3 Geeks and a Law Blog

The Geek in Review Ep. 102 – Nicole Morris on Emory Law Schools TI:GER Innovation Conference

Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:46:27 GMT

Nicole Morris is the Director of the TI:GER Program and Professor in Practice for Emory Law School in Atlanta, Georgia. She joins the podcast to discuss the upcoming TI:GER Innovation Conference on January 28, 2021. This free (yes FREE!) online conference on “Advancing Equity in Innovation” is focused on addressing the needs of women and people of color in technology. Not just legal technology, but the overall scope of issues affecting them from STEM education, to Patents, and to the lack of Venture Capital funding. The top tier presenters of the conference include BigLaw attorneys, Managing Partners, Tech Entrepreneurs, Patent Officials, and Startup Advisors. The TI:GER Innovation Conference is a must-attend for women and people of color in the tech field, and for those looking for ways to be better allies to the underrepresented community in technology. Registration for this FREE online conference is available here.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

There are conspiracies that may be true, and there are conspiracy theories that are usually not true. The Culture Analytics Group a the University of California, Berkeley developed an AI tool to distinguish between the two.

ILTA launched a five-part podcast series featuring ILTA’s Influential Women in Legal Tech Honorees to discuss their experience and insights on how they’ve addressed legal innovation. Part one and part two are out now.

Many believe that misinformation is something that the “other side” is tricked into believing. Unfortunately, a lot of the misinformation is willfully consumed, not just by the other side, but by many of us. The consumption is so widespread that the Washington Post stopped publishing its Internet fact-checking column because people simply didn’t care. Sean Blanda expands on this human behavior of willfully accepting false information in his Medium post, “The ‘Other Side’ Is Not Dumb.”

The audio-only social media tool Clubhouse is becoming popular in the business community. While it is still an invite-only, Apple iOS-only tool, Clubhouse is gaining traction in the community. We will check it out, and see if the reporting is true in that it might be a great platform to do a live-podcast. If we do it… we’ll let you all know.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple Podcast. Contact us anytime by tweeting us at @gebauerm or @glambert. Or, you can call The Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 and leave us a message. You can email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. As always, the great music you hear on the podcast is from Jerry David DeCicca.

Transcript

Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to The Geek In Review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.

Greg Lambert: And I’m Greg Lambert. So in today’s program, we bring in someone who I admire for her work and training law students for the reality of legal practice. Nicole Morris, who is the director of the TI:GER program and professor in practice at Emory law school in Atlanta. So Nicole comes on to talk about the upcoming TI:GER innovation conference, which you know, Marlene, I’ve told you many times, this was one of the best conferences that I attended. And I went last year right before you know, COVID took over the world. And it was just great to have her on the show and talk about the great content coming up on January 28. And the best thing about it Marlene, it’s free.

Marlene Gebauer: We love free,

Greg Lambert: We love free.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, let’s get to this week’s information inspirations.

Marlene Gebauer: First, we are recording just after the presidential swearing in. And I am pleased to say that the transfer of power was conducted peacefully, as it always does. And as it should be.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, there was one cool thing that I saw right after the inauguration after the swearing in was that the new whitehouse.gov site is up. And there’s this clever note that’s buried in the HTML code, encouraging digital and web services people to apply to work for the new administration, so as to say they know how to advertise to their market.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, it’s like a little Easter egg there. Well, my inspirations are related today, and they are about conspiracy theories. So the first is that there’s now an AI tool developed by the culture analytics group at the University of California, which can distinguish between a conspiracy theory, what’s not true, and a true conspiracy. Now the tool identifies narratives and looks at this in relation to sets of people places and things and their relationships. The tool is processing 1000s of social media posts centered around say, pizza gate, or bridge gate, and reviewing the layers of narrative and then the overall narrative itself. It turns out that after the analysis, the connections between narrative layers fall apart for false stories, but stay strong and the true ones. So I hope we hear more about this.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, it was interesting. There was a meme that was going around this week with the conspiracy theories, and one was that Finland doesn’t exist. Have you seen that one?

Marlene Gebauer: I haven’t seen that one.

Greg Lambert: Think that was the one that caught people by surprise.

Marlene Gebauer: And Finland is like, what?? Wait a minute.

Greg Lambert: So my first inspiration is ILTA, the international legal Technology Association has an outstanding five part podcast series, that they are bringing in the winners of their 2020 ILTA influential women in legal tech honorees. So the first two episodes are already out. And they include some of our favorite people like Nicole Bradick and Maya Markovich. And there’s a number of international guests who I’m hearing for the first time. And that’s really, really cool. Yeah, and even though it may be the first time I know, it’s not going to be the last time because one of them, I’m actually who’s the moderator on episode one, Jackie Nagtegall from Cape Town, South Africa is going to present with me in a class for Drexel School of Law in a few weeks. So now at least I can hear what her voice sounds like before we meet for the first time for the class. So kudos to ILTA for both recognizing these influential women and legal tech, as well as giving them a platform to speak to all of us about their experiences and insights.

Marlene Gebauer: Speaking of ILTA I also want to give a shout out to Gwyn McAlpine, who basically put a nice summary of a different km links together. So I basically have my reading set for me for the next few days. So thanks to Gwyn for that. My second inspiration is a nugget in a larger article about false consensus bias. Social media surrounds us with like-minded people, and we post things that we know garner support rather than consider alternative views or even the truth. misinformation on social media is apparently so rampant that the Washington Post stopped publishing its internet fact checking column, because people didn’t seem to care if stuff was true.

Greg Lambert: Yeah

Marlene Gebauer: Great. So the distrust and cognitive bias is so strong that people who fall for hoax news stories are frequently only interested in consuming information that conforms with their views. Even when it’s demonstrably fake. And this got me thinking about my first inspiration. Because of course, I initially thought, well, an AI conspiracy theory spotter could be a really useful thing, you know, to clarify the truth. But now I wonder if anyone will care?

Greg Lambert: Yeah, we’re in a, we’re in a kind of a weird situation. And I think even those of us that think we know better, tend to fall into these bad habits. So you know, and I can tell you that there’s been times where I’m guilty as well, that there’s been some things I’ve had to take down or things that I’ve consciously left up knowing that it’s not 100% true, just because it fit a narrative. So you know, we’re, we’re all I would say, we’re all pretty guilty of it in some form or fashion.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah. I mean, it’s what surrounds us is, is what’s influencing this. So, yeah, it’s a very interesting article. Not for just that little nugget, but for the rest of it. So I encourage everyone to take a look.

Greg Lambert: Alright, well, Marlene, hopefully I can pull this out of the dark place. Yeah. So have you heard of clubhouse the new social media app?

Marlene Gebauer: Well, yes, I have, Greg.

Greg Lambert: Because I sent you an invite. Yes, you did. Well, some are saying that this could be the next big social media platform. Some people are saying that because now celebrities are getting on to it.

Marlene Gebauer: So that’s why you did it.

Greg Lambert: So that’s, that’s why I did it. I don’t know why everybody else is doing it. So right now, it’s a it’s an iOS platform only. So you can only use it on your Apple devices. And you have to be invited to the platform by someone who’s already on there. And the reason is, is it’s in serious beta right now. So it doesn’t have the platform or infrastructure to go full release yet. So yeah, so I sent you an invite, this morning. And hopefully, we can explore it together at some point. what makes this really interesting is that this is an audio-only platform. And that really makes it different from the other platforms, which are text-based, video, picture, like we’re used to. The idea is that you create or join a room with a particular topic. The speakers are on the stage, and the moderator can pass the mic around to the audience so that others can come up on stage and talk, you can schedule these rooms and events and invite others to join in a way it’s very much like having a breakout at a seminar or perhaps even like an interactive podcast. And maybe once we figure it out, we should see if we could do a live podcast on the platform. What do you think?

Marlene Gebauer: I think that’s a great idea. That’ll be some fun to do.

Greg Lambert: That would be some fun to do. So the and the other thing that I like about it, and it’s kind of like when we talked about Fishbowl,

Marlene Gebauer: I was thinking about Fishbowl because it’s like, well, yeah.

Greg Lambert: And so it’s really set up as a business style platform. So it’s more like an audio only LinkedIn more than it is like the social media content that you see on Facebook or Twitter.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I could see this being used. If you didn’t want to use video conferencing, I mean that this would be something that that people could just sort of jump on and, and just all have a discussion about things. presentations. Sure.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, we’ll give the audience a heads up. If we want to do a do a test run.

Marlene Gebauer: We’re totally gonna try that.

Greg Lambert: Alright, and that wraps up this week’s information inspirations.

Interview

Marlene Gebauer: We’re very excited to bring on a good friend of both of ours Nicole Morris to discuss her work at Emory law school with the tiger program and her upcoming Tiger innovation conference on January 28th. We have the registration information on the show notes. So we encourage attendance of anyone who’s interested in how we can better prepare law students to understand legal technology, as well as entrepreneurs, primarily those who are female and people of color, who are looking for examples of how they can break into the industry.

Greg Lambert: And it’s free

Marlene Gebauer: And it’s free.

Marlene Gebauer: Nicole Morris is the director of the Tiger program and professor in practice at Emory University School of Law. Nicole, welcome to the geek in review.

Nicole Morris: Hello. Hi.

Greg Lambert: Good to have you on. So Nicole, we wanted to talk to you about the upcoming Tiger innovation conference coming up on January 28. From 11am to 2pm. Eastern Standard Time, I had the absolute pleasure of attending last year’s conference in person. And I still say it was one of the best conferences I’ve been to. And it was actually one of the last conferences. I think I went to legal week soon. Yeah. And that was it. That was That was it for conferences. So I’m glad to have you on here to talk about this year’s program.

Nicole Morris: I’m happy to be here. Yeah, it’s it’s hard planning events during a pandemic, particularly when you’re used to doing face to face events. And you look forward to those events, because it’s an opportunity to connect people together and to see people you haven’t seen in a while. And now we’re doing it virtually this year, but it’s safer. I’m glad we’re able to do something, as opposed to canceling it outright. So I’m happy to

Greg Lambert: I’m sure people can get their own bad coffee and danishes. And the whole feel for it just stands up.

Nicole Morris: That’s right, that’s right.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, before we talk about this year’s event, can you tell us a little bit about the tiger program itself? And what you’ve done over the past six years since the inception of the program?

Nicole Morris: Yeah, happy to talk about that. So the program is unique to law school or legal education. It’s a partnership with Georgia Tech. And we train law students alongside business students, the MBA program at Georgia Tech. And we bring in PhD candidates, and students from either tech or Emory. And that group learned together in a multi-disciplinary format, on how to take University technology out of the universities or how to commercialize it, and build a business with it. So they’re looking at business valuation frameworks, through a very thin outline of a business plan, some of the initial intellectual property considerations around the technology, how to license it out of tech transfer offices, for example. And then market analysis and industry analysis to understand where you can be somewhat profitable at the beginning of your enterprise.

Greg Lambert: Is it a one Semester Program, or is it a full year program?

Nicole Morris: So the law students are required to participate for two semesters, which ends up being one year? I think that business students are about a two year commitment on their side, I decided to shrink it on the last side, because I think after two semesters, the students sort of get what they can get out of it, so to speak, there’s a third semester, which is optional. And it’s kind of a capstone experience, I’d say I get about 90% of my sort of retention of students going through the first year to continue for the third semester. And I run it like an entrepreneurship law class. And I think you guys are both guest speakers. One year last fall, I should say, where we always talk about like, remember, we’re all 2019. So I’m able to introduce a lot of really interesting legal tech trends, and the capstone course. And I look at it as a springboard into their practice future. So what are some of the technology aspects happening in the legal industry that I least want them to have an understanding of to see to hear before they enter practice?

Marlene Gebauer: So what type of feedback Are you getting from students when they go into the world? Like, you know, you’re preparing them for some of this technology? How are they feeling about whether they’re getting access to it and whether it’s prepared them?

Nicole Morris: So I’m actually great question, I’m actually preparing an impact report that I will summarize kind of the last six years of Tiger and try to get a sense of the data behind some of the anecdotal statements I’m hearing. So anecdotally, I get Thank you like, I get a huge thank you. Right, you know, Thank you, professor. I didn’t have anything like this in my doctrinal classes or some of the other classes. I took it at Emory. Thank you, because my firm uses case texts or fast case or we’re looking at Documate or you know that one speaker from so and so that mentioned something obscure at the time. Now that’s all the rage and everyone’s talking about it. So they’re grateful. And I get a lot of thank-yous. And I also, sometimes it allows people to pivot, right? I thought I really wanted to do this. But now I realized I really want to focus on access to justice, or I really want to focus on other issues, social justice issues, because they’re not sort of the theme of this year’s conference that the equity issues that become glaringly apparent, once we start looking deeper at either AI or who’s doing what in the legal tech industry, they feel compelled to act, because, you know, obviously, all the students at Emory, you know, believe it or not, they are privileged, right, like it’s a privilege to be at this private university and getting this education and they see the disparities, and they are compelled to do something about it. So it’s a wide range of how the students sort of impacted by these small classroom experiences. But for the most part, I think everyone’s thankful.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, I mean, it’s, it’s it’s good to hear that that people are thinking of other opportunities outside what maybe what they originally came in thinking, and also that they’re, they’re using the technology, and then that you introduce them to that.

Nicole Morris: Yeah.

Greg Lambert: Well, speaking of the theme, let’s jump into the conference this year, where your theme is advancing equity and innovation. Can you walk us through what we should expect from the conference this year?

Nicole Morris: Yeah, so it’s a smaller event, mainly because of the virtual format, like it’s really hard to sort of spend three hours uninterrupted on a Zoom on a Microsoft team. So it’s more of a workshop-style discussion. And Greg, you were there before where we would have like a panel discussion, then q&a. It’s still that panel discussion, but I describe it as a workshop, meaning I’m hoping the audience becomes more engaged earlier in the topical discussion. So each speaker, we have three segments to the conference this year. So we’re going to start on the technology side and looking at sort of the lack of equity among technologists. So in terms of people of color, and women, who is represented in terms of the inventorship population, why is this such a gap for women and people of color and filing applications at the patent office? What are we doing to address those inequities? I’ve got a speaker from the USPTO, who deals with a lot of their education pipeline issues. We’re trying to focus a little bit more on the front end of what I’ll call the innovation ecosystem, right? So who are the creators and inventors? And what do they look like?

Greg Lambert: Are you narrowing it to innovation and legal or do you have a wider umbrella on innovation?

Nicole Morris: Yeah, it’s a wider umbrella. So it’s more about STEM and people of color in areas of science and technology, as well as the legal industry. I think, in my mind, I’m starting to see a blurring. So I’m an engineer by training, right? So when I first came out into the engineering world, it wasn’t cool to be a chemical engineer, right? We were rather vilified as the geekiest and nerdiest. It’s sort of like Revenge of the Nerds. Like that movie was like my reality. Right? Do you have those glasses? I did not. Or did I have a pocket protector? Because I thought that that was, luckily that was more male dominated. So as a girl, I could get away with the purse. But yeah, I mean, we weren’t, you know, uplifted right now. It’s cool to be in tech. Right? You know, tech companies are sort of like, trending and popular. But what’s happening in terms of the opportunities for people in straight, you know, engineering science hardcore disciplines, looks the same as it did when I was coming out in the late 80s and early 90s. And it’s, it’s deplorable. Like, it’s really, when I started thinking about putting together speakers for this event, I thought, how are we still talking about the same? How are we still talking about the same thing, part of the conference on a whole within the theme is to highlight some of the issues and problems, but also to include some discussion on solutions, or on programs and initiatives, or at least attempting to close the gap. Right? So we understand that there’s a huge disparity. But well, maybe we don’t for those that don’t like so educate those that don’t realize there is a disparity, what the disparity looks like, and then what’s happening to address and close the gap. And so the speakers comprise people who are on both sides of that or maybe, you know, are involved enough to know on the solution side so we are going to include a wider sense of topical issues on the equity and innovation With the inventorship, and more scientific technical community,

Marlene Gebauer: well, this is really exciting because you’re right, like every year, you see the stats about sort of women in tech, and you know, stem, and it’s it’s always, it’s always abysmal, it’s been so for years. So I think it’s wonderful that you’re bringing, you know, you’re bringing a group of people who, you know, not only are succeeding, but are sharing solutions, you know, as well as highlighting the problem. So, who are the presenters this year? What are they doing? You know, just tell us a little bit about them?

Nicole Morris: Sure. So I’ll start kind of in what I’ll call is somewhat of the run of show. So we’re gonna start again, with the gaps in the technical community. So we’ve got Joyce Ward from the US Patent and Trademark Office who works on pipeline issues in the US, and she’s Director of Education at the patent office. There’s an initiative called invent together, which is kind of a coalition of law firms and private sort of nonprofits that are looking at what impediments are there to women and people of color, even getting into the inventor pipeline, you know, what is it inventorship education? What are some of the barriers? And how can we close the gap on there and Holly fashioner from Covington Burling is a speaker, to talk about that, because she’s active with that organization. And then we have, I’m hoping to get a speaker. He hasn’t confirmed his availability yet. But he’s like, I’m keeping my fingers crossed. He’s working on the digital divide. So if you went to the LSE conference, you might be familiar with Larry Irving. And I’m hoping Larry can make it work on his calendar, but he’s doing some phenomenal work. And that’s getting at, again, sort of the access issues with people of color. As I think about the problem. And its complexity, it’s compounded, right. So if you don’t have access to broadband, if you don’t have access to be able to learn in a digital environment, like we’re doing today, you’re not participating in the innovation ecosystem, at a minimum, if you don’t have access to inventorship, education, through clubs, organization, programs, support groups, you’re not going to be aware of what intellectual property rights are. Nor are you aware of, you know, your creative music and art and writings and maybe even technical prototypes and things like that could be filed as a utility, patent or design patent or trademark or copyright, like you’re not aware of any of these issues. So the first part, the speakers are going to look at what they’re doing either nationally or globally, to address some of those. And then we’ll take a break, we’ll take a lunch break, take a stretch break, we’ll take a whatever break, get a stale, Danish break, and resume with the more legal Eagles of the world and what they’re doing in terms of advancing equity. So we’ve got Kristin Sunday, who started or co founder of Paladin, and she just put out a report on women and people of color as far as legal tech founders. So she’ll share some of the results of that work. We’ve got an academic mirror Tao, who is now director of lesi, which is kind of this behind the scenes organization, looking at demographics for law schools. She’s going to talk about her recent book, where she put together some data and research on race and gender in the legal Academy. You know, no surprise there. It looks a lot like race and gender issues in the legal profession as a whole in terms of law firms. But she’s got some interesting work that she’s doing. And she’ll talk about the work that she and the research that she put forth in her book. And then we’ve got a gentleman from London. So I talked to him last Friday. And he was like, you know, I’m like the middle aged white guy on your panel. Are you sure you want me here? And I’m like, Yes. If you are here to talk about equity issues, because we need everybody to help, right? So it can’t be a discussion of women only can’t be a discussion of black and brown people only right like we need everyone here. But what’s interesting, he’s the managing partner of Kilburn strode, and he’s office sits in London. So he has a global perspective on what the firm’s are doing in London. And it was a great chat, because he shared some things about initiatives that they’re starting there to recognize that the managing executive team at most firms in London, surprise, surprise, look the same, and that’s not good, and they need to do better. So he’ll share some thoughts. And I loved his vulnerability and just sort of plain transparency that hey, I know, you know, I’m Stumbling on some of these issues. I’m not great on diversity, equity inclusion in terms of discussing it. So I’m here to educate myself as well. And I thought it was a phenomenal conversation sort of as a, you know, getting him oriented to the theme. And I think he’ll be a great speaker. And then we’re going to close out with looking at resource equity. So as we talk about entrepreneurship, and legal tech founders and founders of color, one of the gaps, or one of the issues I’m hearing from a lot of people in the Atlanta area, at least, is we can find mentors all day long. But we’re having trouble getting startup capital, right? We need people to write checks, to support our ideas, we can build some prototypes. So we can get some either sales or marketing efforts put forth. But we need money to do that. And we’re still struggling to get funding resources, even if it’s just a small de-risking funding that every startup needs. But, you know, startups with founders of color, are struggling still to kind of push through that first stage and milestone.

Marlene Gebauer: Now, you know, are they going to share sort of resources to gather funding, as well as part of the discussion?

Nicole Morris: So yes, I’m hoping through the audience. So this is whereas we’re talking about who’s going to show up, I’m hoping audience participation will help us here, but Dorna (Moini), who founded Documate, I know she’ll participate? I just don’t remember like, what timing? She’s been wildly successful. So we have some successful women, legal tech founders who I want to share. How did you, you know, manage this capital raise issue? Like, what did you do? What would you advise, we’ve got a gentleman who works with startups here in Atlanta, to our Atlanta Technology Development Center, which sits on Georgia Tech’s campus. And their main goal as a center is to basically help startups thrive, right to help them kind of get through early-stage through maturity, and they’ve got an educational program, they’ve got an accelerator program. So he’ll talk about resources that are available, there’s some government resources that are available. What I hope to do with that last segment on resource equity, we leave with like a roadmap for people that I can share through our Tiger platform that says, Here are the six things you should be doing daily, weekly, monthly, whatever the appropriate frequency is, or here the methodologies that were most successful, for the founders who spoke in our conference that if you’re not deploying these strategies, you should consider so that’s the goal. So people can at least leave the event with some action plan or some sense of, I’ve got some ideas for what I can do next. Not to say that they’re all going to be you know, I feel like my lawyer disclaimer has to come on. This is not to say that I can get the same recovery for you if you come to my firm, but I will try to do my best to get you as much money as I can. I’m not a plaintiff’s attorney. I’m not a personal injury attorney. But I do love their disclaimers.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, it’s I have a disclaimer on my firm’s podcast where you know, results may vary.

Nicole Morris: That’s exactly right.

Marlene Gebauer: But on ours, yeah.

Greg Lambert: That’s for sure. Just quickly, to go back to your, your speaker from the UK, that kind of reminded me we had Jennifer Bluestein, on talking about mid-level associates, and one of the things that she has been trying to help them with his allyship. And that, you know, there’s this need for people that aren’t necessarily people of color, but there’s still a role for everyone to play. But you have to learn how to do that through your allyship. And so kudos to him for showing up and again, you know, showing some vulnerability on this. One I like to learn so, yeah, and

Nicole Morris: that’s exactly the words that he used in our discussion. I said That’s exactly right. Right. So what does allyship really look like? What does that mean? And that’s part of his, his remarks. And I think it’ll be really interesting to get the audience engaged in a you know, we’ll probably have some sort of, you know, let’s not kill the messenger here, like you know, it cuz I don’t know where people will be. What are the things that I’ve learned in this pandemic? And, sadly, 2021 is starting off like the 13th month of 2020. You know, you just never know, day of where people are coming into your classroom. Like I think about this with my students, but where people are coming in, you know, what personal experience they may have had the day before a few hours before. We’ll just try to make sure that everyone is kind and respectful and their remarks and questions and We can actually have a dialogue. We don’t have to agree that’s not at all part of this conference. It’s just to have respectful dialogue.

Greg Lambert: Speaking of people attending the conference, who should attend the conference? Who who are you looking for to show up?

Nicole Morris: You guys, Marlene and Greg? No, I want students to show up, you know, every year, the audience base, you know, that we like to get as the same practicing lawyers, and this year love to get more of the tech, you know, tech community to show up technologist of color. So the tech community, the legal community, and then those in legal education students, folks who are trying to figure out a different path and make things somewhat, you know, equitable and believe in, you know, equity and inclusion in terms of their work and their education.

Greg Lambert: How does one find more information? And how to sign up? And is there? You know, do you have to register? And is there a cost,

Nicole Morris: so the conference is free, which is another perk of our virtual world. If you guys can share the registration link, it’s all kind of electronic, of course, you register through our Emory marketing office, and then we’ll push out the link to the webinar to all registered participants. So we haven’t pushed out there the actual event link yet because we’re just still pulling together the folks on a registration list so you can register as late as the day of or the day before because it’s virtual, right? It’s a matter of getting the access, which is nice.

Greg Lambert: And I don’t know if you know, this, Nicole, but we love free around

Marlene Gebauer: here. I was gonna say was like, No, I’m gonna let Nicole finish. But it’s like, yes, free is very important to us.

Nicole Morris: We started off as a free event, and then we switch to a low sort of fee, mainly because people would register and then not show up. Right? And I had food I had coffee, and I’m like, okay, I can’t This is a logistics planning nightmare. So at least the somewhat of a paywall allowed me to get a sense of who’s serious.

Greg Lambert: Well to tell my story from last year. So I found out it was what 25 bucks to

Nicole Morris: 35 or something like that.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. And so I like the same day I saw that it was 25 bucks. I went on and southwest had a round trip flight to Atlanta from Houston for 100 bucks. And I paid like 150 bucks for a hotel room. So I had a whole conference that was done for you know, less than $300. So

Nicole Morris: yeah. Oh my god, that’s some conference.

Marlene Gebauer: And then the best one you went to and the best one I went to, you know,

Greg Lambert: and by far the best bang for the buck.

Nicole Morris: Thank you. We try to deliver value values important to us. Thank you.

Greg Lambert: Well, Nicole Morris from Emory University’s School of Law. Thank you very much and best of luck with the upcoming Tiger conference. Thank you, Nicole.

Nicole Morris: Thank you guys. Thank you so much.

Post-Interview

Greg Lambert: Marlene, Nicole is absolutely one of my favorite people to talk to simply because you can just feel her enthusiasm and sincerity in what she’s doing there at Emory with the TI:GER program. Plus, she is such a geek.

Marlene Gebauer: Yes.

Greg Lambert: So Marlene, we had talked before we started recording the interview with Nicole. And we were reminiscing about being at LegalWeek last year and watching Nicole go into full geek mode with a patent attorney discussing AI and the potential challenges for patents developed using AI. And I admit that the conversation itself was way over my head but it was super fun to listen to.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, back when conferences were normal.

Greg Lambert: Yeah,

Marlene Gebauer: it seems so long ago it was like a year ago. Well, I’m excited to hear what the assessment she is creating reveals. You know, I know everyone who’s attending is getting value. And but what I’m curious about, what I want to know is are they able to translate that into actionable projects and work in legal organizations? And to hear about the success of those projects because you know, that inspires others and keeps the momentum going.

Greg Lambert: Well, thanks again to Nicole Morris for joining us today, we have the links on the show notes on how you can register for free for the TI:GER innovation conference on January 28.

Marlene Gebauer: This is gonna be great.

Greg Lambert: Yeah.

Marlene Gebauer: Before we go, we want to remind listeners to take the time to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Rate and Review us as well. If you have comments about today’s show or suggestions for a future show, you can reach us on Twitter at @gebauerm or @glambert, you can call the Geek In Review Hotline at 713-487-7270 or email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. As always, the music you hear is from Jerry David DiCicca. Thanks, Jerry.

Greg Lambert: Thanks, Jerry. All right, Marlene, I will talk with you later.

Marlene Gebauer: All right, ciao.

The Geek in Review Ep. 101 – How Mid-Level Associates Can Thrive at Law Firms – with ...

Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:59:53 GMT

We conclude our discussion with Jennifer Bluestein, author of the book Stepping It Up: A Guide for Mid-Level Law Firm Associates, and talk about how associates mature into their roles as lawyers with law firms. As these second to sixth-year associates begin to take on more substantial legal roles, as well as leadership, mentorship, and allyship among their fellow lawyers, the stress of the job can become overwhelming. Bluestein talks through a number of examples of how mid-level associates can handle the increased workload, improve communications with partners at the firm, and realistically plan for their future. During the COVID era, associates my struggle with their work, feel depressed, or have other troubles adjusting to a disrupted work environment. Bluestein says that law firms need to address these issues by observing behavior and constant communication with associates who need help. Our clients are still in need of their lawyer’s counsel, and now more than ever, associates are really a necessary part of the law firm’s business.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

The Center on Ethics and the Legal Profession at Georgetown University Law Center and Thomson Reuters Institute published the 2021 Report on the State of the Legal Market. Beyond stating the obvious, that 2020 was an extraordinary year, the report suggests that the pandemic may be the tipping point for law firms and how they practice law going forward.

Summize is a new contract lifecycle product that claims to be a lightweight solution for contract review. There a number of interesting things it does, including how it summarizes the contract for easy review and exportable to MS Word and Excel.

Greg was on the other side of the interview this week when he sat down with Chad Main, host of the Technically Legal podcast. If you want to learn more about Greg on a professional and personal level, go check out the episode: Greg Lambert on the Importance of the 21st Century Law Librarian.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to the Geek in Review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.

Greg Lambert: And I’m Greg Lambert. Well, on today’s show, we have part two of our discussion with Jennifer Bluestein, the author of the book, Step It Up: a guide for mid-level law firm associates. And in part two, we talk a lot about how mid-level associates grow both as a lawyer and as a person.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, really great conversation. So please tune in. And before that, let’s get to this week’s information inspirations.

[1:04]

Marlene Gebauer: So Greg, I had the opportunity to listen to the Legal Innovators webinar by none other than wunderkind, Daniel Susskind. It was a very, very good webinar and very good crowd engagement. And you know, as you would expect, Daniel had a great many insights to share. The one I will share with you is a story about Garry Kasparov, the chess champion who got beat by Big Blue. And you know, I feel really bad about saying that, like, you know, Garry failed or something, which he didn’t. So anyway, Daniel noted that if you ask an expert like Garry, the process of how to win a chess, he really wouldn’t be able to explain it to you. Because certain things would depend on the circumstance. And Daniel’s point here is that we make the mistake of thinking we need to copy human systems and get frustrated when we can’t do it. While AI solutions like Big Blue can learn and come up with their own solutions . So practical and creepy at the same time.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, well, I mean, that’s one of the things is, you know, the limitations that we place on ourselves. We also place on these types of algorithms. And we say that with bias, you have the technology, you need to think of it in the way that works for the technology to be efficient. Not how do we do it.

Marlene Gebauer: Not the way you do it, right. Exactly.

Greg Lambert: Well, my first inspiration is the Center on Ethics and Legal Profession at Georgetown University Law Center and Thomson Reuters Institute, published their 2021 report on the state of the legal market, where, beyond stating the obvious that 2020 was an extraordinary year. They also borrow…

Marlene Gebauer: It’s just so generous, really,

Greg Lambert: it is. But they also borrow from Malcolm Gladwell and say that finally, this could be the tipping point for the industry, that the pandemic has created a viral spread of change in the legal Empire.

Marlene Gebauer: Oh, my gosh, a viral spread of change. Wow, I see what they did there.

Greg Lambert: Actually, I think I did that one.

Marlene Gebauer: Oh, did you? Okay, well, and I see what you did.

Greg Lambert: Such things as finally seeing that remote work actually does work. That partners also couldn’t deny the need for keeping technology up to date. Although I have to say something I’ve and I’ve said this before on the show is, I think partners already knew that. Because ever since the Great Recession, you know, the tech spend has been increasing at a pretty good clip. And if it wasn’t for all of that spend in the last 10 years, there’s no way we could have flipped the switch and gone remote work practically overnight, like we did this year. So, you know, I think this just kind of hardens that resolve that they’re going to need to stay up to date on the tech that’s out there. So one of the lessons learned that really caught my eye. So I wanted to quote this part from the report itself. So it says almost all firms have significantly reduced cost by making fundamental changes in their operations. This includes adapting to more efficient use of office and administrative spaces, rethinking change in staffing and work patterns, altering levels of secretarial support.

Marlene Gebauer: Staff

Greg Lambert: Yeah. Reducing expectations for in person meetings, increasing the efficiency of digital connections and reducing business travel. And I know that a lot of those do point at staff but again, it’s, you know, when it came to like, secretarial support, that’s not new, that’s not a pandemic related issue. That’s been but the pandemic premier excuse to solve some of those issues. So, you know, and many of these changes are likely to remain even after the pandemic ends. And I’m thinking to myself that a lot of the travel that’s going to be interesting to see if travel makes a comeback, and how long and if it does, how long it’s going to take.

[5:22]

Marlene Gebauer: I think it’ll be reduced for good. Not that you’re not going to have it at all. But I think people have grown sort of very accustomed to the Zoom meeting, and realize that in most instances, it can, you know, take care of business. And I also wonder how that’s going to happen with courts, you know, how much they’re going to adopt that moving forward?

Greg Lambert: Yeah, you know, that’s a good point that you bring up, and especially with courts, where attorneys have to travel across the country, or witnesses have to come in, you know, and they’re going to be 15 minutes on the stand. And they’re going to have to take three days out of their life in order to do that. 15 minutes. So yeah, there was one issue that I did see, and that was Ron Friedmann had this great question about how we know this is a tipping point or not. And he posted on Twitter. his comment was, what perspective criteria today would tell us in 18 to 36 months that big law had passed through this tipping point? And I think that’s a great question. So, you know, what are some of the measures going forward to really see if we’ve really made a substantial shift? Or if this is just a temporary detour in our path back to business as usual?

Marlene Gebauer: I mean, that’s a good point. I mean, do we ever determine unless it’s after the fact sort of what the tipping point is? Or is it always we’re looking in hindsight saying, Oh, yeah, that was the tipping point.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. Well, I think that some of these reports have predicted like, 15 out of the last two tipping points, so,

Marlene Gebauer: Hmm… All right.

Greg Lambert: Think about it.

Greg Lambert: I will.

[7:02]

Marlene Gebauer: And there is yet another player in the contract lifecycle. Yay. Summize. Now Summize what they call a lightweight solution and something I could surely use. And does, as you guessed, summarize a contract for easy review. It integrates with Microsoft Word. It’s shareable and it can export to Word and Excel. It is targeted to law firms, in-house legal and SMEs. Now, I think the jury’s still out on this one for me for a bit. I think it would be good for explaining purposes, but I have some concerns it could miss something critical in terms of actual review.

Greg Lambert: One of the things we do here, Marlene, when we tell our guests that their interview episode is released and is that they should tell their friends, they should tell their family they should tell their colleagues to listen. And then we also teasingly somewhat teasingly also suggest that they tell their colleagues, friends and family that they should also listens. So with that in mind, I’m going to practice what I preach and say that I hope listeners of this show will go out and listen to Chad Main’s interview of me on Chad’s great podcast, Technically Legal. So I had a really good time talking with Chad about my work and some of my personal experiences as a law librarian over the years. We even talked about Jerry David DeCicca’s music that we play here on the show, so that was kind of cool. Yeah, so everyone, go tell your friends and family to listen as well. And also, while you’re telling them, go ahead and tell them to listen to this show, and go ahead and subscribe to

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah,

Greg Lambert: And that is this week’s information inspirations.

[9:00]

Marlene Gebauer: We conclude our discussion with Jennifer Bluestein. On her book, Step It Up: a guide for mid-level law firm associates. If you haven’t caught last week’s episode, don’t worry, we think you can dive right in where we left off. But we do encourage everyone to go back and listen to Part one if you haven’t yet.

Interview

Greg Lambert: One of the things and you mentioned it earlier is the topic of ally ship amongst the mid-levels. Can you just give us a quick overview of what you mean by ally ship and how it applies to these mid-levels?

Jennifer Bluestein: Sure. So Genhi Givings Bailey is the Chief Diversity and Inclusion officer with me at Perkins Coie, and she is so thoughtful around issues of inclusion. She and I were talking about D&I and what would be useful for a mid-level. And what we’ve seen more and more at law firms is there’s a great deal of programming now around diversity inclusion and why it’s important. But there is less focus on what those who are not those who are not in power and what they can do. So we thought it would be really helpful to have a chapter focused on ally ship, which is how mid-level associates or senior associates can stand up for others, who can interrupt bias, and who can help decrease any barriers of anyone around them. And this isn’t specific to race or ethnicity. It could be just about anybody who’s typically considered an outsider, and how do you bring everybody into the fold, so that there is that fair and level playing field? While we’re all taking responsibility for that kind of culture? It isn’t just about the people in power.

[10:44]

Greg Lambert: I think I’ve seen this or I’m seeing this will eventually… I think there’s just going to be a big clash of generations coming up, especially on this topic, because we’re getting at the gen, you know, the officially the Gen Z’s are now entering a now graduating law school and are entering the law firm environment. And one of the things that I remind older attorneys is, this is the see something, say something generation, that they were taught in school starting from kindergarten up, that if they see something wrong, they go right to the people in power, and they tell them and the expectation is that something will be done immediately.

Marlene Gebauer: They’re going to be so disappointed.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. Well, and I’ve seen it butt up against the, you know, HR rules that, you know, you somebody says something that’s inappropriate. And there’s an expectation that this should be handled right away, there should be you know, and it should be transparent to everyone. And people are saying, no, that’s not how we do things around here. So there’s this clash in generations, do you see this as something that is going to hamstring these, these younger associates as they as they move up? Because they’re so used to getting immediate responses to problems like this, and they’re going to run into the bureaucracy of the firm?

Jennifer Bluestein: It’s a really interesting question, because I’ve been doing this generational differences workshop for, I want to say about 15 years now. And so that was when the Millennials were first entering law firms as first year associates, because they’re now 40, and 41. And I, I update that research regularly. So the workshop itself is actually quite different than it was 10 or 15 years ago. I do think there are some differences. But the one thing that the research is clear on is that people change as they age. So there are the stereotypes, for example, of baby boomers as being these hard working, you know, work is everything. And they spend so much money and they didn’t save for retirement. So they’re going to work till they’re 75, and all of these different things. And I was reminded by my 70 year old friend who just retired in the last six months, and she said, You know, this research is such a load of crap, Jennifer, and I said it is.

[13:26]

Jennifer Bluestein: And I said, How is it a load of crap? She said, we were at Woodstock, for crying out loud. We didn’t even wear shoes. We were Birkenstocks. For years. We did every drug under the sun. We were anti work. We were antiestablishment were the same people. We just got older and had mortgages. And it was a very funny statement because we think of baby boomers in this very different way. But if you think about it in a historical context, people change over time. And so what we’re seeing is yes, the young associates entering, especially if they haven’t worked first and are going right from college and law school directly through, they are very different. They have higher expectations for transparency. They feel completely in the right when they want to complain about something. They also have Above the Law, which is the blog that encourages them to share everything they don’t like about wherever they are, and encourages them to do so anonymously without any recourse. And that’s a very difficult situation on the one hand, but as they get older, and as they understand the nuances and their, I don’t want to say rights, but how we’re trying to be fair and equitable to everyone, I think they do realize that some things just aren’t realistic. So the example that I have is, so I was an employment lawyer, many, many years ago. And I had a case where I can’t even remember the client, but it was in a warehouse setting, and somebody was claiming sexual harassment. And she said she had complained to management, and nothing had been done. And so I went back to management, we’re doing this investigation to prepare our response for the case. And they said, No, we did. We didn’t realize she didn’t let us know that it was continuing to happen. And so we went back and told her attorney that that was the situation. And they said, Well, she didn’t know that anything had been done. And I had this little lightbulb moment go off. And ever since then, I’ve been really good in my role as whether it’s HR, or professional development, or anytime I’m interacting with anybody, and they talk about how they’re being treated. I let them know, I can’t tell you what I’ve done to address this problem. But I can tell you that I have done, what I’m pretty sure should be sufficient. But here’s the deal, you have to promise me that if this doesn’t stop, if this happens, again, you come back to me, because the only way I know that this hasn’t been resolved is if you let me know that. And so then it becomes kind of this mutual responsibility. I have not seen the problem come up where I think maybe one or two times they’ll come back, and then I just nip it in the bud there. But once we engage them and understanding that it’s not a parental, we’re your employer, we’re not your parent, it’s kind of a mutual obligation. So you let us know if things aren’t going well. And we’ll talk about what has happened or what isn’t going on. And this is true in compensation as well. But sometimes we do have to explain other reasonings behind it. So for example, if an associate is not happy with their bonus, I think every firm, regardless of size, or profitability, we take compensation really important really seriously, we take compensation so seriously, because we know it’s really a proxy for everything else. It’s the best measure of how an associate is doing. And so if we screw up an Associates bonus or compensation, we don’t take that lightly. But at the same time, we also want to explain to associates how law firms make money, how extensive the overhead is, we try to impart to associates. Not every firm does this, but I think more and more most firms do this, we try to impart on associates how hard it is to make all the associates profitable. And that when they first come on board, they’re generally not because we invest so much in them in their training in their onboarding, we pay them so much money. And so once they are profitable, we really have to make sure that we continue that and manage that intelligently. And so if an associate is, for example, on family leave for four to six months, that impacts profitability, and we don’t want it to impact their income. So we cover that, because that’s a long term investment, and having them say and be successful. And so getting an associate to understand how the business of law works, is the best thing that we can do to kind of temper some of those generational differences. Because once they really know what’s going on, it’s less an issue of culture and age differences, and more just an understanding of the business.

[17:55]

Marlene Gebauer: Well, that’s actually a perfect segue to my next question, Jen, because you’re talking about the business side of the house. And even before COVID it became increasingly difficult to generate business. Yet since the Great Recession, the pressure to effectively generate business is greater than ever, and the responsibility is being pushed further down the line. It’s not only expected of relationship partners and rainmakers now, but senior and maybe even mid-level associates, and more often than not, this isn’t the stuff that’s taught in law school. So what are the recommendations?

Jennifer Bluestein: So I think the first thing is to get a sense of one’s practice group and how important that is. So there are in some very large firms there are still practice areas where they don’t want, either because of conflicts or because of the rates that an associate would bring the work in and or just because they’re so busy on their Institutionalized clients, there are departments or firms where they’re not emphasizing that, and there are some firms I’ve worked at where we’ve actually brought in lateral associates that do want to develop business. And were discouraged from doing so with their former firm. So I’d say first is understand your firm and your practice.

Marlene Gebauer: Interesting.

Jennifer Bluestein: Yeah. And then assuming that there is that expectation, to bring in business, which Marlene, as you say, is certainly more and more of an expectation, then I think it becomes understanding how to build relationships, and understanding how to be a really good lawyer. So you may have a great relationship with somebody who’s in house at Chase, but they’re just not the decision maker. And so you can take them out to lunch, all you want, they’re not going to be in a position to assign you the work. And on the other end of things, there are companies that more and more do not have an expansive list of law firms that they give the work to. And so then it becomes a question from a business standpoint of how do you get on that approved provider list. And if you’re a mid-level or senior associate, do you have relationships where you can get in the door, and then you want to partner with a partner in your firm, to get the meeting and work with marketing and kind of get through that Preferred Provider process, because there are a lot of firms that they just say we’re limiting it to 10. And if you’re not one of the 10, you’re not getting any of our work. And I think understanding how that works, and then focusing on the relationship and being a really excellent lawyer and understanding the need. So there are some law firms that are now partnering with other law firms, especially where they have complimentary footprints, because companies want to be able to have a unified approach. And so they want the same approach. They want their law firms communicating in every state, or every country. And they may be pressuring some law firms to merge or grow. But in the meantime, they’re going to go get, let’s say, two kind of similar law firms who have really good attorneys in that area, and say, okay, you take these states, and whatever you have left, we’re giving to this firm, and between the two firms, we have to cover every state or everywhere we’re doing business. And you two need to work it out and share approaches and strategy. And so that’s another thing where I think it’s really helpful for associates to be aware of how that works, and focus their efforts accordingly.

[21:16]

Greg Lambert: So I want to take on another issue that faces especially mid mid-levels, and that is being really good at certain parts of the of the job. And one of the things I say a lot to my staff into associates is, you know, around here, no good deed goes unpunished. So if you’re really good at this one thing expect us to keep coming back to the well, to have you handle it. The problem is that sometimes those mid-levels can get pigeonholed into doing only a certain type of task, and they’re not getting the expansive work and knowledge that they need in order to to move up the ladder. So how does the mid-level associate transition out of something like that to move on without burning the bridges with the relationships of the people that they work with?

