined to simplify. | |||
**But if the same lawyers are doing the same roles they were 10 years ago, we are not getting bang for buck out of them. | |||
*'''Over time, policies and fixed rules lose value''': As teams become more senior, they are less reliant on training wheels. | |||
**Training wheels get in the way, and become more of a hindrance. | |||
** | |||
Legal is advisory, for edge cases, novel situations, crisis response and situation management | Legal is advisory, for edge cases, novel situations, crisis response and situation management | ||
*Operational interaction is to structure documentation processes to be seamless, standardised, low-touch, and to manage and centralise legal risk from documentation. | *Operational interaction is to structure documentation processes to be seamless, standardised, low-touch, and to manage and centralise legal risk from documentation. | ||
| Line 38: | Line 54: | ||
===Great canards of inhouse legal=== | ===Great canards of inhouse legal=== | ||
*“I am not qualified in that jurisdiction” | *“I am not qualified in that jurisdiction”: Shop-steward behaviour from the international federation of law societies. | ||
*“That is a legal question and I am not qualified to answer it”: work-to-rule from those in other functions and business units. | |||
===Theories=== | ===Theories=== | ||
| Line 48: | Line 65: | ||
*'''[[Ignorance of the law is no excuse]]''': BAU legal knowledge lives with the business. It therefore requires someone senior enough to make the call that this is not BAU legal. | *'''[[Ignorance of the law is no excuse]]''': BAU legal knowledge lives with the business. It therefore requires someone senior enough to make the call that this is not BAU legal. | ||
*'''You cannot solve a complex system'''. You cannot eliminate all uncertainty. There are no rules that will prevent all risk and (ensure a return). When facing uncertainty, there is a trade off between improvising and programmatising. You can't do both with out losing something. Expertise is a bet on improvising. | *'''You cannot solve a complex system'''. You cannot eliminate all uncertainty. There are no rules that will prevent all risk and (ensure a return). When facing uncertainty, there is a trade off between improvising and programmatising. You can't do both with out losing something. Expertise is a bet on improvising. | ||
*'''Raise [[escalation threshold]]s''': | *'''Raise [[escalation threshold]]s''': All of these are predicated on ''upskilling'', not ''downskilling''. | ||
:—'''Incoming''': Don’t take calls from junior people. Encourage teams to own their BAU knowlege. | |||
:—'''Internal''': If you have a senior, expert team, ''let it improvise''. Empower it. Remove formal rules, that arbitrarily lower [[escalation threshold]]s. | |||
:—'''Outgoing''': Develop feedback loops that systematically remove escalations. Avoid ad-hoc concessions. Realistically, if you have done it once you will do it again. Develop programs to standardise and regularise processes through iteration. Don’t escalate the same thing twice. But, flipside: hold the line. There are two sides to “Avoid ad-hoc concessions”: it becomes much more important to hold the line on standardised terms. Don't allow wordsmithing. | |||
*'''[[Coping strategies]]''': optimise expertise for where there is good information, time, and tranquility. | *'''[[Coping strategies]]''': optimise expertise for where there is good information, time, and tranquility. | ||
*'''Build for the long term'''. Mend the roof while the sun shines. To put off maintenance.l because it isn’t raining and there is football in the park is human. | *'''Build for the long term'''. Mend the roof while the sun shines. To put off maintenance.l because it isn’t raining and there is football in the park is human. | ||
*'''[[The temporary tends to become permanent]]''': short term workarounds persist. Therefore, build for the long term. | *'''[[The temporary tends to become permanent]]''': short term workarounds persist. Therefore, build for the long term. | ||
{{ref}} | |||