82,891
edits
You can lead a horse to water: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
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% | 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% off the legal budget and at the same time make us look like digital wizards.” | ||
As ever, the single, unrelenting focus — notwithstanding four good decades of academic unanimity that it is the ''wrong'' thing to focus on — is reducing ''[[Cost reduction|cost]]''. | |||
But giving productivity-boosting tools to inhouse | That, in turn, is predicated on the belief — widely shared by [[Thought leader|thought leaders]] and [[Daniel Susskind|wishful academics]], however absurd — that [[legaltech]] is a cheap way of replacing lawyers. This is the [[general counsel]]’s desperate hail-Mary: some snappy [[legaltech]] will demonstrably, and quickly, ''save hard dollars''. | ||
But giving productivity-boosting tools to [[Inhouse counsel|inhouse lawyer]]<nowiki/>s 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. | ||