Art_Photo/Shutterstock.com

Four years ago, Richard Susskind published the first edition of “Tomorrow's Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future.” With the rapid changes in the legal profession, tomorrow is now today.

The second edition of “Tomorrow's Lawyers” focuses more sharply on how artificial intelligence, alternative business structures, low-cost law firm service centers, legal tech startups and evolving in-house roles are changing the way legal services are delivered and how law schools are educating students to meet those changes.

To that end, ALM during October is publishing excerpts across several of our brands from the second edition to spark thought and conversation about the industry's future among the legal profession's leaders. ALM editors and reporters have solicited reactions—positive and negative—to Susskind's ideas from law firm chairs, top legal educators, general counsel, law students and industry analysts to get their take.

Expecting More From Law Firms

Moving away from risk and knowledge management, how will clients select law firms in the future? It is often assumed that what differentiates one lawyer or law firm from another is their substantive expertise; that clients will gravitate toward lawyers who seem to know more or appear more deeply expert. However, clients often say that there is little to choose between many good lawyers and good law firms, that they are equally and impressively familiar with black-​letter law and market practice. What frequently distinguishes law firms, particularly when the work is genuinely bespoke, are the personal relationships that lawyers have with those they advise. (When the work is routine, the interpersonal dimension is of less importance.)

To run a successful legal business in the future, therefore, it will not be sufficient for lawyers to be in possession of fine legal minds. Tomorrow's lawyers will need to acquire various softer skills if they are to win new clients and keep them happy. In-​house lawyers of the future will not only be more demanding on costs, they will be more discerning about the relationships they choose to cultivate with external firms. This will place pressures on law firms to make the most of face-​to-​face interactions and use social networking systems to maintain regular contact.

Already clients respond favorably, for example, to law firms that express ongoing, and even passionate, interest in them. They like to feel that the firms to which they pay substantial fees are bearing them in mind and have their interests at heart, even when not working together on a particular job. They appreciate those law firms that have clearly devoted their own time to thinking specifically about them and their business and their industry. Clients like to hear, for instance, about a deal that has been done that may be relevant to them. They appreciate periodic briefings on the trends and developments that may have a direct impact on them. Maintaining this sort of rolling contact does not come naturally to many lawyers and is often trumped by pieces of chargeable work for other clients. This is regrettable because this kind of regular interaction is increasingly vital for the long-​term relationships that clients are now deeming important.

A related issue to which young lawyers should be sensitive is the need for law firms to empathize with their clients. GCs often observe that their external law firms do not understand their clients, that they have little insight into the daily dynamics and operations of their clients' businesses. It is not that the law firms fail, for instance, to read their clients' annual reports (although some do fall at this hurdle) or that they are ignorant of fundamentals of the sector in which their clients trade. Instead, there is a wider worry: that law firms do not take sufficient time to immerse themselves in their clients' environments and get a feel for what it is actually like to work in their businesses. For example, it has been suggested to me that most firms do not grasp, in any given client, the tolerance and appetite for risk, the amount of administration and bureaucracy, the significance and extent and tone of internal communications, and, vitally, the broader strategic and business context of the deals and disputes on which they advise.

In short, tomorrow's lawyers will need to be more in tune with tomorrow's clients. In contrast, when meeting with their clients today, many partners of law firms are said to broadcast and pontificate instead of listening to what is actually on the minds of those they are serving. In other words, many law firms lack empathy. They fail to put themselves in their clients' shoes and see the business from the clients' perspective. It is often claimed that, because they do not pause to listen, firms cannot distinguish between those occasions when a client wants quick, rough-​and-​ready guidance as opposed to detailed and exhaustive legal analysis. This lack of empathy and the inability to listen could be deeply prejudicial to long-​term relationships between firms and clients in the future.

—Richard Susskind, “Tomorrow's Lawyers, Second Edition”

Analysis

The often-discussed dynamic between in-house legal departments and outside counsel has seen a number of shifts in recent years, such as the growing preference for alternative fee arrangements over the traditional hourly billing model.

Smart firms have adapted to meet the expectations of in-house counsel, but legal departments are only going to demand more in the future, Richard Susskind asserts in his book “Tomorrow's Lawyers, Second Edition.”

It's not going to be enough, according to Susskind, for firms to simply provide excellent legal advice. “Tomorrow's lawyers will need to acquire various softer skills if they are to win new clients and keep them happy,” Susskind writes.

What does this mean? An ongoing and personalized flow of information from firms to in-house counsel to provide information relevant to the company, as well as face-to-face interactions and an intimate knowledge of the client's business, to name a few of Susskind's examples.

Though these are not necessarily new expectations, in-house attorneys and a legal department consultant agree that over the years, the demands on outside lawyers have only increased.

The expectation that law firms will do more for clients has come about at least in part because of the way the in-house counsel role has morphed over the years, said Sterling Miller, general counsel at marketing automation software company Marketo Inc. “If you look at maybe five or 10 years ago, the relationship with outside counsel was much more: You turn something over, you wait for them to give an answer and then kind of act on that,” he said. However, given that in-house attorneys have taken on more responsibility, now the “expectation is that the in-house counsel isn't just going to bring something from outside counsel and say: 'Here's what we should do.'”

It's often now more collaborative, with in-house counsel expected to be more involved in the matters outside counsel are working on. And so naturally, in-house counsel want an outside lawyer who really understands the business when providing advice, Miller said.

“Outside counsel become kind of sentinels out there. They look for things out there that might become issues for you and are not charging you for that,” he explained. “Just knowing that there's someone else out there that's watching the horizon for you is comforting. And you tend to gravitate toward the outside lawyers who do that.”

While Susskind presents these as future expectations, Sterling added that he and other in-house attorneys he's spoken with are already expecting more from firms than simply great legal advice.

Firms that are attentive to in-house counsels' needs, even when there's not necessarily a matter outside counsel is working on, are a “big deal” for in-house counsel, said Jason Winmill, managing partner at consulting firm Argopoint, which regularly advises legal departments at Fortune 500 companies.

It's more than just firm blogs and newsletters that highlight developments in cases and regulations, Winmill said. “The more sophisticated approach is the outside lawyer who is working with an in-house lawyer … and they can say: 'There's been these developments in the law coming out of the regulatory agencies and I just want to mention it to you, let me know if you want to chat about it.'”

While Winmill agrees with most of what Susskind wrote, he doesn't fully concur with Susskind's views on the importance of social media. Susskind writes that firms will have to make the most of social networks in order to stay in regular contact with legal departments.

For Winmill, how outside counsel use social media to connect with the client is more of an “emerging” concept “as opposed to [something] they must or they have to do.”

Brennan Torregrossa, vice president and associate general counsel at GlaxoSmithKline, agreed that in-house counsel have and will continue to expect more from firms, which he said creates something of a challenge for the industry.

Firms are asked to give excellent legal service with a more intimate understanding of the client, “while at the same time, meeting client demands to bill for their work in a manner off of the billable hour,” Torregrossa said. “And that's something that clients and law firms need to work together on to get on the same page.”

Despite this difficulty, Torregrossa added that there are certainly firms that are meeting or exceeding increased expectations. He said one firm anticipated GSK's interest in attorney-client privilege issues around the world and provided a privilege map. Torregrossa applauded the firm for “above and beyond service” and understanding GSK's needs.

Excerpted with permission from Tomorrow's Lawyers by Richard Susskind. For more information, click here.