Legalweek beckons, and panels on the impact of alternate legal service providers and changes to regulations on outside ownership of law firms are bound to provoke engaging discussions. Want to weigh in? Email me here. Want this dispatch in your inbox every Thursday? Sign up here

Next Stop, Legalweek

It'll be a busy couple of days in New York next week. My inbox is bulging with entreaties from representatives of legal tech businesses who want to show off their latest offerings in person at the Legaltech component of Legalweek. (Please forgive me if I've failed to respond.)

But the truth is, I'm less interested in the individual pieces of technology that law firms must choose between to improve how they deliver services. I'm just not a sophisticated enough observer of that part of the market to identify meaningful distinctions between one product and another. I just take it as a given that any firm worth their salt recognizes they need to weigh these options seriously and find a place for them–their peers certainly are.

My curiosity about tech is more in how its been emboldening new players to compete with law firms. Take, for example, the burgeoning group of alternative providers who are, in some circumstances, selling their services to clients–when they're not partnering with law firms. Or the Big Four, with their demonstrated investments in process management and AI.

So I'll be eager to take in a panel that American Lawyer editor-in-chief Gina Pasarella has organized for the Legal Business Strategy program. She's brought in our former colleague Nick Bruch, now at EY, and Deloitte's Luis Fernando Guerra, along with Karl Kong at flexible lawyering platform Axiom to break down the subject. They'll be able to offer an inside perspective on how they're looking to grow their businesses, and I'm hopefully they won't be shy when asked whether they believe that law firms are the quarry.

Their growth also offers some interesting regulatory questions. In my recent reporting for a story on the increasing number of states that are mulling an end to their prohibitions on non-lawyer ownership and fee-sharing, I repeatedly was reminded about the current regulatory gap here in the U.S. Sure, the Big Four are prohibited from offering legal services. But alternative legal service providers have no trouble offering support to law firms and corporate legal departments under the current regulatory regime, even though these businesses aren't necessarily owned by lawyers.

For some observers, that's a powerful argument for shaking things up. A move from the existing system of regulating lawyers towards regulation of legal services is part of the "access to justice" push we're seeing unfold in several western states. As public comments from California show, that's a hard pill to swallow for hundreds of lawyers–the vast majority solo practitioners or from small firms–who fear new competitors who haven't paid tuition bills or taken out loans for three years of law school and then passed the bar.

Back to Legalweek. A number of proponents of reform, and influential ones at that, will be at hand as well. The "What Changes to Law Firm Ownership Rules Really Mean" panel features veterans of task forces in California, Utah and Arizona. They'll likely articulate the case for change, and offer an update on where the process stands in each of their states. If I get a chance to ask a question, it will be about the likelihood of the entire U.S. eventually replicating the regulatory system in England and Wales that allows outside ownership and multidisciplinary practices.

In the end, as Clyde & Co. professional responsibility expert Anthony Davis recently put to me, the change would require a philosophical shift in approaching the purpose of regulation.

"I side with the British Parliament when it says regulation ought to promote competition and not restrict it," Davis said. "In my opinion, turf protection of lawyers by lawyers ought to be the last thing lawyers are allowed to do or even consider doing. I'm not saying, 'No regulation,' I'm saying that there need to be uniform regulation and standards governing lawyers, law firms and all other kinds of legal service delivery vehicles."

It's a persuasive argument. I'm curious to see how it all plays out.

In the News

➤➤The ABA Journal took a look at a few key figures on California's Task Force on Access Through Innovation in Legal Services, including co-founder of Ross Intelligence Andrew Arruda, who will be on next week's panel in New York. He's apparently another proponent of ambitious reforms: "I think it's important not to think about short-term wins all the time. I think we need to lead with our big, audacious goals and then from those goals work backwards with really actionable things we can do in the short- to middle-term."

➤➤My local newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, took a look at the forces prompting law firms to merge now that two major local players, Drinker Biddle & Reath and Pepper Hamilton, have entered into blockbuster tie-ups. I'm always interested to read how these "inside-baseball" issues get translated for a more general audience.

➤➤Law firms have been slow to embrace the new ".Law" domain for their websites, my colleague Victoria Hudgins reports. But as more firms shorten their names they may find themselves forced to follow in the footsteps of early-adopter Wiley, especially if they can't find a corresponding ".Com" name that's unused.

You'll hear from me again next Thursday! Thanks again for reading, and please feel free to reach out to me at [email protected]. Sign up here to receive The Law Firm Disrupted as a weekly email.