Jennifer Bluestein: So Greg, if I could have fed you that question, which I didn’t, I certainly would have, because I think that is a key opportunity for many levels, who are feeling pigeon holed to think about how to approach it and how to get the work that they need. And I would say there’s two ways to do that. One is through the use of skills, benchmarks and competencies to the extent that one’s firm and practice group has those. So I developed I think was about 12 different practice group competency models at my former firm. And part of the reason why I did that was to create a checklist for associates in their own development, to be able to go back to a partner or a practice group had usually a local practice group had saying, I am now a fourth year and I can do all of this. But here’s where I have this gap. And that gap may be intentional. that gap, maybe because the practice group doesn’t do that work, or it’s not important. But can we have that conversation to make sure that it’s not holding me back and succeeding here. So that’s one approach is using those competencies as a guide. The other approach, I think, is to see what others are doing around you. And if you feel like you have a gap, let’s say the example that I can think of actually is somebody who is now a partner. And she spent a year or two focused on I’m getting pigeon holed in doing closing documents. And I’m great at the closing checklist and closing on a deal, but I’m not getting to do the negotiations and the real meat of the deal. And I don’t know if I can spend the rest of my career here. I feel stalled. That was what she came to me saying. And so we talked about what does she see people around her doing? What does she see the need to make partner in terms of skill sets, and then she went to the practice group chair requested a meeting and actually I think it was lunch. So okay with COVID, maybe you’re not gonna go out to lunch with somebody, but you could always do, you know, a video, coffee chat kind of thing. And you caught a career planning meeting. And you say, I have noticed that I get really good feedback on this kind of work. But that’s about half of my work. And when I look around at other people that are around my level, they’re doing more advanced work. And it looks like a, b and c, and I would pitch this to the practice group chair. Do you see that as well? Does that does that make sense to you? So the first thing that you’re trying to do is to get the practice group chair to understand what you’re seeing.

[24:33]

Greg Lambert: One of the things that caught my attention, as you were telling that story was that that associate had the ability to actually identify and ask that question. And I think one of the issues that we run into is that, unfortunately, some associates vote with their feet. And they’ve never asked that question, and it bothered them. But they didn’t know, they may not have the language vocabulary for it. And instead, they just felt like I can’t succeed here. So I’m going to go somewhere else. I think, again, it goes back to communication. How does either professional development or HR or partner others? How do you encourage them to learn and ask the right questions for that?

Jennifer Bluestein: Well, we try and have career planning tools and meetings. So the evaluation process shouldn’t be an eval, it shouldn’t be a backward looking evaluation, it should be a career planning meeting. So there’s some backward looking, and what are you going to do next? And what do you want to do next forward looking. Associates need to think about where they’re going in advance. So an associate who is so ready to get out because they’re unwilling to try and have that difficult conversation that really strikes me as interesting because not easy to get acclimated, and build the new relationships and a new firm. It’s so much easier to get on the practice group chairs calendar for a half an hour meeting, and talk about your skill set, and what skills and opportunities you’d like to see at your current firm.

Marlene Gebauer: You know, and I’ll point out to Jen, that you can’t say enough about relationships. You know, in your example, that associate was comfortable coming to you. And talking that through having a virtual coffee with the managing partner, there needs to be to Greg’s point, rather than voting with their feet. I mean, there’s got to be a relationship, that the firm and the people involved have to, you know, in the higher ups have to promote that type of openness and willingness to have those conversations, you know, otherwise, you know, we are gonna find Greg’s example, that the people vote with their feet regardless. So the book was written during the COVID outbreak. And you know, now we have a lot of wailing and hair tearing about how to most effectively have associates succeed when everyone’s separated, and how to attend to the well-being while continuing to be air quotes successful as the definition of success for mid-levels change since COVID, for firms, or for mid-levels themselves, what’s a sane approach to this insane situation?

[27:17]

Jennifer Bluestein: I don’t know that the definition of success has changed for law firms, I think it may for the mid-levels themselves, because they just now want to stay sane. And it’s especially hard for the mid-levels that live alone. I mean, those are, I think, the ones that are struggling the most, and those who have little children as well. And we do, I think all law firms are doing a lot to really support them. But in terms of what the firms are looking for, we’re looking for them to stay. We’re trying to be very flexible about hours and what they can and can’t do. I think sometimes we have to remind ourselves and our clients that, yes, it’s nine months, and they’re still home with small children, or you know, they’re still home feeling isolated. I do get a number of phone calls from associates that are not just associates, but mid-level associates, in particular, some juniors saying they are just struggling from a mental health standpoint. And so for some, it’s just a question of sticking it out and doing whatever they can. And, you know, they may not bill 2200 hours, it’s not going to derail their career. We’re not judging them for not being able to work at the same pace. Maybe they won’t get the same bonus if they’re not making their hours or something most part, you know, we just want them to do what they can from a work standpoint and let us know that they’re struggling so that we can try and help them and we check in a lot. So even just associates that are not getting their hours in on time. We know they’re doing work, but they’re late on putting in their time. We’ll reach out and just say Are you okay? what’s going on? And usually they’ll say, yeah, I’m just I’m really, I’m struggling, I’m depressed, I’m just having trouble these days. So wellness is a much bigger part of success now than, say a year ago. And I think it’s been on the cusp of becoming a bigger issue anyway, even besides COVID. And then other than that, I really do think it is a sense of retention. Because if associates feel tempted to go to companies where they’re not judged on hours, it’s just that they have to be a resource for the business units. That is a very different measure. And we’re trying to make sure that we don’t have a disparate impact on women, or on diverse populations. And then with the racial violence that this country has been experiencing since the summer, we are trying to just keep everybody focused and optimistic because there’s a lot to be upset about. There are a lot of distractions. And yet we have clients that need our services. And in some cases, it’s now more than ever, between cybersecurity issues, blockchain issues, employment law issues, our associates are really necessary parts of our business. So we’re just trying to do everything we can to keep them functioning. And in terms of connecting with the firm and with partners, we obviously are having a lot of virtual events. I heard about one last night that was a cookie baking remote cookie baking class.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, yeah, I heard about too.

Jennifer Bluestein: because we don’t, we don’t want to do too much with alcohol, because that’s not really great from a wellness standpoint. I had a stand-up comedian for my team holiday party the other night, just because we just felt like we all needed a laugh. But in terms of partners, I advise different things like, can you have kind of Office Hours where you have your, your personal WebEx room, so you’re kind of there, and you’re on video, and everybody has the link on their calendar, and they can drop in to say hi, so that there’s some collegiality building that was actually an idea of a partner in Chicago. And I said, Yes, try that. That’s great. Let’s, let’s work on that. So it’s not always these formal meetings, but connectivity calls and remote virtual lunches, and anything where people can have those kind of pop in conversations like they would at the coffee machine. That’s hard. But that is what keeps people connected in ways that we didn’t have to think about before.

[31:12]

Greg Lambert: Well, Jen, I want to thank you for coming on and talking about your book, stepping it up for mid-levels, but you also have another book from a couple of years ago. An Associates First Year: a guide to thriving at a law firm. So can you tell us where listeners can get their hands on both of these books?

Jennifer Bluestein: Sure. Well, depending on your firm’s PLI relationship, that’s probably the first stop. So if your firm has a PLI Plus subscription, you actually get access to the book through that. You can also ask your firm to get it for you. And there are some firms, especially if they’re mid-level retreats, or mid-level training programs that order it in bulk. And then if you want to get it yourself, you can go to pli.edu. And order it directly from PLI or you can get it through Amazon like everybody else in the world seems to be getting everything right now. I don’t know what their delivery timeframe is. But hopefully before you make partner you will be delivered.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, this has been an enlightening conversation, Jennifer and I know there’s so much more that we didn’t even touch in the book. I hope our listeners, firms, attorneys and students take advantage of the knowledge that you and the other authors offer.

Jennifer Bluestein: Thank you so much. And Greg and Marlene, thanks for having me. It made me really think about what it was like to be a mid-level associate both in writing the book and also thinking about it this morning. So thanks for that because there are good memories and bad but it makes me a better legal professional to support people when I really remember what it was like.

Post Interview

Greg Lambert: Marlene, I’m glad we broke this episode into two. As there was a lot to digest here.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, we covered a lot. We really covered a lot. And it was it was all really rich content. So I’m glad we didn’t i didn’t we didn’t try and abbreviate it.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, there. There was one part where Jen was like, I think that was a little too long. You should edit it. And I was like, I can’t it’s what we need.

Marlene Gebauer: It’s impossible.

Greg Lambert: Well, Jen’s books are definitely I think must reads for associates, a law firm HR and professional development teams as well. And you know, it wouldn’t be a bad idea for those partners to read it either.

Marlene Gebauer: It would not it would not you know, cuz it’s good to sort of see where where it’s coming from. Right. I think it’ll be very interesting times when some of the Gen Z’s start taking leadership roles. Will they keep their values of calling things out and requiring immediate resolution? Or will they follow the status quo? I guess we’ll know in a few years.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, well, I thought Jen’s exist. sample of the Baby Boomers saying, look, we were at Woodstock, you know, but then we got mortgages. I think definitely this will be a different generation.

Marlene Gebauer: Life does get in the way of ideals.

Greg Lambert: yeah, life does get in the way sometimes, but it’s pretty, it’s pretty hard baked into the Gen Z. So we’ll see how well that that washes out as they age.

Marlene Gebauer: Exactly.

Greg Lambert: Well, thanks again to Jennifer Bluestein for joining us.

Marlene Gebauer: Before we go, we want to remind listeners to take the time to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Rate and Review us as well. If you have comments about today’s show or suggestions for a future show, you can reach us on Twitter at @gebauerm or @glambert, or you can call the Geek In Review Hotline at 713-487-7270 or email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. As always, the music you hear is from Jerry David DiCicca.

Greg Lambert: Thanks, Jerry. All right, Marlene, I will talk to you later.

Marlene Gebauer: All right. Bye bye.

The Geek in Review Ep. 100 – Jennifer Bluestein on Stepping It Up: A Guide for Mid-Level Law ...

Thu, 07 Jan 2021 12:55:49 GMT

Welcome to the 100th episode of The Geek in Review. We hope you’ve enjoyed listening to the podcast as much as we’ve had in making it.

We talk with Jennifer Bluestein, Chief Talent and HR Officer for Perkins Coie in part one of a two-part interview. Jennifer’s new book, Stepping It Up: A Guide for Mid-Level Law Firm Associates helps associates, partners, HR, and professional development personnel better understand the needs of those second to sixth-year associates as they move from learning how to practice law to learning how to practice law, while managing up and down the associate ladder. In part one, we discuss the basic challenges of a mid-level when it comes to communication skills, and knowing when to delegate, and when not to delegate. We also cover the issues with understanding partner evaluations of associates and what the difference is between a coaching moment, and what is a performance issue.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

The American Bar Association reports that being a judge can be stressful.

If you’re looking for a great curated newsletter on all the mergers and other happenings in the legal tech industry, Nate’s News, curated by Nate Schorr, may be just what you are looking for.

AI bias is something we’ve all heard about. Recently the bias appeared in how the COVID vaccine is being distributed. At least that was how it was reported. Karen Hao from MIT Tech Review thinks it may be more of a people problem than an Algorithm/AI issue.

And speaking of AI, Sheppard Mullins is the first law firm to sign the EqualAI pledge, with the hope of reducing AI bias in the practice of law.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to the Geek in Review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.

Greg Lambert: And I’m Greg Lambert.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, Greg, I hope you had a restful and festive holiday break. I needed a snow fix. So I traveled to the great state of New Jersey to catch the last little bit that they had from their big storm. There was enough to throw a few snowballs, and that was enough. Yeah,

Greg Lambert: yeah, that’s more than I really want.

Marlene Gebauer: I’ve been seesawing back and forth about feeling inspired and hopeful. And then feeling anxious, and maybe a little angry. I’m not really sure. It’s, it’s, it’s a really odd feeling. You know, it’s, it’s about sort of wanting to accomplish things and not being in a position to do any of that. And about wanting, what was normal before. And, you know, knowing that ain’t ever gonna happen again.

Greg Lambert: Well, you know, a little bit of help, hopefully, is that this is our 100th episode, Marlene. So I hope that gives you just a little bit of hope and inspiration.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, I don’t feel a day over 30.

Greg Lambert: And you don’t look that either.

Marlene Gebauer: Thank you, Greg.

Greg Lambert: So we have the first of our two-part interview with Perkins Coie Chief Talent and HR officer, Jennifer Bluestein. As we talked to her about her second book on law firm associates, this time focused on the mid-level associates.

Marlene Gebauer: We had a very good discussion with Jen. And in fact, our 30-minute block of time turned into an hour of great content. Therefore, we decided to break it into two parts. And we both think everyone will enjoy and learn from the discussion. Be sure to stick around for that. But now let’s get to this week’s information inspirations.

Marlene Gebauer: The 2020 Journal of the Professional Lawyer as opposed to their evil sister publication, the Journal of the Unprofessional Lawyer.

Greg Lambert: That’s that that would be us. Yeah,

Marlene Gebauer: I guess. So. Anyway, the Journal of the professional lawyer has released a report on judicial stress. And you know what, Greg? Huh. It turns out judges get stressed like the rest of us go figure.

Greg Lambert: I would not have thought it

Marlene Gebauer: I know. Now, I have to take issue with the ABAs reporting of this is a “comprehensive survey.” Now 1000 judges responded, which, you know, sounds like a lot, except the ABA also notes that there are 18,000 judges in the United States. So the result isn’t statistically significant. Also, responders were primarily state and local judges. Now, you know, I don’t want to suggest the judges any judges aren’t suffering from stress. And then a more open discussion should be had about that. But this is a little like putting lipstick on a pig.

Marlene Gebauer: It is… all right, so my next inspiration, I’m hoping that you can cue up some wedding music.

Unknown Speaker

There you go. That’s excellent.

Marlene Gebauer: That’s perfect. Cuz the bells are ringing, company marriages and funding news is in the news. And they have some ramifications for all of us. So I was introduced to Nate’s News, a curated newsletter on legal tech published by Nate Schorr, who’s an associate at the Legal Tech Fund. And Toby Brown, our friend, introduced me to this. Now, Nate’s Schorr in his newsletter put together a list of Q4 funding info. There are many so that’s really good for legal tech in general. So some of the highlights Brightflag, a legal spend management and billing platform raised 28 million led by One Peak partners, fast case and case maker to legal research platforms have merged. So at Walters from fast case did not tip us off on this one. Bummer.

Greg Lambert: No, he didn’t. He didn’t.

Marlene Gebauer: But the good news is that all state bar associations will be supported by one company and research platform. All right, my next one Litera, which develops contract and transactional management software acquired Foundation Software group, which is a platform for centralizing law firm knowledge. And this is a super interesting one, because let’s face it, because Litera and we’ve had folks from Litera on the program provides drafting and transactional management and Foundation offers and intelligence platforms. So you have two lifecycle products in one. And the intelligence you could gather from all those agreements might be pretty amazing. And apply analytics on top of that, and oh the places you will go. DISCO an E-discovery platform raise 40 million in debt financing from Comerica. So disco is not dead! Long live disco!! Nate has some other cool news along with books he’s reading and other sorts of stuff. So if you want to hear more sign up for the newsletter.

Greg Lambert: So Arlene, we, you know, we talk a lot about AI and algorithmic bias on the show. And I’ve run across a couple of interesting discussions this week on that topic. You know, traditionally we talk about things like racial bias that are built into algorithms. But some instances are popping up around the shipment and distribution of the COVID vaccines. So, Karen Hao, from MIT Technology Review, wrote about the problem with the Stanford Medical Center’s vaccination protocols. And you may have heard about this one, and that was the protocols that somehow or another, allowed the hospital administrators and doctors who were working from home to get the vaccine while leaving some of the frontline doctors and patient-facing employees off that list. So yeah, it was not a good situation. Hao he mentions that there’s this tendency to blame the algorithms for the defective processes, when in fact, it’s really a people problem. She has a great interview with someone we both like, Molly Wood.

Marlene Gebauer: Love Molly Wood!

Greg Lambert: On Molly’s Marketplace Tech, about this deflecting game of blaming the algorithms when it’s really not the algorithms that are the problem. So one other quick note on AI and bias. This came across my desk this week, and that Sheppard Mullin signed the equal AI pledge to help reduce bias and artificial intelligence. And I believe this is the first law firm to make this type of pledge, Ali Shahidi, who you may know, Marlene.

Marlene Gebauer: I do.

Greg Lambert: He’s the firm’s Chief Innovation and Client Solutions officer said that their reason for signing the pledge was so that as law firms continue to incorporate advanced technologies such as machine learning, natural language processing, into the practice of law, the need for ensuring the AI does not contribute to bias is critically important to those that Sheppard Mullin and to their clients, and Shahidi hopes that the law firms and the corporate legal departments will join them in battling this often unseen effect of bias in AI. So it’s really interesting that a law firm would sign on to this pledge. So I’m hoping to learn more.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I would like to learn more too, because, you know, I’m listening to this. And this sounds wonderful, but my I’m also questioning it’s like, how, how do firms help reduce bias in AI? You know, I mean, what

Greg Lambert: How do we get how do we see inside the black box?

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, what’s what’s our role, you know, as as, as law firms and legal organization, what’s, you know, what’s our role in this? So yeah, that’s, that’s, that’s really interesting news.

Greg Lambert: And that wraps up this week’s information, inspirations.

Greg Lambert: Today’s guest is the author of two fantastic books dealing with law firm associates. And she has split the associates really into three groups, the first years, the mid-levels, and then the senior associates. And her most recent book deals with those mid-levels and the balance that they have to achieve between learning and leading.

Interview

Marlene Gebauer: A great deal of focus is centered around associate success lately. How will associates succeed when they cannot connect with partners, peers or other colleagues like they used to? Today’s guest, Jennifer Bluestein, Chief talent and HR officer at Perkins Coie has a new book out entitled, Stepping It Up: A Guide for Mid-level Law Firm Associates that offer some advice for, you guessed it, mid-level associates. Welcome to the podcast, Jennifer.

Jennifer Bluestein: Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Marlene Gebauer: You’re a busy professional with a high profile role. Why did you take the responsibility of writing this book?

Jennifer Bluestein: I asked myself that all the time. Especially when I was trying to get it done. So PLI approached me. So I’d love to take credit for having this bold idea. But actually, they approached me because they saw a need in the marketplace for a first-year book. So that was the first book that we did. And that was two years ago. And so once that was published, and we got such great feedback, and I was actually at a conference, and I was speaking about it, and PLI was promoting the book. And so many people were coming up saying, This is so helpful. This is really guiding our training. And one law firm actually told me that they were using each chapter as the new topic in their first-year orientation. So people started Yeah, so people started asking me, they’re like, Are there going to be more? And I, my editor was there and I just turned her and she said, I was wondering, when would be too soon to ask you? And I said, Yeah, actually, I think there should be more because where we really lose people is mid-level. So that seemed the natural next step.

Marlene Gebauer: Just so we have some clarity, what do you define in the book as a mid level associate?

Marlene Gebauer: So under the NALP standards, because they do the research on associates, it’s typically third through fifth year. But more and more as the time period to promotion gets lengthened. I think it’s more like third to sixth year. So it’s flexible.

Marlene Gebauer: And that’s that’s typically when they either get on the partnership track or they go in house somewhere. It’s it’s kind of

Marlene Gebauer: or do something completely different, like I did.

Marlene Gebauer: So Jen, you noted that often Junior associates do very well. But when they move into their middle years, they often flounder. So what are you seeing as some of the basic challenges of those mid-level associates?

Marlene Gebauer: What we would typically see and it varies sometimes I’ll go years without hearing that feedback or seeing at all. But the reason why we call the book Stepping It Up, is you see this expectation from partners for associates to start taking over the matter taking over the deal. And saying, Okay, this is the next step. And I’m gonna go ahead and do that. And so that’s why we call it Stepping It Up because partners assume that associates know to do that. And instead, associates who aren’t aware of that, or don’t think of it or don’t naturally start doing that. Instead, they say, Okay, I’m going to wait for the next instruction. And that’s where the disconnect occurs, because associates are behaving just as they always did. But their feedback is not as positive. And partners are sitting there writing their reviews out of their associated saying, Now this year, they really need to step it up. And the associate sits there in the evaluation meeting saying, what does that mean?

Marlene Gebauer: So this book explains it. Interesting, is it? Is it one of those situations where I always say that you should never raise an issue for the first time during the evaluation? Are you finding that partners are raising that issue for the first time in the evaluation? Or are they trying to help them throughout the year? And either there’s a disconnect in the communication or there’s not enough professional development training? How are the firm’s working to address these challenges?

Marlene Gebauer: It sounds like they can’t sort of put words around what they mean, you know, they say stepping it up. But well, you know, what exactly does that mean?

Greg Lambert: Like, try harder.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah.

Marlene Gebauer: Right. Exactly. Exactly. And so, what we have seen at law firms, and what we talked about at professional development conferences and write about in articles, is the need to train partners on how to give specific, measurable, actionable, timely feedback.

Marlene Gebauer: Oh, analytics!

Jennifer Bluestein: Yeah, we teach, we teach specifics, we teach the smart model or both goal-setting and feedback. And what we have found is, and this is the funny part, law firm partners or just senior associates even are very good, especially if they’re litigators, at standing their ground and advocating for their clients and being very direct when it comes to the other side, but in the work environment where they are charged with mentoring and developing someone, and they want this person to stay, they’re afraid to give that constructive feedback because they’re afraid. And this is the part that associates I think, don’t appreciate. They’re afraid the associates will stop taking work from them. Because most of these firms have some kind of free-market system, especially for mid-levels and above. And so an associate who doesn’t like how they’re getting feedback, or how they’re spoken to, by a partner can very well just say, Oh, I’m busy, and then go get the next deal from somebody else. So what we have is this, especially where we have very competitive markets, as we do now for mid-levels. And so partners are afraid of the associates. Not always. So more and more, what we’re doing is we’re teaching partners, not just how to give that specific feedback, but why it’s so important to associates and their development. And so we’re moving over a period of many years from this black box system where associates don’t even get to see their feedback. So I, when I was a first-year associate, I would get a review. And it was a three-sentence paragraph. I didn’t get to see anything anybody had written about me. And they actually cut it out from a piece of paper. So you can hear the paper wrinkling, but it actually cut it and I get this little snippet of a piece of paper. I don’t even get the full paper, like they didn’t have enough money for a whole piece of paper. For me.

Marlene Gebauer: It’s like, here’s your snippet review.

Greg Lambert: It’s like a clipping service.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, it was basically a clipping service. And so the partners that I worked with, all got together, and two partners, one from the committee, and one that I worked with, or the practice group had, I don’t remember, but we’d sit down for half an hour, and they’d hand me my little paragraph, my little snippet. And it would say, you know, Jennifer had a good year, or, you know, Jennifer, and a terribly, or whatever, Jennifer needs to work on writing persuasively, or whatever it was. And I’d sit there and I’d say, That’s it? My whole year? That’s, that’s what I get? And so what we have done since then, and that was, let’s just say, a different century. But what we’ve worked on with partners is explaining that associates can handle the truth. No, it’s like the Jack Nicholson line, you can handle the truth. So we have to teach partners, not all the time, but often, associates can handle the truth. They want the specifics, because they actually want to improve, they want to show that they can do it. And so what we’re really talking about is changing the dialogue so that they’re having those conversations on an ongoing basis. So yes, Greg, you’re right, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. But what still happens is even if they’ve had conversations, they come into their review, and that issue or two has taken on a bigger sense of importance. And they’re like, well, yeah, I missed the state law ruling. But that didn’t seem like a very big deal. Why is it all over my review? So now it’s more a question all these years later, helping bridge the gap to help people understand this is a blip, and it’s a coaching moment, versus this is a performance problem. So now we’re really getting associates to appreciate what’s important. And it’s all-important. But what I hear from associates now, especially mid-levels, I hear things like, I only hear about the things I screw up, I don’t hear about all the things I’ve done really well. And I say, look, you do things really well. And that isn’t forgotten. But at the same time, if 10% of the time you have missed something or messed something up, then they don’t trust you on anything else, even if it is 100% right. The remaining 90% of the time.

Marlene Gebauer: It is in question. Exactly. Yeah, exactly. So. So, you know, let’s talk about delegation shall we?

Jennifer Bluestein: my favorite topic.

Marlene Gebauer: Yes, it’s like it is one of the hardest things for anyone really to master when they move into more of a managerial role. And that’s what mid-levels are moving into, right? They’re taking responsibility for the proper work process and end result rather than just for discrete projects. So what do you recommend when they’re moving from peer to supervisor status?

Jennifer Bluestein: So when they move from that more junior role to supervisory status, there are a lot of different things for them to think about. But I think the first thing is for them to understand what they have authority to delegate and what they do not. So for example, sometimes their first delegation, other than to an assistant, is to delegate to a paralegal. And so they need to make sure that they have the approval to do so. And if they’re delegating to a more junior associate, it’s especially true because there are so many clients sensitivities now where clients don’t want to see more than X number Are people on their bill, regardless of their role. Or what the rate is or anything like that. So first, it’s really about authority. And then I think it’s about going through the thought process of, Okay, I know I shouldn’t do at all, what makes sense to delegate? And how do I give the big picture to whoever I’m delegating to? So in order to do the higher-level work, they have to delegate. But at the same time, they have to think about all the obstacles and one of those obstacles is that perfectionism, that sense of loss of control. The book talks about different models for delegation in terms of before how to think about what to delegate. So once you know you have the authority, it’s thinking about the mix of complexity, and importance. And so the things that you want to delegate are the lower importance, lower complexity, those are the first things that a more junior person is going to be thinking about delegating, and the things that they don’t want to delegate, or the highly complex, highly important things.

Marlene Gebauer: What would be some examples, you know, in terms of like, you know, these are these, these might be things you delegate, these might be things that you kind of keep on your plate?

Marlene Gebauer: Sure. So, I mean, one is just kind of the basic things, I think, is creating, and then finalizing a table, an index of authorities or table of contents for a large brief or document. I mean those are the the easy things, that people really get hung up on, keeping it to themselves, especially when it’s after hours. And a lot of associates at large firms don’t even realize that we have centralized word processing and centralized resources for site checking, document checking, I mean, there is now software that will look and see if your defined terms. And I learned this from Marlene, so she’s, she’s gonna laugh, because we worked on this project years ago to roll it out to associates, not just to the legal secretaries. But you don’t have to spend six hours looking at a document to see if you have used all of your defined terms. There are software that can do that. And your assistant can probably run that software or your shared services word processing department can probably run that software. So that’s an example of something you really shouldn’t be spending and you shouldn’t bill your clients for that either. On the other hand, are going through a letter of intent and making sure that every item is covered and covered accurately. That’s something I wouldn’t delegate. And then on the complexity, it could be, you know, how financing is structured. The other thing if you’re thinking about litigators is sometimes if you have a really extensive motion, let’s say it’s a brief for summary judgment. And it has three strong arguments. And because the timeframes, it’s farmed out to different, more junior associates. It’s then the responsibility of the associate putting it together to say, I’m going to read this through with a clear eye, thinking about the voice and the tone so that it reads like one person wrote it that’s nuanced and complex. And that’s not something you’re going to give to a first or second-year associate, even though it sounds like that could be fairly simple. Especially if you’re at an appeals court level or, or something like that. You really want to make sure that you’re owning that, and you’re responsible for everything being perfect, and that the nuances are right.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, like you had a really good example, I remember where Oh, actually was your example, where someone had, you know, was given instructions to do something and didn’t check the tabs. Right. And,

Jennifer Bluestein: Yes, that was me.

Marlene Gebauer: That was you. That was you. And then the senior associate also recognized, you know, then this was sort of the mid-level person saying, Yeah, I should have also been more clear about sort of what to do, because you were a junior person at the time. And I thought that was a really interesting example of what you’re talking about, of kind of this nuance about how to, you know, how you understand what it is that needs to be done. And it all sort of hinges on how people interact with one another, and how the delegation goes.

Jennifer Bluestein: Right. And that was my personal example from being a first-year associate. And I did exactly what she told me, but I didn’t think about the other aspect. And it was like, correct. It was like checking the table of the exhibits. But I didn’t check to make sure that the exhibit labels match the actual exhibits, or you know, something like that, but I just didn’t think to do because I thought that had been done. And when she came back, it might have even been our honeymoon. And we realized the error. We both kind of, you know, did the Uh Oh, and she assumed that I would do it and I assumed it already been done. And we learned a lot from that.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, you know, in addition to being in a quasi management role and being able to do delegate work to junior associates and other staff. These mid-levels also have the pleasure, shall we say, of having to manage up to senior associates and partners. And you had wrote in the book itself, that these are the Forgotten middle children of the law firm. And as a middle child, myself, I completely relate to that. So, you know, this is their first chance to really take on a role as a leader and advocate for others, and even has some serious interaction with clients in a substantial way. So what are some of the suggestions you have for these mid-level associates when it comes to handling these new responsibilities?

Jennifer Bluestein: Well, I think just overall, if you look at the book, and even if you just look at the chapter outline, the trend is really clear. The focus is delegation and communication. Those two skills, we talk about allyship and diversity, we talk about whether you want to go and have something, there are other topics that we address. But the two topics that I think we address from so many different angles is this issue of communication. And, you know, we talked about when and how to update clients, that’s one example. And that, I think, is the difference showing that judgment asking the right question. So you work with so many different people, as a mid-level, in a large law firm, there are some people who will be completely siloed, and will only work for one or two partners and a small practice. But I think that’s the vast minority. And for most people, you just don’t know, there are some people that there are certain phrases that they hate putting in a document. There, it’s too legalese. And there are other people who will put that in every single document. And I remember having that issue. And your job as a first-year maybe is to just realize it and to kind of attune yourself to that difference. But boy is a mid-level. Not only should you know what those nuances are, but you have to explain it to the junior associates you’re working with also, that you’re the translator in some ways. And the mid-levels really become I think key to the deal, because they’re translating the desire of the clients. The first years might not depending on the size of a dealer, a matter of the first year is might not be on those client calls at all. I rarely was. But the mid-level, they’re the ones taking notes on the call. And then they’re kind of translating it back to the first years. And they’re going back to the senior associates or the partners, depending on how it’s staffed, saying, mmm not sure about this, or I know we advise on this approach, but I’m not sure that’s going to work because of A, B and C. So if you look at who’s the engine that really makes it hum, that’s the mid-level.

Marlene Gebauer: Jen, you devote a couple chapters to communication as a mid-level associate, which really highlights its importance. Greg and I often say that all problems are communication problems. How does a mid levels communication style need to change?

Jennifer Bluestein: Well, obviously, it depends on what their starting point is, I would just say, I would just say, agility is the number one word that I would think of to advise a mid-level on successful communication. Because you want to make sure that your word choices reflect understanding and client service and confidence, as opposed to overconfidence, or lack of knowledge, or defensiveness. And everything around communication, I think is what we call a growth opportunity. And it’s highly subjective. And we all have a lot of assumptions that we make in our communication. And so understanding your own assumption, when you’re communicating is always going to be really helpful. So going back to that example, of the document that the exhibits weren’t properly attached or labeled, or, you know, again, this was like 1997, I can’t even remember. But going back to that example, and thinking to yourself, what assumptions am I making? What questions am I not asking? And thinking about how you want people to perceive you. At the same time. I think those are the critical elements of effective communication as a middle level because you are teaching and advising those more junior and you are learning and being advised by those more senior but at the same time, all mentoring should be mutable for to be really effective. You should be learning from everyone and teaching them at the same time.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, it’s a tough balance, I think, to find I can see where we’re communication has got to be a real focus. You had one chapter where it had a really interesting tip that I thought I wanted you to share with us. It’s it’s called the fortune cookie rule, and how it applies to good communication.

Jennifer Bluestein: Okay. And that comes from Rachael Bosch’s chapter on communication, and she is excellent if you ever get a chance to see her speak or bring her and she’s really, she’s really an effective communicator. So she talks about the game that it’s usually teenagers. And, you know, like my 13-year-old, he’s not 13 anymore, but at the time when he was 13.

Marlene Gebauer: Or us.

Jennifer Bluestein: Yeah, or us when we’re feeling silly. And you think about how you open a fortune cookie, and you add your little personal message to make it a little more salacious, right. So think about tacking on your own statement, as if it’s a fortune cookie when you are sharing a communication, especially when you’re thinking about delegating to people or having a team meeting or check-in. If you’re giving feedback. And you say, I want to talk about how we can have more effective and ongoing communication. You think about your value behind it or your purpose behind it are your value at work. So it could be because I’m a good leader as a more senior associate. And so you think about your values or so maybe it’s talking about something with true transparency, you’re revealing, it could be a personal issue, it could be a client driver, and you want to be really open about what’s going on behind the scenes. And so you’re saying, I want to approach this deal with some good timeframes in mind, because we really do want to get this close before the holidays without ruining our Christmas because my kids will kill me. You’re thinking because I am a family-oriented attorney and a family-oriented boss to those I’m supervising. Rather than we need to work 24-7 to get this done by December 20. Without saying why. And so then you just come across as dictatorial. But that’s the idea. Behind that fortune cookie rule is making sure that anything you say aligns with your values.

Greg Lambert: I like that.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, I think that’s wise advice.

Outro:

Marlene Gebauer: We always go back to the fact that all problems are communication problems. And the process for mid-level associates to step up is not different. Partners may not be able to put what they want into words to convey that they want mid-levels to take more ownership and oversight of work product of a client or act as a coach to those more junior or maybe just some assume associates will inherently know to become more proactive on their own. But you know, business cultures vary on what’s appropriate. Having a plan and guidance on what success looks like for mid-levels can make a whole lot of difference in how they progress in their career trajectory.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, and I was, I was really intrigued with the part where she mentioned that the partners are afraid of the associates because they can tell them they are busy and then go get work from another partner if they don’t like their style. So

Marlene Gebauer: I’ve never heard that before. So

Greg Lambert: And thinking about it, I think that’s probably true. I mean, it’s, it’s not something I think is true in the fact that partners should be afraid of them. But I think there’s this perception that if I’m not careful, they’ll just go get work somewhere else.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah. Yeah. It’s It’s interesting. I mean, I just I generally hear it more the other way around that, you know, we need to do good work in order to get work. So it’s, it’s, you know, it is nice to know that there’s a lot of work out there and that there’s there’s more choice involved for the associates.

Greg Lambert: So once again, thanks to the Jennifer Bluestein for speaking with us. This was just part one. There’s more interesting information coming in part two for next week. So stay tuned.

Marlene Gebauer: And before we go, we want to remind listeners to take the time to subscribe on Apple podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, read and review as well. If you have comments about today’s show, or suggestions for a future show, you can reach us on Twitter at @gebauerm or at @glambert or you can call the Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 or email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com And as always, the music you hear is from Jerry David DeCicca Thanks, Jerry.

Greg Lambert: Thanks, Jerry. All right. I’ll talk to you later Marlene.

Marlene Gebauer: Bye bye

The Geek in Review Ep. 99 – The Who, What, and Why of #LegalTech with Kristin Hodgins and ...

Thu, 24 Dec 2020 11:58:38 GMT

As we near the end of a very strange year, we thought we’d ask a couple of big thinkers to come on and have a no-holds-barred discussion on Legal Technology and Innovation. Kristin Hodgins is the Project Manager for Legal Innovation at Osler, Hoskins & Harcourt LLP in Toronto. Jason Wilson is a legal publisher and author who has worked at Thomson Reuters and O’Connor’s Publishing for over 20 years. We cover topics ranging from who are the thought leaders and where is the best community for legal tech discussion, to what are courts, firms, academics, and vendors really doing to promote and achieve advancements in legal technology. So strap on your scuba tank and prepare for a deep dive with this week’s guests.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

Even NPR knows that “Waiting for the LSAT is too late for improving minority representation in law.” Pipelines for minority and underrepresented portions of our society have to start much earlier than when they enter college or are thinking of applying for law schools.

Justice Ginsburg has both a tea set named after her, as well as a building at Rutgers University. And if tea isn’t your thing, how about a legal article from Kansas University’s Law Dean on the making of a perfect pecan pie crust?

Anyone who has filed a FOIA request knows they can be expensive. However, thanks to the American Association of Law Libraries, academic librarians may get a fee waiver from the US governmental agencies. So make sure you are on good terms with your academic law librarians!

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

[0:20]

Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to The Geek In Review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.

Greg Lambert: And I’m Greg Lambert. Well Marlene I have to say it sounds much more natural when you do the introduction than when I do it. So I am glad you are back to do that.

Marlene Gebauer: Me too. Because I know this spot is a real hot commodity.

Greg Lambert: Absolutely.

Marlene Gebauer: Plus, this is Episode 99. And the last episode of 2020. I say freakin amen to that.

Greg Lambert: I’m with you get an amen from the pews over here.

Marlene Gebauer: Yes.

Greg Lambert: All right. Well, for Episode Number 99, we brought in a couple of thought leaders on the issue of legal technology and innovation. So we brought in Ostler’s, Kristin Hodgins and author and former Thomson Reuters and O’Connor’s editor, Jason Wilson, to join us and dive deep into the discussion. So we cover a lot so I think everyone will enjoy the diverse perspectives.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, be sure to stick around for that. But now let’s get to this week’s information inspirations.

[1:29]

Greg Lambert: So Marlene, I’m going to talk about one that I don’t think it’s it’s actually the first time that I brought this up, but this was actually on National Public Radio. And so it’s getting a broader audience right now. And that was they published an article entitled waiting for the LSAT is too late for improving minority representation in law. And in it, Nina Totenberg and Marisa Manzi point out some of the glaring shortcomings of the pipeline into the legal field, and quite bluntly, the legal industry from law school to those passing the bar to practice, nothing looks like the country in which we live. The author’s point out that there’s a structural problem that goes far beyond the time when students are contemplating taking the LSAT to get admittance into law schools. There’s the mentoring phase, there’s the cost involved, there’s the scheduling, there’s the admittance process, and all of those are more tilted toward keeping the status quo. And it reminds me of this discussion I had when I was doing my firm’s podcast, we had Dean Leonard Baynes on from the University of Houston’s College of Law, where he was talking about how he established a pipeline of diverse talent starting early in a college students career. But even he admitted that it really needs to go back to high school and junior high school to really begin breaking the barriers that are in the minority and underrepresented students for them to consider and prepare for a career in the legal field.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, this is so true. And it will be a real challenge, I think, for those involved in the education field to really address this at that stage of the game in an effective way.

Greg Lambert: Well, it’s not a problem that started overnight, so they’re not going to be able to fix it overnight. But they you know, they need to start.

Marlene Gebauer: That’s true. I’m glad that issue is is getting a little more press. I don’t know maybe they’ve been listening to our podcast and some of our guests. That’s where they got the idea.

Greg Lambert: Well, Nina, if you’re listening, yeah, leave us a review.

[3:40]

Marlene Gebauer: Please like us Subscribe. So this being the last episode of the year, I’m going to focus on the fun and the good. And since it’s gift giving time, Sameena Kluck, a friend of the podcast posted a really great gift idea. There’s still time as when this comes out for for air, you can still get a gift. You can get a tea set to support the women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia. You can order the Ruth or the Sandra. And you get a mug and infuser, two teas salted chocolate caramels, salted chocolate caramels. Oh my god. And whipped honey whipped honey. Have you ever had whipped honey that stuff is amazing.

Greg Lambert: I have it is really good.

Marlene Gebauer: so good. You know Greg, if I ordered the Ruth, it will add to my collection of my my magnets, which I believe you gave me. the RBG sweatshirt and all my RGB pins on my denim jackets.

Greg Lambert: Well, sounds like that’s what you need. Although By this time, it might be a New Year’s gift rather than a

Marlene Gebauer: that’s that’s okay. You know, gifts are always good to give late or not late or just because so yeah, feel feel free to get that from. And continuing with the Ruth vein of conversation. I am delighted to report that the School of Law at Rutgers University is naming the old law school building where I worked as an RU grad student, the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hall. The building is now a residence hall and it’s a 17 story neoclassical building in downtown Newark. That is not New York. It is a NEWARK, New Jersey. Greg, did I tell you that I saw Matt Damon at the law school when I worked there?

Greg Lambert: No, you haven’t.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, he was filming rounders, which was not one of his best. But we came back after the weekend and the filmmakers had done things to the library that no one should ever do to a library. So we had to put it all back together, so it could actually be used. But back to RBG. So the reason for renaming the hall is that Justice Ginsburg began her lifelong pursuit for equal rights and justice as a faculty member at Rutgers law school in Newark, NEWARK, where she taught from 1963 to 1972.

[6:04]

Greg Lambert: Well, my last inspiration of the year is you know, we talk a lot about FREE PACER.

Marlene Gebauer: FREE PACER!!

Greg Lambert: We talked about that here on the podcast. But there’s another issue that librarians, reporters and others run into with obtaining government information. And that is the Freedom of Information Act requests that are often unbelievably expensive. With a good bit of news on that front, the Office of Management and Budget, the OMB accepted the American Association of Law Libraries recommendation that federal agencies should consider librarians at educational institutions as eligible for fee exemption under the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA. Yeah, so just another good reason for anyone listening to the podcast to make an you know, that extra effort to be friends with your academic law librarians out there. Well, I just wanted to give a quick shout out to Emily Feltren at AALL for her efforts in getting this recommendation accepted.

Marlene Gebauer: So maybe maybe the some of these academic institutions maybe even have a service that

Greg Lambert: Maybe

Marlene Gebauer: You know, you could take advantage of never notice you know… just sayin,

Marlene Gebauer: I’m going to send this episode home with a bit of humor and baking advice. So thank you to Katheryn Rubino of above the law for highlighting a absolutely delightful scholarly law review about pie. Now,

Greg Lambert: Are you hungry?

Marlene Gebauer: If Well, if, if any, if you know me, you know that I have strong feelings about pie. So specifically, the focus of this article is on the burning question of extra crispy crusts and filling ooze in pecan pie. Now is it pecan or pecan?

Greg Lambert: I think it depends on how deep in the south you are.

[7:57]

Marlene Gebauer: I see Can I will probably move between both in this paragraph. So so my apologies to everybody. Um, I love pie and although I’m not a huge pecan pie fan. I will say though, that I do like 3 Brothers chocolate bourbon pecan pie. That’s that’s pretty wicked. As a baker, I can appreciate the problem. You know, how do you get the feeling cooked thoroughly without burning the edges of the crest. Now you could get a little apple-plectic about this if you aren’t careful. The article is published in the inaugural Kansas Journal of confections and winter pastries, and is written by Dean Steven Mazza at the University of Kansas School of Law. Now Dean Mazza dishes out a mouthful, particularly about who qualifies as a pecan pie baking expert. Here’s an excerpt of one of his footnotes. The author prepared it become pie using the instructions provided in this article, and delivered it to Dr. Barbara a Bichlemeyer, currently the provost of the University of Kansas, and formerly an employee a tip and spies. The Provost responded with a thank you card stating, this is one of the best pies I’ve ever had. Shortly thereafter, the Provost colleague Linda Luckey, sent the author an email stating, the Provost said it was the best pie she ever ate more than once. So no, she really really liked it. The Provost qualifies as an expert witness as to pie. See Federal Rule of Evidence 702. So if you’re hungry for a slice of something tasty and your law review articles, check this one out.

Greg Lambert: I have to admit that’s a that’s an interesting topic for the law review article.

