Why Is Law Firm Innovation Failing? How to Push for Success
Recent news and awards indicate law firms are increasing their investments in innovation. Stories of recently launched innovation committees, R&D teams and idea labs routinely grace the pages of industry publications. Yet despite these investments, the trajectory of the industry as a whole seems to have remained largely unchanged. Why are innovation efforts by larger law firms failing to make a meaningful impact?
December 08, 2017 at 03:36 PM
5 minute read
Smart Strategy
Recent news and awards indicate law firms are increasing their investments in innovation. Stories of recently launched innovation committees, R&D teams and idea labs routinely grace the pages of industry publications. Yet despite these investments, the trajectory of the industry as a whole seems to have remained largely unchanged. Why are innovation efforts by larger law firms failing to make a meaningful impact?
The emphasis of the majority of innovation efforts in today's law firms is on idea generation— bringing together smart people to catalog all of the ways in which the firm can respond to changes. While idea generation is vital, it lacks the impact of taking action. Corporate entities as noteworthy as Disney, Ogilvy, Microsoft and Coca Cola have shuttered their innovation labs in recent years. Why? They simply don't work. In fact, according to a CapGemini report from 2015, an expert predicted 90 percent of innovation labs fail.
The think tank approach often focuses on major shifts—artificial intelligence, Millennials, lawyer robots—at the expense of a very real alternative—small change, or as Adi Gaskell refers to it in his Forbes article, “humdrum innovation.” While Gaskell's examples focus primarily on process improvement concepts, the underlying message is clear. “Go big or go home,” is not a mantra for leading change. Small improvements in what law firms engage in every day—from the delivery of legal services to the way they communicate with clients to how they attract talent— can add up to meaningful impact.
To encourage any type of innovation, including the “humdrum” kind, law firms must simultaneously empower their professionals to make decisions, incorporate voices from outside the firm and acknowledge and reward incremental improvements. Three fundamental elements must be in place to accomplish these objectives:
- A culture that supports experimentation (or exploration) and endows its people—not just its partners—with the authority and encouragement to execute ideas;
- A set of clear, concise key performance indicators (KPIs) that reflect what the firm most values (Hint: if the firm still emphasizes number of billable hours over profitability, realization or client satisfaction expect little in the way of increased efficiency or stronger long-term performance); and
- Inclusion of external influencers, whether clients, industry experts or third-party partners
Few firms are approaching innovation through the establishment of these essential ingredients —culture KPIs and the voice of the client—thereby, (often unwittingly) undermining their efforts. Innovation demands law firms create not just an environment conducive to the development of ideas, but also one able to embrace and act upon those ideas. CLOC, in its inception and dialogue with law firms, has the potential to create a collaborative platform on which greater innovation is possible. Yet for many law firms, the struggle will be internal. According to MIT Professor Luis Perez-Breva, author of ”Innovating: A Doer's Manifesto,” who works routinely with entrepreneurs and is an advocate of a less formulaic approach to innovation there is tremendous value in being “productively wrong.”
Somehow, when you grow into being an adult, you've learned so much and you've been taught so much that it feels like being wrong is an anathema. But it turns out that if you're really innovative—if you're really doing something new—you want to be wrong as many times as possible.
For law firms, this means letting go of the gold standard of perfection and replacing it with one of exploration, and cultivating a willingness to allow team members to be wrong—in the right ways. Re-focusing law firm innovation on small changes, rather than wholesale rehabilitation of long-standing traditions, can help to release the fear and uncertainty that often accompanies new ways of doing things. Small change also constrains the impact of “being wrong,” to allow for greater experimentation and more, not fewer, attempts to make an impact.
At the same time, allowing space and time for what Perez-Breva describes as exploration—the iterative process of entertaining various options and possibilities without constraints or preconceived notions—is equally vital to the act of innovating. Rather than focusing on a single idea or solution, Perez-Breva encourages continuous development and improvement through the incorporation of feedback and inputs.
In other words, innovation is a process, a way of being and approaching problems, rather than a step-by-step recipe. For law firms to truly “innovate,” they must change their mindset. Rather than a program or initiative designed to ignite new ideas, a systematic and holistic shift in thinking is needed. Embrace “humdrum innovation.” Encourage professionals across the firm to be “productively wrong.” Measure and celebrate incremental improvements in what matters most. And explore, most of all, explore.
Marcie Borgal Shunk is president and founder of The Tilt Institute, a firm dedicated to unveiling new perspectives on law firm growth through intelligence, innovation and intuition. She specializes in helping law firm leaders make better, data-driven business decisions.
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 AllPennsylvania Modernizes Trust Administration With New Directed Trust Statute
8 minute readSurvival Guide for Executives and Board Members: 4 Steps to Safeguard Against Individual Liability for Data Security Failures
9 minute readThe Products Liability Case Against Tianeptine: The Deadly ‘Dietary Supplement’ Found at Your Local Store
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
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