82,891
edits
Legal services delivery: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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> | 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.” | :''“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. | 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. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
But unitising legal product does one of two things: either it really is commoditised, in which case it is a commercial product — a widget — with some legally-relevant content embedded in it, but in respect of which all mysteries have been solved: the value in that product is not in its nuanced legal advice, but it has some other value (else, why “deliver” it at all?) or it really isn’t; there really is some residual legal doubt, uncertainty or risk, in which case handing it off to the proverbial [[School-leaver from bucharest]] ''really'' isn’t a great idea. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[School-leaver from bucharest]] | |||
{{ref}} | |||