Marlene Gebauer: It was it was good and you you know, you get you get a recipe out of it.

Greg Lambert: Well, that sounds like the perfect way to end this years. information inspirations.

[9:54]

Marlene Gebauer: Legal tech and legal innovation are very much in the eye of the beholder. We asked a couple of thought leaders with their own perspectives to jump in on the topic and give us their insights on how these ideas play out across the legal field.

Greg Lambert: We thought we’d take on a big topic this week and have an open discussion on what exactly is legal tech and legal innovation, and how it’s viewed from the solo/small firm environment, from big law startups, to even big vendors in the legal field. And so to do that, we brought in a couple of colleagues and friends who I think it’s pretty fair to say, aren’t too afraid to challenge some of the traditional thinking that’s out there in the legal tech world. First up, we have Kristin Hodgins who’s the project manager and legal innovations at Ostler and Toronto, Canada. Kristin, thanks for taking the time to talk with us.

Kristin Hodgins: Thanks for having me here today.

Greg Lambert: And Jason Wilson is a legal publisher formerly with Thomson Reuters, and O’Connor’s and he’s based here in Houston. Jason, good to talk with you again.

Jason Wilson: Thank you.

Marlene Gebauer: Kristen, we’re gonna start with you. When we’re on Twitter, and we see the hashtag legal tech, what immediately comes to mind for you? Do you feel like an open conversation? Or is it the usual suspects out there talking amongst the other Usual Suspects?

[11:15]

Kristin Hodgins: Yeah, so I think there’s a few issues with the legal tech hashtag becoming the platform of choice for at least a subset of legal tech discussion. But at the same time, we don’t really have anything better. Some of the other forums that are available through professional industry associations are exclusive and require a paid membership. But on Twitter, there’s probably I don’t know, a few 100 key legal tech players. And that’s a very small subset of people working in that space. I think it’s quite challenging to join in that discussion. If you’re an unknown quantity, or you’re new to Twitter, you might also have a workspace that prohibits you from engaging on Twitter in a professional or quasi professional capacity, particularly if you’re working in the public sector or the courts. And I think there’s something with the Twitter algorithms as well, the frequent fliers who tweet about legal tech and have their post get traction, usually have more followers, they tend to get more engagements with their tweets. And they’re also more likely to engage with other users who are well known.

Marlene Gebauer: I mean, I know actually, a lot of people who, you know, actually have a lot to say about legal tech and innovation, and they’re not on Twitter, and they choose not to be on Twitter. And so we’re kind of missing out on on on that discussion. Also, a lot of times people post, but don’t necessarily engage further, you know, I can say, I’m often guilty of that. But you know, so you’re not really getting a conversation per se, every time.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. And I actually remember back jeez when I guess this was in the late 90s, or early 2000s. Like with the bar associations, we had our own kind of social network at the time, and there was a subset of the tech guys and mostly guys back.

Jason Wilson: Guys? You’re so sexist, Greg!

Greg Lambert: I know, sorry. And women that were that were there. But, you know, again, that was a closed environment, too. And, and so I like your idea, or I like what what you said that we’re gonna go, I don’t think we can go to Parler to maybe get a whole different thing. But

Marlene Gebauer: Can we all go to substack? We publish things.

[13:31]

Jason Wilson: So we can figure and go to Twitter, like, I found Kristin through Twitter. And then I’ve been on Twitter since 2009. I found Greg through Twitter, I found so many people in this environment. And while we, as a legal community can say, Oh, my gosh, I want to be off Twitter for and don’t get me wrong. I have disconnected from Twitter to just stop seeing stuff. I cannot deny the connections that I’ve made within this environment.

Kristin Hodgins: And I think Twitter is great for networking. Don’t get me wrong. I’ve met many friends in real life and online through Twitter. And I’ve made a number of professional connections and probably got my current position in part through who I am on Twitter. But the problem with Twitter is it’s really difficult to actually have an in depth, substantive conversation, right? Twitter is so ephemeral, and there’s no way to track old threads. There’s not really a record of it. And it’s difficult to catch up on something that was said last night, let alone a week ago if you’re not always on it. So I think Twitter presents in some ways, a very shallow representation of what legal tech and legal innovation actually is.

Marlene Gebauer: It’s kind of the case of the disappearing tweet if you don’t actually save it.

[15:01]

Jason Wilson: But Kristin, I got introduced to Canadian law through Twitter and bridged a border gap through it. And so I would say this is largely beyond the purview of what we’re talking about. But I would say that Twitter allows us to jump border gaps and and talk to people and different jurisdictions and form relationships in a way that is fruitful and meaningful.

Greg Lambert: Kristen, what did you do to break into that club?

Kristin Hodgins: I think I kind of broke into the club back in 2017, I had kind of a breakthrough presentation at the American Association of Law Library’s annual conference and met a lot of people in person there, who I then followed on Twitter, and because they knew me, they followed me back. But obviously, that’s not really practical advice for a lot of people. I would say, if someone’s starting out on Twitter, and they want to be part of the conversation, have an interesting biography, in your profile. Let people know who you are, if you can, who you work for, you know where your views are coming from, and follow interesting people and start responding to tweets with thoughtful responses and post things that are more than simply retweets yourself. I think the biggest way that people can make an impact on Twitter and gain a following is through authenticity.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, I was thinking more like Marlene and I and just troll people, just

Jason Wilson: Well, I’ve actually had the unfortunate task of scrolling through my following list to find someone. Greg knows this. And I was surprised. It was much later that I followed Greg before I followed other really horrible people.

Greg Lambert: Well, and I’m not sure how to take that.

Marlene Gebauer: I’m not sure what to say to that. So you’re, you’re on the list of the horrible people.

Jason Wilson: It’s just one of those things, I guess. It’s a balance.

Greg Lambert: Well, Jason, let me switch gears a little bit here. And so you’ve worked for a basically started off as a regional publisher, and then you went on and you’ve worked for probably what is the largest legal publisher, so who has the advantage for producing true innovative products in the world in which we actually live in today?

Jason Wilson: I like to say that Wexis has the advantage, right? You know, um,

Greg Lambert: Why Lexis?

Jason Wilson: Wexis.

Greg Lambert: Okay, good. So, why Westlaw and Lexis?

[17:58]

Jason Wilson: I would like to say that they have the advantage in the sense that they’ve provided us with some products that as writers and researchers we think are, ah, you know, these are so awesome. You know, like, statue compare, for example, right? You know, the things that we thought, Oh, my God, we would have these a decade ago, we don’t have, but we don’t have them. Because, again, data, so much of our lives, as lawyers, and as technologists, or anything else is built around clean data. Man, I’m with Kristen, on this whole issue of like, what is what is the top of technology? And how does it trickle down to serving those of us that can’t afford lawyers necessarily, or at least can afford the top of the line resources? I think Wexis can create those products, but I don’t see them trickling down their technology in a way that that makes it financially feasible for, for the clientele that if we want to serve those folks, we can’t. And and even even if we want to serve the marginal folks, the folks that are above the line, it’s still hard. It’s still very hard, particularly when you consider like e discovery or anything else.

Greg Lambert: What about the small vendors? I mean…

Jason Wilson: Fastcase, Casetext?

Greg Lambert: I mean, even O’Connor, so who you are with there was animation is not technology. And so, so, so innovative and not have a technology stack that you’re having to journaled on.

Jason Wilson: But who’s writing who’s writing jurisdictional material? No one. Greg Lambert’s of the world that can afford subscribing to Practical Law. So you look at your practical offerings and you say, Oh, hey, I’m what jurisdictional materials in Texas does practical offer? Well, I would submit to you that it’s probably not great. It’s probably incomplete based on what I know. And you need people that are willing to sacrifice a lot of their life and their resources to write that content for you. And I told a close colleague the other day, I said, Look, we are entering in a desert, where they’re going to be states, where people like Texas, because I’m one of those folks that want to provide jurisdictional material to them, and then they’re going to be states where jurisdiction material isn’t going to be provided. And you’re going to hope that your Westlaw subscription or Lexis refreshing is going to going to lead you to to the correct sites. But for the most part, it’s not going to educate you. And if you’re lucky to be in a state that has the right material, great. If you’re not too bad.

[21:28]

Marlene Gebauer: So Jason, just, I just want to know, sort of what’s your thought on on some of the things that that some of the big publishers are doing, you know, we’ve had people on from from Lexis that dealt, you know, they’re doing a lot in the area of the rule of law, in terms of, you know, assisting with developing apps. I know, other ones have, you know, basically put together sort of design sprints on coming up, you know, and sponsoring, you know, a lot of innovation with, with universities sort of come up with access to justice type of apps. So what’s your thought about that, in terms of these large companies sort of dedicating their resources to, you know, more access to justice?

Jason Wilson: They won’t.

Marlene Gebauer: Okay, but they have,

Jason Wilson: They won’t. I mean, I mean, and sure… in name, I feel like that’s the case, I think Kristin and I are probably both on the same page here. And, and not, I would defer to her a little bit, but when we were and what I would call BigCO, there was a, what you might call a design sprint, right? where it was. Man, it was an advertising type thing. And you really,

Marlene Gebauer: I mean, there’s, there’s gonna be advertising

Jason Wilson: and you want to you want to get your staff involved. You want… jiminy christmas, you wanna you want to give everybody jazzed and, and be a part of it. And they did a fantastic job. I mean, amazing what the work product that they put together was amazing. And got, it was like a tide placed among the group. Right. But then reorg. Like, what do you do in the face of a corporate reorg? And the money dedicated to something then goes away? Like, how do you really motivate employees in that way? And that’s, that’s not my point. Like, my point right now is about all the things that we were talking about with Kristin is literally like, what are we doing to service trickle down? A2J right? That’s what I want to know. Because I’m dedicated to that. I write for that all the time. Like, my job is to make sure that at some point, I am delivering services to lawyers that can then service individuals at a level that doesn’t involve the Lambert’s and the Marlene’s of the world, where it’s $400 a partner hour, or $500, or whatever it is. It’s literally just Hey, man, this is here is your knowledge, and you don’t have to sign into an online service to to figure it out.

[24:35]

Kristin Hodgins: I think if we’re thinking that providing low cost legal materials to lawyers is going to solve the access to justice problem, or is even going to make a dent, then I think we’re missing the mark a little bit. And I think even having lawyers focused in the center of access to justice is part of the issue itself.

Jason Wilson: Yeah,

Greg Lambert: yeah. No, I, I agree with you, you know, expecting big law and large vendors to solve the A2J problem is crazy. That’s just crazy talk to even think that that, because if that’s not part of your core mission, then it’s just that’s going to be wiped I think Jason had a good point on that is once it cuts into profits, or it takes a little bit longer than you really want to, or it’s taking more people than you want it to, you know, the priorities go back to the business.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah. They’re not getting something out of it. They’re not going to be doing it. Yeah.

Greg Lambert: And and A2J is not a technology problem.

Jason Wilson: Yeah. So no, it’s a me problem. And it’s a you problem, meaning a client problem, like, how are we educating clients to say, Hey, I am willing to help you have free or low cost, but it’s also I just want to make sure this isn’t a Westlaw and Lexis problem. This is we’re not talking about that. It’s a sort of vendor problem.

Greg Lambert: It’s a societal problem.

Jason Wilson: It’s a societal problem. Also, we should be having more pre form forms from the court where I just like Greg dealing with,

Marlene Gebauer: More like Legal Zoom for the for the court forms, you know,

Jason Wilson: yeah, exactly. Thank you, Marlene. I mean, that’s, that’s what it is like, right? Like we we should be having the courts giving blessings on forms, that if we want the types of automated systems working, then we should have them giving blessing on automated forms.

Marlene Gebauer: So Kristin, since we’re sort of on this topical area, let me I want to tweak the the question that we we gave to Jason a bit and and ask you that, you know, if you think that that legal innovation has to be a top down process, when it’s developed for for a large law firm environment and trickles down? Or is better, as you know, does it make more sense as the grassroots sort of process where it helps individual lawyers and grows in demand to them and then takes over the larger market? You know, is it better to scale it up or to trickle it down?

[27:27]

Kristin Hodgins: I think it depends on a number of things, we can look at innovation from a micro level. So how it gets done within an organization. And then we can also look at it at a macro level. So how legal innovation moves throughout the whole industry. I can talk about the micro level. So that’s innovation that happens within an organization like a law firm. And I even think how innovation happens at a law firm is very different than how it happens in a court or a government department or an in house legal department Even so, I think we need to be careful when we talk about legal innovation, what we’re really talking about and who our audience actually is. But I think most innovation that is directed as a top down initiative fails, regardless of the organization because it’s done poorly. top down innovation often relies on a prescribed outcome without doing the kinds of research, design, prototyping, and testing that is required. And I don’t think legal organizations pay enough care and attention to the internal culture of the organization. And I think we often underestimate the power of staff at every level of the organization, to either champion innovation or to be an obstacle to it. One thing that we often don’t do is identify those key influencers in an organization. And this is probably can be extrapolated to the industry as a whole. But we don’t include people in our organization who have a shared interest in the innovation. So key influencers need to be participants in the innovation itself. And therefore they’ll have ownership over the outcome of innovation. But what should happen top down is leadership of a firm or organization, modeling the kinds of behaviors and skills that are conducive to cultivating a culture of innovation in an organization. So that’s things like forms of risk taking, taking in failure points as a normal part of innovation, not treating failure as a negative, and giving staff the time and mental space for pursuing curiosities.

Greg Lambert: Well, let me ask, because a lot of times when you especially on the local level, if you’re not careful, you end up doing something that’s very what I’ve seen very commonly is that you solve a problem that doesn’t exist. And so you get people that work on the technology and they get caught up in the the coolness of it, of the you know, hey, this, look, look at what this produces. How great is this? And it doesn’t matter how wonderful that That product, you know, performs. If it doesn’t solve a problem that the firm or the client, or the court or whoever has, it’s, it’s worthless, it may be super cool, but it’s not practical. So how do you make sure that you’re actually solving an actual problem and you’re communicating that all the way down, up and down the chain.

[30:38]

Kristin Hodgins: It’s tricky, particularly, and a law firm model where partners have a lot of power and the kind of Central organizational structure of an organization is fairly weak. So if a partner has an idea for an innovation, which is often a solution, and sometimes a solution in search of a problem, it’s very tricky to walk them back and get them to think about the problem, both in terms of what the root causes of the problem are. And that usually involves talking to a number of clients, but also whether this potential solution makes strategic sense for the organization as a whole. And I think that’s something a lot of lawyers struggle with. Because even within a firm, you know, to some degree, you have an independent practice, or you’re part of a practice group. But you’re not used to thinking about how a piece of technology or an approach or decision might actually affect an unrelated practice area over there.

Greg Lambert: So when you hear the legal innovation and legal technology can solve the access to justice problem, do you think that the innovator behind this is being sincere? Or they just using it as a public relations tool? So Kristin, let me let me hit you first with that.

Kristin Hodgins: I think some of them have very good intentions and are being sincere in their attentions, but I think they are at best naive about what technology can do for access to justice. Access to Justice is a failure of public policy. It’s a failure of the courts. It’s a failure of law societies and bars. It’s not a failure of technology. And it’s not a failure of the market. When we look to companies to provide access to justice solutions, we’re really asking private industry to take a market based approach to solve something that has nothing to do with supply and demand at all. Where we are seeing some technology innovations in access to justice. It’s companies who are creating solutions for end users to circumvent the overly complicated, antiquated or bureaucratic policies of the state. And I don’t think that’s right. I think that the state should be working with those companies to develop solutions, but we shouldn’t be looking to private companies to overwrite court processes, because they’re so terrible.

Jason Wilson: So what are what are our pain points? I mean, to me, it’s sort of like, where are we in society that says, alright, so where do we not only need lawyers anymore? Like, where do we have lawyers? Where do we not need?

Marlene Gebauer: Or you can flip it on its head and start from zero and ask where do we absolutely need lawyers and why?

[33:28]

Jason Wilson: Yeah, exactly. Like, but where does technology come in and say, we could displace lawyers in this sense. And, you know, in, in our, in our notes, I was like, hey, look, I really thought that thing concepts like we wars or other ODRs, we’re going to just come out and like, Ah, my God, we’re gonna, we’re gonna have online dispute resolution. And we’re gonna have game theory employed. And, you know, people are just gonna, like, Ah, you know, I don’t even need a lawyer anymore, like, just sign up, and then you’ll figure out based on, you know, the survey questions do you win or lose? And how much is, and I love that idea. Because it just speaks to the 80s kid in me.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, I mean, the insurance companies are kind of looking at things like that in terms of being able to evaluate insurance and what a claim will be worth. So there, you know, there’s they’re doing some things like that.

Kristin Hodgins: And I think if a piece of technology can replace $100,000 education, then we have much bigger problems with the legal industry.

Jason Wilson: But it already has, in some some respects, right? So right. If you have, let’s just look at Harris County, for example, in Texas, you have a slow mo accident under 15 miles an hour and you have to insurance, you’re gonna go to mediation, you’re going to get sued. Somebody is going to oww my neck hurts, or I need specialized shots for my back or whatever it is, you’re going to have to suffer through litigation, you’re going to have to suffer through mediation, and you’re going to learn that it’s bracketed between $10 to $50,000. And then somewhere it’s going to come out to your insured maximum, or medium, whatever, but probably $15 to $25,000. That’s, guess what, that’s what you’re going to settle it, and you’re not going to be happy. But you’re going to be happy that you had insurance to pay for it. But that’s what’s gonna happen. Like, why do we have to go through all of this, if we can figure out a different way to solve that problem? And right now, we have lawyers, thankfully, oh my god, thankfully, we have lawyers, for us to help us with that situation and captive firms, with insurance companies to help us with that problem.

[36:10]

Marlene Gebauer: to piggyback on that thought, like, when when you look back, maybe in the last, you know, eight to 10 years, you know, there’s been talk about how, you know, innovation, whatever, that legal innovation, whatever that means, you know, technology and alternative fees, predictable coding, predictive analytics, that was gonna make the legal industry, it’s gonna make it, you know, the industry much more efficient and somehow make prices go down and profits go up. And, you know, while we’ve seen a number of adjustments on the edges, what permanent changes have, you know, either have you seen take hold between, you know, say the downturn of the the great recession and the downturn of the COVID pandemic errors?

Kristin Hodgins: I don’t know about permanent adjustments, per se. I think it’s just, and I don’t even know if it has much to do with the recession at all, I entered into the legal profession at the tail end of the recession. And I don’t really know what life was like before, but I think for big firms, nothing much really changed.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, I think the the the issue is, is everything was supposed to change, that this was such a drastic adjustment, in how legal services

Marlene Gebauer: were going to be delivered?

Greg Lambert: Yeah, how is going to be delivered, we had firms that had, you know, were over a century old, that within weeks collapsed upon themselves. And so everyone thought, if we’re not going to change, now, we’re never going to change.

Marlene Gebauer: And here we are.

Greg Lambert: And here we are, again, and I, the thing I think that a lot of us worry about is that we’re going to let this opportunity go away again. Are we just going to be right, you know, in 10 years, are we going to be right here, again? Where other than maybe whatever’s new and social media, you could plunk a lawyer from 2010, into 2020, and a lawyer from 2020 into 2030. And it wouldn’t take them very long to get up to speed on how to practice law. So, you know, I would say, are we doing anything different? Or are we just chasing some kind of dream, that eventually the technology is going to solve these problems?

[38:39]

Kristin Hodgins: I think we like to think we’re doing something very different. The image of seeing judges together on a Zoom call, it feels very innovative, it feels very future looking. But if that’s all that’s happening, if we’re not changing the underlying structural processes and the policies, then I think we probably are going to be where we are 10 years from now, having a big firm create a new technology or deliver services a little differently, really isn’t going to move the dial. It’s really about the state and the legal profession, having the courage to fundamentally rethink how the legal system and the justice system are regulated. And if we continue to regulate it in the same way that we have for the past 100 years, then those same barriers are going to continue.

Jason Wilson: Yep.

Greg Lambert: Was that your answer, Jason?

Marlene Gebauer: your final word on it?

Jason Wilson: No, that’s, I mean, I completely agree with Kristen on this. You know, and and going back to, I want to go back to A2J. And I want to give a shout out to John Mayer and, and the folks that do all forms. I want to give a shout out to the states that that really integrate, you know, state forms, and have A2J questionnaires that facilitate sort of this question, answer, on a pro se level that let me you know, create forms that allow me to print papers and and file them with the court. Like, we need more of that, unfortunately, until we get buy in from state bars to to create mandated state forms, it’s gonna be a hard row for all of us that want that reckoning.

Greg Lambert: And Kristin, what do you think we need? What do we need more of what do we need less of?

[40:48]

Kristin Hodgins: Well, I think rather than looking at state forms, I think we should Well, first, I think we should question whether we need state forms at all, or whether state forms in their current iteration are appropriate. You know, most court rules are exceedingly complicated, and they are not designed for end users. They are not designed for self represented litigants, and I think we need to have those forums represent that actually, a lot of people coming through the courts right now. They don’t have lawyers, and we should stop pretending that they do. But I think what we need more of in terms of the industry, I think we do need a platform, or some sort of environment where we can have these kinds of discussions, probably in an asynchronous way about the different facets of legal innovation, because I think the innovation that needs to happen for access to justice issues is very different than the innovation that needs to happen for the private bar. When we’re talking about access to justice innovation, we cannot talk about it unless we have end users at the table unless we have the courts at the table unless we have the state at the table. So I think we need more dialogue there. And we need more dialogue in the industry federally.

Greg Lambert: Well, Jason Wilson and Kristin Hodgins, thank you very much for taking the time to talk with us. I know it was a it was a big topic and I appreciate you jumping in and taking it on.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah. Thank you.

Jason Wilson: Thank you.

Kristin Hodgins: Thank you.

[42:03]

Greg Lambert: Marlene, I love these types of broad open ended discussions about a topic that so many of us feel like we’re experts in. So you know, and while I think both Kristin and Jason were aligned in that we have a process issue when it comes to tech and innovation. There’s also all of these cultural and societal barriers throughout the industry. You know, there’s no one answer on how to solve the legal tech and innovation issues and how that should be structured and applied. So I guess the the typical lawyers answer of “it depends”, really, really plays in here.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I mean, I think it’s partially Okay. What what is important, you know, is it access to justice? Is it more a business focus? And you know, it’s also one of these one size is not going to fit all that would be lovely. But I mean, if it were that easy, we’d all be doing it. And I think, you know, different organizations are going to have different needs. And you know, certain access to justice issues are maybe going to be more important than others.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. Yeah. Well, it was it was a good conversation. So again, once again, thanks to Kristin Hodgins and Jason Wilson for joining us.

Marlene Gebauer: Before we go, we want to remind listeners to take the time to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Rate and Review us as well.

If you have comments about today’s show or suggestions for a future show, you can reach us on Twitter at @gebauerm or @glambert, you can call the Geek In Review Hotline at 713-487-7270 or email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. As always, the music you hear is from Jerry David DiCicca. Happy New Year, Jerry.

Greg Lambert: Thanks, Jerry. All right, Marlene. Well, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you.

Marlene Gebauer: Yes, Feliz Navidad and Happy New Year.

The Geek in Review Ep. 98 – The Boston Legal Design Challenge Update

Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:09:28 GMT

A couple months ago, we brought in Bob Taylor and Jeff Marple from Liberty Mutual, and Gabe Teninbaum from Suffolk Law School to discuss the Boston Legal Design Challenge being held online in November. Taylor and Marple are back to discuss how things went, and they brought with them one of the members of the championship team, Aubrie Souza. Souza is a 2L from Suffolk and her team triumphed over the other nine law school competitors from across the United States and Canada. While the event was held online, the technology, the structure, and the facilitators and judges made all of the competitors feel as though they were still working side by side.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

Lillian Michelson created a magnificent library for movie design. Over a fifty-year span, Michelson helped movie producers and directors make scenes realistic through her research and cataloging of information and details. Unfortunately, she no longer had the space to store all of her research and materials. For the past few years, the library sat in boxes looking for a home, or to be digitized. Finally, the Internet Archive and its founder, Brewster Kahle heeded the call and are placing the material on the Internet Archives database for all. A ribbon-cutting event is taking place on January 27, 2021 launching the first phase of this project.

The Baltimore Library is raising $25,000.00 for a van to provide legal resources to the surrounding community. This project is exactly how Access to Justice issues need to be addressed. The project is headed up by Baltimore County Librarian Julie Brophy, and Maryland Legal Aid Pro-Bono Director Amy Petkovsek. Hat’s off to both for taking this on.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

Greg Lambert: Welcome to the Geek in Review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Greg Lambert. Marlene Gebauer is off this week, but she did join us as we invited a couple of our former guests to come back and discuss how the Boston Legal Design Challenge went. So Jeff Marple and Bob Taylor of Liberty Mutual join us. And they brought along one of the members of the winning team Aubrie Souza, who is a 2L at Suffolk law school. So stick around for that discussion. And now let’s jump into this week’s information inspirations. For more than 50 years, Lillian Michelson created and maintained one of the most famous libraries for film research and Hollywood. Lillian and her husband Harold were royalty and Hollywood, so much so that the king and queen in the movie Shrek are actually named after them. Lillian’s library contains detailed descriptions of what a movie set should look like. Whether we’re talking about a drug kingpin’s, living and working environment in movies such as Scarface, or US Army details in movies like Full Metal Jacket, Lillian Michelson helped make it real. She began volunteering at the movie library for Samuel Goldwyn studios in 1961. And by 1969, she made it our own by purchasing of the library away from them. Unfortunately, over the years, the library had to be moved from place to place. And over the past few years, the library was moved into some 45 pallets full of filmmaking information. She’s tried for years to get the collection digitized, but no one seemed to want to take on the project. That is until now, the Internet Archive and its founder Brewster Kahle are going to scan and catalog all of the materials and put it online to the internet archives for everyone to access. On January 27, they are going to have a virtual ribbon-cutting event and the 92-year-old Lillian Michelson will be there to unveil the first phase of her new online Collection. This is exactly what the internet and the internet archives were created for.

Greg Lambert: The second inspiration I have it comes from the Baltimore County Library. And they are doing something completely amazing by raising money to buy a van to help bring legal services to the communities in their city. The project which is to raise $25,000 is being headed up by librarian Julie Brophy and the director of the pro bono section of the Maryland Legal Aid, Amy Petkovsek. And I hope I said that right, Amy, and I’m sure I didn’t. So one of the things that we say a lot is that access to justice is not a technology issue. It’s a process issue. This is exactly the sort of improvement in the process that helps get the legal resources out to the community, rather than insisting that the community come to the resources. So I hope at some point, we can get both of these leaders of this project to come on the show and tell us more about it. And that wraps up this week’s information inspirations.

Interview

Greg Lambert: Back in October, we talked about the Boston Legal Design Challenge, which was held in November. With all of the challenges of holding a competition during a pandemic. We wanted to follow up with the organizers of the challenge, and bring one of the winners and to see how things went.

Greg Lambert: Okay, this is where the magic happens. Well, let me get to my script because…

Marlene Gebauer: That’s where the magic magic happens. Really

Greg Lambert: All right.

Greg Lambert: Listeners may remember back in October that we talked to Bob Taylor and Jeff Marple of Liberty Mutual, along with Gabe Teninbaum of Suffolk law school about the Boston Legal Design Challenge. Well, from what we heard the event was a huge success. So we asked them to come back and talk with us about it. Bob Taylor and Jeff Marple were able to join us again, and they brought along Aubrie Souza of a 2L from Suffolk, who was on the winning design team for the challenge. So everybody, welcome to the Geek in Review.

Bob Taylor: Hey, great to be here.

Jeff Marple: Thanks, Greg.

Greg Lambert: So Bob, before we jump in, would you mind just reminding us who you are and who you’re with?

Bob Taylor: Yeah, absolutely. So my name is Bob Taylor. I am Vice President and Senior corporate counsel at Liberty Mutual. And I lead a team called legal ideation and transformation, where we’re thinking about the way that laws is being delivered today or legal services are being delivered today. The way we think it’s going to be delivered tomorrow and how we might be able to influence that.

Greg Lambert: All right. And Jeff, would you mind doing the same?

Jeff Marple: Sure, Jeff Marple I work at the mutual I work on Bob’s team. I’m the director of innovation with corporate legal.

Greg Lambert: Alright, and Aubrie, you’re, you’re the new one here. So you mind the

Marlene Gebauer: We saved the best for last?

Greg Lambert: Exactly. Do you mind? Just tell us a little bit about yourself?

Aubrie Souza: Sure. Thank you. My name is Aubrie Souza. I’m a two out Suffolk University in Boston, Massachusetts.

Greg Lambert: Well, it’s good to have all three of you back.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah. Welcome, everybody. Bob, let’s start with you. How did it go?

Bob Taylor: Well, from my perspective, it was a wild success. No, I, I was so unbelievably proud of both the Liberty Mutual and the Suffolk team for adapting and moving this event, from being an in person event, traditionally to being a virtual event this year, for obvious reasons. And, you know, there were a lot of good parts that came out of that. But before I get to any of that, and I know Jeff has a lot to elaborate on this part as well. I just want to thank Suffolk University. I want to thank Dean Andy Perlman, who’s been a really good collaborator with Liberty Mutual over the course of time. I also want to thank professors GabeTeninbaum and Professor Dyane O’Leary, who were instrumental over the years and helping us get this going, and Dyane, in particular this year and working with her on the project. But, you know, the the event went really well, Marlene, I mean, I was so happy with the enthusiasm of the students. We had great facilitators. We had facilitators that had been involved in the event prior, we even had facilitators that and I think we mentioned this last time that we were on that had been either externship students or law clerks for us that have participated in the event previously, that came back to help be facilitators, some even took a day off their actual jobs to come back and do this. They were so enthusiastic about the event itself. So we had high energy and great participation. And we had 10 teams from around the country. So what’s not to love, it really was a good engagement for the students. And I think a nice welcome distraction from their regular schoolwork, I think.

Marlene Gebauer: What did you have in terms of the feedback from the facilitators and from the students?

Bob Taylor: Yeah, I mean, I think the facilitators get a lot out of this themselves. You know, it’s a long day, it’s a hard day, you know, you really got to dig in and, and go at these problems. And I think people get, you know, elated at the beginning. And then you have this terrible trough of despair. During the middle of the event where this is never going to work. I don’t think we can, my team is doing terrible come help us, you know, we would, we had all these great breakout rooms, you know, with Zoom. And I should also call out another really big portion of success for this event was we had amazing technical support from our production group at Liberty Mutual. Without them, we couldn’t have pulled this off. I’ll let Jeff talk more about the technology because he certainly knows way, way more about that than I did. But without them, we couldn’t have pulled it off. And but you know, we went through these amazing highs and lows throughout the day. I think the facilitators themselves get a lot of really good psychic return from empowering these folks and helping them learn a little bit more about design thinking and how to apply that in a legal setting. And then the participants themselves, I think that, you know, some of them, you know, responded that they got to work with people in their class that they didn’t typically get to work with, which was kind of cool. They got to, you know, really learn and apply some new ways of thinking about the law and challenged themselves and their construct of what they might want to do post graduation. A lot of people I think, hopefully look at Liberty Mutual and corporate law a little bit differently as an option for them. I think, you know, a lot of students come in and they think and, you know, maybe Aubrie can talk about this a little bit later that they come in thinking, look, there’s one path for students that they’re going to go and get into a law firm post law school and you know, part of the I have this event, if you will, is to get people thinking about alternative careers and ways to apply your legal knowledge in different ways. And I think we’ve accomplished that. I think we did. I’m really proud of that.

Greg Lambert: That’s great. It sounds like a lot of fun. So Jeff, do you mind just kind of walking us through? You said you had 10 teams. And of course, this was a virtual environment. So just kind of walk us through what, how it started and how it went through through the day and what what challenges you kind of ran into?

Jeff Marple: Sure. Yeah, so we had great we had 10 teams, we had, we had teams from Suffolk University, we had teams from Texas and SMU Southern University Law Center, we had it was an international event, we had a team from Canada from Thompson Rivers University, a couple of teams from UNLV, a couple of teams from Michigan State. So just getting that geographic spread was was a big win for us as well. Normally, we had schools from Boston and being able to reach out even internationally was, was a big deal for us

Greg Lambert: Did the Stanford team show up?

Jeff Marple: No Stanford team did not show up. They were quite intimidated by the talent that we had. And that’s what happened there.

Bob Taylor: There’s always next year, always next year Stanford.

Jeff Marple: That’s right. So the day started, so how do my day start my day started when I woke up at like 4:30 in the morning, terrified about what lay in front of me as I never run one of these events before online. Really, we did a tremendous amount of prep, and planning and trying to think through every eventuality. But as I’m sure you’re all aware, no plan survives the battlefield, and neither did this one. But planning is essential. And all that planning paid off. So the first part of the day was a quick introduction, and then a quick icebreaker for the teams to sort of get to if they didn’t know each other already, to start to understand how to use the technology and to work together to collaborate to come up with a quick battle cry, which they then had to share back out to everyone. The rest of the morning was a series of exercises that help them start to understand what problem they were trying to solve for, given their secret ingredients, and then how to narrow that into different stakeholders that that may be affected by that solution. By the problem, excuse me, and then trying to come up with a solution and visualize that solution in a drawing that will eventually lead into a pitch deck. So these were just a series of sort of quick hit, note and vote type of exercises. we leveraged as Bob said, we had sort of with a great technology stack and a ton of help on that we had. We had plenary sessions in zoom that we would then push folks into breakout rooms, each team had their own breakout room. We learned early on that we needed to have one facilitator per team that that it was a quite a change from previous years, we could usually do this with three or four facilitators. Now we had 10 plus plus an event staff on top of that, so a lot more lifting from that perspective. So we had some great facilitators, all of which were alumni of previous events, they would sit in the rooms with them, they would be their first point of contact and any technical issues or any any content issues. Meanwhile, we had a chat going on in the background on Discord, which would allow us to understand if anybody was running into problems here or running into problems there, and also served as an amazing way for the facilitators to blow off steam with the mightiest of GIF wars that you may have ever seen in your life. Like

Bob Taylor: the Meme and GIF war was strong. Yeah.

Jeff Marple: The highlight of the day. No, I’m kidding. So that was the first the first part of the day, Greg was a tremendous amount of hands on teamwork, trying to source a bunch of ideas, and then quickly narrow them into one that the team could focus on for the second half of the day, which was pitch preparation.

Bob Taylor: Jeff, if I want to mention one thing, too, that I think, you know, you’re you’re kind of doing yada, yada, yada over right, because you can’t yada yada over some of the best tech, which was our use of mural in the back. Yeah. So the team’s built on a custom mural board. And I want to give a quick shout out to a friend of ours. You know, so Douglas Ferguson at Voltage Control who is one of our sponsors, contributed some good amount time.

Jeff Marple: And previous guest on this particular podcast.

Marlene Gebauer: Previous guest, yeah that’s right.

Bob Taylor: So, as you know, right now, Greg, yeah. He is an amazing guy. He’s a really interesting dude. And we really like collaborating with him. But he and Jeff created customized Mural boards for each one of these teams, so that they could walk their way through the process that Jeff talked about. And so I think combining all these various technologies in unique ways, made for a really, I think, smooth event that the students could navigate relatively easily. I mean, I’d be interesting to hear Audrie’s take on that. Because she thought that the same.

Marlene Gebauer: We will

Greg Lambert: I was gonna say there was like, there was one there was a lot of moving parts. You I mean, you had a lot of technology going on. So let’s just jump right to it, Aubrie, how did it go? Are you able to handle all that technology being tossed at you?

Aubrie Souza: It was a really seamless day, I felt like I was sitting in the room with all these people with sticky notes talking with, with my facilitator, who would that bring us back to the group. And we’d have that conversation. And then we’d go back and have a conversation amongst my team. I mean, you didn’t feel like you were being bounced around and interrupting the conversation. It felt you are just like turning your back. And going back to your group, I have to commend the Liberty team, we didn’t realize that we were just sitting on our computer for eight hours that day. And it might have just been a lot of adrenaline and excitement, because it was a really great event. We were a team who was really excited to be there, but a little pat on our backs, too. But no, it was a perfect platform, every step was perfectly planned to build to the final event too. We didn’t realize at the time, but everything was planned to build the next thing. So you know, the problem. And then the stakeholder. We didn’t realize at the time what it was building to. But eventually, it all helped us shape an idea that really brought us to that final pitch.

Marlene Gebauer: So, you know, tell me a little bit about the composition of the team itself. And what the idea was that that you guys were pitching and then I’ll probably throw it back over to Bob and Jeff to sort of get a sense of the composition of some of the other teams and maybe some of the other ideas that were shared.

Aubrie Souza: Sure. So my team is made up of myself, Mia Bernardi, Christina Greg, Michael Cronin and Elena Constantino. And we…

Marlene Gebauer: Are you all from the same school?

Aubrie Souza: We’re all from Suffolk. Okay. We’re 2Ls and 3Ls. None of us have really met in person, though we know each other from working together through the Suffolk Lit Lab, which is a clinical program. So we’ve worked online together, which I think was a benefit in the setting. But we’ve never met in person. And our idea was called VOLTS. And it was a virtual online legal training simulation. One of the early prompts was a problem statement that related to our secret ingredient. And I don’t know, Jeff and Bob, and you want to go more in depth about what the secret ingredients were.

Marlene Gebauer: Can we hear secret ingredients? I personally want to I want to have a audio of one of the battle cries that we can actually use on the website.

Jeff Marple: Let’s see if we can get to the audio on that.

Marlene Gebauer: Please see if that can happen.

Aubrie Souza: All I have all the secret ingredients, but ours was virtual legal training and education. I don’t know, I can’t explain how they were all supposed to play in.

Jeff Marple: Well, the secret ingredients are secret. So I’m sorry, I can’t tell you. No. We focused on we we try to lean into the virtual aspect of 2020. And so there was three secret ingredients you were they were assigned at random virtual legal training and education was one. One was the virtual legal profession. And the last was the virtual administration of the law. So those were the three secret ingredients. And they had to they had to leverage or use one, you know, the ingredient they were assigned in whatever their solution was.

Greg Lambert: So this was the Iron Chef portion of the

Jeff Marple: That’s right. Yeah.

Greg Lambert: I remember you talking about that. So

Jeff Marple: Yes, this is the Morimoto part.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. And Aubrie? Was there a way to kind of prepare yourself for this? Or was it something that you just showed up? And they hit you with the, with the training and the problem and bam, you were on your own?

Aubrie Souza: No, we were being geeks. And we were trying so hard. We like researched past challenges, and we couldn’t find no information about past winners except for their names. We could find no information so and it couldn’t, we didn’t know what we’re gonna be doing. We didn’t know if it was gonna be like in an area, we have substantive knowledge about areas of the law. So we were really in the dark.

Bob Taylor: And I was just gonna say, Aubrie, I think that’s the way we like it with the students because we don’t want them trying to kind of pre solution everything or try to do all this crazy research. I think the idea for the students is to come with an open mind and you know, just have that growth mindset. So when they get there, they can be fully engaged and really get a little uncomfortable, because that’s part of the exercise too. And I don’t know if you felt that uncomfortableness or not Aubreie but that was certainly intentional on our part to try to spur a little bit more creativity.

Aubrie Souza: I would, I would definitely agree that we were very uncomfortable. But once we gave in to that our facilitator did a great job. Anthony Metzler to give them a shout out was really great. Every step of the way, he was just like, this is the stage you are in do this. And so we weren’t thinking about our final product and our pitch until about 45 minutes until pitch time, we did not have like we weren’t doing our deck until like the last 45 minutes, which was a little late. But it worked for us, when we were thinking about the problem of the virtual legal education and training. The problem for us is that there’s no checkpoints, and you’re unable to harness the power of virtual training for students. It doesn’t just talk about students, it’s, you know, lawyers who are in the practice or new lawyers, because there’s just, learn it, and you get to test at the end of the year. And go to your CLE. And maybe just sit through the whole thing. And then you get a code that you register at the end. There’s no checkpoints for people in this practice. And it’s kind of just you’re in the world. But then we were talking about stakeholders, we all talked about who’s the stakeholder and it’s not the people who are in the practice, it’s communities that lawyers serve. At the end of the day, they’re the user, we’re creating lawyers who serve a community. And so as we’re building, we were really thinking about how do we build better lawyers, but also give make better lawyers who have something. And so we wanted to make was something that helps lawyers feel better about themselves. And we built like a pilot simulator. For lawyers, it was like a video game that teaches lawyers how to learn new fields with a client and get built those soft skills while you’re building the practice area. So if you want to learn how to do property law, you learn how to deal with a client who’s having an issue, so you can learn how to go to the registry of deeds, but also to deal with that emotional issue and interact with somebody, but also really low stakes. Because when you’re dealing with somebody who’s having an issue, it shouldn’t be like a real person. So that was our idea.

Marlene Gebauer: I really, I really liked that idea that sort of blending the the human element into it. So it’s it’s about client service, in addition to understanding the law and in that area. And, you know, I think that’s an area where we’ve talked about there can there can definitely be some some growth and improvement in terms of education. So that’s great. So I’m wondering that based on the skills that you apply during this exercise, you know, how do you see yourself using those, you know, moving forward in the future?

Aubrie Souza: So I think that one of the really nice parts about this is that, like I said, we didn’t try to solve the problem right away. We talked about what was involved.

Greg Lambert: That’s very non-lawyer of you.

Marlene Gebauer: You listen, and you thought about it.

Aubrie Souza: I’m also in exam mode right now. So you know, I’m going through and I’m looking at what’s important, and all the pieces, like we’re breaking it down to all of the parts of the community. So I just think that like all of the ways that we were interacting with, like a group going back and forth with it was really nice. And we were able to just like really collaborate as a team. We really built on it at the end, because it fit the group’s values and how we’re working on it.

Marlene Gebauer: So I want Jeff, I wanted to get back to the other teams that participated in some of the ideas that they put together as well as their composition. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

Jeff Marple: Yeah, happy to but I did want to comment on one thing that Aubrie mentioned. So she mentioned that her facilitator was Anthony Metzler. Mets, as we know him was an expert, an extern. And then a law clerk for us. And then a last he departed to go and work for Baker McKenzie. He currently works for frequent contributor to Three Geeks and a Law Blog. His boss is Casey Flaherty. So just sort of bring it around again.

Greg Lambert: Well, you say frequent contributor Casey hasn’t contributed in a while so let’s uh, let’s encourage him to start jumping in.

Jeff Marple: By frequently, I mean every couple of years It feels like something along those lines, but when he does, it’s, it’s is there’s a lot of it. It’s long form.

Marlene Gebauer: Yes.

Jeff Marple: So anyways, the the The second and third place teams well as the second place team was also from Suffolk, they were called MBA 2K20. And they, they also were looking at Virtual Education. They were trying to build a virtual campus, an educational facility, I guess, for law students, but also for CLE. And then the third place team was our Canadian team, who by the way, that far away had the most amazing Tim Hortons Zoom backdrops that you ever saw in your life.

Bob Taylor: And Jeff, by far, the most polite.

Jeff Marple: We say that story a lot. And they were trying to figure out a way to automate legal consulting, legal technology consulting. So not only were they trying to consult on legal technology, but they were trying to do it in an automated way, which I thought was a an interesting, interesting approach. They were automating the consulting around technology with technology. So that was that was that was compelling. But those are our three winners.

Greg Lambert: So So what I want to do is encourage any future Texas teams to have a good Whataburger background. Let’s say, you got to get a counter that Tim Hortons

Jeff Marple: You got to counter the Tim Hortons. That’s correct. Yes. There was a lot of Maple Leafs and Canadian flags. They were very patriotic.

