What the Legal Community Can Learn from the Aviation Industry
Efficiency advocates often hear one persistent argument against automation—increased efficiency results in reduced billable hours which means lower revenues. But the aviation industry proves that's misguided.
September 20, 2018 at 05:00 AM
5 minute read
Lawyers are exceptionally gifted in finding ways to resist using tools to become more efficient. This is really a two-part problem: (1) habits are hard to break; and (2) the hourly fee model does not provide the appropriate incentives to change and automate work flow. Both will eventually get resolved—the former one retirement at a time and the latter as less competitive firms simply fail.
Efficiency advocates often hear one persistent argument against automation—increased efficiency results in reduced billable hours which means lower revenues. This linear thinking is misguided as evidenced by lessons from the aviation industry.
|The Inflection Point for the Aviation Industry
When cockpit automation was introduced, pilots expressed the same types of opposition that some lawyers express today: (1) the technology is not proven, (2) it will put pilots out of work, and (3) why change the status quo? History has taught us, however, that the advantages of automation have vastly improved that industry.
The inflection point for the aviation industry in many ways started in the 1980s. Before that, there were three people in the cockpit: the pilot, a co-pilot, and a flight engineer (who usually was another pilot)—each tasked with the work required in flying airplanes. When improvements in aviation technology were implemented (such as the fly-by-wire and glass cockpit designs), many of the tasks normally performed by the flight engineer were transferred to a computerized system. For instance, in 1983, when the Russians shot down Korean Airlines Flight 007 after it strayed into Russian airspace due to a navigation error, President Reagan made the magnanimous decision to civilianize the GPS system. Today, with the use of GPS, airlines have been able to travel precise flight routes using a computerized system of waypoints.
The industry began to recognize that automation was helpful in reducing air fatalities and a movement towards an “appropriate degree of automation” really began to take hold. For instance, Boeing believes that its “flight decks are designed to provide automation to assist, but not replace, the flight crew member responsible for the safe operation of the airplane.” This philosophy underlies many facets of cockpit design and has also attempted to address and augment many of the human decisions that significantly contributed to airline tragedies.
The concept of “human factors” is a major driving force that motivated engineers at Boeing and Airbus to create mechanisms that anticipate and address potential problems with the understanding that pilots are human and require assistance to make certain decisions. For instance, Boeing's diagnostic tool FIT (Fault Information Team) uses computerized dashboards showing maintenance, testing and diagnostic information that were previously unavailable. The aviation industry realized that automation and computerized assistance minimized and drastically reduced the occurrence of human error. The result is a sharp decrease in the number of fatal airline crashes.
|Legal is Experiencing a Similar Inflection Point
Likewise, the legal industry now has a host of new and extraordinary technologies that can aid the decision-making process of attorneys. Data analytic platform-driven tools are now helping attorneys anticipate ranges of outcomes that were not previously available without time-consuming research and analysis. Research platforms are spurring creative methods to find greater insights that previously took hours. And finally, machine learning platforms and expert systems are transforming the way legal work is being handled.
Advances in artificial intelligence, automation, and data analytics have real power to accelerate and enhance the decision-making abilities and recommendations of lawyers. With greater insights from available data sources, lawyers will now have additional time to develop stronger legal theories, craft superior arguments, create innovative deal structures, make more accurate predictions of outcomes, and drive better planning based on data driven insights, among other things. These skills are usually the culmination of many years of experience—which is one of the key reasons that senior attorneys command a premium—but now, technology can offer similar insights faster and less expensively to a wider audience of attorneys.
|Efficiency Will Produce Better Outcomes
Here is the remarkable conclusion from the technological transformation of the aviation industry. As evidenced by the emphasis in point to point travel and the growing influence of discount airlines, the aviation industry is very different today than it was back in the 1980s. Automation and efficiency have resulted in many advantages. It is much safer to fly today. It is more economical to fly today. And there are more flights today than ever before.
Given the current record high in air travel demand, there is a global need for 790,000 new pilots in the next 20 years according to Boeing's latest Pilot and Technician Outlook. This estimate has increased from 637,000 pilots in 2017. The demand for air travel is expected to continue to increase and triple in the next 20 years. Looking back, it seems almost foolish for naysayers to think that automation would put pilots out of work. Just the opposite has happened.
Armed with increased efficiency, better decision-making abilities, and greater insight into information and risk management, a new generation of attorneys will inevitably improve the practice of law. It has happened in every industry that has faced technology and process improvements—and there is every reason to believe that those results will be mirrored in the legal industry.
James M. Lee is the co-founder and CEO of legal A.I. technology company LegalMation. James may be reached at [email protected].
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 AllTrending Stories
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