Law Firms 'Innovate for Show,' Says Ex-SeyfarthLean CEO
Too many law firms fail to measure the results of their innovation efforts, says a former leader of a well-known Big Law innovation department.
December 17, 2018 at 02:51 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Law firms have a lot to learn from businesses in other industries. Add “how to innovate” to that list.
That is at least the idea put forward by Robert Saccone, a former CEO of Seyfarth Shaw subsidiary SeyfarthLean Consulting who now consults law firms on innovation—and who thinks most traditional law firms are going about innovation all wrong.
“Most incumbent law firms do not innovate for measurable results like their corporate clients; they innovate for show,” Saccone wrote in a blog post Sunday. “They innovate to differentiate but not to be different—ironically as their competitors increasingly do the same. The targeted and measured innovation we are seeing in other sectors just isn't happening. We can (must) do better.”
Saccone's post was in response to a conference that featured presentations from innovation and strategy leaders from all types of big businesses: Comcast, Sony, Avis, MetLife and others. Saccone wrote that innovators at those big businesses use a much more rigorous approach to vetting and pursuing new business ideas. They measure innovation investments against goals including increased profits, revenue and stakeholder value, Saccone wrote.
Law firms should take a similar approach, he wrote, and that requires analyzing a law firm's market and business to understand where innovation would be worthwhile.
“The firms that can perform an honest and thorough business diagnostic, that can analyze and extract useful insights from the data available to them and make informed decisions, will pull ahead of the pack,” Saccone wrote. “They will better understand the economics of their firm and markets, supply and demand for their products and services and will intently focus on profitable and sustainable growth. Those that do not, or can not, may find themselves in a fractal mess.”
Plenty of law firms in recent years have hired “chief innovation officers” or developed groups that are focused on providing new types of service delivery for clients, with one industry source placing the number of Am Law 200-level “CINOs” at 32 earlier this year.
But law firm innovation groups can struggle internally to express their return on investment to the broader law firm. In a setting that uses billable hours to set compensation, it is naturally challenging to value projects that cut billable hours.
“We haven't figured out ROI yet,” said one recently hired Am Law 100 chief innovation officer who declined to be named discussing the challenges of compensation. “I'm trying to use touches. How many clients and people internally I've touched. We also have a couple big projects going on. That will help. But nothing formal. That's the challenge for us: If there's ever a business downturn, are we [safe] in that ecosystem?
Still, other firms that have had success making “products” out of legal advice have said that the compensation partners derive from those products' ongoing advice will encourage others to follow that innovative model.
Buck Owen, chief practice officer at Dentons, said at an industry conference last month that a partner at the firm had created an automated tool that provided updates on regulatory changes across the globe. The product was a combination of decision-tree software from Neota Logic, automated regulatory research provided by Libryo Ltd. and collaboration software HighQ Solutions Ltd., Owen said. That type of model could be replicated in other areas, Owen said, even if it is true that making a broad impact can be difficult.
“It's easy to get a couple quick wins, but tougher to blow that out on a macro level. That's true. We've experienced that,” Owen said. “I still think much of what we do is very partner-driven, and the partner [in the regulatory product example] will continue to reap fees in her column for a long time. That will affect her compensation, and others will hopefully realize that. That is how I hope this spreads. At the end of the day, a lot can be accomplished by compensation within a law firm. And if you see someone succeeding and being recognized for it, pretty soon there are five others wanting to do it.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSolana Labs Co-Founder Allegedly Pocketed Ex-Wife’s ‘Millions of Dollars’ of Crypto Gains
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Georgia Supreme Court Honoring Troutman Pepper Partner, Former Chief Justice
- 2Insurer Not Required to Cover $29M Wrongful Death Judgment, Appeals Court Rules
- 3Slideshow: Jewish Bar Association of Georgia Marks 1st Year With Hanukkah Party
- 4Holland & Knight Launches Export Control Disputes and Advocacy Team
- 5Blake Lively's claims that movie co-star launched smear campaign gets support in publicist's suit
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250