Greg Lambert: That’s funny.That’s funny. So now one of the things I wanted to ask you about was you had a blue ribbon panel of judges. Now he did you talked about, you know, he had cat moon, you had Bob ambrogi Jason Barnwell. How was their experience? How were they able to jump in with this virtual environment and do their job? And and was it as smooth as it sounds like everything else went?

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, how did they do?

Bob Taylor: Yeah. So first of all, they’re all pros. And, you know, they’re fantastic. And we’re very thankful for their participation. They jumped right in with these, they came in towards the end of the day, they watched a little bit during the day, but then they came in towards the end of the day, and they listened to all the pitches. We actually had an online form that they could fill out as they were going along, that automatically tabulated the scores so that when we broke out into the virtual judge’s chambers, we were able to review those scores and kind of have the team’s force ranked a little bit. They weren’t held to that. But it gave them a framework to work off of. And they all asked the team’s excellent questions. And they really were, you know, not only probing but also very generous questions, in terms of allowing the teams to maybe get out that last little bit that they needed to get out or be, you know, get some more clarity around something. And I want to go back to something that Aubrie said about how she and her team drew analogies for their idea from other places. Like, you know, the flight simulator and the way that they display things was so very simple. And I think you know, somebody like Bob Ambrogi, who really appreciates both simplicity and writing, but also the simplicity. And the idea of really called that out. I think, you know, Jason Barnwell was very complimentary about the virtual nature of the training. Cat Moon, who, as you know, from Vanderbilt, as a professor, you know, really thought that this would be a great training tool, and it really resonated with them. So as far as the judges were concerned, they had no problem adapting to the environment. I think they’ve all been working in this environment on their own anyway. And they were super generous with the students in their questioning and their comments back to them on the winners. And we were pleased to have them. So very fortunate.

Greg Lambert: Good.

Marlene Gebauer: It’s nice to hear.

Greg Lambert: Did Jason Barnwell tell you that you should have done this on Microsoft Teams instead of Zoom?

Bob Taylor: He had a lot of suggestions about the tech stack. Yeah.

Jeff Marple: We made a lot of a lot of Office jokes. Which were fun.

Greg Lambert: Well, good. It sounds like everyone had a good time with this. Aubrie, let me let me just ask you real quick. I know you’re you’re 2L, you may not want to do this in your in your 3L year but it would would it be something that you would do again, or at least encourage other people to participate in?

Aubrie Souza: Tell them to sign me up as a facilitator.

Marlene Gebauer: I was gonna ask,

Aubrie Souza: I don’t know if they’ll let me go for a two time champ, but I would encourage everyone to do it. It would be absolutely incredible.

Marlene Gebauer: I like that. She just threw that down man.

Greg Lambert: I’m just envisioning a WWE style entrance with a boa and walking through with music. So let’s have you come back as the reigning champ.

Bob Taylor: Yeah, I want to know what the team’s going to do with the money because I mean, if you guys will remember we had really generous sponsors. I just want to mention them real quickly. Legalmation, Integron, Thomson Reuters, Neota Logic, LawGeex, PactSafe, NovusLaw, and Voltage Control, and, you know, I want the sponsors to know not only did it go to prize money, But also to support the Lit Lab at Suffolk University and the great work that they’re doing there. So I’m just curious Aubrey, you know, we gave out $5,000 to the winning team $3,000 to the second place team, and $2,000 to the third place team. So I’m just curious, Aubrie, what are you gonna do with the money?

Aubrie Souza: You know, I think we all joked, but I was very serious. I’m going to pay my rent.

Greg Lambert: Very practical

Marlene Gebauer: a good, a good thing to do,

Greg Lambert: Pay rent and pay your student loans.

Bob Taylor: Some form of COVID relief it’s really what it was.

Aubrie Souza: Yeah, I’m sorry. It’s not more exciting.

Jeff Marple: So we got an email from one of the people on the winning team. Her name’s Christina Gregg . And if it’s okay, I’d like to just read a little bit of it.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, go ahead.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, please.

Jeff Marple: So the, you know, we do this for a lot of reasons. We, we do it because it’s fun. We do because we like it. We do it because it gets Liberty Mutual and Suffolk, like some exposure by doing things like this podcast and talking about it in different places. We do it because we want to educate the law students on design thinking and help them think about something different. But Christina really sort of summed it up. So this is her email. “I wanted to thank each of you sincerely for the incredible experience here LM team worked so diligently to create for us on Friday. The opportunity to participate was a pivotal moment in my law school career, and has recommitted me to the pursuit of a forward thinking mechanics oriented career in law. Specifically motivated by the event I enrolled just this morning and design thinking and legal process and project management, as two of my final law school courses next semester. The day was full of lightbulb moments, laughs, and lessons learned, I really cannot say enough good things about it and confirm the meaningful impact that it has on students like myself, who will take those lessons and apply them in our own careers. I hope to stay in touch with this team in the months and years to come.” So that right there means we had a good event, if everyone else hated it, but Christina had that experience, then I feel like we had a great event. So you know, thank you, Christina for the lovely email. Thanks to all the students that participated. A huge thank you to our facilitators and project team and our sponsors for helping us out because we had a we had a really great time, and I can’t wait to do it again.

Greg Lambert: Good. Well, I don’t think we can top that. So Bob Taylor, Jeff Marple, and Aubrie Souza, thank you very much for coming back on here and in tell us how it went. Sounds like a really good time was had by all and and good luck in the future on this.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah. Thank you all so much.

Jeff Marple: Great. Thanks, guys.

Post Interview

Greg Lambert: Well, it’s always a pleasure talking with Jeff and Bob. This is where I wish Marlene was here because she would agree with me that envisioning Aubrie and reentering the competition next year and walking in with a championship belt around her waist and fireworks going off in the building. They I think that’s that’s how I imagined the next challenge going. So all kidding aside, it sounds like the Boston Legal design challenge was a great experience for everyone involved. Kind of wish I could have streamed it and watch the events that day. So thanks again to Jeff Marple and Bob Taylor from Liberty Mutual for joining us. And a big thanks to Aubrie Souza, from the reigning championship team of the Boston Legal design challenge and Suffolk law school for sharing her experiences as well.

Greg Lambert: And before we go, we wanted to remind listeners to take the time to subscribe to us on Apple podcast or Spotify or wherever you listen to podcast. You can rate and review us as well. If you have questions about today’s show or comments on a future show, feel free to reach out to us on Twitter at @gebauerm or at @glambert and you can call the geek and review hotline at 713-487-7270 or email us at geek and review. podcast@gmail.com And as always, the great music you hear is from Jerry David DeCicca. Thanks, Jerry. All right. We’ll be back next week. We’ll see you then.

The Geek in Review Ep. 97 – Tracy LaLonde and The Joychiever Journey

Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:44:00 GMT

Professionals in the legal market are known for focusing on high achievement levels within their careers, and not so much on how much joy they derive from working in the profession. Tracy LaLonde, author of The Joychiever Journey: Evade Burnout, Surpass Your Goals and Out-Happy Everyone, says that achievement and joy are not mutually exclusive and that we can live lives that allow us to achieve our goals and experience joy at the same time. LaLonde discusses how increasing the enjoyment of our careers doesn’t just create a better individual experience, but that there are studies that show happiness drives higher incomes as well. Listen in as we discuss LaLonde’s seven-step journey of what she calls true self stops on how we explore what makes us happy and define our true values and ensure that they align with our career.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

We may be getting a little bit closer to FREE PACER. Twenty legal tech leaders encouraged Congress to take up the issue, and in fact, the US House passed a bill bringing PACER out from the paywall this week. We’ll have to see if it goes any further this year, or if we have to wait until 2021 to see further movement.

In Jordon Furlong’s blog post, The End of Serendipity, he points out that law firms have for too long relied upon part-time leadership, culture through osmosis, and professional development through serendipity. While law firms may have accidentally succeeded in the past through happenstance and accident, he suggests that modern law firms succeed through specific planning and defined purpose.

It turns out you don’t have to be the focus of a Wall Street Journal article to get one of those nice WSJ images made. Now WSJ subscribers can take a headshot and make their own images.

Marlene is still hoping for some video aspects of the podcast. Greg, however, still has the face for podcasting. This week, she is checking out WeVideo, and was looking to improve her video editing skills. It turns out that you can get experts to teach you how to improve your skills in just about anything these days. A couple of good starting points for finding anything from a basketball coach, video editing teacher, or even another language are sites like Fiverr or Bark.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to the Geek in Review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.

Greg Lambert: And I’m Greg Lambert.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, December seems to be the month for book launches and books make great gifts for your colleagues. We’re speaking with Tracy LaLonde today about her new book, The Joychiever Journey, which I downloaded last night. I can’t wait to dive into that. On that note, now, let’s get to this week’s information inspirations.

Greg Lambert: Marlene, you know, we haven’t talked about in a while?

Marlene Gebauer: What’s that Greg?

[0:50]

Greg Lambert: Free PACER!!

Marlene Gebauer: Free PACER!!

Greg Lambert: Well, this week, 20 leaders of legal technology, businesses and organizations, were signatories to a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi advising her on what it would mean to the industry and for the country as a whole to drop the paywall to Pacer. So we had former guests like Ed Walters from Fastcase, and Pablo Arredondo from CaseText, they were both on the list for pressing for a free Pacer

Marlene Gebauer: Free Pacer.

Greg Lambert: So they were writing in favor of HR at 8234 for the open courts act of 2020. Now, I can’t imagine this bill getting passed during the lame duck session. But perhaps with a new Congress and a new presidential administration, we can get some agreement on what to do to improve access to Pacer. Now, I did see this morning that it did pass the House. But there’s some serious doubt whether or not it’s even going to be brought up in the Senate this year. But it again, is a good indication that a similar bill may have a much greater chance of passing in 2021. So let’s see how it goes.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, well, first, you stole my inspiration, because I saw Gavalytics also got on board with this too.

Greg Lambert: You know, you got to get your notes in faster.

Marlene Gebauer: Apparently, I do, like you beat me to it. So I’m glad that members of the industry are still focused and pushing for this sort of legislation. And I’m glad members of the industry are still focused and pushing for this sort of legislation and that the passion for access to justice is still alive. So my new inspiration is about some tough talk about change management. Well, I think Jordan Furlong nails it. COVID requires firms to deal with some things and it might not be comfortable for some of them. What I took away from this is first, firms need to deliberate plan for attorney development. No more serendipitous popping into offices to chat and to get advice and work. Second, firms need to legitimize management leadership as a standalone role. This has two parts. First, give your professional staff the responsibility for business decisions. And second, don’t make attorneys and leadership roles choose between practicing and leading. Anyone who drives projects and manages people can tell you it’s a full time job. And lastly, clarify purpose and value beyond revenue and client satisfaction and hold everyone to that standard. Because let’s be honest, every successful firms purpose includes revenue and client satisfaction. They wouldn’t be successful if they didn’t. Firms need to focus on a few core values that distinguish them from the pack and practice them privately, publicly, and consistently.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, I like the title of Jordan’s article The End of Serendipity.

Marlene Gebauer: Right.

Greg Lambert: And one of the things he said in it was about culture, and that we’ve kind of just dumb lucked our way into culture rather than have any type of consistent path that we were taking. And so I thought the title was pretty good for the topic.

Unknown Speaker

Agreed. Agreed was a really good piece.

[4:12]

Greg Lambert: Marlene, if you are a subscriber to The Wall Street Journal, there’s this cool offering that they’re doing right now.

Marlene Gebauer: Oh, yeah. Okay.

Greg Lambert: You know how the Wall Street Journal has these very distinguished ways of creating images of people in their articles.

Marlene Gebauer: Yep, they’re very pixelated.

Greg Lambert: Well, they have this AI tool that you can take a picture And submit it and it turns it into one of those images. So it’s really fun to play with. I think that you do have to be a subscriber to use the tool, but I’m pretty sure you can probably find someone who’s a subscriber and ask them for a favor. So if you’re nice…

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah. As soon as I send a high quality photo I’ll be asking you for a favor.

Greg Lambert: So one of the caveats to this, however, is that while it does very well, it converting headshots of people, mostly head and shoulders shots, I found out it struggles with photos of animals

Marlene Gebauer: You found out? I you know I’m afraid to ask.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. Actually, it was something that Sarah Glassmeyer had told me how they how they actually created a picture of Grumpy Cat. And one of those, so I went and I tried another animal and what it does is it will actually cut the ears off of the dogs or cats. So

Marlene Gebauer: well, that’s just cruel.

Greg Lambert: It is, isn’t it?

Marlene Gebauer: It is.

Greg Lambert: So you know, just in case anyone else out there is thinking of doing a Wall Street Journal profile of, you know, scruffy.

Marlene Gebauer: So I have some quick and cool tech and education comments. My son and I were talking about vlogs the other day, and well, actually, he was asking me why I don’t try to make money from the podcast. And then we pivoted to vlogs. So Greg knows I’ve been pushing the video idea for a while. So I was really excited when my son told me about a free product called WeVideo. You can record upload, recordings, edit and publish all in one spot. It’s pretty easy to use, I was able to add some music to my video and adjust the volume on that track. Now I’m working on actually editing the video next. I can see a lot of good business uses for this even outside the podcast. So even if Greg wants to hide behind the mic a little longer. I think I still might try it out. Okay, well, the education part of my inspiration comes from the fact that you can get someone to teach you just about anything online nowadays. So if you have some time, check out Fiverr or Bark or other freelance platforms where people sell services to teach you what they know. There’s a guy on Fiverr who will customize tutoring for you on Zoom or Skype about machine learning for $50 an hour. There are people who will teach you advanced Excel or teach you Spanish. I even hired a basketball coach for my son this way back when you can do this face to face. So if you want something a little more personal than YouTube videos, this solution could be for you. I personally know that I will like this because I can ask questions real time if I get stuck.

Greg Lambert: Alright Marlene, Well, that’s it for this week’s information inspirations.

[7:25]

Guest Introductions

Marlene Gebauer: When you describe the life of someone in the legal industry, whether it’s an attorney or an allied professional, the word joy isn’t always on the top of the descriptors.

Greg Lambert: It’s not second either.

Marlene Gebauer: That’s right. We are achievers. And the idea of joy is something that seems to be foreign to most of us in this field. Today’s guest asks, Why do achievement and joy have to be mutually exclusive? Well, let’s find out more.

Marlene Gebauer: Tracy LaLonde is the author of the newly released book, The Joychiever Journey: Evade Burnout, Surpass Your Goals, and Out-Happy Everyone , which just came out on December 1. Tracy, thank you for joining us on the Geek in Review.

Tracy LaLonde: Thanks so much. I’m glad to be here.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, Tracy, before we dive into the book, I wanted to talk a little bit about your background that led to the writing of this book. So you spent a number of years working with law firms around professional development and skills training. And I know a number of people that you worked with at your previous outfit Akina, including those that have worked with me on my own professional development. So how did you decide that professional development and skills training for lawyers and others in the legal industry was going to be your career?

Tracy LaLonde: That’s a funny question. In particularly the “decide” part. Was it really a strategic decision? I have to say if you’d asked me growing up what I was going to be doing later in life, I would have never guessed it was helping lawyers develop skills.

Greg Lambert: No one wants a career.

Marlene Gebauer: That’s why you’re like, isn’t that a career?

Tracy LaLonde: Who knew? But how it came to be was in the 90s, I actually worked in the high tech consulting space, teaching computer programmers how to be consultants. Then it was the Dot Com boom. And so I became part of that and was part of a dot com company that didn’t go IPO and didn’t get bought by some fabulous company. So needless to say, I didn’t get rich.

Marlene Gebauer: Not yet!

Tracy LaLonde: yeah, not yet. So right. It’s the power of yet right. But was was meeting something after after that, and happened to reply to an ad for a law firm that was needing a first ever professional development professional, and I got hired. And so that’s really how it started was more out of need and kind of out of luck, because most people it requires knowing somebody to get a job these days, not necessarily responding to the straight out ad on on SHRM, which is how it happened. So that’s what started the journey 20 years ago, and ended up working that three different law firms. And then Akina as you mentioned, and then launched my own business later on.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, I know many of us in the industry think that we’re unique, you know, we’re definitely snowflakes in our abilities and needs. Do you find that to be true?

[10:38]

Tracy LaLonde: Well, you know, the, the definite answer is ‘yes’, because that’s what everybody wants to hear. And so I think whether we’re truly unique or not, we all want to believe that we’re unique and special. That said, I do think that the legal industry and lawyers and those of us who work with lawyers and professional capacities, certainly has unique characteristics. As far as you know, client demand skill sets required the intensity of the work, the pace of the demands of the work, I think are maybe not unique to everybody else, but certainly part of their own in this profession.

Marlene Gebauer: Do you think there are certain things within the industry that truly are unique? Or do you think that it’s just the way that we look at it?

Marlene Gebauer: sort of like special to our industry?

Tracy LaLonde: Yeah, I think are characteristics that probably other industry share, ie, really smart people, servicing clients, having a really high bar for the kind of service and expertise that are required of clients, things like that. But I think the puzzle pieces get put together in its own way in the legal industry, as compared to say, the medical field or, you know, the high tech field or other scientific fields where it’s an expert model. And so I think the legal industry does have its prioritization of those things. And the way the puzzle pieces are put together to make the legal industry its own.

Marlene Gebauer: Now, the book, Joychievers is a variation on the word overachiever, explain what the title is conveying about the book itself. And the reason behind you wanting to write it.

Tracy LaLonde: Well, you know, I find and this relates to some of the puzzle pieces thought is that in the legal industry, in particular, the focus is on achieving. And even the way that lawyers move up the ladder is all about moving up the ladder. So you progress as a class, you know, to the next level, the next level in the next level. So it was always this upward trajectory. Now, that’s not dissimilar to lots of other industries. But and even for myself, but there is this high, intense or highly intense focus on achievement. And it creates exhaustion, burnout, depression. And while you know, I’m not a lawyer, I’m also a high achiever. And I’ve also been caught up in that industry for 20 years. You know, for me personally, and especially after I left working in law firms and was working, as you mentioned, with the Akina and some other businesses, the goal is to advance and to keep growing the business and to keep working and working really hard. And so I found that with that emphasis on achievement, that the concept of joy gets left behind. And so I really have been focusing on why does achievement and joy have to be mutually exclusive? Is there a way that we can live our lives to have both of those things simultaneously. And for me, personally, I hit a breaking point in 2016, I had been on the road for 40 weeks, a year, often three cities a week, five to nine airplanes in a week, my hair was thinning, I was having heart palpitations, I was constantly thinking about work, you know, that was it was just full on. And on its surface, or from the outside, I seemed really successful to people. And that I had it all together. But on the inside, I really didn’t. And because I then was also having some health issues, I finally just said, timeout, you know, I’m not gonna die wishing that I worked more. I’ve got to figure this out. Because I love the work. I love my clients. I love the substance of what I was doing. But the lifestyle is killing me. And so I left my company, and took eight months off to do that deep self-exploration. And it was in that time, and at the time, I called it my own just joy journey. But it was in that time that started my path on this Joychiever Journey, and how can we have both success and joy? At the same time?

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I just want to point out that like, while you’re while you’ve been talking about this, Greg and I are both like nodding our heads, like, Uh huh. So you know, this, this, this is not something that’s unique to people that that in the industry, I mean, we you know, we’ve all, we’ve all been there, at least in part.

[15:22]

Tracy LaLonde: Yeah. And the other thing I find that we do is we also postpone it. We fall prey to what I call the “Once I” syndrome. You know, once I get to a certain level in the business, once I get the kids to school, once I retired, then I can have a good time,

Marlene Gebauer: then I can have fun, right?

Tracy LaLonde: Yeah! As cliché as it sounds, we really only have one life. And so why are we waiting? Why are we waiting to have fun? So I want us to have fun sooner.

Greg Lambert: One of the things that we see with the especially with the legal industry, and I will say specifically with law firms, is there’s a certain trajectory that you need to be on in order to be successful. to achieve. And almost always, if you fall off of that path, it’s almost seen as failure. It’s not like you’re taking a different path. It’s, you know, I’m a failed lawyer if I take this other path. And so do you see that as one of the reasons that we want to postpone the joys because we think if we don’t stick to this lockstep of progression in our industry, that we’ll be failures. And if we’re failures, then obviously we can’t find joy in that.

Marlene Gebauer: And I will add to that, like behaviors, you know, there’s certain types of behaviors that are expected. And again, if you go outside of that box, then you may not be viewed as successful or as you know, someone who’s going to advance. And so people may like people may not bring their. How is it? People may not bring their authentic selves to work. Because of that,

Tracy LaLonde: I wholeheartedly agree. And I think that is one of the unique challenges that the legal industry has is that there are, some would say there’s only one model for lawyers to be successful, instead of having multiple models. And I know that, you know, a lot of the diversity, the D&I efforts have been working towards creating other alternative paths that can be viewed as equally successful and not, you know, the ugly stepchild path. I do think that was that kind of focus of only one way to be successful that that does create all kinds of issues and challenges for people to be successful and not burnout. Yeah, we’ve

Greg Lambert: talked on the show before. And I can think specifically talking with Olga Mack, who mentioned that when we talk about legal careers, it’s not unusual to make these parallels to addiction, such as we are workaholics or that we are recovering lawyers. So how do you address these types of parallels in your book?

[18:23]

Tracy LaLonde: They’re very similar. In that, you know, the notion of having a good work ethic is thrown around all the time. And we tie it to like moral value, you know, that if you don’t have a good work ethic, you’re somehow lesser human being. And to the extent that that’s motivating that’s fine, but when it gets past motivating, that’s when it’s really dangerous, and really difficult. And I think, in particular, 2020 and the need to work remotely, it turned this whole thing upside down. And I’m thrilled for that. Because work ethic in the traditional law firm is often demonstrated by face time. So it’s being in the office and being in the office, being available.

Marlene Gebauer: Face time and hours, you know?

Tracy LaLonde: Right, exactly, instead of results. And it’s really interesting, because there are statistics out there that show that happiness drives higher income than level of education. Which is mind numbing.

Marlene Gebauer: Really? Wow!

Tracy LaLonde: Yes. Which isn’t surprising when you hear about, you know, profitability and happiness, you know, happy employees create higher profits, because they’re happy at work, therefore, they make customers or clients happier, therefore, people want to buy more, you know, it’s just a snowball effect. And I think we struggle with this in the legal industry in a real big way, which is why we have one of the highest depression rates of any professional sector.

Greg Lambert: Are they happy because they’re appreciated? And there’s some result from that? Or is it just what we normally think of is happy, you know, they show up happy?

Tracy LaLonde: Yes, I think there’s, there’s definitely the appreciation and but there’s also the flexibility of having a full life. And that’s what the Joychiever Journey really talks about is one of the major reasons that I think folks, generally, whether you’re a lawyer or anything else isn’t happier is because we don’t have a deep enough understanding of self. So we don’t truly know what makes us tick, to be able to even choose for joy, because I believe that joy is a proactive, intentional daily choice. So the Joychiever Journey walks folks through seven what I call true self stops. So for you know, if life is this journey, and we’re on a road trip, we’ve got to stop along the way to rest and refuel, and, you know, eat and things like that. So these true self stops are those moments where we can really do some deep exploration, to really find out what makes us happy such that, you know, lawyers, they’ve got this career, they’ve invested a lot of energy, time and money to be an expert in a particular area. And, you know, what’s the rest of it, so that they can have both. So for example, you’re one of the stops is Values Village. And it stresses the importance that individuals get clear enough, so they can even list you know, their top five to ten values. And so if growth is one of those values, then that works for a lawyer because they’re constantly growing and growing and growing in order to be more and more successful. And but I’ve seen lots of lawyers whose values just don’t align with being a lawyer. It’s just a mismatch. But without that kind of clarity as an example, then then they’re just continuing to check off the list and pursuing being a great lawyer without having the well-rounded life.

Marlene Gebauer: Now you touched on 2020 is sort of having an impact on things. So, you know, at some point, we’ll be beyond the immediacy of the current pandemic, and we’ll be trying to reacclimate ourselves back into a routine, you know, whatever that means. Now, do you have concerns about lawyers and others of us in the industry getting back into old bad habits? I know I do. And what are some of the things that you would suggest that we reevaluate before we begin to transition to the next work routine post-COVID?

[22:30]

Tracy LaLonde: Yeah, I think I think 2020 has been a really interesting growth experience for everybody. And in some ways, it’s positive because folks no longer have multi hour commutes. So seemingly, they have additional time. And I’ve heard folks say, wow, I actually get to exercise or I get more time with my family, or I can do yoga in the morning or read that book or work on that passion project in the evenings. Conversely, I’ve seen it also being really difficult for people, because they go from bed to desk. And so they’re not leveraging that newfound free time to actually do other things other than work. So that’s one challenge. And then two, with children and parents, it children not being in school and elderly parents maybe need needing more care. So that’s been a real struggle for folks in 2020, where some folks can’t wait to get back to the office so that they can have all their childcare routines back in place, some room to breathe. But I do worry about for those who have actually been introspective and have had and or spent the time developing those new habits, ie exercising, spending that some of the family taking the dog for a walk, with letting themselves stopped the chronic push of cortisol and adrenaline as a result of stress, I found that they’d been much happier. And that is my wish, is that once we get back to whatever the next normal is, is that folks will proactively carve out that time, now that they’ve realized some of the benefits of happening to have that time. That’s my dream, rather, instead of going back to the long commutes, and all work and no play idea.

Marlene Gebauer: But what about those people? And you know, I wonder if it’s a lot of people in this profession, like they, they need that routine, like they need that routine, you know, just sort of keep themselves on track, they’re not a person who’s going to say, Okay, I’m going to go explore and read that book and do the passion project. Because I got a, I got to kind of just stick to this. And of course, 2020 has just thrown that all up in the air. And even when it all comes down, it’s not going to be like that anymore. So what advice do we offer for folks like that, who are just very stressed out about not having that?

Tracy LaLonde: Yeah, I think it’s, it’s, I want to encourage people to find a routine, a new routine within the old routine, for example. So mindfulness and meditation, in particular legal industry, is something I talked about lots of people talking about that for a while. But to use that as an example, that you can do have a mindfulness practice that takes 15 minutes. And so if you’re on the train, riding into work, instead of doing email, money, meditate for 15 minutes? It doesn’t have to be a full stop shift. It’s just within the larger routine, let’s create subroutines. Instead of taking the elevator to your meeting, take the steps, then at least you get some movement of your body, you know, get a little bit of exercise. Instead of taking the subway or your car to a meeting, maybe walk down the block instead. So I want to I want to encourage folks to just baby step, on working some new routines into the old routine.

Greg Lambert: So Tracy, now that you have your own consulting company, Joychievers where you “help high performers find joy, develop business and speak authentically”, as many are needing to pivot due to job loss as a result of COVID-19. How do you think running your own shop can be a joyful experience?

Tracy LaLonde: Well, for me, personally, I like to build stuff. Curiosity is my third value. And curiosity comes in the form of learning, growing, building, creating. And so that’s what Joychiever is all about, is it’s in the spirit of helping others. But for me, personally, it is about doing that for myself, and also just having destiny in my own hands. That’s very motivating for me. And so I’m thrilled to be able to do that in the service of others, finding more joy, and helping them to be successful simultaneously.

Greg Lambert: Great.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I mean, I think it’s important because again, a lot of people are going to have to figure out something else than what they were used to. And, you know, as you can imagine, that’s, that’s stressful for many. So they’re going to need a way to basically, you know, get themselves comfortable with this and feel good about whatever it is, is their, you know, their next step in the journey.

[27:233]

Tracy LaLonde: Well, and I think too, it’s about encouraging people to be really open-minded. So if I were to talk to somebody right now, today, and this is how do you do this, I would say number one, get really clear about your values. And then number two, get really clear about your strengths, and what you’re good at, and what brings you the most joy. And there’s a couple things at play there. It’s not only what you’re good at, but it’s what brings you the most joy because there’s lots of things that I’m good at that I really don’t need to do every day or don’t want to do every day.

Marlene Gebauer: I’m really good. I’m really good at doing the dishes, you know, but I don’t want to do that every day, either.

Tracy LaLonde: Exactly, exactly. And then coupled with that strength, though, also is context and meaning. So you recognize a strength, which by the way looks like you get completely lost in time, it’s super easy to do you get into the flow, you know those kinds of characteristics. And then be paying attention to which context add to that joy. So as an example, public speaking is always been a really big strength of mine. But I have more joy when I’m in a context where people are really engaged, and they’re asking questions, and they’re even disagreeing with me, like, they’re really trying to get into it, as compared to an audience that just listened. So I’ll never be, you know, a professor ever. And that’s one way that public speaking could have gone. But professors expect people just kind of sit and listen, take notes. I’m generalizing, I realized, but that’s, that’s not the kind of public speaking I want to do. And so getting clear around that, you know, and also the meaning part of it, like, I really like helping people be the best versions of themselves. That really motivates me that gives meaning to my life. And so with values and getting clear about strengths, I think folks can then really look at the full world and say, Where can I do this? You know, what, what context, meaning working at a law firm working at another company, working on your own working in a small business, working with your family, I mean, there’s lots of forms that that making money can take, but really paying attention to the values, the strength, the context, and the meaning, I think will help people maybe get clear about what’s most beneficial for them. And then the where they do it. I mean, this opens the blue ocean kind of idea.

Greg Lambert: Well, Tracy, I know your book just came out the first of December. Where can we find your book? And where can we learn more about you?

Tracy LaLonde: Yeah, the book itself, you can get on Amazon in particular, it’s also Barnes and Noble, and another a number of other retailers. But check out my website, Joychiever.com. It has links to all of the retailers but also there on the resources page are a number of downloadable tools that accompany the book. So there’s a lot of work to be done, because otherwise people aren’t. It’s not the kind of book where your reader like, I’m happy. Whoo, sing Pharrell’s song, you know, because I’m happy. That’s not the kind of work. But there’s work to be done in order to explore. So all of those materials are also on the website. And then my contact information is there, but it’s super easy. It’s Tracy@joychiever.com. if folks want reach out to me directly.

Greg Lambert: Great. Well, Tracy, thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us.

Marlene Gebauer: Yes, thank you, Tracy. This has been great.

Tracy LaLonde: Thank you. I appreciate it.

[30:46]

Post Interview

Greg Lambert: You know, Marlene, I think this may have been the first interview we’ve done where we may have talked more with the guest after the recording than we did during the recording.

Marlene Gebauer: That’s true.

Greg Lambert: It was a real pleasure talking with Tracy about her book and about life working in the legal industry.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I appreciate that. Tracy is looking at this as a project and a practice for those who might score not so high on the touchy feely scale. And she has exercises that are companion pieces to the book itself. So if it helps you to envision this more as an assignment, there you go.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. So Tracy’s book is available now. We’ll make sure that we put the links on the show notes.

Marlene Gebauer: Yep, go on and buy it.

Greg Lambert: Alright, so once again, thanks to Tracy LaLonde for joining us today.

Marlene Gebauer: Before we go, we want to remind listeners to take time to subscribe on Apple podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, rate and review us as well. If you have comments about today’s show, or suggestions for a future show, you can reach us on Twitter at at @gebauerm or at @glambert, or you can call the Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 or email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com And as always, the music you hear is from Jerry David DeCicca. Thank you, Jerry.

Greg Lambert: Thanks, Jerry. All right, Marlene, I will talk with you later.

Marlene Gebauer: Okay, bye bye.

The Geek in Review Ep. 96 – Consumer Arbitration Made Easier with FairShake’s Teel Lidow

Thu, 03 Dec 2020 11:15:29 GMT

One of the modern realities of consumerism is the requirement of arbitration clauses. The idea is that consumers and businesses can settle their disagreements without going to court, and instead have an arbitrator negotiate a settlement between the parties. For many of us, it is viewed as a part of doing business, and that the arbitration process is weighted heavily in favor of the corporations. Teel Lidow and his online tool, FairShake, is working to make filing an arbitration much easier for consumers and to actually show that many corporations are quite easy to approach when it comes to handling arbitration disputes. Time Magazine recently awarded FairShake with its award for The Best Inventions of 2020: 100 Innovations Changing How We Live, and we talk with Teel about his reasons behind creating FairShake.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

The pandemic crisis is allowing law firm management to reevaluate staffing needs, and once again, positions that are tied to a physical space are on the chopping block. However, positions that are viewed as “Knowledge Workers” are fairing much better as we look to a post-pandemic work environment. The key is those staff who understand the business and can work with clients and attorneys and function under pressure are going to thrive.

Check out the excellent i.WILL workshop on Courage & Emotional Durability tonight (12/3/2020 at 5:30 PM ET). Dr. Carli Kody leads a workshop based on Dr. Brené Brown’s research and Rising Strong methodology.

No matter how hard you think the Bar Exam is, Brianna Hill’s taking the bar during a pandemic, while in labor, having the baby and coming back to finish the bar the next day, and then finding out this week that she passed the bar, is much, much harder. While Hill is superhuman, she’s not the only one who had to struggle this year to take bar exams.

Our friends at Legal Innovators are collaborating with Bechtel Corporation (PDF Press Release) to provide junior lawyers to assist with Bechtel’s internal legal departments. This seems like a win-win for both companies.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

[0:19]

Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to The Geek In Review, the podcasts focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.

Greg Lambert: And I’m Greg Lambert. Well, we hope everyone enjoyed their Thanksgiving break. And they’re now in the holiday spirit. So Marlene, have you finished your gift shopping yet?

Marlene Gebauer: Of course I have.

Greg Lambert: Well, I’ve got my big gift out of the way for my wife. But now I’ve got to purchase all the other stuff for the kids and other family members. So wish me luck.

Marlene Gebauer: Yes, well, yeah, a good luck. And and you know, it’s definitely going to be one of those online experiences this year.

Greg Lambert: Yes, it is. Well, and speaking of that one of the side effects from some of these purchases includes things like contract agreements for cell phones, or wireless plans or other gifts which come with an arbitration clause in the contract. And well,

Marlene Gebauer: That is a great. It’s like a great segue. Yes, it is. It’s well done.

Greg Lambert: You know, for many of us, we just sign or we check the little box without really understanding what it means for us if we have problems with the companies living up to their end of the agreement. And while we may think that we can sue for breach of contract, these arbitration clauses actually create a completely different model of legal redress. And it’s one that most people don’t understand or feel like they can take advantage of. So we get today’s guest Teel Lidow of FairShake. And he comes on to talk with us about his online platform, which makes filing an arbitration claim simple. And that many companies are actually pretty easy to deal with when you have a dispute. So stick around for that conversation a little later in the show.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I thought it was really interesting on how he’s he’s managed to streamline the process in a way that that, you know, even companies can see the benefit of,

Greg Lambert: Yeah, I learned a lot.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, me too. So now let’s get to this week’s information, inspirations.

[2:25]

Greg Lambert: You know, once again, Marlene crisis is a perfect time to take advantage of certain things. So and unfortunately, I think one of those is that law firm leadership is taking advantage of this crisis to restructure some staffing. And according to recent…

Marlene Gebauer: You don’t say…

Greg Lambert: Yeah, surprise! But, according to an American Lawyer, article, firms are doing just that with positions like paralegals and secretaries and more. You know, Marlene, I don’t know if you know this, but the unemployment rate for lawyers right now is below 1%.

Marlene Gebauer: I did not know that.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. And for paralegals and legal administrative assistants or secretaries, it’s closer to 7%. Yeah, there’s big, big range there. And according to Mark Santiago of SB2 consultants, the numbers of these staffs and others that could just get worse. Positions that are tied to physical spaces are prime targets right now. And there’s some firms out there like Husch Blackwell, which are creating more virtual spaces and paperless environments and and who calls the virtual office that they have “The Link.”

Marlene Gebauer: That sounds like a talk show, I’m sorry,

Greg Lambert: It does it does. But currently, they have 50 attorneys and 10 staff who work at The Link, and there’s no expectation of having any type of physical space there. Now, there are a few staffing positions which the article deemed as “pandemic proof.” And these are business development and client intake specialists, they’re competitive intelligence experts, and data analyst. And of course, IT professionals have become the big hot commodity for the simple reason that virtual office space requires constant monitoring and upkeep of the network, and the other highly valued positions at the moment, our diversity and inclusion professionals. And D&I is not just seen as a passing fad anymore, but actually a core part of the businesses for the firm’s business process going forward. And these are all what what they’re referred to as knowledge workers, according to Santiago, those who understand the business those who can work with clients and attorneys, and those who can function under pressure are going to thrive.

[4:49]

Marlene Gebauer: Okay, well, my first inspiration is basically a shout out to i.WILL and as you know, we had Andrew Markstrom on the program a few episodes back and on data broadcasting, so 12/3 at 5:30pm Eastern time. They are going to be having a presentation with Dr. Carly Braun Kody, four and it’s called rising strong. It’s it’s a Brene Brown event. And it’s focused on courage and emotional durability, which I think are very timely given COVID, given the holidays, given all the uncertainty that is surrounding us right now. And you know, the tagline is “It takes courage to show up and lead with resilience and perseverance.” And so I think this is going to be a great presentation. If you haven’t attended any of their presentations. They always have really, really good speakers. And all event fees are donated to nonprofit organizations supporting women and accelerating their careers. We’ll put the registration link up in the notes, and I hope to see you all there.

Greg Lambert: Good. Yeah. You know, Brene Brown’s a Houstonian too, so

Marlene Gebauer: yes, she is

Greg Lambert: And and I kind of borrowed from her on my recent blog post about Dolly Parton. So

Marlene Gebauer: That’s right. she interviewed her. I know. Yeah, that was a good interview.

Greg Lambert: Marlene, you may have heard back in October that Brianna Hill was taking the Illinois bar exam. When she went into labor on the first day.

Marlene Gebauer: I did hear about that. Crazy.

Greg Lambert: She was in labor, but she couldn’t leave the room. She couldn’t use the bathroom. And she had to make sure that she passed the facial recognition program tests during the exam, all while in labor. And I can only imagine the face that you know, she was probably making contractions, or

Marlene Gebauer: Can I just say, I just hate people right now, just after hearing that I just hate people?

Greg Lambert: Well, well, and you may remember, she finished the first day exam, she went immediately to the hospital, she delivered the baby. And then and according to her, she, she quote, cleaned herself up the next day, went back and took the exam and finished it. And it turned out she just found out this week she passed the exam.

Marlene Gebauer: Hey, good job. Good job, man. Women can do anything. I’m telling you.

Greg Lambert: You know, while I’m happy that she passed the the exam, I think many of us who thought that the structure of the bar exams this year were unnecessarily complex and cruel, believe that, that this is just an extreme example of that cruelty. And you know, and while Brianna Hill situation was was, you know, fairly obvious and caught national attention, there were scores of other people out there that they had physical and mental struggles, who had to confront barrier after barrier of issues of this bar exam and in through the pandemic, and the completely changing rules and dates as we went along. So, you know, I think all of the state bars as well as in the National Conference of Bar Examiners, they need to take a step back and reevaluate what they’ve done this year, and come up with a better plan for the February and July 2021 Bar Exam.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I mean, I don’t know if they’re gonna be able to get their act together by by February. But you know, you would hope that some changes could be in place by July.

Greg Lambert: What I what I worry about is they think, Oh, well, we’ve got a vaccine coming. Right. You don’t have to we don’t need to change. Go back to normal. Yeah. Which is about right.

Marlene Gebauer: See in that, and that’s, that’s, that’s the thing, that whole that whole mindset, it’s like, oh, we’re just gonna go, you know, back to the way it was. It’s like, Well, here’s an opportunity not to have to do that. So why don’t we take a closer look at what our options are?

Greg Lambert: Yeah. Well, I can see why you’re unhappy with people right now. All right. Well, that’s enough for this week’s

Marlene Gebauer: Wait, wait, wait. I have another one.

Greg Lambert: Oh, I thought you only had one. Oh, no, I

Marlene Gebauer: came up with another one.

Greg Lambert: All right. Let’s go.

Marlene Gebauer: I did. Okay.

[9:06]

Marlene Gebauer: So Greg, my second inspiration is an announcement. So legal innovators, who and we’ve had Bryan Parker and Jonathan Greenblatt on the show. They have a new collaboration with Bechtel Global Corporation. The the pilot that they’re running is going to further support D&E initiatives that are already being explored by Bechtel and working with Junior lawyers in their legal department to assist with legal work.

Greg Lambert: Alright, was that Was that it? Yes. All right. Well, then that wraps up this week’s information inspirations.

Guest Introduction

[9:49]

Marlene Gebauer: Our friend Ryan McClead says that innovation is the taking of a process and improving the experience for the end user. Today’s guest is innovating the consumer arbitration filing process. While most of us know what arbitration is, many of us avoid it because we simply don’t really understand it or think that the big companies have the upper hand in an arbitration process. Today’s guests explains that it may not be the big bad process that we think it is.

Greg Lambert: We’d like to welcome Teel Lidow to the podcast. Teel is the CEO of FairShake, which is an online resource which helps customers automate the process of filing an arbitration claim. FairShake recently received Time Magazine’s Award for Best Innovations of 2020 the 100 Innovations Changing How We Live. So congratulations on that very prestigious award. teal, and welcome to The Geek in Review.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, congratulations.

Teel Lidow: Thank you. Greg. Thanks, Marlene, it’s a pleasure to be here.

Greg Lambert: So Teel, in researching for this conversation, it looks to me like you had a general plan to launch some type of creative business once you graduated from Harvard Law School in 2012. And, you know, I was thinking going into law school in 2009, was like, that was the year everyone was telling everyone not to go to law school. So I’m glad you glad you had a plan for that. But I found a quote of yours. And I think you’re probably in your second or maybe your third year of law school where you said, there are a couple of decades where the most fantastic minds that came here. And I mentioned that was Harvard, that went into industries where they weren’t necessarily developing new ideas. There’s a sense among the people that I work with that that’s been a mistake, we need to harness the creative power of these people to come up with new ideas. So let me just ask, is that was that a 2L talking, or do you still feel like the the industry lacks creativity, and the ability to come up with new ideas?

Teel Lidow: I think it’s a little bit of both, you know, I’ve been around a little bit longer than that. And I’ve been out in the actual industry, and not just looking at it from the perspective of a law student who gets to do you know, creative stuff in class all day, I’ve got an enormous amount of respect for lawyers out there in in your average firm, who I think engage with the law and the entire system in really creative ways every single day. So I think a lot of stuff that might have looked, you know, a little bit more staid to me from afar back then, now, up close, and having had a bit more experience actually looks much more engaged and creative. But that said, You know, I was, like you said, I entered Law School in 2009. And it was just after the financial collapse, and my undergrad was at Princeton, and you know, 70% of my class went into finance and went and, you know, structure, the derivatives that brought down the economy. And those derivatives were actually an incredibly creative, you know, financial innovation. I think I, you know, I think it was coming out of environments, where I was watching a lot of people go into law and finance. And I wasn’t totally thinking of those as particularly innovative industries. And I don’t think I was alone in that. I mean, I think a lot of people in the academy feel that way. And I think a lot of students start out feeling that way, and, you know, begrudgingly go into those industries to pay off their student loans.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, I think creative and accounting was more tongue in cheek.

[13:28]

Teel Lidow: But I do have an enormous amount of respect for people in those industries now, and and the ways that they do creatively engaged to kind of make the system run. And I think I also have a bit more of a respect for the role of just creating a stable system and some of the more conservative aspects and the roles that lawyers playing that, especially kind of coming out of the recent, more tumultuous era in our in our politics and our judicial system. I definitely think that there’s certainly a constructive role to be played by lawyers. It has nothing to do with creativity as well.

Marlene Gebauer: So before we dive in on FairShake, this was not your first dive into the entrepreneurial world. He left the big law world of Cravath in New York and went to the west coast to found a supply chain for the apparel industry. What motivated you to try something so different?

Teel Lidow: That’s a great question. I think, you know, the simplest answer was that I wanted to buy clothes that I knew, you know, whose sources I knew, and they weren’t on the market.

Marlene Gebauer: I totally understand that.

Greg Lambert: I was gonna say you’re talking Marlene’s… you’re talking her language right now.

Teel Lidow: Yeah. So I, you know, I went out to go fill a need that I immediately wanted. As Greg sort of mentioned, I had always wanted to engage with something very creatively and make something and kind of build something from the ground up from before I was even in big law. And in that was just something that called to me that said, this is an opportunity. It’s a gap in the market and and come do it.

Greg Lambert: So let’s get over to the start talking about FairShake. I think many of us have an extremely limited knowledge of consumer arbitration. And I’ll be the first to admit I wouldn’t know where to where to start on arbitration and I have a law degree. So, you know, many of us think of it as a way that, you know, businesses, especially large corporations have to get away from being sued by their customers. And, you know, it’s something that many of us just accept as a norm when we sign these user agreements, or, you know, we buy airline tickets or sign up for services these days. Can you just briefly explain how the American arbitration system works for customers and the businesses? And can you do that in 50 words or less?

Marlene Gebauer: Go!

[15:59]

Teel Lidow: Sure, I think I can, because I think it’s actually a relatively simple and straightforward system that most people don’t understand just because they don’t engage with it. The simplest way to state it is that it’s a non judicial private dispute resolution system in which consumers submit disputes to an attorney or retired judge. And that private adjudicator hears both sides of that dispute and decides who wins. And it’s usually administered by a private organization, a nonprofit, or in some cases, a for profit arbitration provider who does the scheduling and the appointments and sets out some, you know, rough rules and process. But otherwise, it’s a very sort of simple and informal proceeding that usually takes place for consumers over email or over the phone.

Marlene Gebauer: All right, how did you land on the idea of FairShake, now I have it on good authority that It began with a flight from Chile that took 72 hours and involve the drunk passenger. That sounds like a frustrating experience.

Teel Lidow: Yeah, a more extreme version of something that a lot of people have experienced, which is, you know, major flight delays, and, you know, airlines that don’t necessarily want to do anything about them. I was on a really, I had a really bad experience on a flight,

Marlene Gebauer: Sounds like it.

Teel Lidow: airline allowed someone who was visibly drunk to board the plane, and that person assaulted one of the crew members, and we had to make an emergency landing in in Ecuador.

Marlene Gebauer: Wow.

Teel Lidow: And the airline then sort of botched the operations and stranded us in Ecuador, and then Peru for, you know, a good, good, at least an overnight and each one of those places. And there were equipment issues and planes just weren’t brought to, you know, the right place at the right time. And and a whole planeload of people were kind of corralled in these hotels and these waiting areas for you know, full 72 hours.

Marlene Gebauer: Terrible.

[18:50]

Teel Lidow: At some point in that process. The airline group does all together and walked through this crowd handing out these pieces of paper that contained a release on them that said that we wouldn’t do anything about this issue. And in you know, in considered consideration for that was a $300 flight voucher. And, you know, people on this plane, there is there were newlyweds on this plane, who are missing their honeymoon. You know, there are probably 20 elderly people in wheelchairs who had to be moved around to all of these airport hotels and off to hotels and bused back and forth in the middle of the night. It was just, you know, it was just a disaster that was basically clearly caused by the airline’s actions. And then, you know, their inability to kind of fix what, what they had caused. And I looked at that paper, and I thought it was a joke. And when I got back home, I went through the actual, you know, consumer dispute process, it was laid out for me. And it was, it was sort of a revelation, because it was very easy to access, it was very easy to go through. And as soon as I accessed it, the company started treating me like a real human being and coming to the table and trying to understand the damage that I had experienced and trying to figure out how they could negotiate a kind of fair resolution to it. And yeah, that was the seed of FairShake. I actually didn’t go through that experience and say, I should turn this into a business. I went through that experience. And I started talking to people about it, because it was so mind blowing, that I could get an airline to take me seriously. I started talking, you know, just sort of informally to my friends and my family just saying, hey, this wild thing happened to me a giant company, you know, treated me like a human being, like called me up on the phone and everyone I talked to said, I want that experience. I have an issue that I haven’t been able to get resolved for six months with, you know, my bank, or my uncle has an issue with their telco that they haven’t, you know, been able to get resolved for you And, and they just feel steamrolled by it. So there’s clearly a lot of appetite. And I think just, you know, hearing everyone I mentioned this to say, I want that kind of tickled that entrepreneurial nerve in me. And I started to realize there’s a real market and a real hunger for this.

Greg Lambert: Interesting. So the just a follow up on that. I’m assuming that you were able to go through this process, because you didn’t sign that paper they were coming through with and you didn’t take the $300 voucher. But I think a lot of us, you know, they we just see that is, you know, oh, that’s what we got to take that we don’t really have an option.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, that’s, that’s, that’s the cost of doing business. Right? Yeah. You know, it’s like, okay, it happens. And so we just do it.

[21:10]

Teel Lidow: Totally. And, you know, and what’s going on in your head is your thinking, I could do something else about this, but it’s gonna be so complex, time consuming, costly, it’s not even worth it. So you know, what, you win. And this is all I got, and everyone in that crowd, except for us, I’m that piece of paper, you know, and everyone made that same calculation, you know, I could try to fight this, but it’s going to be too hard. And, you know, I think that that’s where back in the 2000s, in the 90s, the class action systems sort of played a role because they allowed consumers to really efficiently grouped together and pursue these things, as you know, as a class in a way that brought those administrative costs, you know, down very low on an individual basis, to nothing. Basically, the class actions really just relied on a single lawyer and a single plaintiff doing all the work and everyone else would have free rode on that, and, you know, maybe got a check for, you know, 10 bucks in the mail or something. And the arbitration system really killed that. So, you know, I think what most people don’t realize is that the origin of consumer arbitration was really to make class action waivers enforceable. And in 2011, there was a very important Supreme Court case, that said that state attempts and state court attempts to hold that class action waivers were unenforcible, were themselves preempted by federal law. And what that did was it just blessed arbitration clauses and class action waivers. And after that point, almost every single transaction that you enter into comes along with this arbitration clause and class action waiver, they make you go through the system individually. And now everyone’s going through it individually, again, you go through that same calculation where you just say, I have to fight this alone. And it’s just gonna be too hard. I’m not even gonna try. And so customer service or whoever tells you the buzz off when you bring your dispute to them. And you as an American consumer, assume all right, it stops here. And I have to, I have to accept that there’s nowhere else I can efficiently go with it.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, it sounds like the the experience, typically people see arbitration as a bad experience. And that really kind of brings me to this next thought, which is, a friend of ours defines innovation is taking a process and improving the experience for the end user. So how are you innovating the arbitration filing process with FairShake?

Teel Lidow: Yeah, so we’re just making it easier and simpler. I mean, we’re taking that calculation that you do, where you say, this is going to be too complex, too costly, too time consuming, and we’re removing that complexity, we’re removing that cost. And we’re just making it really, really easy for you to access this system. So the innovation isn’t really bringing anything groundbreaking to the table, it’s really actually just removing the sort of stodgy or, you know, more complex parts to accessing the system in the first place. And what that means, is taking downloadable PDF forms that you have to go and, you know, track down online, and, you know, instead putting them behind a really user friendly web form that, you know, you find on our side, it’s taking the mailing and the filing processes, which are just burdensome. You know, who even knows how to mail a certified letter anymore? I mean, you know, when was the last time you went to a post office and put the little like green strap around a letter

Greg Lambert: when my health club when my health club demanded that I do that in order to cancel my membership

Marlene Gebauer: at the post office today, and they do it for you now.

Teel Lidow: Oh, that’s nice. Well, it’s like a COVID thing?

Marlene Gebauer: Yes, it’s a COVID thing.

Teel Lidow: I think a lot of people have younger generations now. Like that. Not even a thing you ever did. And those small administrative hurdles to accessing the system the fact that you need to mail letter that needs to be accounted for and tracked the fact that you need to figure out what a filing system is, which is like a piece of legalese sort of, like pseudo legalese, because it’s not even, you know, attached in the public judicial system. You know, those things dissuade a lot of people, but, but we stick them behind, you know, friendly dashboards, friendly web forums, and a lot of, you know, a lot of helpful content as much as we can put up without sort of crossing UPL (unauthorized practice of law) guidelines. So really, you know, really, it’s just about simplicity. And I think, you know, at risk of using something that a lot of startups, you know, use to describe themselves, like, think about TurboTax. And you could go and file your taxes, you could fill out the 1040, you can download it, fill it out, you could find which attachments you need to attach to it, the schedules and fill those schedules out, you could figure out how to get that to the IRS. I don’t know how you do that nowadays, you probably can still mail it, I’m sure. But you know, you’ll you’re having to pay TurboTax 30 bucks to walk you through that with a handful of simple questions, and then allow you to file it at the click of a button. And we do a similar thing with just knocking down the administrative hurdles and the cost accessing the system.

[26:38]

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I totally understand what you’re saying about sort of a process that is foreign to people and basically, making it such that instead of them having to go and seek out how it’s done. It’s basically put in front of them, and moves, you know, as they move through the system. And my kids are still trying to figure out the stamps, just just just just for the just for the record.

Teel Lidow: There’s another aspect of this too, which is that you guys are lawyers, and you know, legal systems, and you probably even know that there’s a thing called arbitration and maybe even where to look in a contract to find the instructions on how to access this thing. But the vast majority of Americans don’t even know that they’re bound to an arbitration clause. I mean, there are surveys around on this, and people don’t even know what it is they don’t even, you know, they don’t even have the vocabulary to know that the system exists. So the other thing that we’re doing that’s a non innovative innovation is just spreading the word and educating.

Marlene Gebauer: Educating. Yeah. Yeah, say making people more aware of what their rights and obligations are under contract.

Teel Lidow: Yeah, exactly.

Marlene Gebauer: That’s a good thing. So I mean, I imagine individuals are loving the service that you’re providing, you know, how are the companies reacting to what FairShake is doing? any challenges that you’re facing and providing the service?

Teel Lidow: Yeah, so we process claims against over 80 companies now. A lot of big name consumer brands out there. And there is a huge diversity and how those companies engage with the claimants coming through the system engage with us, as someone who’s facilitating these disputes. And some companies sort of take the high ground where, you know, they say, we designed the system, you know, we designed it because we thought it was preferable to the class action system. And we made the arguments in the Supreme Court and in the lower courts into the state legislators that this would actually be a usable, consumer friendly way to resolve disputes. And I think that there are lots of large companies that do a fantastic job of trying to live up to that. I think that even those companies were not used to the sort of dispute volume that is generated by our particular channel. And even those companies have operational issues kind of rising to the new volume in this system, which is over the last couple of years, it’s an order of magnitude higher. And then you’ve got other companies that are going to take every opportunity that they have to try to avoid liability altogether. Even liability that that comes from, you know, very understandable and meaningful disputes that are clearly you know, caused by the company’s actions, and maybe that they could even resolve in very cost effective and efficient and simple ways. You know, I think arbitration is sort of a wild west. And there are plenty of ways new novel experimental ways to shut down claims in the system, because there are very few rules around it. And I think we’ve we’ve seen a lot of, you know, creative engagement with the arbitration system over the last couple of years as companies, some companies attempt to use it to just shut down the whole universe of consumer claims altogether. And then other other companies really try and turn it into what they marketed it as it’s supposed to be, which is a fair and efficient way to resolve these disputes. So So yeah, a diversity.

[30:19]

Marlene Gebauer: All right. Are there any industries in particular that you find, you know, easier to, or harder to approach?

Teel Lidow: You know, it’s really, it’s really about companies. So we are in, you know, eight or nine major industries, the largest of which are probably telcos, wireless, ISP, cable, satellite TV type companies, and personal finance, you know, banking, credit cards, stuff like that. And within those, you know, we’ve probably got 30 companies just within those two industries, and you have the entire spectrum within each industry, you’ve got companies, that will go to lengths to make it as uncomfortable and hard a process on their customers as possible. And then you’ve got companies that are really putting a lot of effort into making this as efficient away as possible to, you know, identify their customers who’ve had a really bad time, and get them some sort of efficient resolution that turns them from, you know, brand detractors into into brand promoters. You know, I could say the same with almost every other industry, we’ve got major sort of like gig economy, ride share, and, you know, vacation rental companies, that some of whom are spectacular, and they quickly, you know, come to the table with claimants, and they’ll enter into good faith negotiations. And a lot of if a claim is has no legs under it, it settles for nothing at all, or, you know, a tiny, tiny bit. And the claim into something legitimately bad has happened to them. And it’s traceable to the company’s actions, they get their problem solved in a way that’s much cheaper than any sort of litigation.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah. I mean, I was gonna bring that up. I mean, there’s, there’s got to be a benefit on both sides in terms of the streamlining process, because, you know, you kind of get to the point a lot quicker in terms of Okay, you know, where’s where’s the nugget here in terms of, you know, the facts and, and just, you know, getting there quicker? It’s, I mean, it’s got to be beneficial to the the companies as well, rather than, like spending all the time on, you know, long arbitration?

[32:31]

Teel Lidow: Yeah, I think that there’s a clear if you just think in terms of like, I guess, I would say rationality, there’s like a clear right answer on how the system should be used. And it is a system that I think can really efficiently resolve disputes and lead to much lower cost, resolving real liability out there, then the former class action system, or then, like the small claims court system, or just the general court system. Like the system is designed in a way that it can be really, really efficient. I think there are companies that view this as a long term game, and have made a strategic decision to invest significant amounts of resources into trying to dissuade people from using the system. And, you know, definitely trying to dissuade us as a company from helping people use the system. And that’s a bet that they’re making, you know, they’re they’re willing to pay 10 $15,000 to fight $150 claim, repeatedly, thousands of times. And, you know, I think that there are a lot of companies that seem to just decide that that’s a, that’s a the right thing to do. You know, I think that they’re generally not understanding that they’re not faced with a plainness firm, that they can kind of fight once and show that they can stand out to it and then won’t happen. Again, they’re faced with an individual consumer, who’s not a repeat player. And if they put that individual consumer through hell, the next individual consumers not probably not going to know about it. And and so all that cost doesn’t signal. Right. And and I think that they also don’t necessarily, you know, understand that they’re just one company amongst hundreds or thousands of companies in the system, and that their actions aren’t going to stop consumers from using the system. And that as long as consumers as a whole understand that the system is there and usable, their customers are going to be using it. So I think the companies that are putting up these, like very expensive fights to try and make it as hard as possible. You know, I think eventually they’ll come around and realize that it’s not really having the intended sort of signaling effect. And they’re really they’re really just torturing some customers who already have had a bad experience with them. And that’s not a good way to deal with it.

Greg Lambert: Now, I noticed that in the instructions, the the overview of of fairshake, that you say if it gets to a certain point, you can refer them out to an attorney that that will help them. Does it get to that point very often.

Teel Lidow: So we actually don’t, we don’t refer claims out to attorneys. What we do is, much like your insurance company will hire an attorney to represent you if you’re going to a car accident. If we think that and we have We have a stake in each one of these claims. And that’s our business model, if we think that our stake is going to be more valuable, if we go out and pay for an attorney to represent you, we’ll do that. And that’s, that’s something that we do with, with most claims on a very limited scope and an extremely limited scope. So almost every claim that comes through our doors, is receiving some sort of extremely limited scope, legal service, it’s not something that we guarantee in any way, or that we would guaranteed it every claim coming in the door. But you know, we find it that small amounts of incredibly efficiently delivered legal services really do smooth out the process and make it a much more effective and efficient process.

[36:07]

Greg Lambert: What about, you know, this is 2020. So we can’t have an interview without talking about the pandemic. So has has this year created any additional challenges for you? And for fair shake? You know, there’s there’s just been a number, obviously, a number of shut downs. You know, people are working from home, including lawyers and arbitrators. So are you able to help consumers with the arbitration issues through the panda? Oh, yeah,

Teel Lidow: I mean, this, the arbitration system, I think, is an essential tool for the pandemic. And it’s actually been something that we as a company have seen a significant boost from the consumer issues that come out of the crazy stuff that’s happening to our economy. And the glorious thing about consumer arbitration is that it is really a remote process, there’s no clerk’s office, you need to go to there’s no courtroom, you need to show up, and you don’t need a judge in chambers, the vast majority of this stuff takes place over email in the phone. And actually, the vast, vast majority of it never even touches an arbitrator, the system is set up in a way that really is meant to promote more plain language, direct negotiations between the parties and sort of fast fare settlements. And that’s, that tends to be how it plays out. And this is a completely remote system that’s designed to be simple, that’s designed to be nationwide and uniform and easily accessible through online interfaces. And that is exactly what we need in a time where everyone’s stuck at home.

Marlene Gebauer: So what’s the next big thing for fair shake, and for you, personally,

Teel Lidow: we’ve got we’ve got a lot of growth, to go through. But you know, I think that the next big step, we we’re a fairly new company. And we’ve helped 10s of thousands of people through this process now, but we’re still just a tiny, you know, tiny little blip on on everyone’s screen. A lot of the companies that we process claims against, you know, these are fortune 100 companies that don’t pay attention to you until you’re you’re much larger than than we are. And I think that we’re really out to make the whole arbitration system live up to its what it was marketed as this fair and efficient system. And that requires a lot of these companies to also decide that that’s what they’re going to do to the day value the system that they want it to persist, that it’s better than the old system. And they know they need to engage in good faith with it. And as we grow, our big challenge is to really bring those companies to the table and get them to realize that the arbitration system is not a nuisance, it’s not your enemy. It’s your creation. And that you you need to kind of engage with it in a constructive way. And having those conversations bringing companies around to realize that getting the companies that are you know, throwing piles of money into the fire or just trying to dissuade people from using this system to to change their minds. I mean, that that’s our that’s our next task. And as we as we get larger as we become a bigger line item on these on these companies budgets, we we have a bigger voice there. And really, it’s about constructively using that voice to bring everyone to the table and make sure that this thing can be what it’s supposed to be.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, thank you Teel Lidow for taking the time to join us and congratulations again on the Time magazine award for one of the hundred best innovations of 2020

Teel Lidow: Thank you. It’s been a pleasure talking to you.

[39:50]

Greg Lambert: Marlene, it’s nice to have someone on the show who’s won a Time Magazine award. Can you believe somebody? Like,

Marlene Gebauer: I was like, wow, I’m feeling like we’re much more important than we really are.

Greg Lambert: It makes makes me feel like we’ve probably made it as a podcast. So I wanted also thank Owen Byrd from Lex Machina for helping me get to on the show today. So thanks. Oh, and

Marlene Gebauer: thank you, Owen.

Greg Lambert: Well, I will be the first to admit that I’ve always thought that these arbitration clauses and Consumer Contracts were just the big barriers that were way too complicated for me to actually use so right, but after this, both researching for this interview and hearing from teal about the reasoning and the process of consumer arbitration, you know, I’m kind of a convert on it. So now I’m going to go, you know, pull one of these companies into arbitration.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I’m just gonna do it. Well, I mean, just just his experience. Him sharing his experience and how that was the impetus for for this, he basically did what no one else did, because they all thought it was gonna be too hard. And he was quite successful. And he’s made it even, you know, more easy than it was before.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. Well, once again, thanks to Teek Ledow for taking some time to talk with us on today’s show. And you can learn more about teal and fairshake by going to FairShake.com

Marlene Gebauer: thanks again Teel. Before we go, we want to remind listeners to take the time to subscribe on Apple podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, read and review us as well. If you have comments about today’s show, or suggestions for a future show, you can reach us on Twitter at @gebauerm or at @glambert. Or you can call the Geek in Review Hotline at 713-487-7270 or email us at geek review. podcast@gmail.com And as always, the music here is from Jerry David DeCicca. Thank you, Jerry.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, thanks, Jerry. All right, Marlene, I will talk with you later.

Marlene Gebauer: Okay, Happy Shopping.

The Leadership and Management Styles of Dolly Parton

Tue, 24 Nov 2020 17:04:40 GMT

As with everyone else in the world, the pandemic destroyed my morning routine. My thirty-minute drive to the office is literally just rolling out of bed and putting up a green screen in front of the computer at the foot of my bed. It took me a long time to find another process of finding time for myself, and not just jumping straight into work, or begin doom scrolling social media. And again, like many of you, that meant getting out of the house and going for a walk around my neighborhood. It was in that walk this week that I ran out of my normal podcast episodes and began scanning something that I would hope would be interesting to fill the next hour or so.

One of the podcasts that I listen to during times like this is from one of my fellow Houstonians, Brené Brown, and her Unlocking Us podcast. It was the 19th most popular podcast, so it’s not exactly a hidden gem that I uncovered, and it’s not the first time I’ve listened either. There’s a great episode from a few weeks ago about the TV show Ted Lasso that was great and made me binge all ten episodes with my wife that same day. But this week’s episode was with Dolly Parton, and that’s just a must listen in my book. I was expecting Brené to talk with Dolly about her typical topics of shame, empathy, vulnerability, and courage. But, it was the unexpected business advice that Dolly lays out in the interview that caught my attention. Since this week is Thanksgiving here in the US, I thought I’d take a personal privilege with the blog and share this with you.

Dolly Parton runs a multi-million dollar organization and a brand that is practically priceless. She has a great personality and presents herself as just a nice person. And, to all accounts, she is. But, you don’t get to where she is in life and in business by being soft in business. She mentions that there have been a number of people over the years who have mistaken her kindness for softness, and she’s called them out on that.

Here are a few takeaways from Brené’s interview on management and leadership from Dolly Parton:

As a Leader, What Pisses You Off?
People not being on time. It shows a lack of respect, not just for the leadership, but for everyone else who is affected by it.

Employees are hired to get the job done. If someone can’t do what they said they would do, or get it done when they said it would be done, then there’s a problem. You’re being paid to do a job, and if you don’t take it seriously, or you think you can get a better job, then go somewhere else.

Being a Leader
As a leader, it is important to know when it is your responsibility to be the one who lets someone go (after all, you have managers of departments for a reason.) It is important to be honest and sincere. It is okay to be empathetic toward the person who is being let go. In fact, when you don’t find yourself feeling compassion for a person who is about to lose their job, it may be time to look at yourself and why you’ve lost that empathy.

Have Boundaries
It might hurt to tell people no, but you have to learn to say no. Understand when those around you are infringing upon your boundaries, and make sure that they know what the boundaries are, and make sure they do not cross those.

While I don’t think that Dolly Parton had any earth-shattering advice in her discussion with Brené Brown, sometimes you need to hear someone with her stature and humility talk about what it means to be a leader. It’s gratifying to hear from someone who has great success who also has some of the same issues with leading others as most of us have.

The Geek in Review Ep. 95 – Spotting Bias and Politicization of Local News Sources – Loyd ...

Thu, 19 Nov 2020 11:19:31 GMT

We live in a society that cannot seem to come to an agreement on what is truth and what are lies. People are seeking out stories that back up their beliefs rather than seek out the truths which may undermine those beliefs. We particularly see this on social media, but there are other sites out there which pass themselves off as local news organization which is really just biased sources designed to play upon the needs of people to have their “truths” backed up with like-minded articles. We asked Dave Boitano, a veteran reporter, and Loyd Auerbach, an experienced newscaster, author, and Knowledge & Research Consultant for LexisNexis, to come on the show and discuss the current state of news at the local levels in the US. While the current situation may seem unique to the 21st Century, there are actually parallels to a previous news era over a hundred years ago. Boitano and Auerbach help explain those similarities, and how information professionals, and readers of “news content” can protect themselves from sources which attempt to present information from a biased view.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

Just because you may have access to great information doesn’t mean you can do anything you want with it. A current lawsuit brought by the Center for Workplace (CWC) against the Labor & Employment firm of Littler is an alleged example of this. CWC claims that a couple of lawyers illegally took their Intellectual Property and claimed it as their own. Now there’s an ongoing $1.65 million lawsuit to take it back. Librarians and Information Professionals can use this example to remind others of the limitations of how we can license and use information properly.

Apparently, a reporter may give up their writing, but they won’t give up their podcast. A recent episode of Press Box talks about the Substack model where readers pay directly for content, and writers like Matt Yglesias split from writing for Vox and publish on Substack.

There are a couple of other podcast episodes that we touch on in this episode. The bias of local news isn’t just a right-wing or just a left-wing concept. To learn more on this topic check out The NY Times’ The Daily episode on Brian Timpone’s Metric Media Brand (A Partisan Future for Local News?) and Freakonomics Podcast episode on Tara McGowan’s ACRONYM Digital Media (Why the Left Had to Steal the Right’s Dark-Money Playbook.)

On a side-note, Loyd Auerbach’s book, Near Death, was released recently.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

The Geek in Review Ep. 94 – Helping Startups Get Their Start – Dr. Jacqueline Walsh

Thu, 12 Nov 2020 11:17:15 GMT

We talked about Dr. Jacqueline Walsh’s Initio Tech and Innovation Clinic in a previous Information Inspiration segment. We were so inspired by her work that we asked her to come on the show and tell us more. The Initio clinic is set up just like a law firm. In fact, it is actually recognized by the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society as a law firm. Dr. Walsh uses a combination of law students, articling clerks, and the local community to help create a great experience for her startup clients, and as a result an enjoyable and authentic experience for the students in the clinic. While the clinic isn’t self-sustaining, it does charge startups for legal services. This is another unique aspect of the clinic in that it offers ad hoc services or a subscription-based service to clients. The idea is to train startups to understand that legal costs are part of doing business and that if they are serious about their business, planning, and budgeting for legal expenses is another part of their business.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

Bryan Parker and Jon Greenblatt from Legal Innovators have a new podcast called The Law in Black and White where they give their views on certain topics facing the legal industry from their own unique perspectives.

The Innovation Hub podcast discusses how COVID has impacted public schooling, and how innovative and creative parents are finding ways to work around those schools who are not adjusting fast enough to handle the needs of these parents and their children. It’s an interesting look at how adapting to change is happening on all sides, and those who are slow to adjust may have unforeseen competition.

We all know that the incentive for diversity within law firms can run counter to the profitability goals of the firm. Former BigLaw partner, Elizabeth Korchin thinks one way to align these incentives and goals is to blow up the billable hour. She thinks it can be done by 2030. Our fellow 3 Geeks’ blogger, Toby Brown, takes another angle on the incentives/goals approach and suggests that clients need to push firms to achieve more diverse teams, but that clients also need to put their money where their mouths are and make sure that they pay appropriately for these diverse teams.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to The Geek in Review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.

Greg Lambert: And I’m Greg Lambert. So Marlene, sometimes our previous inspirations are so inspiring that we expand it to our main interview on a later podcast episode.

Marlene Gebauer: That’s right.

Greg Lambert: And this is going to be one of those episodes. So we asked Dr. Jacqueline Walsh from the initio tech and innovation Law Clinic at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, hoo… that’s a lot of words there.

Marlene Gebauer: So I was gonna say that was really good, props to you for getting through that

Greg Lambert: We get through the whole thing. So we talked about her clinic in the last episode. And so we asked her to come on and talk more about it. It’s a great way to support startups there in the Atlantic Canadian region. But we’re also hoping that this idea which inspired us may also inspire some of you.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, that’s a lot of inspirations.

Greg Lambert: Yes it is.

Marlene Gebauer: Which leads us to this week’s information inspirations.

Information Inspirations

Greg Lambert: Marlene, I can’t prove it with any absolute certainty. But I think that we may have been the inspiration for a few of our former guests to go out and just launch their own podcast.

Marlene Gebauer: Wouldn’t that be cool?

Greg Lambert: It is cool, I think. But, you know, I’m hoping that’s because, you know, we make it so easy and fun and informative. But now that I think about it, maybe it’s because we do such a bad job. They’re like we could do we could do this better. Hopefully not. Hopefully, it’s the the the former,

Marlene Gebauer: the former because everybody does say that after they come on.

Greg Lambert: Well, the newest podcast launched by a former guest is The Law in Black and White from Bryan Parker and Jon Greenblatt. And they have teamed up with Bob Ambrogi son, Ben, and his production company called Populus Radio. The podcast is super well done. I really enjoyed listening to it. Bryan and Jon do an episode every other week. And they have these great conversations from their own different perspectives to certain situations. And it’s a great idea and format for a podcast. So if you get a chance, get out there and listen and until Bryan and Jon that we sent you to their podcast.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, please subscribe to them, too. So speaking of podcasts, I was listening to a podcast called Innovation Hub. And they had one recently on how COVID has impacted public schooling. Now we all know COVID is impacted public schools. But yeah, we all know that.

Greg Lambert: I’m just glad I don’t have children in school. Right? Yeah,

Marlene Gebauer: You know, please, please don’t rub it in. But what was particularly interesting about this episode is the message that schools were not ready for a high tech environment, it was kind of thrust upon them. But in fact, this has been a problem for years, because there’s not been adequate investment, in trying to even develop such a system. And as public schools struggle, now, parents and students are making adjustments to find solutions that work better for their needs. Some are supplementing public school, some are moving away from public schools entirely, by going private, or homeschooling, or even pooling resources with neighbors to buy a teacher for their kids. You know, it just reminds me in our industry, of the importance of always being innovative and keeping your eye on the client’s pulse. Of course, also making sure you invest the time and money in making changes that will give clients what they want.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, you sent this to me earlier in the week, and I listened to it today. And the whole idea of we need a Marshall Plan for our public schools because they’re, you know, so far behind and this idea that you mentioned what these school pods were, they’re buying teachers to come in and teach a group of kids in a neighborhood. I mean, it’s you got to think that, you know, people are being creative on this. And when you’re thrown into a situation where the normal rules are tossed out, you know, the creative people are the ones that tend to make the most impact.

Marlene Gebauer: That’s right.

Greg Lambert: All right. Well, I’ve got a couple of interesting articles about how law firms can improve upon their diversity and inclusion among their lawyers. The first one is a Law360 article from a former Hogan Lovells partner, Elizabeth Korchin, who is now at thorium Capital Management. The other article was written by our fellow three geeks blogger Toby Brown. In Korchin’s approach, she talks about something that we’ve heard a lot about, and that is, the billable hour is the major impediment to diversity. And she notes that until diversity incentives and diversity goals at law firms are fundamentally aligned, we just won’t move forward with closing that diversity gap and large law firms. The only real way that she thinks to align these incentives and goals is to blow up the billable hour model. And she’s giving us well, I guess, nine years now to complete it, and she thinks it can be done by 2030. If we really want to achieve the goal of a fundamentally diverse law firm structure,

Marlene Gebauer: you know, if if, if we really want to achieve the goal is sort of the the main focus there, I have your what you just said, You know, I keep thinking I think keeping thinking of environmental challenges. And it’s like, yeah, if we really want to do it, we can, but do we really want to do it?

Greg Lambert: Yeah, yeah. And I think that everyone knows that that’s a huge mountain to climb. And that brings me over to Toby’s blog post. And he’s suggesting that in today’s law firm environment, we have a goal of these diverse legal teams, especially driven by clients who build these goals into the outside counsel guidelines, yeah, and into their missions. And so they, you know, these clients even give incentives to achieve these goals. However, Toby also mentions that there is one major issue, that is also a goal / incentive from the client side. And that is to ask for discounts or to slash the rates on the outside legal team. And that means that those diverse lawyers who are on the matters, get their rates cut, which means that they end up being less profitable, and then are punished when it comes evaluation time. So in addition to firms changing their behavior, especially even on the valuation time, Toby suggests that clients also put their money where their mouth is, and stop asking for diverse teams, and then pulling the rug out from underneath them by asking for reduced rates from those diverse teams. So it’s an interesting argument from from both sides of the billable hour and its problems to blowing up the billable hour and those problems as well.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, well, I have to say Toby’s point is, you know, fair, right? And, and, but you know, I’m thinking about Hortons thought. And if you could basically set rates ahead of time, you wouldn’t have the problem. So you know that that does seem like a good solution for meeting diversity goals.

Greg Lambert: Maybe we can blend those and get this accomplished by 2030.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah. Well right. Let’s do it.

Greg Lambert: And that wraps up this week’s information inspirations.

Guest Interview

Marlene Gebauer: One of the expenses that startups faced is legal costs. It’s something that should be built into a business plan. But many startups don’t understand how to plan and budget for legal costs. Dr. Jacqui Walsh from the initio tech and innovation Law Clinic in Halifax is working with startups in Nova Scotia, and helping them understand and plan for those legal costs.

Greg Lambert: Dr. Jacqueline Walsh is the director of Initio Tech and Innovation Law Clinic at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. So the Initio project is designed to help startups get started by assisting them with some of their basic legal needs. Dr. Walsh, thanks for taking some time out of your busy schedule to talk with us today.

Jacqui Walsh: Thank you for having me.

Marlene Gebauer: We had talked about Initio as one of our information inspirations on a previous show, it sounds like a great clinic, would you tell us a little bit about the program and what inspired you to start it?

Jacqui Walsh: So I wish I could take credit for starting it. But I did not come up with the idea. The idea was, came about from our dean of our law school, Camille Cameron, and some of the other administrators. I applied for a job in an ad sounded like a perfect storm for all my past experience. And something I really wanted to be part of. The local ecosystem in Nova Scotia has become very interested in growing technology companies as a means to diversify the economy. It’s a region of Canada that has been hit by downturn in natural resources. So there’s a lot of interest in the whole movement of entrepreneurs, and technology entrepreneurs in particular, are something that we’re really trying in the ecosystem to help grow. So when I saw this, I thought, gee, this would be a really fun. So I applied for the job, gave up my tenured job in business faculty and decided that this would be a really fun changing career.

Greg Lambert: You rolled the dice on this one, then.

Jacqui Walsh: I did. It’s a lot of fun.

Greg Lambert: Well, tell us a little bit about the people that are involved on this both on on the faculty side with you, as well as the students and others. I know, I know, you have others who participate in the program as well.

Jacqui Walsh: Yeah, so you know, the saying it takes a village, there’s so many different people involved in it, at least the way we have it set up. And so we have, first of all, the administration at the law school, are very important. It’s really a non core function of an academic institution. But still it gets great support. We have amazing donors who are the reason why we are up and running. A local law firm, Stewart McKelvey, gave us $300,000, over three years to get the clinic started. And I have an articling student, which is sponsored by another donor of the Schulich family. I’ve had summer interns helping getting started and their interns are all sponsored by people. So it’s really been a lot of support from our alumni and the local community to get us up and running. So that’s really helpful. So in addition to that we have, we have lawyers in the community. Now I haven’t yet reached out to them like some other models have done and come to use them. As practicing with the clinic, I haven’t sorted out the best way to do that. But they’re great to reach out to students do memos on different legal issues, and I reach out to them to talk to the students, I’ve had my friend who’s a tax lawyer last week speaking to a student and help them write a memo, kind of in laypersons terms. So there’s all kinds of people who are really working with the clinic and supporting the clinic. This morning, I was on a call with several other players at the university, we had like a dal innovates group of people. So a lot of the sandboxes feed the client into the clinic, so I get a lot of referrals from other aspects of even the university community.

Greg Lambert: Does the law firm that helped get you started? Or are they involved beyond just the initial funding, or ….

Jacqui Walsh: Other than being great supporters and one of the partners is coming out, I do PD every week with my students. And one of the partners is going to come on next week and talk about innovation in the practice of law with us. Other than that they’re very hands off, and they want to be hands off. So we’re not aligned with any particular law firm.

Greg Lambert: That sounds great.

Jacqui Walsh: Yes. If you want to look at that way. I mean, some of the challenges have been we don’t want to be seen as competing, we’re public institution, you know, it’s unfair competition in some ways, because they’re I don’t have to charge for the services. And I think we’ll probably touch on that. But if the client has already been out with an engaged with a law firm, we will not take them on as a client. We don’t like to be seen as kind of taking clients away. So one of our criteria for actually coming in as a client would be Have you engaged with another local law firm? I don’t know if that saw if they say No, I don’t. I don’t follow up. I just you know, it’s an honor system, but it just doesn’t seem right for us to be taking clients from from other firms.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, I’m very happy to hear about the great support that you have in your community for the clinic. What does the startup environment look like in Nova Scotia? What do startups typically ask for when they approach Initio?

Jacqui Walsh: So the startup community is growing, especially the tech sector. And we take a very broad view of the tech sector, in all Canada, but in Atlantic Canada, as I say, we’re trying to diversify the economy, there’s never a better time than right now for government support for startups, the government grant and the different programs that are available, even VC type funding for very, very early stages can be government funded here, there’s so many support networks. So there’s really a lot going on. And it’s taken time like in any ecosystem, but we’ve started to form more of a sense of community and helping each other out. The clinic wants to be part of that bigger solution. So we spend a lot of time trying to figure out where we fit in, where we can have the greatest impact. And it seems like we come in at the very early, early stage, and that is, ideation, I have an idea. I don’t know if I own it, if I can sell it, you know, freedom to operate, and all those kinds of things. So the startups come to us with, you know, every possible question. Many of them just don’t even know the difference between director or shareholder. Some of them come more advanced, they’ve actually started a few startups with a professor. So it really varies. But at the end of the day, we do a lot of incorporations. A lot of shareholder agreements. We do a lot of service level agreements, you know, very, very basic things. And I have to remember, I have students who work in the clinic with me, which is a big part of what we do. The students get credit, they give me 15 hours a week. And so we want to make sure that they’re getting a good experience too. So we don’t go too high level with the legal services. But there’s not much we won’t tackle. We’re not trademark agents or patent agents, but we really try to help them out, even liaison with the Patent Agent and help them that way.

Marlene Gebauer: Now, are you finding that this is there’s more of a Canadian focus in terms of some of the the legal requests that they have? Or is it broader?

Jacqui Walsh: So right now our clients are restricted to Nova Scotia. for a lot of reasons, the funding is in Nova Scotia, the schools in Nova Scotia, the students are allowed under the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Association, to practice law, if they’re part of a clinic at the Dalhousie law school. As long as there’s a supervisor, I don’t think that is a legislation that’s common in other provinces in Canada, I don’t know about the US so there’s certain restrictions on what they can and cannot do. And quite simply, I do not have the reach. Right now I’m very busy. So dealing with the students is a lot of work. And I don’t say that in a disparaging way, but they’re learning so it would take twice as long to deal with the client matter because the student does the drafting and, and I help the student learn and the students come to every single client meeting with me and they’re fully engaged right from the very, very beginning from the first consultation. So it’s a lot of work and we’re constantly trying to become more efficient so we can get things out the door faster.

Greg Lambert: Now in this this clinic, how do you set up the model for it? Is it you just throw the students in day one into a into some work that exists? Or is there some classwork and then you throw them into helping the startups, how’s the business model of this work?

Jacqui Walsh: The idea came from the law school, but they gave me absolute authority to set up the business model anyway I wanted which was quite fun. So I spent a lot of time thinking about you know, what do clients need and this all comes back to the student experience because my philosophy is if the, if the clients have a good experience, they will keep coming and if I have legitimate well intended people interested in starting businesses, so the client my students will ultimately have the best experience. So we are a practicing law firm. We are registered with the with the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society. So we have all the the normal requirements of any law firm, the students sign up, they have to write a short essay on why they want to become part of the clinic. And I try to keep the barriers low. So the prereqs are just showing me some interest in basic corporate law courses and then some interest in either intellectual property or technology law or business law. And we’re very new. I probably should have said that from the beginning, we’re This is my first semester taking students. So it’s a bit premature to actually talk about how successful we are. But we’re doing very well. And it’s an easy sell

Greg Lambert: goes go heavy claim success right out the gate. That’s, that’s what that’s what most of us. So, just out of curiosity, how many students? How many students do you have in this first go round?

Jacqui Walsh: So I am allowed to take up to 15. Until Well, I have kind of said, I’ll get to 15. But again, it’s early days, the pandemic left and very uncertain how many clients we would get. So I wanted to start small. So I have three students this semester, plus my articling student. Next semester, I’ll have six students. So I need to come and grow the clients in order for there to be enough work for the students. So I’m kind of gradually building now.

Marlene Gebauer: Now you mentioned earlier that you have a broad definition of technical or technology startups. So what what type of you know, what’s your target market and the types of startups that you’re you’re attracting and trying to attract?

Jacqui Walsh: One of the good things about the clinic is I don’t have to kind of rank the companies that come in, if they’re going to be successful or not, you know, I try to help them be successful. But I don’t need to weed them out from perspective. Because my mandate, when I took the job was technology. I keep it very broad, because a lot of companies need this kind of early stage legal assistance. So we kind of look at anybody who’s making technology, so developing technology, or anyone who’s using technology to make their products or services. So as long as it’s innovative. And that in and of itself can be a very broad term. I know, as long as it’s innovative. So we have clients, we have an indoor vertical farm, because the technology the entrepreneurs using is quite innovative. So and we have, we have people in all the different sectors, we have a huge ocean tech community here in Atlantic Canada. So we see a lot of clients from that space. Financial technology, the healthcare system is, which is a huge area for Dalhousie University. So we’re really seeing all different types of companies is quite exciting. And it’s a great exposure for the students.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, it must be really interesting to just get exposure to all these different companies doing different types of things.

Greg Lambert: Yeah.

Jacqui Walsh: I always say if you have to practice law, it’s a really fun way to do it.

Greg Lambert: Well, speaking of practicing law, you you mentioned that you’re officially a law firm. And so, you know, in order to be a successful law firm, you know, we charge our clients and you charge for your services. So what what made you decide to create this fee model? Rather than have this as a pro bono or community service program?

Jacqui Walsh: I get asked that question a lot, I think it’s what makes our program somewhat unique. It’s not a model that I’ve seen when I did my research. But I do have my reasons for doing it, we’re not going to, we’re not going to even come near breakeven for what I’m charging. So it’s got nothing to do with kind of that side of the stainability. However, there’s a couple reasons for it. I think that if you’re a startup company, and you’re serious about what you’re doing, and we only want serious clients, because I have students who need to have a good experience. And I’ve done enough pro bono work in this space to talk to someone who’s you know, on his or her 10th invention, and they just want someone to hear the latest. And that’s not what we’re looking for. So part of it, I guess I could say, as we know, the non serious. If you’re not interested in paying us the nominal fee, then perhaps you shouldn’t bother us. I also think that is it’s the wrong message for startups, if you’re going to be a successful company, Legal Services cost money. And so it’s not about we do it for free, it’s about you understanding it should be in your cash flow statements, you should be forecasting it you should be budgeting for it every month. So if this think of something that that startups should get used to doing, I guess the final reason is I think people should give back. I think what we’re doing is a great community service. And the bit of money we’re going to make goes back into the clinic. And maybe next year, I’ll be able to afford another articling student or to buy, you know, a nice patent search engine so I can help more startups. So the idea is to grow the clinic, through that bit of money without ever thinking that we’re going to be sustainable.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, and one of the things and I mentioned this on the Information inspiration on on this is that you have a unique model for charging and that there’s a subscription based fee that you do. Can you can you tell me a little bit about how that setup?

Jacqui Walsh: Yes. So I guess like the pro bono part of it, I shouldn’t shouldn’t gloss over that. Talk is free, we will talk to anybody, we will consult forever. And we’ll educate and do that none of that cost money. When we start performing legal work, we incorporate a company or we do contracts for you. The client has the option, you can either sign up for a subscription for one year, as long as you pay $100 a month, as long as you commit to the year. We do that because the we’re dealing with technology companies, they understand subscription models, they understand that space, they know they that makes sense to them. It’s also easy to budget every every month, hundred dollars, hundred dollars, you know, so there’s lots of good reasons to do that. The other way is, you know, if people just think they need a one off service, it’s $100 per service, that could be an NDA, or could be shareholders agreement doesn’t matter. I’ve toyed with so many different tiers and levels at all, the point of the exercise is, I have no secretary, or very lean. So I want to keep the administrative side of it to a minimum.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, you may have touched upon some of the challenges that you’re facing in your in your last response. But because I was going to ask you you about that, because you know, clearly when you’re you’re starting something new, and you know, you’re dealing with people who are also starting something new, you know, there’s there’s going to be hurdles. So what are some of the things that you’re facing?

Jacqui Walsh: Yeah, I mean, it’s it’s normal hurdles, it’s it’s challenges that you work through, we’re we’re inside an academic institution, and another large one for nine to Canada. And so there’s bound to be ways that were inhibited from being as flexible as we would like to be. For example, trying to get my ecommerce platform approved, was quite the feat. And so that took a long time. The the other part is we’re not a core function of an academic institution. And that’s just the nature of academic institution. So sustainability from the inside is, you know, who who knows. So we’re, we’re looking for donations to keep it alive. Time as a as a practicing lawyer with a lot of students. And I love them. And they’re doing great work and amazes me how, how they step up. So there’s challenges that way. So I remember the Dean asked me, where were you find clients? I said, finding clients is not the problem I’m going to have, it’s going to be finding time to take a vacation, because that’s the harder part. And I don’t have anyone to bounce it off of, you know, I don’t have anyone say, can you take the clients for me? So I think to solve growing pains, I think they’re good problems to have. Because it is a very easy thing to sell in the community, because it’s just, it’s just good news. It’s a great project.

Greg Lambert: Good. Well, Jackie, I know you just started the clinic itself. But looking long range, when, at the end of this year, when your students finished this clinic, what is it that you want to make sure that they take with them as a result of working on this project?

Jacqui Walsh: I love that question. Because at the end of the day, when you hear me talk, I’m focusing on the client this and the client this. But it’s important for me to do that, so that the competent students get the best legitimate and realistic and experience in experiential learning. So when I think about that question, the sorry things come to mind, I think about teaching them that there are the there are non traditional ways to practice law. We use a lot of technology in the clinic. So a lot of ways to make us more efficient. So teaching them to use technology to practice law, which is so important to them as they get out into the world. Showing them that their, their legal knowledge is one piece of it, but being able to deal with their clients, especially at the early stages. It’s amazing how you need to have business skills and counseling skills and, and project management skills. It goes beyond just the the, you know, the basic, you must know the law and I think that’s really important for them to understand. You can’t add value to the startup community unless you really learn and build that relationship and I just think that’s a beautiful thing for them to learn. I also like that it should give them a sense of community and they’re there helping the big picture and they can use their law school, their law school experience to do really good. So so many things other than the basic traditional negotiating, drafting, I really think there’s just so much more they’re going to walk away from they might not know it as soon as they leave, but I think over time, you’ll see what a great experience that was.

Greg Lambert: I was gonna say we we still try to teach these skills when they’re coming in as a as an actual associate. So I’m glad somebody out there doing doing this?

Marlene Gebauer: I can’t imagine they’re, they’re not gonna sort of enjoy and appreciate that, that kind of opportunity to get that type of work.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, yeah. Well, Dr. Jacqui Walsh’s, thank you very much, again for letting us just kind of reach out to you after after we were inspired by by your article and your program and best of luck to you.

Marlene Gebauer: Yes, thank you.

Jacqui Walsh: Thank you so much. Thanks for your interest.

Post Interview

Greg Lambert: Marlene, I was happy that Jackie took the time to talk with us about the initial clinic. So I think she has a blueprint that many law schools and law firms in the US and Canada and beyond that we could all model. I really love the idea that her clinic is set up as a law firm, it is actually a law firm.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah.

Greg Lambert: So I know that unique to the Nova Scotia legal system. But that’s really interesting. And in my mind, on how formal the structure is that that Jacqui’s process of making sure that the clients have a good experience, that that creates a situation where the students have an authentic and real experience as well.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I mean, what I appreciated about, you know, speaking with Jacqui, is that there really seems to be a lot of interest here. So I mean, this isn’t just a small sort of, you know, opportunity that she’s taking. I mean, there there’s real interest there. And you know, it seems like a model that really can be supported.

Greg Lambert: Absolutely. So thanks again to Dr. Jackie Walsh for joining us today.

Marlene Gebauer: Before we go, we want to remind listeners to take the time to subscribe on Apple pod cast’s, Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts rate and review us as well. If you have comments about today’s show or suggestions for a future show, you can reach us on Twitter at @gebauerm or @glambert or you can call the Geek in Rreview hotline at 713-487-7270 or email us at geekinreviewpodcasts@gmail.com. As always, the music you hear is from Jerry David. Jessica. Thank you, Jerry.

Greg Lambert: Thanks, Jerry. All right, Marlene, I will talk to you later.

Marlene Gebauer: All right, bye bye.

How to Get Diversity from Your Law Firms in One Easy Step

Tue, 10 Nov 2020 20:05:08 GMT

The Answer: Pay for it.

Recently I saw a marketing email from a company that sells its services to in-house legal departments. It was titled something like “Steps to Improve Diversity.” To be honest – I didn’t read it. However, this topic has been top-of-mind for me for some time now so it generated this post.

More and more clients are implementing Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) programs in order to get their firms to not only hire diverse lawyers, but also to make sure they are engaged on that client’s work. These programs range from rewards (e.g. bonuses) to very punitive ones (a.k.a. You’re Fired).

Of course this is a highly laudable goal, but it is proving to be quite challenging to implement and report on. There are limited standards in the market for what constitutes “diverse” and each client has some variation on what is included and not. As well, clients are asking for more and more complicated diversity reporting. For example, one client recently asked for a full report not just on the work being performed on its behalf but also on D&I at all levels of its outside firms. The result is that D&I teams at firms are spending a considerable amount of time responding to surveys, versus implementing D&I programs.

[A side, but relevant note to clients: Clients keep adding required work to the list that they want done for free by their firms. They should realize they are driving up costs for their partner firms.]

So you might think the moral of this story is that clients should give bonuses to their firms for meeting and exceeding D&I goals. It’s not. It’s actually something more useful and ultimately better for diverse lawyers. If clients truly value D&I they should pay full rates for the lawyers they qualify as diverse. I can tell you if they do that, not only will law firms respond actively, but they will be promoting and advancing the careers of these diverse lawyers.

Currently a lot of the clients pushing for diversity are also pushing for bigger discounts and lower rates. Given that diverse lawyers are a limited resource, by doing this they are driving an unintended consequence. This consequence means diverse lawyers are realizing lower effective rates for their work. And the result of that is diverse lawyers are actually having their careers negatively impact by these actions due to reduced economic performance.

With a growing number of clients requiring diversity in their work, law firms are running out of diverse lawyer resources to meet those demands. At a point, they will be driven to focus those resources on the clients that truly value them.

So … back to my main point. Clients – if you value diversity, pay for it. You will meet your goals and you will directly be promoting the hiring, retention and advancement of diverse lawyers across the spectrum.

The Geek in Review Ep. 93 – Stephen Embry – The Future of the Law Office Won’t Need ...

Thu, 29 Oct 2020 10:09:31 GMT

A couple of episodes ago, we had Richard Hsu discuss the need to eventually bring as many of our lawyers back to a physical office in order to have a successful working environment. Stephen Embry of LegalTech Crossroads Blog reached out to us after listening and wanted to argue that while he understood Richard’s argument that in order for there to be a level playing field for all lawyers in the firm, that there were actually ways to create a successful environment where lawyers could continue to work remotely. In fact, that with the right strategy, training, support, and flexibility, that it would actually attract better talent and lead to better satisfaction from not just the firm’s own lawyers, but also from the firm’s clients as well.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

Halloween is the weekend, and like any good legal nerd, you’ll want to know where to find some law review articles on the topic. Our friends at the Ohio State University Law Library have curated a list just for you.

While our guest today talks about the value of online depositions, Above the Law recently wrote about one lawyer’s desire to get back to the good old days. Which we will probably never see. But, he can keep wishing.

Dalhousie University Law School in Halifax, Nova Scotia is working to help startups in Eastern Canada work through some of their basic legal needs. This subscription-based service is designed to get the startups some help, but at the same time, not actually compete with law firms. Read more about the initio Technology and Innovation Law Clinic and its Director, Jacqueline Walsh.

Is the US Supreme Court forever going to be surrounded by the political whims of the other two branches of government? Probably. But, under the right circumstances, it may not need to be.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to the Geek In Review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.

Greg Lambert: And I’m Greg Lambert. So this week we revisit the issue of going back to the office. This time, however, we talked with an old friend of the podcast, Steven Embry, and Steve takes the approach that we really shouldn’t be all that anxious about rushing people back into a physical workspace. Listeners may recall a couple of weeks ago when Richard Hsu joined us, and he stressed that getting as many people back into the office once it’s safe, is going to be critical. So Steve’s going to give us a few counter arguments to Richards perspectives.

Marlene Gebauer: because we love a good counter argument.

Greg Lambert: That’s when it gets interesting. Yes. All right. Well, let’s jump into this week’s information inspirations.

Greg Lambert: Alright, Marlene, I know I told you that we were only going to do one inspiration each this week, but I lied. So I actually brought two.

Marlene Gebauer: Of course you did.

Greg Lambert: But one of the really super short so I’ll just jump in. And I saw it today. So it is relevant because Halloween is coming up this weekend is ran in were illegal podcast. So combine both of those. Ohio State University’s Law Library blog has some what they call hauntingly good law review articles. And they point out some articles that anyone who wants to find out how the law and All Hallows Eve coincide. They should check these out. I actually went to one of the articles and read where there’s a Mississippi County that they really don’t like people dressing up as clowns. And so I think apparently the sheriff has a clown phobia. So if you’re in this county dress up as anything but a clown.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, I’m down with that again, you know, what a big fan… Not… I am of IT. And it’s like, yeah,

Greg Lambert: okay, you’re a huge fan of clowns, I know.

Marlene Gebauer: Huge fan. So I confess that since you’ve had two inspirations, I also have two. And the first is actually I got this from our interviewee today, Steven Embry. It’s about litigation practice during COVID, which Greg, you know, has gotten my attention, since I’ve been hearing a lot of war stories about it from practitioners. And what struck me about this article is that the author’s focus is really all about the author. You know, it’s about how it would be easier for him if we went back to the good old days of attorneys bantering in the hall and in person sidebars. You know, there’s no discussion about how it’s impacting other participants, or that maybe it’s less expensive for clients and courts to conduct And also that it’s much more convenient for all of the parties. You know, I’ve heard very mixed reactions regarding the coaching of witnesses online. You know, some say it’s not really a problem at all. And others say that the courts and attorneys have agreed upon protocols ahead of time to prevent it from becoming an issue. You know, what I say is let’s just accept that we aren’t going back to the old way soon, if at all, and embrace the positive aspects of the transformation at hand.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. All right. Well, Marlene my unauthorized second inspiration is from north of the border, where Dalhousie and I hope I said that right, University Law School has a great program to help startups with some of their basic legal needs. And they call it the initio technology and innovation Law Clinic. And it’s run by Jacqueline Walsh, who’s the director of the Law Clinic there. The clinic is available in the beautiful Nova Scotia Province only. But it didn’t, but at some point, they’re hoping that they can expand at least across the Canadian Atlantic seaboard. Now, this is a subscription based service that they’re setting up for about 100 bucks a month, and that’s Canadian dollars. And, and one of the reason they’re, they’re doing a subscription based service for legal services is because that’s something that the startups are familiar with is doing this. And the idea is to help startups with again, some of their basic legal needs like contracts and incorporations. Walsh says that they’re not trying to compete directly with law firms and in fact, they’re not apparently not even taking money from law firms on this project. But the work that they’re doing is much more low level and helping the small or the very new startups only. And at the startups has raised money, then they’re sent to a more traditional law firm to seek help. I love this idea. And I think I think at some point, we need to get Jacqueline Walsh on the show and see how this thing is going.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I think that’s a great idea, because I know that they’re, you know, we’ve actually since you’ve since you found this, we’ve talked to some others who have similar types of models. So I think that would be a good, that would be a good episode. All right. So Greg, before I get into my second inspiration, I wanted to share with you and with our listeners that I had a bet with my eldest child, that if we hit a certain bench benchmark on the podcast, that he would bake us a cake, and we’re getting a cake. All right. We’re getting a cake after all this time, we are getting a cake and we’re getting Tres Leches cake. So yeah, it’s gonna be it’s gonna be delicious. All right. My second inspiration is concerning the Supreme Court. So as you know, Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States this week, and there is considerable stir over the new six to three conservative majority on the court, and what impact that will have on jurisprudence. Well, it turns out that it could be a lot or not that much. So I listened to an episode of the new podcast Innovation Hub about whether the supreme court can be reinvented. Turns out, it can under some circumstances, the court numbers could be increased and could even be made to an even number. The president could look beyond the Federal Court of Appeals for appointees to get a larger and maybe more representative pool of the country’s views. and Europe also offers another model to consider a supermajority of the legislature there is required to confirm, so the entire legislative body has to get behind an appointee. And the judges, they’re either they’re required to or you know, they just take it upon themselves to come to a single consensus decision, which is representative of all views. So if you have a more balanced appointment process, and a more balanced court, decision making will also likely be more balanced. It’s a really good podcast, and I encourage anyone with an interest in the Supreme Court to listen.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, I think in it, we’re gonna have to get out of this current political environment before any of those ideas to float. But we’ll see.

Marlene Gebauer: Did you Did you notice? Did you notice my very sly, very subtle, very subtle?

Greg Lambert: under the right circumstances?

Marlene Gebauer: under the right circumstances?

Greg Lambert: Yes, yes.

Marlene Gebauer: So you know, get out of the vote.

Greg Lambert: Yes, yes, definitely get out and vote.

Marlene Gebauer: Yes. And Greg, that wraps up this week’s information inspirations.

Greg Lambert: Eventually, we’ll come out of this pandemic.

Marlene Gebauer: Eventually.

Greg Lambert: And for many of us, we may think that that’s the time where we get back to our regular routine of going back into work being around our fellow workers. Yeah. And while that may be comforting to some, it’s probably not going to be anything like that. Once we get back to work, and it’s not going to look anything like what it was in March.

Marlene Gebauer: It’s no magical thinking here on this podcast.

Greg Lambert: It is not. Today’s guest gives us his perspective on what he thinks the workplace is going to look like, once we do have the option of going back to a physical office.

Interview

Greg Lambert: We’d like to welcome Steven Embry, lawyer and writer with the tech law Crossroads blog back to the show.

Marlene Gebauer: Steven is great to have you back. It’s been a while.

Stephen Embry: Wow, it’s good. Good to be here. Yeah, I think it was. Well, Greg reminded me before we started, I think it was April a year ago that was on the show. It was right after we were in San Francisco.

Greg Lambert: That was like, 20 years ago now.

Stephen Embry: Yeah, it was. Yeah, it was back when wife was was fun. You guys know, Adriana Linares is and I was listening to something she was doing the other day. And she phrased it pretty well. She said, Yeah, the virus it took away everything that was fun, just left us with the with the bad stuff. But all the fun that took away.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, since the last time you’ve been on the podcast, we understand you become vice chair of the ABA law practice division. And you’re in line to chair that division in a couple of years. So tell us about that experience and how it happened?

Stephen Embry: Well, you know, it’s really interesting app, I’ve been part of that organization for maybe 10 years, something like that I was introduced at that tech show, which the law practice division is every year. This year is going to be virtual, or next year, it’s going to be virtual. And so I got involved in leadership, I got involved in some strategic planning for the for the division. And last year I was secretary this year, I will be vice chair. Next year, if things progressives they normally do, I will be chair elect. And then the following year, I will be I will be chair. That’s assuming of course having behaved myself,

Greg Lambert: I can say that’s a big assumption

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah a big assumption. Because we know you a little.

Stephen Embry: But just a short plug, if you don’t mind for the division, we now have over 20,000 members, we put out a huge amount of content, from webinars to podcasts. We have a Master’s law practice management series that’s going on now. Two magazines, one of which is an E magazine, the legal technology Resource Center, which does the ABA survey tech survey every years is under the division. We have book publishing, we have all of our technology blog. And of course, we run tech show every year. It’s a challenge. But a lot of smart people, a lot of people working hard, and I’m honored to be part of it. Even though we now do a lot more things virtually than we ever did before. But we’re used to it. So it’s a it’s fun.

Greg Lambert: So Steve, a couple of weeks ago, we had Richard Hsu on the podcast, where he talked about some of the issues that he saw with returning to work after such a long time of working from home. And you and I talked right after that episode, and you had a couple of different views on that situation. So would you mind giving us your overview on what you think’s going to happen once we start heading back to the office?

Stephen Embry: Sure. And you know, Richard’s a smart guy. I know, Richard, I respect him, I think a lot of him. And I think you know, the difference of opinion that we have maybe one degree in sort of, as opposed to you know, you know, he’s on he’s a conservative and have a liberal kind of thing. Where nothing I say is right, and nothing he says is right. But a couple of things. One, I think a lot of lawyers over value, this notion of face time and office time, particularly when they compete when it’s compared to the alternative. Yeah, I mean, it’s good to chit chat around the office. But yeah, I mean it, you have to, you have to evaluate the good and the bad of both sides of it. And I think there’s a lot of good that that comes out of doing things virtually, without evaluating those tradeoffs. It’s very easy to say, well, the virtual world stinks. I wrote an article about virtual trials, right virtual jury trials, at the beginning of the pandemic, you know, there was this huge and cry. Yeah, that sucks. That’ll never happen. Well, so. Now, you know, six months later, we’ve got courts that haven’t had any trials for six months, and horrendously backed up. And you’ve got businesses and criminal defendants and all these people who want to have their day in court, they need an answer. Yes, it’s like a frequently say, most businesses, particularly America, they can deal with hardship and loss, provided they know what it is provided. It’s clear. I mean, if you’re going to lose a case for a million dollars, I don’t want to do that if I’m a business, but if I know it’s going to happen, I can plan for it and deal with it. Being in limbo is not a good place. So there’s a lot of defendants out there, but plaintiffs out there who would say, jury, maybe won’t be as good Mr. Lawyer, but it’ll give me an answer, and it’ll give me an answer quick. So that’s the kind of tradeoffs that we have to kind of make. The other thing is that that I think is important is sort of this, this notion that once this ends, we’ll all go back to normal. And again, this is this is based on this sort of old world view that the normal that we had before was better, right? Again, it’s a tradeoff, we have to look at which is better, which is worse. And the longer we go, without going back to normal, the more you know, this, this inline online world is going to become the normal. Remember, one of the things Richard said was, well, you could have this hybrid situation where some lawyers would be in the office, and some members of the team would be on one and virtually, and those guys that are online are going to be sort of disadvantaged for that. Well, that there’s a fundamental assumption in that, right, the fundamental assumption is that the most important person in the room is going to be physically present. That may not be true, most important person in the room may be the person that’s online, as as we get further down to things. So we can’t just sort of have this assumption that what’s all go back to normal just be a matter of time. And there was so much better we I think we have to say, No, I mean, let’s, let’s run with the good. Let’s adopt the good, let’s embrace the good and let’s quit stewing so much about I can’t get together for trial, I can’t do an in person deposition, you know, particularly when it comes to the trial settings. Think about the jurors, and think about the witnesses how disruptive it is to these people to be on a jury and I’ve been on, I’ve been called for jury duty four or five times. It’s horrendous, right? You and You waste days, right? And you sit there and think, What is wrong with arson, my business doesn’t run away, like this. You know, it’s those kind of concepts, I think we have to understand and embrace that online is here to stay and it’s gonna continue and let’s make it the best road we can and celebrate it.

Marlene Gebauer: So tell us a bit about your background and experiences with remote working in the virtual world.

Stephen Embry: Okay. Well, I was fortunate enough in the 90s, I was a partner at the time in a firm that the eat what you kill kind of compensation formula. So I had a good book of business. And I always remember I was I was traveling to Florida with my family, my wife and two young kids. And I was working on a brief and I had papers every place and was scattered and trying to get this brief done. And I took a break. And I read this article about Fred Bartlett of Bartlett and Beck, who was in big into technology. And he was he was saying, Yeah, I’m working on a brief, his firm was in Chicago. And he said, I’m working on a brief from my condo out in Aspen, looking at the mountains, and I’m looking at all this paper going, wait a minute, there’s got to be a better way than this. And that got me involved. And I’ve been a mass tort lawyer for 30 plus years. And you can imagine being a mass tort lawyer in Louisville, Kentucky means most of your clients are out of town, most of your work is out of town. So I became very accustomed to working with people remotely and formed teams with lawyers that were not in the same office I was in. And so I got very used to doing that. Not to say that we didn’t ever meet, but we did a lot of things by telephone. And the funny part about that was is it enabled me to get the really the best people for the job, irrespective of place. Then at one point, I was National Council in a series of construction cases. And we we switched from hourly billing to an alternative flat fee billing. And that opened my eyes to a lot of other possibilities about what to do remotely what to do online. What we didn’t need to travel and do in person. So yeah, I was able to work from home back in the 90s.

Greg Lambert: What year was it that you started doing the alternative fees?

Stephen Embry: That was a 98, 99. Something like that

Marlene Gebauer: Trend setter.

Greg Lambert: You were well ahead of the curve, then.

Stephen Embry: Yeah, it was it was ahead of the curve. And it was it was quite cutting edge at the time it was an insurance company, believe it or not, what you’re usually not known for it. And so yeah, I was able to work from home and a lot of days, I’d meet my kids at the bus stop. And the other thing I learned from that, which may now appear obvious is I didn’t have to work eight to five, eight to six, Monday through Friday. I could work when I needed to work. That might be a weekend, that might be a night. That gave me flexibility to do things with my family that I didn’t have before. I didn’t have to commute. And it was fortunate because a lot of my partners were probably wondering, is this dude really work and what was he doing? But because I had so much business and plugging away so many hours of what much anybody could say at that at the time, so It was a, it was a great experience. And it made me see a lot of advantages to remote work. And since I’ve left the firm and of course, publishing the blog, I work at home. And so the pandemic’s stay at home orders really didn’t affect me that much. Other than I do still miss going to Starbucks and working from Starbucks, but kind of edging my way back there. And at least in the nice weather.

Marlene Gebauer: it’s that pumpkin spice I know, I know.

Stephen Embry: Something, this is kind of a ritual, you know, and it’s something that when you mess with that, then then it becomes hard.

Greg Lambert: So the concept of remote work is nothing really new to you?

Stephen Embry: No, I mean, remote work, I think. Yeah, I’ve been, it’s been interesting, because I see people have taken to a lot of people say much quicker than anybody thought. But on the other hand, as I recall, when I made the transition, even back in the 90s, when tech technology wasn’t what it is today, it didn’t seem to be that much of a transition, really, you know, it required some flexibility and some nimbleness and it required thinking of things in a different way. And of course, I was aided by that, when we went to the alternative fee. And so I begin to look at things a lot differently than it had before. And I think there’s some real advantages to the online world. And I think people are starting to start to see it and recognize and it’s gonna be interesting to see where it takes us.

Marlene Gebauer: But what about training? Isn’t that better done by, you know, by observing someone, you know, in a face to face situation and being able to exchange that way, as Richard Hsu suggests?

Stephen Embry: Yeah, you know, Richard made some interesting comments on that and I disagree with him, probably in terms of the extent. First of all, you have to back up and sort of say, well, we have this apprenticeship notion for lawyers, right, you are going to apprentice at the, the heels of the partner, and therefore you will, you will gain this wisdom from on high. And that will make you a better lawyer. And so, you know, even though we all agree that law schools don’t train you to be a lawyer, most law firms are like, yeah, that’s how we’re going to do it. And we have no training program. Why do we need a training program? It’s just takes away from billable hours, right. But what happens when you do that is you have no systematic training, where you say, okay, these are the attributes of a good, a good and successful lawyer, and this is what we’re going to train for. And then you leave it completely to happenstance, right. I mean, I was fortunate enough to have Well, maybe fortunate enough, I was fortunate enough to have a very good mentor, when I was coming up in the mass tort field. And, you know, I developed into a reasonably successful lawyer, I might add, that also picked up some really bad habits from this particular lawyer. So but the problem is that we have in sort of latching on to this system, this apprenticeship notion that we have to sit at the, at the heels of the partner, we’ve abandoned any sort of formal training program, that would lead to everybody getting good training, not just happenstance training to be with a good mentor, a bad mentor. But everybody gets a core basic training.

Marlene Gebauer: That’s a lot of work, though, right? I mean, that’s a lot of thought and design, you know, but you have to be very good about it.

Stephen Embry: But what’s the alternative, right? I mean, the problem that that warriors have had with it is, Oh, my God, we can’t we can’t abandon that many billable hours. So a couple things ended up happening, right, clients begin saying, we’re not paying for this stuff. Forget it, you’re not taking an Associates into a deposition to watch you do it, forget it. Not gonna happen anymore. And so, you know, now we have all this talent that a wall firm has invested in it, which we pay a lot of money for, who are not getting trained. And for litigators. It’s a particular problem, because there’s no trials to speak of, even before the pandemic, the number of trials has gone down considerably. And so you’ve got all these people that you’ve invested in, but yet, they’re not getting trained in a systematic way. It’s not necessary so much that you can do training virtually, although I think you can do some training virtually. It’s more than sort of the philosophical idea that, that we have to be physically present with one another to train because this is an apprenticeship business. And it then leads to this other concept, which is, you know, that’s the only way to really do it because we’re lawyers. Were special.

Greg Lambert: We’ve figured it out.

Stephen Embry: And I was listening to speaker at the ILTA networking thing today and he went into the spiel about, well, you know, we do really complex things. And, you know, it takes a long time to learn how to do these things. And there’s a lot of skill involved. It’s like, well, so is that airplane pilot, right? So is a brain surgeon right? And so is I might add an insurance adjuster, which, which is really a kind of an interesting idea, right? Because most today, most insurance adjusters are legally trained, they are making monumental decisions with people’s lives, they have to know the law. They have to they have to be experienced. And yet, most of them for 10 years have been working remotely in a paperless environment. Right. So so that the idea that what they do is somehow not as valuable as what I do, because I happen to be in a law firm is really kind of an arrogant sort of, you know, only I can do this and Sorry, guys, you can’t. Club’s closed. And by the way, the only way you can get into the club is you apprentice for me, my special small snowflake. Now, what does that lead to? Right? Here’s what here’s the and this is an Embry hypothesis, okay? Not I don’t have any empirical data. But when most people select a mentee or somebody to work with them, younger person to work with them on the team, they tend to select somebody that looks like them. And acts like them.

Marlene Gebauer: And that’s comfortable, right?

Stephen Embry: In law firm today, all right, and law firms today. And I mean, the ABA surveys that came out a year or so ago, is along with a number of others are sad evidence of it. Most of those people in those training positions are white males. So, you know, question or query, as they used to say, in law school, is this notion that we have to apprentice to somebody, you know, for years, and not going to do a formal training, not make sure everybody has a core skill set of training, so that we all start from the same base, we may all know end up but we all start from the same base is that diminishing women? People of color? Who are not being selected to work on the with the ace partner, the number one partner gap, you know, the cat, right, he’s always a guy right? The Rainmaker, who, of course, is not skilled at training, right? He’s skilled at being a lawyer, and more often than not at making money. So now you have this sort of system, we’ve got happenstance, you know, hit or miss training, you’ve got the potential for it to injure certain segments of the population that we need to have practicing law that we need in our law firms. And the quality of the training is sort of hit or miss it’s unknown, because we never take the time to sit down and say, here’s what a good lawyer being a good lawyer means. And here’s, here’s the attributes, the skill sets that we want to make sure they try, they need to have. And I can, I can assure you one of those skill sets is not sitting in, like when I was an associate, and not so much anymore, sitting in a dusty warehouse reading reams of paper and thinking to myself, I could have done this, when I was a Junior in high school. That’s I’m doing this for you be trained for this? So it’s not so much that I objected to what Richard said about, you know, the need to be together for training, as much as the system that we have the sort of the the apprenticeship sort of notion is not has not worked well. It’s terribly, terribly inefficient. clients don’t want to pay for it anymore. Which means the law firm has to do one or two things either not train, or if they’re going to have an associate, observe, right. They have to pay for it. And we all know how that works out. For the most part.

Stephen Embry: it’s it’s interesting, because, you know, if you’re saying there’s a more formalized training, I bet you a lot of the parts of that could be delivered in a remote environment a lot more easily than, say, this apprentice model.

Stephen Embry: Well, and here’s the thing about this. So. So let’s think about what a typical law firm is today that I come from from a bigger law firm, right? So I have, you know, AmLaw 200, law firm, so I can’t speak to a solo or small shop but So, today, when I was practicing law, I would come into the office and as somebody I think Richard Dingell said this on a podcast not long ago, law firms quiet places. I mean, they really are quiet places. You come in. Your hang your coat up, you get your coffee, you close your door, and you work. And you might come out of that, that little cubby hole and get and use the restroom and get more coffee. But then you go back and you work. So you know. So that’s what happens every everybody’s working. Associates are all working. So now if you want to have a training program, yes, you can have a training program. But let’s refocus that a little bit. Let’s do what we can online. And then instead of having associates that have kids and have a family, come to the office eight to seven every day, so they can go sit in their cubby hole, close the door to work and don’t see anybody. Let’s have them work from home and do all this stuff they would do in the office with the door closed, sort of on their timeframe, and then have them come in for the training that we say is critical, to be face to face, come in one day, cram it, put it all in one day, have them come in one day, do what they need to do meet with whatever teams they need to meet with, and go home and then work from home the rest of the time. It saves the commute, it saves their family life that gives them some ability to do something besides sitting to either sit in the car or sit in office all the time. You know, a lot of people say, Well, we miss these watercooler conversations, right? That’s another sort of, I would say red herring and all this mix. Well.

Marlene Gebauer: There is a thing called chat, you know?

Stephen Embry: Yeah. When I was in law school and work for a small firm, maybe we had some of that. But I had to tell you, and I worked at a law firm. I didn’t have any of that. Very rarely, if I needed to talk to somebody about a problem, I call them up, like, do now, except now do it by video. But in terms of bumping into somebody at the watercooler and saying you got a minute? I probably get not right now I’m busy, right? And the fact that you know, you don’t matter funny story, like a lot of law firms, we would let sort of older partners, retired partners be of counsel and they could come in and, you know, have a small office and you know, do whatever they want to do. So we had one lawyer who he was very successful lawyer and everybody liked him and you know, a good storyteller. And so he when he made this transition, he would come in and years went by, if you saw him in the hall, he would light up because he wanted to tell you a story. So people would duck into an empty office, or run someplace to get away from me because I got to bill time. And you know, law firms are, that said that time is money. That’s how they make money better or worse by the hour. And, you know, chitchat, particularly for younger lawyers, right. And I remember making this calculation in my head. You know, if I’ve go in my office and closed the door, shut the door and work really hard. I can get out of here a little early every minute always talking to you know, Greg in the hallway? Well, that’s an hour.

Marlene Gebauer: I don’t think that’s just associates. I think that’s kind of everybody. That’s in the billable process. they all are kind of thinking like, okay, you know, I work through lunch. And you know, and I sort of, you know, keep things going, and I’ll get done early enough that, you know, I can go home at a reasonable hour.

Stephen Embry: Yeah.

Greg Lambert: Well, what about the client, their side of things? What’s going to be the client’s expectations going forward?

Stephen Embry: Well, I think you probably saw in the news and Microsoft is they’re not going back to work, at least for another year, Facebook isn’t going to back maybe ever, Twitter may never go back to work. I can’t tell you how many times particularly in the later years of my practice, I dealt with general counsel that were not only in not in the same town I was in, they weren’t even in the same town as their company headquarters, right? They were working from home, right? So their expectations are going to be you better be able to do things online. You know, if you want to represent me, you know, you better be able to handle things online. And you better be able to take a virtual deposition and or virtual trial, the rest of the world is doing things online, I’m not willing to pay you to travel six hours to California for a 30 minute hearing and then travel six hours back, I’m not gonna do it, particularly when everybody else is online doing it. And I think we’re going to see more and more that kind of mindset of clients who themselves are very adapted working online. Most businesses run that way. And they sort of look at this. Now I always like to call special snowflakes. They sort of look at this, as this is special snowflakes and just sort of giggle like, what? Yeah. Go meet with my CFO every day to talk about all the legal expenses that are over budget. Yeah, you didn’t tell me you’re a special snowflake, right.

Marlene Gebauer: I want you’d mentioned about lawyers sort of going into their cubby hole and working and I wanted to parallel that because, you know, historically that’s how it’s been. How does working remotely kind of impact that model? I would, I would imagine not too much. I mean, because, you know, you’re sort of trading one cubby hole for another cubby hole.

Stephen Embry: And here’s the fundamental difference and is something that I discovered, okay. In the office cubbyhole, I’m expected to be there. 8:30, 6:30, you name the hours, right. And so that means whatever is going on, in my real life, with my wife, my kids, my health, doctor’s appointments, you know, all has to be structured around that chunk of time, right. But when I’m working remotely, I can, I can move that cubbyhole time, to the night to the weekend to the morning, to a time that lets me have greater flexibility. And in fact, I was fortunate enough to go to the netdoc’s virtual conferences, and they made a, a, a piece of data and they said, you know, our data shows that people are working more in the evenings and more on the weekends. It’s a pandemic. Now, your first reaction would be, oh, yeah, people just working harder. And which is, you know, that’s what I said, Everybody has worked harder, and said, well, we’re not sure that people are just working harder. They’re working at different times, that’s more convenient for them. So that’s the tradeoff. Now, of course, I don’t have younger kids anymore. I don’t have, you know, worry about, you know, having to homeschool kids and all that kind of jazz. That’s a complicating issue and factor. And I don’t mean to diminish that at all. But it’s also a complicating factor. If I had to do have small kids that had to learn online and had to go to the office every day, right? That’s, that’s a problem as well. So there’s always going to be kind of issues and problems and various ways of looking at things. To me, part of the problem I had with some of Richard’s conclusions were it was sort of an assumption that that doing things in person was better. It’s always better. And without saying, well, it may be different, but that doesn’t mean it’s always better. Right. And there’s a great quote from Joe Flom, the founder of Skadden, Arps way back, you know, whenever you founded it, you know, they he was asked one time, well, wasn’t the old, gentlemanly way of doing practicing law better, and Joe, he was a pretty rough around the edges guy kind of guy. And, you know, and he said, Well, was it better when, you know, your father ran the law firm and you succeeded with as opposed to who did the best job? What was so good about that? What was so good about only certain people get into clubs and get clients and other people were excluded? Or that women or Jewish lawyers or African American lawyers couldn’t even get a job at certain firms? what’s good about that? You know, what was so great that about your family background and being more important than what you could do? And then you got the end of all this? And then he said, and this is the part I think that’s really applicable here. Every change involves some loss. The question is whether you are better off or worse off with what you’ve lost and what you gained. And, you know, when you when you start, step back and say, Okay, what have we gained from this virtual world? I don’t see anything, I can’t see my friends. I can’t travel. Okay. But I went to the ILTA conference, sounds like all I do is go to conferences, right. But what I’ve discovered is, there are more people going to these conferences now that they’re virtual, and they’re hearing dynamite speakers. And my guess is that the people that are going that never went before are younger, or more energetic, or more diverse, and they’re going to come back, as I always do from any of these conferences, energized, right. They’re going to go to their firms, and they’re going to go to their jobs, they’re going to say, we want to make a change, we want to drive some change, and I heard Seth Godin talk, and I want to do something, right. And that’s great, right? That’s wonderful. Because these people, they never got to go see the same faces go to all these conferences and meetings, we all said the same things over and over again. And this other group couldn’t go because it cost too much. I was too disruptive and it was all the travel and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Then you step back and you say, okay, but there’s this training thing, right? How are younger lawyers going to observe me take a deposition without being there physically, well, think of it this way. Most depositions today are virtual right? And so I can’t I can’t charge my client to let a young lawyer go with me to a deposition but if a young lawyer doesn’t have to travel, if he doesn’t have to sit through the entire part of the deposition, that boring crap that anybody could do. And he gets to see just the critical part and how I do it. And not just one, five, ten, all could plug in and watch. Now you’re observing something, the same is true with going to court, you know, that the courthouse are now more and more hearings are virtual, there’s nothing to prevent us letting our associates observe more things versus less things, because we’re now in the virtual world. And so, yeah, it’s a tradeoff. I’d love to be sitting in a room with you guys, you know, talking, but on the other hand, you know,

Marlene Gebauer: What’s the likelihood that it would actually happen? you know, and here we have this ability to do this, you know, instantaneously at our leisure, right? I’m probably there’s definitely tradeoffs, but right, you know, there’s, there’s, there’s also benefits.

Stephen Embry: I’m part of a lunch group, you guys know, Ari Kaplan, he’s formed this virtual lunch group. And, you know, we get together people come in come out every day for an hour. And I’ve met 20, 25, 30 people and gotten to know them pretty well, because I see him now every day, as opposed to once a year maybe passing them in a hall at a conference with 5,000 other people. Right. And I mean, that’s a plus. Right? And so, yeah, there are tradeoffs. But there are good things about this world too. And,

Marlene Gebauer: you know, like the more sustained interaction, but also, you know, being able to see you like in your, in your natural environment, if you will, you know, all right. So, you know, given, you know, the client experience you’ve talked about, and given how the courts are sort of moving, you know, in a forward moving type of direction, what are some of the practical realities that you think will guide law firms and making decisions about how to reopen?

Stephen Embry: Cost, costs, cost, cost.

Marlene Gebauer: It’s always money.

Stephen Embry: Real Estate, is the second highest cost for law firms. Right behind salaries, right? I mean, that’s where it is. And, and, and it’s not just real estate, it is prime real estate, right, downtown. Top floor.

Marlene Gebauer: We’re not in strip malls. We’re not talking about strip malls.

Stephen Embry: We’re not in strip malls. And, you know, if you if you look at the statistics, most businesses have a three to four times ratio of employees to offices, right? Lawyers is one to one, right? Or maybe one to two, some lawyers have two offices, right. So I mean, we got this huge amount of space, under the assumption that clients watch this, they don’t, because that’s not what they have.

Marlene Gebauer: Most of the time. They’re not ever they’re not even there, they’re not on there, they don’t drive to the office to visit. Lawyers go to them.

Stephen Embry: If you want to meet your client in town, they don’t want to drive downtown to do all this. So. So now you’ve got this huge amount of cost. And you’ve got offer management’s kind of scratching their head going, Oh, this, this working at home stuff is kind of working out. And we could save, like, some money here if we didn’t have the same amount of space. And then you’ve got another phenomenon, which is landlords are looking ahead, right? They’re not stupid. And they’re saying, Well, I’ll tell you what, law firm, We’ll restructure your lease, and you won’t have to take as much space provided that you extend the term lease, right? So that protects us and gives you a price break. So you’re starting to see these deals kind of be in cut so that existing leases are being reformulated. Now, what does all that mean? In the end, there may not be a place for us to all go back to right. We made the pandemic may in some day, and we say okay, we’re ready to go back to work and, and the managing partner is going to say, well, Marlene, you can come in three days. You come in two days a week and we have this this office over here for you. And the other two days. Greg is going to be using that office.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, so hoteling.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. Make sure you clean up your mess Marlene!

Stephen Embry: Cushman and Wakefield…

Marlene Gebauer: Get rid of all your tchotchkes Greg!

Stephen Embry: Cushman and Wakefield, which is a big real estate development company. They did a survey and not long ago when they ask all firms like when this is over. How many of you are going to go back just like it was and have the same kind of office configuration. How many people are me firms are going to say? 70% of them said we’re going to change we’re going to make changes to our workspace. We’re going to have more collaborative kind of spaces. We’re gonna have less offices there’s going to be hoteling in the in these offices. And so you know, the firm’s that aren’t willing to do that right are going to come under a lot of severe price, pressure. Because other firms are doing it, and they’re going to keep doing it. Now you also have this. The other countervailing, and the other pressure on him is with the talent that’s out there. People like working at home. Young lawyers like working at home. I like working at home. We all like working at home for the most part. We don’t like to get in the car and spend hours commuting and wasting time and not be able to work when we want all that kind of stuff. So the talent is going to start going toward the firm’s that are more flexible with their workspaces. And so this is sort of the thing that, that bothers me about, you know, some people’s attitude that this is all the online world is bad. Let’s just twiddle our thumbs and wait. And we’ll all go back to work here. When the vaccine comes, you know, not if but when? Yeah, right. Like, I haven’t seen it yet. But you know, there’s everybody’s talking like, it’s going to be here next week, or nobody’s got one yet. But truth of the matter is, the world is going to probably be changed when we go back. And if you sit back and twiddle your thumbs and think, oh, I don’t have to worry about that. It’ll be you know, I don’t have to worry about how to do all this online. I don’t have to worry about appearing well online, because it’s all gonna be over soon. Or how to make a good presentation online. That’s wrong. I mean, it’s, it’s, it’s going to change things. You know, I’m not one of those that that, like a lot of people in the legal tech field and say, Oh, well, everything’s now changed. The revolution is here. Hurray. You know, the revolution we’ve all been talking about for the last 25 years and never seems to come? I don’t think we’re there. You know, Bill, Bill Gates one time said, we tend to, to overestimate the immediate effects of technology, and underestimate the long term effects of technology. I don’t think that the remote work in virtual world is going to revolutionize the practice of law today. But I think if we look back from 10 years, like we look back on the iPhone, you know, and when it was introduced, we’re going to we’re going to be like, boy it that really did change things a lot. Wow. Didn’t never really thought about it. But looking back now, yeah, changed a lot of things. So. So yeah, Marlene, you’re right. I mean, I think you can do a lot of things online, I think we need to be prepared for that new world, and embrace it and run with it.

Greg Lambert: And you mentioned that it’s, we’re looking at this not as a an if but a when we have a vaccine, and when we get back into the office in some aspect. So pull out your, your crystal ball here and tell us what are what are your predictions about what will happen when we go back to whatever than the normal is?

Stephen Embry: Well, you know, first of all, you know, lawyers are the slowest to go back so far. And there’s a lot of reasons for that. Not the least of which is they have the most premier real estate on the top for some buildings and cities, which all sounds well and good. But you know, you got to get on an elevator to get to the floor, like, Hey, man, there’s, you know, 65 other floors of people that may be trying to get on the elevator, and only two can go at a time, do you think you think a commute an hour or an hour and a half in a car was bad, they got another hour and a half waiting on the elevator. So they’re slow going back, and lawyers are resistant to change. So I think what we’re going to see is that because of the cost factor. And because of the need to reduce costs and reduce space, that’s going to push firms to be less, less rigid, in forcing people to go back, you’re going to see the talent, the talented people are going to flock to firms where they have more flexibility believe. And you’re going to see the clients and the judges adopting more and more online worlds. So yes, I mean, someday we’ll, we’ll start going back, there’ll be more online stuff. That doesn’t necessarily mean you know, as I said a while ago, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the revolution in legal in law is going to happen all at once. It won’t. But as we begin to make these strides in the virtual world, begin doing things more remotely, we begin seeing how easy it is to adopt a lot of this technology. And it’s fortunate By the way, that that the pandemic came at the stage of technology when it did, but otherwise it would have been probably harder, although, you know, looking back on it, it wasn’t that hard when I did it. We didn’t have Zoom but we have a lot more intuitive kind of technology now than we ever did. And that’s just going to keep getting better. You know, we haven’t solved the virtual happy hour yet, which likely between you and I think are kind of dreadful. right because, you know,

Greg Lambert: I’ve noticed a significant drop off in attendance. In the happy hour.

Stephen Embry: We haven’t solved that yet. But we will. I mean, we’ll come up with a way to make that better. Just like Ari Kaplan has made this virtual lunch, something that I look forward to going to every day, right? We may not have virtual happy hours, we may have, you know, virtual lunches with a group of people. But we’ll get there, we’ll get to that kind of thing. And, but we have to, as I told somebody the other day, all these conferences are, you know, they’re really like, what are we going to do with exhibitors and sponsors? They don’t like this new world, they don’t get people coming into and booths, all that kind of jazz. And well, that’s part of the problem is we’re trying to take an in person conference and cram it into online. Right? What we need to do is to rethink the whole kind of experience of what it means to be a sponsor, or exhibitor or have that kind of role, and how that fits into the online world. And we don’t get there by saying, you know, I really think it was better before and I just want to wait, ride it out, bide my time, keep my powder dry, and then I’ll get back to normal. So no, we get there by thinking, how can we reimagine this to make it something that we all want to be a part of? So Yeah, I think I think I think changes will come, I think there’ll be, even when we get closer back to normal, I still think there will be a lot of people that that will work from home because they want to and because it’s cheaper, it’s more convenient, it’s as productive. And you can do just about as many things particularly now online than you could before. I mean, you can try a case online, you can do a client pitch online, you can have a team meetings online with your team. Now, yes, there’s always going to be the situation where, because it’s so intense, because it’s so personal, that we have to have an in person conversation, there’s always going to be that deposition that is so critical that I have to take it in person, if I get a judge to let me do it. Right? Which is another issue. But there’s always going to be a place for that. But it’s going to get smaller and smaller, and we have to recognize it.

Greg Lambert: All right. Well, it’s been a pleasure. As always,

Marlene Gebauer: thank you so much for joining us

Stephen Embry: I say it’s been great fun being on the show again. It was a pleasure. Thank you for having me.

Greg Lambert: You bet.

Stephen Embry: Okay, take care now. So

Greg Lambert: Well, it’s always great to catch up with Steve Embry. And it was really nice of him, I think, to reach out to us and give us kind of a counter. But although a very polite and very cordial counter to what we had with Richard Hsu a couple of weeks ago,

Marlene Gebauer: Well you know, polite and cordial is a refreshing change from what we’ve been used to.

Greg Lambert: It sure the hell is.

Marlene Gebauer: Over the last couple of years exactly right so I also want to say thank you to Steven for reaching out. This was a really good conversation and you know, it’s really good to get opposing views on each thing, just to you know, to see where everybody stands.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, I will be happy just once we can kind of figure out what this this new regular work is going to look like once we go back.

Marlene Gebauer: I think a lot of people are looking forward to that because you know, right now, everything is very fluid and I know that that’s, you know, really troubling to some people and you know, I guess my thought on this is look you know you deal with what you can control and you know, if you can’t, then you just can’t you just have to sort of let that go. And for right now, we’re all trying to figure out the right way and what’s going to make sense. And you know, making these types of decisions is kind of a messy process. And we just have to we just have to be flexible and roll with it.

Greg Lambert: All right, well, everyone’s until we can get back everyone stay safe. And and yeah, hopefully that’ll help us get back a little quicker. So

The Geek in Review Ep. 92 – Douglas Ferguson on Doing the Work in the Meeting

Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:09:29 GMT

For most of us, meetings are unavoidable, uninspiring, and an overall waste of everyone’s time. But, they don’t need to be. Douglas Ferguson, the founder of Voltage Control discusses how we think of meetings as passive ways to convey information when in reality, a meeting should be the place where we take action and get things done. The way Douglas and Voltage Control look at meetings is in much more of a diagnostic method. What works? What doesn’t? Can we borrow from one approach to make another work better? By applying a good design process, the meeting ends up being the place where we actually accomplish projects more than just handing out action items to hopefully complete before the next meeting. In fact, meetings should become mini-retreats and action items replaced by commitments from members of the team who come to a meeting with the understanding of what the mission and goals are, and are already taking ownership of a part of the outcomes.

If you are not satisfied with the way meetings are run at your firm or company, then Ferguson’s discussion is a great place to start. There are a number of templates and guidebooks on the Voltage Control website as well to get you started.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

As many in the media and information fields worry about disinformation/misinformation, one acronym to think about when reviewing the credibility of information is “EMAIL”. (Yes, everyone knows it is a terrible abbreviation, so we’ve pitched “MAILE” (pronounced my-Lee) as an alternative.) Think of the Evidence, Motive, Activity, Intent, and Lables surrounding the information you have. Is it questionable, or too good to be true? Both reporters and information professionals rely upon credible information and sources, or we lose our own credibility. For more on this, check out the New York Times The Daily podcast about the issues surrounding the NY Post’s release of what they thought was the October Surprise, but what we ended up talking about was the process of how reporters verify possible hacked and leaked information.

Speaking of elections, it is very easy to get caught up in the emotions this political season. The Five Thirty-Eight Blog helps both calm some of those fears and gives you some tips on how to handle the stress everyone is feeling in 2020.

Large law firms are still finding ways of creating safe and productive work environments for their lesbian, gay, and bisexual attorneys and staff. While many have updated policies and procedures to protect sexual orientation, they are still way behind when it comes to gender identity for Trans and Queer attorneys and staff. If you’re behind on those policies, now is the time to start updating them as there will certainly be more professionals who identify as gender nonconforming entering the legal industry. Whether it is trans partners making equity status in firms like Goodwin Proctor, or a partner from Patton Squire Boggs identifying as nonbinary, there will be more people coming out in the years to come. Time to prepare.

One problem with propaganda is that once you release it into the world, it can take on a life of its own. While many may think that “Fake News” is a modern phenomenon, the Woodrow Wilson administration actually used these tactics in 1912 with the Committee on Public Information. Seems that history does have a way of repeating itself.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

[0:24]

Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to the Geek in Review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene gave our and I’m Greg Lambert.

Greg Lambert: So Marlene, one of the fears that I have when I do a podcast, or I do a blog post is that the listener or reader is going to walk away from it and think that it’s a waste of their time.

Marlene Gebauer: No, that’s impossible.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, I know. Why would they do that? You know, many of the people who run meetings at their organizations, they don’t seem to have this issue.

Marlene Gebauer: They have a high level of confidence.

Greg Lambert: Yes, they do. So, you know, I think that’s one of the reasons why when many of us walk out of these meetings, they’re thinking, Man, this could have been an email. So

Marlene Gebauer: I’ve never had that thought ever,

Greg Lambert: Ever, ever. I have never posted that meme. So this week’s guest Douglas Ferguson from Voltage Control is here to talk with us about how we can change how we approach and conduct these meetings.

Marlene Gebauer: And for those of you who think you know, all there is to know about meetings, I challenge you not to learn something from Douglas during this podcast. We don’t merely talk about how meetings can be more useful. We completely re envision what they are, what they’re named, and their actual purpose. And now as so many of us needing meetings to even communicate, it’s a perfect time to try out some of the ideas Douglass provides.

Greg Lambert: All right, well, let’s jump into this week’s information inspirations.

[2:00]

Greg Lambert: So as we get within a couple of weeks of the national election, the US and probably the world is waiting to see what the big october surprise is going to be. You know, many of us last week thought that we had that answer with Rudy Giuliani going to the New York Post, with the alleged Hunter Biden hard drive that he just, you know, somehow found, however, the conversation went a lot different than it did in 2016. When we talked about these emails, mainly because the social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter were on hyper alert this year looking for misinformation, especially looking like it might come from a foreign government being involved in spreading that misinformation.

Marlene Gebauer: We’ve learned something, I guess.

Greg Lambert: I guess. We haven’t learned anything, I can tell you that. But I was listening to The Daily podcast from the New York Times this week. And they covered how the conversation is turning to the process of how to handle potential issues of what they were calling hack and leak. So New York Times reporter Kevin Roose mentioned that they have a hack and leak policy at the times. And it’s one that many of us have been following for years, but may not have actually an official policy and verifying questionable information resources. So the New York Times calls the policy and this is a horrible acronym. They call it EMAIL.

Marlene Gebauer: Oh, of course they do. Because that’s not going to confuse anybody that’s not already taken.

Greg Lambert: So email stands for Evidence, Motive, Activity, Intent and Labels. Now, I would have branded it different I would have I would have called it MAILE, that’s M A I L E. But that’s just my preference over EMAIL, anything is better than EMAIL. It’s a common sense approach to how we handle questionable information. But with the emotions running so high right now, you know, the desire to be the first one to distribute information or get something juicy out there. We may skip over some of the process and and be directly responsible for passing along misinformation. And as information professionals, that’s really something that we can’t afford to skimp on. So make sure that you practice MAILE procedures

Marlene Gebauer: Not Cyrus, just MAILE.

Greg Lambert: When you’re passing along the information that seems questionable, or or that information is way too good to be true.

Marlene Gebauer: Don’t be a wrecking ball. Practice your MAILE

Greg Lambert: Oh My God. So good.

[4:31]

Marlene Gebauer: So in honor of Election Day, my inspirations are about politics and voting. And Greg, you mentioned election days coming up. And of course, many states have early voting options. Now, Greg, you and I both took advantage of that option. And you know that I’m working the polls here in Texas on election day, and I was really fascinated by the process in my county. Now. I’ve never voted with a paper ballot until this week, so, so it was it was fun to compare the process to what I was used to in New Jersey. But you know, I admit listening to the news and the commentators and the analysts, you know, it gets it gets really stressful, because let’s face it, this, this is a historic presidential election. So Five Thirty-Eight offers eight tips to keep it together the last couple of weeks before the election. So what do they suggest? Okay, well, here’s a few things. I will as a quick aside, I will say that that the October surprise, really not a thing. Yeah, really not a thing, according to these guys. But anyway, for starters, even though it is a historic election, remember, we are in a pandemic, which, you know, I interpret to mean, essentially, you know, remember the elections, not the only thing that’s happening in the world. So keep things in perspective. Don’t pay too much attention to individual polls, wait for the polling averages to come out. Now. I think this makes good sense. Even though, you know, it was it was a kind of a shameless plug for Five Thirty-Eight because they happen to have that. And, and, you know, don’t buy into the ideas that the polls are broken, you know, or, or buy into sort of comparing a lot to 2016. You know, polls are imperfect and elections are different. So, you know, while you might be tempted to listen to that, and do that yourself, try not to. Also don’t pay too much attention to campaign behavior in the last couple of weeks before an election. You know, the campaign team often has no better read on public sentiment than the polls do. And there’s also a lot of hype from partisans, you know, right at the end, they’re trying to indicate that there’s large swings when in reality, things are really steady.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Now that I’ve voted, I’m like, Why are these signs still up?

Marlene Gebauer: I’m like, I don’t need this anymore. I’m done.

Greg Lambert: Done. All right. Well, Marlene, you know that I’m involved with an organization here in Houston called p flag, which is for parents, family and allies of the LGBTQ community. So this year has really pushed law firms, I think, to think and act more upon diversity, inclusion and equity of minorities and historically discriminated against members of our own firms. And one of the groups that I’m seeing who are becoming more visible in our workplaces is the LGBTQ community. Specifically, we are seeing more of the trans community coming out and being their true selves at work at major law firms. So this summer Squire Patton Boggs, partner Rafale Langer-Asuna, came out publicly as non binary, which means they go by they them pronouns, and they were supported by the firm. This week, Bloomberg law reported that Blake Liggio I hope I said that right. Blake made equity partner at Goodwin Proctor, and is one of a very small group of openly trans attorneys in large law firms. And I have to say, as Gen Z begins to graduate law school, there will be more trans lawyers who enters big law ranks. This isn’t because there’s something different about this generation. It’s because this is the first generation who grew up with the vocabulary, the resources, and the support to understand what it means to be someone who doesn’t fit the gender they were assigned at birth. This influx of trans and gender fluid attorneys coming out of law schools is gonna catch law firms off guard, they’re just gonna be flat footed and not ready for it. I can only imagine the mistakes that some firms are going to make by not being prepared. And to be perfectly honest, firms are just now come to grips with the LGB community. So I’m really happy that you know, Squire, Patton, Boggs and Goodwin Proctor are setting a good example for others to follow. And if your organization isn’t ready for how they’re going to handle trans attorneys, then they’re going to need to find a way to get help soon and to create a plan and create an environment that helps everyone feel welcomed and given every opportunity to succeed.

[9:25]

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I think this publicity around these things are great, but you know, exactly for the reason that you mentioned it. So that’s wonderful. I heard about a new book on Marketplace this morning about how modern government propaganda was born. It seems we can trace this back to World War One Woodrow Wilson and the Committee on Public Information which he created during the war. The the CPI was created with with very good intentions, and staffed by progressive educators and journalists, but Yet, like all propaganda machines do, apparently it ended up taking shortcuts rather than being democratic. So things like only telling one side of the story and sometimes not telling the truth. The committee also used methods to stifle speech. So you know how the term fake news is used today? Yeah, well, so a quick aside on that there was actually a book entitled Fake News published in 1912. So the term isn’t entirely new. Well, instead of fake news during Wilson’s term, they called it creeling, named after George Creel, who was the head of the CPI and who was always seen as putting a spin on things.

Greg Lambert: That’s, that’s one time your name, turning into a verb is not it not a really good,

Marlene Gebauer: Not a good thing. Another thing that happened is that if someone challenged Wilson, the CPI would call it ‘enemy talk.’ So if you said something against the president, you were unpatriotic. On the flip side, the CPI is responsible for Smokey the Bear and all other public service announcements. So some good did come out of it. But mostly bad seems

Greg Lambert: Only you can prevent Fake News.

Marlene Gebauer: I actually felt weirdly comforted by the fact that this seems similar to what we’re going through now and that the country moved past it.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, this type of misinformation. It’s, it reminds me of when I was in the army, one of the things that we were taught was, we don’t use biological weapons, because once you release it, you no longer have control over it. And I think we see the same thing with with fake news.

Marlene Gebauer: And that wraps up this week’s information inspirations.

Guest Introductions:

[11:52]

Marlene Gebauer: Even in the best of times meetings bring dread to most of us who have to attend them. But what if that weren’t the case? What if you looked at meetings as time to actually get things accomplished, and where you don’t have to worry about getting others buy in with the goals of the meeting, because they’ve already taken ownership. Today’s guest is going to tell us more about how we can turn our dread into productivity and action.

Marlene Gebauer: Douglas Ferguson is the founder of Voltage Control, a company that offers guidance and custom coaching to companies that want to transform their meetings. Douglas is an entrepreneur, author and technologist with over 20 years of experience, and a more impressive beard than Greg.

Greg Lambert: It took me almost 50 years to be able to grow a beard. So

Marlene Gebauer: Well, welcome, Douglas.

Douglas Ferguson: Thanks for having me. It’s great to be here.

Greg Lambert: So Douglas, your website says that your company designs and leads workshops that helps people in companies work better together. That’s a great mission. So can you explain to me what it is that facilitators like your company’s what their main purpose is? And what are some of the common hurdles that you see when when you get people to work together?

Douglas Ferguson: Well, there’s lots, you only have to attend a few meetings at any company to start to realize that there are kind of anti patterns and dysfunctions.

Greg Lambert: So you’ve been to some of our meetings I see.

Douglas Ferguson: A few in my lifetime. Yes. And, you know, I think the one big problem, that is a really unfortunate problem, which is these dysfunctions that happen, can often be interpreted as bad actors. So there’s a dysfunction that’s happening, someone’s reacting to something that is impacting them personally. And then others see that and they think, oh, why is he such a troublemaker? And it’s usually not the case, right? Usually, that person is responding to some threat, or maybe the concern of some kind of loss, they’re having to make a sacrifice of some sort. And the fact of the matter is, we haven’t slowed down to take that into consideration. My friend, Greg Sitel, often talks about every, every revolution sparks a counter revolution. And so even if we’re creating some good change in the world, there’s going to be a backlash of some sort, because some people don’t appreciate that change. And so if we understand that phenomenon, and really embrace it, it can, it can open up a lot of potential for us, as companies and as teams and organizations of all sorts. And a facilitator is someone who can, as an outsider, or sometimes and these outsiders are in house, sometimes, some companies have teams of facilitators that come and help assist when very critical conversation needs to happen, whether that be at the executive level, or, or even at the team level, we might be launching a new project. And it’s really important that we start off with a lot of momentum. Or maybe we have a project that stalled out, and we haven’t been able to get it moving. Or maybe we just need to explore our meeting systems. Some of the listeners might be familiar with the Entrepreneurs Operating System. And I’d like to point that out that as an example, if that’s a very, I would say, prescriptive meeting system that says Like, do your meetings in this way? We’re very big fans of doing a more diagnostic approach where we say, hey, let’s let’s reflect on what’s working and what’s not working. And then let’s keep what’s working. And then let’s look at how we might change what’s not working, and even the meetings that are working, Can we borrow them for other purposes? Can we slightly change them? Because everyone’s culture is a bit different. Let’s really embrace the fact that we work well in certain certain scenarios and don’t work so well in others. And how do we design accordingly. So it’s a it’s a, it’s kind of applying good design processes, to our, the way we meet and the way we work together.

Greg Lambert: You make it sound simple.

Marlene Gebauer: It’s sort of like agile, it’s sort of like agile, you know, meeting organization, you know?

[16:11]

Douglas Ferguson: Yeah, absolutely. I spent years and years writing software and building and growing startups. And, you know, I started to really become a fan of Patrick Lencioni. His work as well as lots of you know, the agile and different product management disciplines. But you know, the thing about Lencioni, that was really fascinating was this has talked around organizational health being more important than operational excellence. And if we can have stronger teams, and more trust, we’re going to be a lot better off than if we concentrate on making sure we’re doing all the things just right. And I think that really struck me as a young leader, and led me to experimenting with different ways of leading and bringing teams together. And then, you know, I’m just I’m taking that work out into the world and for other companies.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, that’s, that’s actually really interesting. And I wonder how many organizations really apply that?

Douglas Ferguson: Well, it’s really hard.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I had a follow up point to what you were talking about. You know, you were mentioning that that, you know, some people are in a meeting and something happens, and, you know, they feel like they take it personally or there’s they feel threatened somehow. And, and, you know, I think back and I don’t want to call them like personality tests, but essentially, they kind of assess, okay, is this someone who’s more analytical? And that will ask a lot of questions. And that sort of needs that assurance? Or is it someone who’s more concerned that, you know, if a decision is made, that everybody’s okay with it? And you know, is going to need that kind of reassurance? And, you know, I can see how, depending on your leadership style, somebody may, may take offense at that. It’s like, you know, why are you questioning me all the time? It’s like, you know, we’ve already decided this is what we’re gonna do? or Why do I have to make sure that how everybody feels about this? I wonder if that’s something that you also run into in your work?

Douglas Ferguson: Absolutely. And there’s lots of shades of gray there, right? You may have some leaders who struggle with tapping into the more emotional pieces, or maybe there are issues where the method of decision making is not made clear. And then the teams left confused. And so again, it comes back to my earlier points around, we have to first look at the problem and understand what’s going on. And then we can diagnose and talk about addressing, and well, how can we design a fix. So sometimes it could be dynamics on the team, how their leaders are showing up, or how they’re not showing up. And he talked about one example, which is something I see all the time, which is teams, reopening decisions. And I like to talk about durable decisions and how we make decisions more durable. One of the best ways to do that is to be really clear about your decision making framework, and also setting expectations up front. So what I mean by that is if you walk into a meeting, and you tell folks that I need to make a decision, your input is very important to me. I want to hear everything you have to say before I make the decision. Now that’s that’s a very clear expectation on what’s going to happen in that meeting. And then what you’re going to go do with that information versus if of you say is really important that this decision get made. What should we do? And that happens, or, you know, some version of that, right. So everyone has their own way of speaking. But so often, we don’t make it clear what our intentions are. Now, if I were to say, Greg, we really need to make a good decision here. I’m going to delegate it to you, what do you think we should do? Now? If I say exactly that, then I’ve also made it very clear that I expect Greg to make the decision. Now, if he comes back and tells me that I think we should go to Lanno. And I say, No, we totally should not go to Lanno, then that that that starts to erode trust in a very negative way. Because I have told him the decision was his and then I took it away from them. But often, the problem is with malaligned expectations, because we didn’t make it clear, people assumed. And then they got their feelings hurt, or they got, they just got misunderstood. And so it’s so easy, just to make it clear upfront what we’re thinking and how we’re going to go about it. And, and then then if we want to go even more deeper, you know, there’s lots of cool consensus making techniques. So that’s just like, in the simple majority, the super majority, or even there’s like, kind of gradient based consensus models are like, you know, like, a one veto and or any veto shuts it down kind of approach. So there’s just a lot of need, I think to be more clear up front, and not enough people are doing that.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, I’ve personally participated in one of your workshops, and I’ve listened to your live sessions on LinkedIn. And they’re great, by the way. The most recent one I heard is how to make meetings more effective. And just from our conversation now, it’s like, I know, we all want help in this regard. So can you give us a little overview of what you covered in that session?

[21:33]

Douglas Ferguson: Yeah, gosh. I talk so much about effective meetings. And I don’t know if I’m gonna specifically speak to that session. But I, you know, the thing that always comes to mind for me, is being intentional about the meeting taxonomy. And if we were to really get intentional about, like, what our meeting is, and why we’re meeting, then we’re going to be a lot more effective. And there’s, there’s many reasons for this. And often people will tell you, you got to have an agenda. And yes, agendas are important. I think we’re a lot of people fail is they think of agendas as list of topics, versus a roadmap or a blueprint for a good meeting. And instead, if we think about the arc that we want to take, how are we going to on ramp people and to this to this experience? How are we going to like move from one thing to the next? And how do we shift the behavior patterns? Because so often, well, so often meetings are just status updates, which is like, that’s another way to have effective meetings is just identify if it’s a status update, and then just remove those from your calendar. Or, let’s be intentional about why if we really feel strongly that we do have to bring people together, and we’re looking at it, we’re like, oh, it’s just a status update. And I’ll tell you, the number one, the number number one abuser of this role, are boards, think about it. Yes. Think about how many smart people you bring together for this board meeting. And then you pat yourself on the back. Not you specifically, Greg, but you know, the listener,

Greg Lambert: Nah… it’s me

Douglas Ferguson: How many board meetings have been there, and they Pat themselves on the back, just because they follow Robert’s Rules of Order. And they’re, you know, I said motion a couple times, like, good board meeting. But the thing is, is like, you’ve gotten together all these smart people, and you’re not putting them to use. And so that’s the thing, that how do we honor the participants? And how do we become really intentional about what we’re trying to accomplish? Because if it really is the fact that, hey, we just want to update our investors that happened to be on our board for how well we’re doing. And if we’re tracking two goals, and then maybe answer a few questions, could we just recorded a video, better yet summarize stuff in this into a nice into a nice deck and just send it over and answered some questions asynchronously. And so I think instead just being maybe we do that instead, that do the update asynchronously. Learn where there might be potential. Feed that into a good design, where we start to extract a lot of learning from the people that are going to help influence the company the most, you know, these very smart people, we’ve invited to our board for a reason, and help let them help guide us toward toward new destinations.

Marlene Gebauer: So like, like a lot of good design, you’re basically starting with the end goal and sort of working backwards as to how you should get there.

Douglas Ferguson: Absolutely. And I’m trying to be a tool agnostic. And I think in this virtual setting, a lot of folks look at like, Oh, I want to do a virtual event. Okay, I’ve heard Run the Worlds is really good. So open up Run the Worlds and say, Okay, what can I do? And I think that that’s where we get into a lot of trouble. And, you know, I’ll give you a give you an example. I was brought in to be a judge or offer critique to some UX students, for a local course here in Austin. And I noticed this trend around the folks that had kind of mediocre work, versus folks that had really interesting, unique work. Now, even the unique work had issues, you know, that stuff I could point out, and, you know, none of it was perfect. But I definitely saw there’s two camps where some stuff felt just ordinary run in the mill. Some stuffs felt different and special. And near the end, I started I got a hypothesis and then went back and talked to a few other students and proved my hypothesis, which was the students that just opened up Squarespace and started designing in Squarespace were the ones that made ordinary stuff, because they saw the world through the templates that were available, or just kind of did what was expected. The ones that started off and on paper, or Illustrator or whatever, and then started to move their stuff into the tool, were the ones that push the boundaries, because they were trying to accomplish some vision that they had set forth, rather than just being kind of hamstrung by the tool or being forced down a path by the tool. And so I thought, though, I mean, it’s obvious, right? But it was so profound to seeing them the massive difference between these this work product on the by the students.

Greg Lambert: And one of the thing I wanted to follow up with you on the on your comment on basically waste wasting the time of very smart people on a board by having a meeting, which is just basically an update of what’s going on. You hear this a lot, especially lately of you know, great, we just had another meeting that should have been an email. And I read one of your recent blog posts where you were you really kind of talking about a rebranding, how we talk and how we set up what we call meetings. I mean meetings is such a broad term that it may not be the best way. In fact, I think you start the blog post off with words have power. So what are some of the ways that, you know we can look and potentially rebrand how we talk about what it is that we’re going to do, instead of just saying everything’s a meeting?

[27:38]

Douglas Ferguson: You know, this is one of my favorite topics. And I’ll tell you a little anecdote here, which is URL give you something to kind of chew on. It got cut from the blog post, editing room floor, but it’s

Greg Lambert: Oh, original content.

Douglas Ferguson: That’s right.

Marlene Gebauer: Scooping!

Douglas Ferguson: Yeah. So I’m sure you’ve heard that phenomenon that Eskimos have like 900 words for snow. Because like, that’s their existence, they’re surrounded, they’re inundated with snow. And so it’s forced them to like come up with so much nuance in their language. What are we inundated with in corporate America? More than anything?

Greg Lambert: Meetings.

Douglas Ferguson: Yet, we have one word for them.

Marlene Gebauer: Email.

Douglas Ferguson: Email too, yes. So meanings. And we. So how do we rethink our language and taxonomy? And here’s the thing, if we’re gonna bring together folks to do a bunch of deep work, or if it’s just two of us, gathering the chat about something quickly, you know, or whether it’s something that’s going to be a big decisions, we’re gonna make. Where’s an all hands with the entire company. We still use a calendar and create a meeting, and we call it a meeting. And I think that it’s valuable to step back and think about what are we actually coming together for? What’s the best way to conduct said gathering, and when when’s it appropriate, who should be there, all these things can be really helpful to step back and explore because then it gives us a rubric or some guidelines by which we can operate. And this is what I refer to earlier by the word meeting systems. And so you know, we’re big fans of words like review, you know, verbs, you know, that we’re going to come together and do something. In fact, we have a meeting mantra that were referred to as do the work in the meeting. And so rather than talking about stuff, and then coming up with some action items, just another classic, best practice, you know, these action items, say, hey, go do these things. But what if we could have done them together. And the beautiful thing about doing the work together, is you start to uncover hidden talents on the team, whether that’s insights or capabilities, you also start to get deep ownership. And, you know, there’s no such thing as we, we can move away from the classic buy-in. And I really dislike that word, because buy-in assumes that you’re selling something. So let’s just have ownership. And the way we get to ownership is by creating space for folks to feel like they belong, and that they’re truly included. Just because they have a seat at the table, and we listen doesn’t mean they’re included. Are they allowed to roll their hands get on get on the tool and make a difference? And once people start doing that, then they are signing up, you know, you don’t have to have someone saying, Hey, can you do this, they’re already saying, Hey, I’m gonna take care of this, you know, they’re, they’re already telling, telling you what they think needs to be done and how they can make a difference. I’m a big fan of ending meetings and workshops of any sort with commitment, which is similar to action items. But instead, we’re asking everyone what commitments they’re gonna make. And so these are self-made commitments. And we usually encourage folks to think about how can, given the resources they have right now how can they make a big difference? And so it allows them to look through the lens of, well, based on what I have accessible to me, this is going to be really easy right now. And so prioritization, that that’s simple mode of prioritization, which is, like bottoms up and organic, tends to inspire tends to create enthusiasm. And there’s momentum that you get with that. So highly encourage people to think about how to continue consider their meetings from this lens of doing work, and driving real commitment and how can we label them so people understand the purpose because, as I said earlier, purpose is critical. And if we don’t understand what we’re gonna do, if we’re holding the meeting, and we don’t understand what we’re doing exactly, and we’re just going through motions. I mean, come on. I mean, why we’re just wasting people’s time.

Marlene Gebauer: You got a time suck.

Douglas Ferguson: We You know why but we haven’t communicated that’s just as bad. Because then no one knows coming in. So

Marlene Gebauer: Well, I really like that word commitment. Much more than action items, because action items, just it seems kind of removed. Commitment seems a little more personal. It’s like you’re Can you commit to this, it’s like, yes, it’s like, it’s sort of your word.

Greg Lambert: And, to me, it reminds me of what you do after a retreat, you know, when the retreat wraps up, that there’s this commitment of, Okay, here’s how we go forward, here’s, you know, whether it’s personal or organizational, that’s what that word kind of reminds me of when you walk away from that type of engagement.

[33:00]

Douglas Ferguson: 100%. And so what you’re, what you’re referring to, there is our inspiration, you know, if we can make people, if everyday meetings can feel like a mini-retreat, that’s when we’re hitting the nail on the head. Because we can borrow the those elements, and imbibe them, even if it’s like just the essence of them. I mean, because there’s certain things we can’t do, because we don’t have a whole day for this meeting. We don’t have a whole week for this meeting, or whatever. But they’re, they’re designed elements, and there’s intention that we can bring in. So to your point, this commitment is one example of that stuff, how we think about how meetings start. And can we hold space, and be intentional and reverence about that time, versus just jamming straight into the content. And another thing I’ll say to your point about the the commitment, and laddering back to retreats, imagine that the team does go on a strategic retreat, they make these commitments, then they go back to work and start attending normal meetings. How easy is it for them to commit, keep those prior commitments, unless they’re continuing to like affirm micro-commitments that ladder into those bigger ones? So it’s sort of like OKR’s that are nested, right, and then we kind of build up into like, the, these the work that we’re going to do and, and how we organize and prioritize our work. So I believe that if we’re going to make big commitments, then in order to stick through with them, we have to make smaller ones as well.

Marlene Gebauer: So I was in law, we hear a lot of talk about tech solutions, solving problems and how the use of technology is going to distinguish firms. And you know, as a technologist, you know, maybe maybe you agree with that. But with the rise of the influence of design thinking, maybe the soft skills of being more effective, dealing with people is going to be the deciding factor. How is your training contributing to that? Hmm.

Douglas Ferguson: Yeah, I think it’s both. I think you can’t have one without the other. I mean,

Greg Lambert: You would make a very good lawyer.

[35:17]

Douglas Ferguson: Well, it depends. So, here’s the thing. I mean, I think if certainly, building a world class, legal Operations Group and team that’s highly empowered by software, will make your firm or your legal department, I would say you will have competitive advantages, right? But if we’re just throwing pure technology at stuff, and we’re not actually looking at I mean, how do we even decide what’s the best technology, you know, it’s one thing to buy a CRM, we don’t, we don’t have a plan for how we organize it, how we use it, how we leverage it, then it’s probably not going to serve us that well. And so I think the technology is table stakes, but the design, the empathy driven decision making, how we hold space for our team, how we motivate them and build enthusiasm, that stuff is what’s really going to push us over the edge because anyone can go buy the software off the shelf. But if we empower our teams to be phenomenal, then that’s where we can really be better than anyone. And if you think about how much money we spend on number one expense of any company, or employees, you look at the HR spend. It’s really sad, right? But this notion of like, how do we how do we make our employees better is always seen as a, as a cost center. And also I feel like HR has been kind of relegated and a lot of companies to just the, you know, they’re the someone curses in the meeting, you know, they have to go talk to HR or they’re the ones that handle the the signing up for insurance or PTO policy and these things are, you know, and it’s like, wow, I thought for years that there could be more and I’ve been really excited watching and seeing HR professionals start to show up at design things. In conferences and because it makes total sense to me, this notion of taking the tools that are used to make empathy, human driven decisions for products that humans use, it’s very much just obvious that you could turn those tools inward and use them on employee experience. So instead of user experience employee experience, and you know, while that’s not our specific target, the fact that we target meetings, and that we target creating better meeting and better work experiences, we’re kind of attacking one sliver of that. But I think HR groups should be looking very broadly at the employee experiences and how, how they can improve them, because the better a company is at creating those dynamics. Especially if you’ve done a good job hiring, you got the right people set them up for success.

Greg Lambert: I wanted to kind of wrap this up, because I’ve taken a look at the voltage control website, and you get a ton of really good content that’s out there, you get templates, you’ve got books, you get case studies, you get a blog, you gotta get your own podcast. And I have to say, your your equipment looks much, much, much better than ours. And the one thing I did want to mention, while I get you on the call here is I really love and appreciate the diversity of the guests that you It means guests in the the ideas that you have on the podcast, because that’s not an easy thing to do. I mean, it has to be intentional.

Douglas Ferguson: Absolutely.

Greg Lambert: But for those of us that are in the legal industry, where would you suggest if we go to your voltage control website, where where should we start?

[39:14]

Douglas Ferguson: Oh, yeah, I guess it really depends on the challenge. You know, like, again, coming back to the, the design process is first really thinking about what what it is that you you’re seeking help on, I think that certainly the templates are a decent place to start, if there’s any experience running meetings and facilitating, and then those are just totally ready to use, I would say the resources section is kind of like assuming that people are, are a bit more experienced. That said, we have a guide at the top of that resources page called the it’s the guide to virtual meetings. And I think there’s a lot of really practical advice there. And, you know, one thing that I’m noticing with a lot of folks is that, you know, zooms pretty intuitive. And so when people download it and install it and get a little bit comfortable about where the buttons are in the stuff, they’re like, Okay, we got virtual meetings down. And so I would encourage folks just to think a little bit broader, about how, how virtual meetings can be different. So the virtual meeting guides really great. We’ve also been co producing a series of modules with mural. And so I’ve been going live talking about those modules every other week. And so this next week, we’re launching the fifth module in that series will be the final one. There’s a lot of great content and those modules around how to get started. And we’ve even our focus was for folks that are just starting to learn how to do visual thinking, how to use tools like mural, specifically mural in their, in their meetings. And so these, these templates were meant to be approachable for anybody, because I think a lot of folks see the design thinking stuff, and they’re like, oh, where do I start? To get a degree in this stuff? Like these words don’t make any sense. So we were we were creating some really simple stuff, just to just for teams to start exploring some of this stuff together. So highly encouraged to check those templates out there. They’re on our website under the resources section. And of course, you know, people could fill out a form on our site with with a challenge, and we’re happy to offer some advice up if folks are interested in we have a monthly newsletter, full updates on all the content that’s coming out, and little tidbits and things that are helpful. So you know, definitely, definitely find us. We’re totally willing to help you on the journey.

Marlene Gebauer: Great. Well, thank you, Douglas. It’s it’s been this has been a great conversation, and I’ve really learned a lot and thank you again. Yeah.

Douglas Ferguson: Thanks. Absolutely. Thanks for having me.

Outro:

[42:00]

Greg Lambert: Marlene, I really like the idea that Douglas had about making commitments at the end of the meetings rather than assigning action items, I hate action items, although I do request them every at the end of every meeting, okay, what’s our action items? You know, also to follow up the meeting with these micro commitments that he was talking about to build and help accomplish the actions that you’ve committed to in the in the meeting? I think that’s just a great way of looking at it and owning it, as he said, rather than just having a to do list of things, you know, maybe maybe to complete before the next meeting, so, and I also liked how he was talking about thinking of meetings, as many retreats instead of meetings that that really appealed to me.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah. So I liked all of the things that you mentioned. But I also like the idea of like, okay, we’re going to come to the meeting, we’re going to actually do the work in the meeting. Yeah. Okay. Not just talk about the work that we’re going to do. We’re going to actually do it, and use that time to do it and work together to me that that makes perfectly good sense. And I don’t know why we didn’t think of that earlier.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. I think one of the things we missed was if we’re going to do the work at the meeting, I think everyone should check their cell phones at the door.

Marlene Gebauer: Mm hmm. Off turns off,

Greg Lambert: Once again, thanks to Voltage Controls Douglas Ferguson for joining us today.

Marlene Gebauer: Before we go, we want to remind listeners to take the time to subscribe on Apple podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, rate and review us as well. If you have comments about today’s show, or suggestions for a future show, you can reach us on Twitter at @gebauerm or @glambert. Or you can call the Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 or email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com And as always, the music you hear is from Jerry David DeCicca. Download the new album!!

Greg Lambert: Yeah. Thanks, Jerry. All right, Marlene, I will talk with you later.

Marlene Gebauer: Okay, bye bye, Greg.

The Geek in Review Ep. 91 – Richard Hsu on Why Law Firms Will Need Lawyers to Return to the Office

Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:26:50 GMT

We all know that the hybrid workplace is coming to our law firms. That is, where some lawyers are working every day from their office spaces, while others continue to work remotely. Many believe that this will be the permanent workplace of the future, and there is a Pollyannish attitude from some in the industry who think that the past seven months prove that we can do as much remotely, as we can from the office. Richard Hsu of the recruiting firm Lindsey, Major, and Africa is not one of them.

While Hsu understands that there is a paradigm shift in how legal services are provided to clients and that having a swanky office in a high-rent downtown district is not required for top-notch services, young attorneys need structure in their training and experiences. That upbringing of the next generation of talent cannot take place effectively in a remote environment. The current situation, where nearly all of the attorneys are working remotely is giving us a false sense of security that we can continue this success in a hybrid model. Hsu thinks that it will actually be the hybrid model that will accelerate the desire to get all of the lawyers, by and large, back to the office full time.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

Jerry David DeCicca, who provides the fantastic music you hear on this podcast, has a new album coming out on October 16th. Go check out The Accidental Optimist and His Domestic Adventures on Spotify or Bandcamp.

The legal tech industry is not lacking for tools, but it has lacked for a good method of finding the right tool for the right task. Nikki Shaver and Chris Ford talked with Bob Ambrogi about how they created a resource to help solve that problem. The LegalTech Hub is a searchable database of legal technology resources which allows customers to search for the tools they need, as well as developers and vendors to put their resource information on the site for free.

Today’s guest isn’t the only one who seems to think that remote work isn’t the best method. A Wall Street Journal article mentions that many business leaders also think that even a hybrid work model isn’t sustainable. Marlene has a few thoughts on why those leaders are being too narrow in their thoughts on the work model which may be around for years.

One other “feature” of the current work model is the need to work while wearing a mask. Harvard Business Review has a number of suggestions on how to make your work environment function clearly, even when your voice is muffled.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

[0:15]

Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to the Geek in Review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.

Greg Lambert: And I’m Greg Lambert. So Marlene, before we get too far into the show, I wanted to state that I think that we have the best music of any podcast out there.

Marlene Gebauer: I would have to agree with that.

Greg Lambert: So it’s great having Jerry David DeCicca’s music on the show. And what’s really cool is that Jerry is releasing a brand new album tomorrow, called the Unlikely Optimist and His Domestic Adventures. Doesn’t Yeah, that’s a mouthful. So as an added bonus, my fellow legal information professional and Jackson Walker research attorney Eve Searls is a major collaborator on the album, and she’s playing the Oregon and she’s singing on a number of the song. So if you like the music that you hear, go check out Jerry’s Spotify page and his boot camp site for more information, and how to buy and download the music. So the Unlikely Optimist is available starting Friday, October 16.

Marlene Gebauer: I can’t wait to hear it.

Greg Lambert: Alright, so off from the music and let’s get on to this week’s information inspirations.

[1:32]

Information Inspirations

Greg Lambert: So Marlene, one of the things that I tell attorneys and others in my own firm is that we usually don’t lack for resources here. But what we lack for is knowing which resource to use at the right time. And I don’t think that that’s necessarily a concept that’s limited to me and my firm. You know, we have all kinds of great resources for the legal industry. But what we lack is a way to find what resources work best for individual needs. So a friend of ours, Nikki Shaver, from Paul Hastings, along with her spouse, Chris Ford, from the legal tech companies Zero, have created an online research tool called legal tech hub. And this categorizes and list resources available in the legal tech market. And Bob Ambrogi has a great overview of the product on his last site blog, and some of the background on why Nikki and Chris built the product. And one of the nice things about legal tech hub is that you can not only search for products as a consumer of legal tech, but if you are a developer of a product or a vendor, they have where you can actually put your product on the site for free.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I saw this this post. And so I was really excited about it. And you know, again, I mean, it is free, it is free to search and it’s free to post.

Greg Lambert: And you know, we like free, and

Marlene Gebauer: we we love, we love for the love free. We love it. So our podcast today is about remote versus in person working conditions. What I’ve been hearing is more of a continued work environment or a hybrid model. And while there are certainly exceptions based on type of work, workers are seem to be very accepting and maybe even a little happy about that sort of arrangement. However, a recent Wall Street Journal article, you know, just had to dampen the mood.

Greg Lambert: Now, this is the Wall Street Journal. So you know, it was pro business,

Marlene Gebauer: As it does, and says companies are thinking that work from home isn’t really so great. So they mentioned that projects are taking longer and training is tougher. You know, we’re going to be covering some of this actually, in the actual podcast today. Hiring and integrating new employees is more complicated. Some employers say their workers appeared less connected and bosses fear young professionals aren’t developing at the same rate as they would in offices sitting next to colleagues and absorbing how they do their jobs. And you know, one benefit of working face to face is that we’re missing a spontaneous interaction moment. So being able to have those conversations that won’t happen on a Zoom call. So you know, the executives are starting to say, well, this might not be sustainable. And, you know, I agree with some of the arguments. I don’t think projects take longer across the board. And I’ve actually seen projects move more quickly with things like daily Scrum meetings and chats. And you know, spontaneous interaction is definitely harder, but not impossible. What I really wonder is whether executives are up to the challenge of taking a new look at how workflow should operate in our new normal and making that change or if it’s just easier for everybody to fall back onto old patterns.

Greg Lambert: Probably easier to fall back on old patterns. Marlene my my last inspiration may actually be more of a desperation than an inspiration. So it’s been the experiences that I’ve had over the past few weeks. So I’ve gone to an number of online conferences recently, right now I think it’s day two for for the Clio conference. Last week, I was at the college of law practice management conference, I was at a local law library meeting today. So there’s, there’s a lot going on, it’s good content that’s out there. And I have to tell you, I struggle to focus on on the content that was made available. And I paid for these conferences. So it’s not like, you know, these are free conferences. And, and it’s not a big deal if I, if I skip out on them. But one of the things I could do is, I could go back and look at the video, the videos, rewatch some of the sessions, or watch some of the sessions that were recorded. But you know, between you and me, I’m not gonna do that,

Marlene Gebauer: you and me and the rest of the people that are listening,

Greg Lambert: Don’t tell them. So, within speaking of the other people that are listening, what I’d like to do is reach out to the listeners and see if someone has kind of figured this out. If you kind of know what you’re doing to be able to commit time to these online conferences in a way that you’re able to focus and actually get some value from the content. Hit me up on Twitter at @glambert, tell me your strategy, or leave me a voicemail on our hotline at 713-487-7270. And help me out. Help me find a way to to make these more valuable than than what I’m getting.

[6:46]

Marlene Gebauer: So if we’re going back to the office, according to The Wall Street Journal, we’re going to have to get used to communicating and masks which you know, is really easier said than done. When you think about it. You’re muffled, your facial expressions are blocked, you know, we may have to train hours,

Greg Lambert: Which may not be a bad thing.

Marlene Gebauer: That might work in some people’s favor. So you know, but we really may have to train ourselves on a whole new way of communicating. Harvard Business Review had a great article the other day on how to build rapport with a mask on. And so I want to share a few of their suggestions. All right. Some of some of these are, you know, you’ve heard them before, some of them are a little amusing, but you know, let’s go through them. So, first of all, don’t wear a clear mask. Unless you’re communicating with a deaf person, it’s probably not a good idea. But honestly, it might not even be a good idea then because they probably cloud up and your breath condensation looks a little creepy.

Greg Lambert: Yes, it does.

Marlene Gebauer: Yes, it does. Practice your mask voice. And you know, I read this and I thought this may be one situation where speaking loudly really does make you better understood. So when practicing your mask voice, you should pause. So normally visual cues of the mouth help us see when a speaker is pausing for a response. And since we can’t see that now, make a conscious effort to pause here and there to give people opportunities to jump in and respond. And it also breaks up your message into digestible chunks. So you accentuate so you avoid being boring by accentuating key phrases and information. But don’t always accentuated in the same way. You know, you use different intonations like you would normally.

Marlene Gebauer: Volume as I mentioned before, masks have a slightly muffling effect slightly, so Speak up, but you know, don’t yell. And emotion. You know, inappropriate moments. Try and make your voice more expressive by conveying positive emotions like excitement, awe, gratitude, and sympathy. You know, but do this in moderation. Otherwise, you sound like you’re acting. Use gestures and body language and I’m just gonna leave that there. And speaking of gestures, and body language mirror what your counterpart does and that is supposed to build rapport. Smile with your eyes, which you know, I think we’ve all…

Greg Lambert: SMIZE!

Marlene Gebauer: Smize, we’ve all heard about that. And and keep the two T’s aligned and the T’s are toes and torso. So face who you’re speaking with and don’t turn like you want to run away, even though you might want to run away. And that wraps up this week’s information inspirations.

Greg Lambert: So Richard Hsu and I go back all the way back to our King and Spalding days. But nowadays, he’s working on the recruiting side of the legal industry. And he has some really interesting ideas of why the workplace model facing law firms might be more of a struggle than we’re anticipating.

[10:02]

Interview

Greg Lambert: We’re now exactly seven months into the pandemic here in the United States. And for many in the legal industry, it’s been about that same amount of time since they’ve actually worked side by side with their fellow lawyers and legal professionals. So we asked Richard Hsu, managing director and Major Lindsey & Africa to come in and talk with us, give us his perspective on what the law firm office may look like, once this pandemic is over.

Marlene Gebauer: Richard, thanks for taking the time to talk with us.

Richard Hsu: Marlene, it’s always been a pleasure. I’ve known Greg for many, many years. And it’s always good to be invited to speak on his podcast.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, we’ve heard a lot of projections on what the new work environment will look like after the pandemic. What do you think will happen once we’re allowed to fully reoccupied our physical offices?

Richard Hsu: Right. Well, you know, look, a lot of stuff has been written about all the things that are missing in a remote office and stuff has been written about, you know, the casual interactions, the culture, the discussions at the watercooler, you know, a lot of the micro interactions that happen that are very, very important in having a collegial and important workforce things, you know, the conversations that happen, you know, in the hallways, or, you know, in the elevator, you’re passing somebody by. And I think all those are really true, and I don’t, I’m not here to, you know, diminish any of those points. But a lot of people are wondering that they’re fundamentally, lawyers, in particular, and I’ll draw upon my own experience of having been a practicing lawyer about whether lawyers can work effectively remotely. And my personal opinion is, is that once the pandemic is over, lawyers will largely, by and large, go back to the work office. Now, I say this for a couple of reasons. I’m one of them, which is very funny to the lawyers actually learn things and the way lawyers actually, if you look, if you look at the legal profession, the legal profession is actually more like an apprenticeship. And if you think about kind of how I look at myself, when I look at how I learned things as a lawyer, most of what I learned, or how I learned was by watching and observing, and basically mimicking what senior and more experienced lawyers do. And you can’t do that, I assume. So, for example, when I was a very new litigator, you know, how did I learn to take a deposition? Well, I watched somebody else do the deposition, I watched how he asked the questions and learn how to react and stuff. And by thinking about, for example, how did I learn to negotiate contracts on behalf of my clients, while I listened in on, you know, client calls, and I watched how they observed and interacted and so so much of being a lawyer is watching and learning. And you it’s very hard to do that on zoom calls, because you’ll get an opportunity to observe them, you know, in a more broad sense, it has to be a very specific interaction. So I really believe that once the pandemic is over, and people can go back to the office that will become very important, essentially, for that reason.

Marlene Gebauer: So you’re talking about how it’s difficult to interact with within zoom meetings, and I completely understand that, but but you know, what about things like team spaces where, you know, basically, everybody not only can see one another, but are sharing documents or working on documents together, are getting feedback, you know, in some of these type of huddle meetings? What sort of future does that have?

[13:32]

Richard Hsu: Mm hmm. Well, I’m glad you asked that, because I think and again, this is a problem, you know, slightly contrary, but part of the reason why those things kind of work now is because everybody is remote. And so it’s sort of a levels, the playing field. So if all of the certain videos and all of us are using doc share whatever, did Microsoft Teams and so forth, it sort of works. But the real problem will be is that once the office opens back up, and some people start going back, then the hybrid model, I think we’re actually accelerate people to start going back in the office, because what’s going to happen is those people that remain offsite are going to feel like second class citizens. They’re going to feel like they’re at a real disadvantage, because they can’t communicate as clearly. And they’re not going to be able to communicate as clearly as the people there in the office. So I’m not saying that the things that you’ve talked about the technology doesn’t work. I think the only really work if everybody’s first remote. And once people can go back to the office has been people start doing it. And I think people will find the need, and the frequency of doing that in order to really, you know, stay effective.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, I’m wondering, Richard, do you think there are some lawyers out there who truly believe that they will never go back and have have a permanent office in a physical space again, even if their co workers go back?

Richard Hsu: Well, there definitely are. I mean, they’re definitely are depending on you know, I should obviously id that certain types of practices, which are just, you know, if, for example, you completely work alone in your practices, you know, it’s a complete solo practice, and you don’t have the need to interact with people. You don’t have the need to work with, you know, people in a group or a team, or you’re certainly not training any Junior lawyers or working with them. You know, I think both people and even before the pandemic, there were always lawyers that I mean, there have been lawyers that work as solo practitioners always from home and never have been in the office. So, you know, those who will continue to exist for sure. But I think for, you know, certainly in big law where, you know, lawyers work as teams, and where lawyers use lots of associates, it’s important for always to be grooming Junior lawyers.

Greg Lambert: You live in San Francisco, and you’ve worked in Silicon Valley, and it is not cheap. living there. It is not cheap working there.

Marlene Gebauer: And the commute is terrible.

Greg Lambert: And so one of the one of the things that I think a lot of professionals, you know, and we’ll, we’ll stay with the legal profession, but you know, you know, there’s, there’s a lot of people in Silicon Valley that are, you know, that are smacking their lips, trying to figure out if they can go buy that ranch in Montana. And you know, as long as they get a solid internet connection can can work from there. And I think even Facebook is saying, Yeah, you can work wherever you want, you get paid whatever the local rates are for that area. But if you want to move to Montana and get Montana pay, we can do that. Can we do something like that in legal?

[16:27]

Richard Hsu: Well, that’s, that’s the thing is, I really don’t think so. I really think that what will happen, like I said, and it won’t happen right away, because right now, everybody’s remote. So it doesn’t matter whether you’re in San Francisco, or Montana. But I believe what’s going to happen is when when the office opens back up, and people start going back to work, the person that’s in Montana, is going to feel very much distance and is going to feel like a second class citizen. And it’s going to feel very disconnected from the people that are in the office. So really, the lot of problems I’m talking about are actually not happening right now, again, because everybody is remote, and so called hybrid model is starting to introduce people start come back to office, that’s when I think people will really notice it. And, you know, I know I’m drying my experience from obviously, having been a practicing lawyer for 25 years. But even when I think about my days, as an engineer, which I was before I went to law school, when I think about how I did most of my learning from as being an engineer, it was very much, you know, again, the same kind of watching and learning, learning from more experienced programmers and observing what they were doing. And, and again, those are really, really hard to do just over Zoom. I mean, again, a lot of those happen very spontaneously. Those are, those are very situational things that come up and you teach somebody, okay, this is how you do this here. And this is how you do that there. Those cannot be scheduled, those are very hard to learn in the classroom setting. So I think for all those reasons, I think it’s going to be really, really tough.

Marlene Gebauer: So do you think that there’s actually an expectation that there’s going to be a hybrid model? You know, that some stay at home and some, some work in the office? And how do you think this is going to play out with leadership of the firm when it comes to trusting that those they don’t see very often we’ve talked a little bit about how it’s important to learn to have have people together. But what about trust issues?

Richard Hsu: Well, I don’t know, honestly, at least in the law firm. I don’t see that as being an issue. Because I think, you know, lawyers, by and large, are very hard workers. And there’s, you know, there’s often deliverables of lawyers report, whether they’re drafting documents or writing briefs, or so I think there’s enough metric, so I don’t think trust issue is going to be there. And just feel like, you know, and I think hybrid model is going to be the way that law firms are going to initially, they’re going to, that’s how they’re going to try to accomplish this goal. They’re gonna tell me what I need the best, because for health reasons, or on a more permanent basis, they might try to say, you know, they will probably work. But I just, again, I just go back to the point that I think that that will be very unstable. And I just don’t see that really working.

Greg Lambert: I think you’re right, I think we’re probably going to roll into this hybrid model. And we might be there for a number of years. And so is this about setting expectation for leadership about how they’re going to work with remote workers? Are these going to be viewed as lesser value lawyers because they aren’t able to deliver the results that their counterparts will will be able to do? Because they are actually physically in the office?

Richard Hsu: Well, I mean, look, I think it’s remains to be seen how this will work. I mean, a couple things that strike me is, I mean, I believe, like I said, I don’t think the hybrid model is going to work. So one of two things kind of has to happen either, you kind of force everybody to all go back to being remote. I could see that as sort of one way of kind of releveling the playing field. In other words, which I know seems kind of awkward, but I could sort of see that as one possibility. The other possibility is that if the number of remote workers is relatively small, I think that can also be managed more effective at the end, in a specific individual, I don’t know how they’re going to feel about, you know, healing, again being more distance. But, you know, any even even pre pandemic, law firms typically had, you know, they’re always a handful of people that own room work remotely. And I think that can be kind of managed. But to have a team where half is remote and half is in the office for, you know, group for kind of kind of work where people need to work in groups, I think they’ll be very hard to manage. But I could see, for example, Greg, like one thing, but I think it’s totally possible is, for example, you’ve been on conference calls, where three people are in the office and three people are remote, and it’s almost impossible to go remote, or really participate. I mean, we know for a fact, everyone’s on zoom, that can kind of work. But if three people are on it, it just doesn’t work. So one possibility, for example, I can see this is your question. Like, for example, let’s say that three people are in the office, they insist that everybody participate in a meeting by computer, even if they’re in the office. So now I could see that work. I mean, it’s very artificial, and it seems silly, but I could see that facilitating, for example, a meeting, so at least they can be, of course, the thing that’s gonna happen is as soon as that meeting is over, in the office are gonna huddle together and talk all about it, you know, and so it kind of is over. But those are the kind of artificial things I could see, to kind of try to make the hybrid model work.

Marlene Gebauer: Do you think that there may be a difference of opinion when you’re talking generationally in terms of what the preference or comfort level will be? In terms of being remote? Or not being remote? You know, perhaps those are, who are who are more, you know, digital natives will be like, that’s, you know, that’s absolutely fine. I can I can learn this way. And it doesn’t bother me, but yet, you know, other people who are not may say, you know, I’m not comfortable with that.

[21:59]

Richard Hsu: Hmm. Well, it’s certainly possible. I mean, I definitely recognize the fact that I’m, you know, a, you know, a mid to late career lawyer. And so that definitely,

Marlene Gebauer: Ha, I did not imply that…

Richard Hsu: that’s definitely a possibility. I kind of feel like, you know, the things that human beings learned is not something that’s just happened over the last, you know, two generations, you know, if you learn, it’s kind of goes back to the human species works. And, you know, if you believe fundamentally, that we learn things by observing, and we learn things by mimicking, and I think it’s pretty much in our hardware, that’s not a software update that happened in the last 20-30 years, you know, I don’t think long term, it’s going to be very effective. And I think I could see, for example, a gap, if this goes on for a really long time, I can see a gap in expertise and training, for example, in young lawyers, where they never really learned a lot things that, you know, typically see. oh, you know, again, this all depends on how old the thing the pandemic goes for. But that’s, that’s my field.

Marlene Gebauer: And just for the record, I mean, I agree with that, that, that learning with somebody there, there’s just an ease of interaction that you don’t necessarily have when, when it’s, it’s when it’s digital.

Richard Hsu: And then when you think about yourself, and all the things, how you learn things, you know, especially in a professional environment, it was low, mainly, you know, interaction. It was silly for lawyers, when you think about how much you know, they think all the time, but you know, when you think about how much you lost, who helped you become a practicing lawyer, it’s usually very little, because the reality is most practicing lawyer is from those interactions that you learn, and watch and observe other lawyers, not from what you learn reading a book of contracts, you know, and so, I mean, something you think about, you know, and lawyers talk about this all the time how Law Students come out, and they don’t, they don’t know anything, at least know how to practice law. They know, you know, a lot of knowledge and legal knowledge. So that’s, that’s kind of where that’s my thinking,

Marlene Gebauer: this this sort of hybrid or, you know, completely remote sort of model. Is this going to, is this going to impact the thought in any way of, you know, outsourcing attorneys, do you think? Interesting?

Richard Hsu: Oh, in what way, like the fact that, like, they’ll that will increase the amount of outsourcing or?

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, well, I mean, I will firms be more open to that idea, given the fact that that people, you know, they’re getting used to people working remotely, and you know, would that sort of open the door to more outsourced work?

Richard Hsu: Right, right. Using more independent contractors and that sort of thing. Is that what you’re talking about? Yeah. Probably, I would probably agree with that. I mean, law firms already started moving towards that whenever they need it. You know, you think a lot about e-discovery and things like that are a lot largely outsourced to non full time lawyers. So I could see that also being sort of a growing trend and feeling that they need to have those lawyers present. But again, I think those only tasks which you know, are going to be like e-discovery, which is more episodic, or things that, you know, very disk kind of project. But I think that anything is going to be very much involved in, like the core of a client’s needs. I, I’m not sure.

Greg Lambert: Richard, do you think that? I mean, you’re you’re in Silicon Valley area? Do you think that technology will eventually figure out ways to kind of bridge the gap for all of the things that it lacks? Now, you know, you talked about, you got to be in the room to really kind of see the body language to kind of see the emotion to hear the way that the sound is projecting, you know, from from different parts of the room to really get a feel for what’s going on. Is this a technology issue that that can be solved? Or is this a human issue that unless you’re in the room, you’re gonna lose out on? What do you what do you think?

[26:01]

Richard Hsu: Right? Well, that’s a very good question. I mean, I’m, I’m a bit of a technology fatalist. So I do believe that everything that can be invented ultimately, well, and so it does, I mean, a logical thing would be the thing that somebody picked out. So good, and so accurate, that you know, that you can essentially mimic it in the room. But, you know, we’re still pretty long way from there, probably. And so I certainly think at least in my lifetime, I don’t see that happening to a point where, you know, you can really replace being the room and even if the technology is so good that you can be in the room and then make it again, that that’s not that that’s not the real core of what I’m saying is that the thing about the watch and observing, I mean, that’s really the constant sort of being right there. Right. So this is not about whether when we are on the zoom call, it’s so good, that it’s like we’re being this room, it’s it’s the fact that you and I are in the office next door, you know, and constantly interacting in a way, you know, you have to be like, if your camera were on all day and my camera all day or something like that, you know, which is not so much about technologists, although, you know, clearly, if you if you have a meaningful Zoom call, you know how well that works?

Greg Lambert: Yeah, my answer is this. Eventually the Star Trek holodeck will just create that.

Richard Hsu: Ah, that’s certainly not in our lifetime. But you’re right.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. Well, well, let me let me wrap this up by asking something that Marlene and I and other legal information professionals we’ve we’ve had to deal with for 25 years. And I think the legal industry is now coming to this realization as well, is that, you know, for the longest time, we were thought of by the location that we were in. For the library, it was, you know, it was the shelf with the books and the people were there with the shelf with the books. You know, law firms are seen as a brick and mortar, some 40 storey tall building downtown, you know that you occupy the top five floors with beautiful views and beautiful conference rooms. And but that’s really not what a law firm is. It’s not necessarily about the location. And I think this pandemic is kind of accelerating this paradigm shift with within and it’s not just law firms, it’s law schools and courts are also finding this. So is this really something that, you know, the law firms just going to go back to being a place? Or do you think this is a paradigm shift, and it’s now going to be seen as a service in the law firm is going to have to adjust and figure out ways to train and mentor and facilitate, you know, lawyers and clients that aren’t necessarily physically in in a building?

Richard Hsu: Well, I think I mean, the answer is, it is and it isn’t. It is, I think, part about the paradigm shifting.

Greg Lambert: That’s a great lawyer answer.

Richard Hsu: Yes, and no, I was that, yes. You know, the paradigm shift part is definitely lawyers can deliver legal services remotely. That was understood, but now that’s completely, you know, that’s that there’s reality. And so and so the fact that this is offices is no barrier at all, to be able to deliver legal services, actually, to clients and clients don’t need to see their lawyers and clients don’t need to know where their lawyers are physically. I mean, that’s clearly true. And that has been proven now. This year, law firms are busier than ever with, you know, legal with with clients and legal work. So I think that part’s different. I think the part that’s not so not remains to be seen or I’m skeptical about is is more on the work side is whether the lawyers work effectively, remotely. Clearly the services delivered.

Greg Lambert: Well, Richard, it was great talking with you. You know, thanks for coming on sharing your thoughts on something that, you know we’re all eventually going to have to face this.

Marlene Gebauer: Thank you.

Richard Hsu: Greg and Marlene, always a pleasure.

[30:28]

Post-Interview

Greg Lambert: It’s always a good conversation with Richard, I see a lot of truth in the assessment of the industry as we move forward, getting people back into the offices full time. So Marlene do you think we might be a little Little too pollyannish in our projections on how law firms will function in this type of hybrid working model,

Marlene Gebauer: I, I have never been told that I’ve been pollyannish. But, you know, I was playing devil’s advocate there for a while, and you know, but you know, Richard really had some some very good arguments in favor of being face to face. In many ways, it really does make a difference in terms of how you interact with people, and particularly, when you don’t know people. And you know, if we’re sort of in the situation where people aren’t having the opportunity to, you know, get to know people in person. You know, this is just something that sort of continues to build.

Greg Lambert: Yep. And this, I think this falls in the category of this is a challenge and a change in the structure of how we work. And there will be those who figure it out, and there will be those who get left behind. So I say you should, should start thinking about how you’re going to figure it out.

Marlene Gebauer: Mm hmm. I agree. I agree. I think so too. Because, you know, while people are facing a lot of stress now, I mean, that’s really because of the situation with the pandemic. That’s not necessarily because you’re working remotely. And I think people are really starting to, you know, recognize, you know, workers are starting to recognize the benefits of working remotely, and and the fact that there’s a lot less stress and certain ways of being able to work and maintain a personal balance.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. Well, thanks again to Richard Hsu for joining us today.

Marlene Gebauer: Thank you very much, Richard, it was great. Before we go, we want to remind listeners to take the time to subscribe on Apple podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts rate and review us as well. If you have comments about today’s show, or suggestions for a future show, you can reach us on Twitter at @gebauerm or at @glambert, or you can call the Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 or email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com And as always, the music here is from Jerry David DeCicca. Download his new album!

Greg Lambert: Yeah, go buy it. All right, Marlene, I will talk with you later.

Marlene Gebauer: Okay, bye bye.

The Geek in Review Ep. 90 – Using Data Analytics to Tell Your Story with RStudio’s Sarah Lin

Thu, 08 Oct 2020 10:00:15 GMT

In order to measure what matters, it is important to have the data available to help. Sarah Lin is the Information Architect & Digital Librarian at RStudio, PBC, and is also a law librarian. RStudio wanted someone to help them manage their digital morass and to Marie Kondo their digital information. Is there anyone better than a law librarian with some tech skills to do just that?

Sarah discusses what the R Programming language does, and how she got interested in the profession of statistical computing. While some may not see a direct link between being a law librarian and an R programmer, there are actually a number of skills librarians possess which make them well suited for data analytics. One skill is our ability to understand, clean, and organize information. For RStudios, the Chief Scientist, Hadley Wickam created Tidyverse which helps in handling the clean data tasks. And there are also resources like Shinyapps.io to help organize. Throw in a law librarian to have it all make sense and tell a story and you have a fantastic combination of skills and tools. And we should mention that it is free open-source software.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

To learn more about the R language check out:

Information Inspirations

Roy Sexton from Clark Hill lays out what law firm marketing does as opposed to what law firm business development does in the latest episode of Steve Fretzin’s Be That Lawyer. Roy’s advice of the “Rule of Three” when it comes to promoting yourself and your marketing products makes this a must-listen episode.

Adam Smith, Esq. covers the new initiative by our friend Phil Flora and Leopard Solutions on ranking law firms by their vitality and resilience, not just once a year, but in real-time.

Feeling the effects of COVID, the election, the environment, or the hundred other stressors in your life? Maybe take Prof. Eric Janssen’s advice and put down your phone and go for a walk.

Did you know there was a Pirate who was a 17th Century Anthony Bourdain? Marlene teaches Greg about this culinary outlaw and also teaches him about breadfruit.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to the geek and review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marvin Gaye Bauer

Greg Lambert: And I’m Greg Lambert.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, Greg, I’m enjoying pumpkin spice everything and baseball. And I hope to get out and do some cool weather kayaking soon.

Greg Lambert: I don’t know about being on the water while it’s cool, but you know, to each their own. And I will tell you that so far, I think I’ve avoided pretty much anything that’s pumpkin spice flavored so well that’s

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, that’s amazing.

Greg Lambert: It is true so far, so far.

Marlene Gebauer: We got a few more weeks.

Greg Lambert: we have a great conversation coming up with RStudios Sara Lynn. But first, let’s go ahead and jump into this week’s information inspirations.

Greg Lambert: Alright, Marlene, so Steve Fretzin has this great podcast on business development coaching in the legal industry. And it’s called, Be That Lawyer. That don’t be this lawyer, be that lawyer,

Marlene Gebauer: Be that lawyer!

Greg Lambert: Exactly. Well, this week, he has Roy Sexton join him from Clark Hill in Detroit. And for anyone who doesn’t know Roy, I really encourage you to at least follow him on LinkedIn. If you’re really energetic, you’ll follow him on Facebook and all the other ones as well. Roy is just a really great person who’s always willing to share his ideas with others, and is also a pretty good sounding board if you ever have a crazy idea that you want to run by an expert before moving forward. So on the show, Roy does this great job of differentiating law firm marketing and law firm business development responsibilities, which, you know, some people don’t know that those are two different tasks. But they are. One of the topics that Roy hits on Steve’s show is what he calls the Rule of Three. And I found this really interesting. So it’s designed to help lawyers understand how to promote themselves and their work. But quite frankly, it really applies well beyond just lawyers. So, you know, that’s just one bit of wisdom that’s shared on this Be That Lawyer episode. So go check it out and learn more from an expert.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, Greg, if you’re weary of looking at COVID Health indices, there’s a new

Greg Lambert: We all are.

Marlene Gebauer: We all are. There’s a new law firm Health Index published by Leopard Solutions that’s out. Now you may remember our friend Phil Flora from leopard was on the podcast a couple of weeks ago talking about their new law firm diversity tool. It seems Leopard has taken a very different approach to law firm rankings than traditional reports. It’s an evidence-based evaluation and looks at data sets that are very different than things like gross revenue. Leopard claims, its metrics provide a measure of a firm’s vitality and resilience. Data sets that go to the heart of a firm’s operational and financial hygiene. So what kind of example? Well, first of all, the past five-year record of growth decline in RPL, average lawyer tenure at a firm, and growth decline in lawyer headcount. Another point of interest is that the Leopard index is dynamic. So no waiting around until the new scorecard comes out next year.

Greg Lambert: So you don’t have to wait till April, May to get the information. That’s good. That actually sounds really, really interesting.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, they are going to be doing I know they’re going to be doing webinars about it. So I would check their website to see when what the schedule is for that.

Greg Lambert: Okay. Well, in tying with your we’re tired of looking at COVID metrics. I don’t know if you’re seeing this, but I’m really seeing this in both my personal and professional life. But you know, people are getting stressed out right now.

Marlene Gebauer: Really? Yeah, you’re kidding. That’s like the understatement of 2020.

Greg Lambert: And I think part of it right now is not just COVID. But you know, we’re so close to the election that people are being, you know, ultra-cautious and are very, very stressed. But

Marlene Gebauer: election, environmental, you know, everything,

Greg Lambert: You name it, we’re stressed out about it. So, to counter that, I saw this great LinkedIn post from Eric Jannsen from the business school at Western University in Canada. And he was the middle of a Zoom class, and he made all of his students pull out their phones, place them on the table at their home, or wherever they were taking the zoom class. Move the camera. So It showed that the phone was there. And then he made them all get up and safely, go take a 10-minute walk outside. And I just thought it was a great idea. I, you know, I would love to do this with my team, you know, maybe the next time we have this, have a Zoom call, pull this out and go, Okay, everyone, pull your phones out, turn them off, put them here, put the camera on them. Now, go away for 10 minutes, leave your phone behind, don’t jump on the computer, go do something. So sometimes we really need to put self-care on our calendars. Put it in there so that we make sure that we allocate some time for ourselves, both for our mental and our physical well being. So thanks to Professor Jann sen for this idea, I think it’s great.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I love the idea of the whole walk. It’s a great thing you know, just for exercise and also just to clear your head. So my last one is focused on linguistics, and I know Talk Like a Pirate Day has passed. But did you know that a pirate was the first person to pin a recipe for guacamole in English?

Greg Lambert: Hmm. Okay.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, he also gave us the English words for tortilla soy sauce and breadfruit.

Greg Lambert: Before you go on, I need to know what I don’t know what breadfruit is.

Marlene Gebauer: What. It’s the big giant fruit that you see in the grocery store. It’s huge. And it’s kind of like a greenish-yellow and

Greg Lambert: It’s not dragon fruit?

Marlene Gebauer: No dragon fruit is cute and pink.

Greg Lambert: Well, I learned something today.

Marlene Gebauer: There you go. All right, okay. William Dampier began his pirate life in 1679 in the Caribbean. He was arrested in Spain wrote a bestseller called a new voyage around the world, with him playing the role of Anthony Bourdain, eating all around the world. His talk of breadfruit sold the British on it and the ill-fated voyage to bring some back to England became the basis for the novel Mutiny on the Bounty. Dampier was eventually given a commission in the Navy, which She subsequently lost due to mismanagement of his ship, you know, not too unlike a pirate. But that’s the way it goes. And that wraps up this week’s information inspirations.

Greg Lambert: Well, if you know what you’re doing data can help you tell a story.

Marlene Gebauer: You know, even if you don’t know what you’re doing. Data can help you tell a story

Greg Lambert: It may not be the right story. But

Marlene Gebauer: It’ll be a story though.

Greg Lambert: But it can help you identify trends, it can help departments show their value to their firms. Of course, the problem with data is finding the best tools to help you tell that story. But today’s guest works for RStudios, which is one of those tools which can help you do just that.

Interview

Greg Lambert: Sarah Lynn is the information architect and digital librarian at RStudio PBC, which stands for public benefit corporation, and has worked for many years as a law librarian at Reed Smith. Recently, she conducted a webinar with AALL about data science and what it means for law librarians.

Marlene Gebauer: Sarah, welcome to the geek interview.

Sarah Lin: Thank you, Greg and Marlene, it’s great to be with you today.

Greg Lambert: So we’ve talked data science on the show before, but let’s start off with a little explainer for everyone. Can you just let us know? What do you mean when we say data science?

Sarah Lin: Sure. So I’ve actually seen data science described in a few different ways. But I conceive of it as three, three parts, three interrelated parts. The first is tidy data, then statistics and coding. So let me elaborate on those.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, tell us what tidy means.

Sarah Lin: So tidy, is actually it’s very much an R thing. One of our sort of prolific, R package creators is from New Zealand, and they use the word tidy down there to mean clean data, data that you’ve wrangled data that you’ve managed, all of those terms mean the same thing. But he’s sort of a rock star in the R world. And so we first things as tidy data.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, I have to say, my wife, if I hear the word tidy, that means that I didn’t clean something, I tidy something. So

Sarah Lin: And it’s a similar thing when you’ve got data that’s like absolutely a mess. There’s a lot of cleaning that you need to do before you can do any analysis. So yeah, tidy data is all the things that you have to do before you can get started with your analysis. And then you’ve got statistics, which is pretty, pretty self-explanatory. But I do want to emphasize that, you know, statistical analysis can actually get quite complex. And I don’t think that that’s necessarily a bad thing. I actually think that helps us tell better stories, more targeted stories by doing a better analysis. And then the third part is the coding and data science, you can do it in either R programming language, or with Python, professional data science teams use both languages, so it isn’t really out one is better than the other, they do have a different history. Python comes from the computer science world. Pythons use is. Many folks. Now, I’m sure lots of listeners are familiar with Python, it can be used with a lot of other things. R is a statistical programming language it was created by and for statisticians specifically for statistical analysis, the history is that it came out of Bell Labs, they created the S programming language, and R is the open-source version of that.

Marlene Gebauer: Tell us a little bit about what RStudio does.

Sarah Lin: Yeah, so RStudio. Well, it is actually a little bit confusing sometimes, because our product is also called RStudio, and the company name will talk about the company, we have a really unique role, I think in the R programming community, as we make the open-source software that the vast majority of R programmers use. And data scientists, of course, are the primary user group, we also sell commercial offerings to a number of corporate clients that have a need for data management. So you can think about large financial companies, insurance companies, social media companies. And so we take the profits from the corporate side of the business. And we use those to pay for the open-source software developers and we call that a virtuous cycle so that those profits really come back and feed into the open-source community a lot. I would even say most open source projects don’t have paid software developers who are fixing bugs, developing new code libraries, expanding, you know, creating new software.

Greg Lambert: So let’s kind of get back to you then. How did you get interested in data science?

Sarah Lin: Well, life can take you funny places sometimes. And that’s, I think the best way, to sum up my transition. So I was working at a Silicon Valley startup last summer and was part of the first wave of layoffs, my whole team was cut. And so I was looking for a new position, one that I could still work as I had in that position 100% remotely and have a flexible schedule. So I could be home with my kids when they got out of school back in the day when we missed each other. And the ad for RStudio said that they wanted someone to help them manage their digital morass and to Marie Kondo their digital information. And I thought,

Greg Lambert: Wow, that is, that’s quite an advertisement,

Sarah Lin: Isn’t it? It was great. It really caught my eye was like, Well, I have to apply for this. I mean, my favorite thing is to make order out of chaos. So it seemed like a good fit. And the folks there are just such wonderful people so kind, that it just felt like a good fit.

Greg Lambert: So what were some of the jobs you do?

Sarah Lin: So I’m really focused on managing access to information, which I feel is sort of a just general knowledge management thing. I’m focused internally on staff working on things like our wiki or Google Drive File. Management. And then for our external users, we’ve got Well, actually, sometimes our own staff are using some of our external sites. But we’ve got our paying customers. And then we do serve a role in the general open-source R community, which is your, say a few million people who are coming to, to our online presence to learn more about R and so they need to find information as well. So on that end of things, I’m looking at all of our different web properties and trying to standardize and make the information more final.

Marlene Gebauer: Obviously, you were originally a law librarian. I think you kind of talked about this a bit on the double a double l webinar. But what are some of the traits that you think law librarians and information professionals have that make them well suited to do data science?

Sarah Lin: I actually think there’s a lot I gave a presentation much earlier this year that was directed specifically to technical services librarians because that’s that was my role when I was at Reed Smith doing Technical Services.

Greg Lambert: I will tell you Technical Services librarians are well underappreciated. So it’s, yes. I mean, I always say that you know, they’re the original database architects.

Sarah Lin: Absolutely. Absolutely. So I think but I don’t think it’s limited, although that presentation was, you know, how tech services librarians can be data scientists, I don’t think it’s limited. That was a tech services conference. So I think I think the application is really, really broad. But for law librarians and other informational legal information professionals, part of the reason that I defined data science in those three categories, is because I think that we already have a certain level of expertise, already in those three areas. And so I think that when you look to sort of learn a new skill, like data science, which can seem really, really big, it’s really helpful to sort of start from a place where you, you already have a certain level of proficiency. And so like examples of that, you know, I’m sure all of us have been working with wonky spreadsheets for years, decades, even, right, so that the concept forever. So that process of needing to tidy data, why you need to do it, what are the different what’s the importance of formatting columns, splitting cells, you know, formatting the cell values, like all of that stuff you’re really familiar with already. And then on the statistical side, we’ve been reporting again since time began. So there’s already there’s always been data collection, data visualizations, certainly have, you know, grown in popularity we’ve already been doing, creating them and consuming them for some time. And then on the, on the coding aspect. I mentioned this in the webinar, I just, I had this real breakthrough, once I finally realized that MARC is a language that you use to talk to computers. And that’s what coding is. And so once I found that that was, that was a huge breakthrough and made me feel confident because coding can be hard. So it’s, in some ways, you know, it’s really similar to MARC where you’ve got this syntax, you’ve got punctuation, you have to have certain things exactly right. And I think that can turn people off if they don’t have to use it for their job. But you just have to learn it. And those are the rules. If you forget the period, the whole thing will blow up. And that’s exactly what happens when you’re coding. So in some ways, you know, like, what makes us well suited? Well, we’ve already you know, we’re already halfway there. It’s not too far, I think, to really round out that skill set. But I also wanted to mention that, I think for legal information professionals, particularly law firm, librarians, corporate librarians, they’ve had to justify their value for a long time. And they’re really practiced at having to do that. So data science then can become for them a way to sharpen those tools. I’ve worked in, gosh, I’ve worked in a for-profit environment for I think my first professional position was an academic library. And then I sort of went for-profit and haven’t gone back. But I love the focus. I mean, I wasn’t well suited, I think, to academic life, because I wanted to be able to serve my users. And I wanted to be able to use the data that we had to change our policies, not because it matched a national standard, but because it was what our users needed. And I like that flexibility in a corporate law firm environment. But I think because we’ve had that focus on the bottom line, it means that the data collection, it isn’t just something routine that you do every week, every month every year in a corporate environment, you are using that data for a very particular purpose. You have to use it very well and you have to be ready for the purpose to just change on a dime and be able to kind of reanalyze and go with that.

Greg Lambert: Let me ask you about one of the I think it was the second trait and that was the statistical information. I can see immediately talking to some librarians And as soon as you say, Oh, well, I wouldn’t even be librarians any, almost anyone in the legal field would say, look, there was the reason I went into law. And that was, so I didn’t have to take the statistics class. So how do you address that issue?

Sarah Lin: Um, I may have said something similar in the past life, I just have to be real with people. I don’t think that flies anymore. Right? Especially in a law firm environment, you can’t ignore the numbers, the numbers will affect whether you have a job or not, right, you can’t keep your head under the sand for that. And indeed, the more you know, the better you can do your job. And what I meant. I mentioned again, what I said in the webinar, anybody who’s learned about the law, that’s a hard thing. That is a really hard thing. So if you’ve already done that hard thing, like you can do it. Someone asked me recently, like, Well, did you already know how to program when you start it at RStudio? And the answer is, I knew nothing. Absolutely nothing. But then I signed up for a machine learning workshop in December, I started in September, beginning of December, I did a machine learning workshop, I spent two months relearning linear algebra. And it was hard. But being able to understand how research databases work, like to understand machine learning, I think it’s changed my life, right? I’m definitely really excited about it. And just to know, like, how does that actually work? really valuable?

Greg Lambert: Well, speaking of machine learning, I know there’s a lot of buzz words around this. And so you know, we were talking data science. But, you know, there’s a number of things that people have heard these buzzwords over the past decade, things like big data and machine learning, artificial intelligence, what’s the difference between data science and these other words that they may have heard?

Sarah Lin: That’s a very, very good question. We’ll start with big data. So there is a library book published, I think about 2017. And it pretty much equates data science as big data. And that’s really misleading, I think, and also makes it really inaccessible. To think, well, I don’t have a processor to do millions of lines of data, I don’t have millions of lines of data. So I think it’s really important to understand that data science and big data are not the same things at all. We talked about the need for tidy data, right? And data science. And so the amount of data that you have that’s tidy, that’s that can vary. When you have data that cannot fit on your computer, that’s when you’ve entered the realm of big data. So the bottom line is that you can use big data as an input for data science. But that’s not the only thing you can use last month usage statistics last years, doesn’t have to be big.

Greg Lambert: Okay. What about things like, artificial intelligence.

Sarah Lin: So I have a little bit of a beef with the prevalence of the term AI in the law library publishing this year, because I think it’s just bandied about. It’s like, the way my son uses the word like, it’s everywhere. And, and artificial intelligence is an umbrella term, it can mean a lot of different things. There’s a bunch of technologies that fit under that. I think the ones that are really relevant to us are machine learning, text mining, and natural language processing, but there are others. Um, and so I think it’s really crucial to know what type of AI technology you’re talking about. So machine learning, just to answer that question. Machine learning is data science. It’s tidy, big data that gets processed in code, using statistical analysis methods. And then machine learning is the purpose is to make predictions whether you’re predicting a classification or predicting a number. And usually, there’s a key bit of accuracy. That’s an important bit of the predictions are accurate, you know, to a certain confidence level. Yeah. So for me, data science is the foundation of machine learning, as well as text mining and natural language processing.

Marlene Gebauer: Where do you think data science can have the most impact in a law firm or the legal industry?

Sarah Lin: Well, I think the I mean, it’s a little bit what I alluded to is, you know, learning how to do machine learning the the utility of understanding by having done some data science is really impactful sort of for everyone at all levels. And we talk a lot I think about the legal industry being behind the times technologically. And I think data science falls under this umbrella a little bit. I listened to the recent episode you did with David Kamien, and some of the things that he said, actually, a lot of the things that he was talking about are underpinned by data science. And so I was thinking, you know, how much more understandable without event to listeners who had done some data science and they knew really concretely what it took to do those things. I think that most law firm clients have data science, if clients are of any size, they have data sciences, scientists on staff and the skills are growing, data science skills are growing, I think in law firms, but there’s still a lot of room to catch up, particularly with the law librarians. And I think on a like, just very practical level that the data tidying skills that you learn from doing data science can really enable the legal professionals to, like join datasets from different software applications that can’t talk to each other. Right. And I’m thinking of, you know, particularly, there’s data about what attorneys spend their time on, that’s in a number of applications, you know, maybe from the library to the finance department, and everything in between. So being able to join those databases, join the data sets, excuse me together and do an analysis and see a really holistic picture really has a lot of potential. And then I have a couple other examples. So of what I think really practical, practical, impactful skills, sort of beyond the tidy data because there’s a lot of things you can do with data science. So I’m thinking about making visualizations, doing more statistical analysis, as we mentioned, learning about you know, those AI technologies that underpin our databases. And those things, you know, the librarians can do that just about their own work. But then they can also do that to assist with, you know, the research that they’re doing for clients and attorneys are able to add value there.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, them and that may have played into the next question, I want to ask if, if you were still back in a law firm right now, what’s some of the fun data that you would like to play with, in order to kind of tell a story about what that data tells us?

Sarah Lin: Yeah. So when I was at Reed Smith, I was involved in that monthly reporting process. And I was really never 100% satisfied with it. But I didn’t know kind of what else we could do. So given what I know, now, if I was back in that seat, again, I can see that when the purpose of those reports is to show our value to the essentially to the profitability of the firm. Right, what was missing, was the profit numbers. I didn’t have any firm numbers to compare to. So you know, it doesn’t matter that I ll requests were up last month, year over year? I don’t think so. Um, don’t get me started on counting things that like don’t need to be counted.

Greg Lambert: Count how many times somebody walked into the library?

Sarah Lin: Right? Well, that would be interesting now. But I’m thinking like, we you know, we did a lot of that reporting on like, researcher output by type, money spent on you know, various contracts, but no point where we like bringing in that profit data, and

Greg Lambert: So it’d be more instead of reporting on outputs, it would be more on say, impact, if you’re looking at, you know, and one of the things that we’ve kind of preached here is that it’s better to be seen as being part of the revenue side of the firm than the cost side of the firm. So it seemed like if you could find ways to use the data to show, you know, this is how we’re impacting revenue on the firm, then, you know, then you’re golden. At that point. So sorry, I didn’t mean to answer my own question here. But it, how would you convince the powers that be at the firm, just to understand how important it is anymore to understand the data that you have, maybe even to have data scientists, on staff now, to help them help you secure better outcomes for their clients?

Sarah Lin: I have a number of thoughts about that about the powers that be, I think the best way honestly, to start is to show off your data science skills, and prove that you know what you’re talking about. So just like going back to some of the data that you might want to collect, I talked about at the AALL webinar about business development time. And if you could get the from the firm the number of new matters open, new clients signed, ideally, there would be a statistical correlation, like a very strong say in arguable defense, that these things are related. They go together, and if you break one, you’re going to break the other, which I think that makes your argument that this is essential. And I do want to mention, because I think like no, it’s fallen out of favor and is is controversial, but I really think it’s important to track librarians time. Now tracking it isn’t the same as billing for it. And no, it’s not going to be built for right that that part sort of isn’t up for discussion anymore, but tracking the time. Just because, you know, you might not be able to use the timekeeper software, you might have to do it on your own, like your reference tracking software. So it’s really important for you to be able to track, you know, based on client matter attorney number, what your researchers are doing, enables you to compare apples to apples, when you look at some of these other sources of how attorneys are spending their time or information on time spent for clients. So I think it’s really important to be tracking that time, however, you know, however, you need to do it. But if you don’t have the data, I think specifically about what you know how time is being spent by your staff, it’s so easy to justify it as being overhead because there’s no evidence to show that there’s any kind of relationship. So going back to your question, which was, you know, how do you convince the powers that be, I think you’ve got to have the data, and you’ve got to show off what you can do with what you already have. Once you sort of proved your mettle, then I think you’re able to get access to more data sources, I’m not sure you know, in every firm if you walked up to it and said, I need access to the data warehouse, if, if that’s going to come but if you know, if you’ve shown what you can do, you basically need to dazzle them with the data that you have, maybe doing something like making an interactive dashboard of spending, right. So you’re not recreating this every month, but you’re making one dashboard that’s automatically updated as you get new data. And the powers that be can look at that anytime that they want and know that they’ve got, you know, up to the… well, maybe up to the week, you know, data on spend or and I don’t think the idea of collecting data is controversial. I think pretty much folks are on the boat with that they know they need to collect data, I think kind of alluding to what you said before the being seen as a cost being seen as overhead. That’s the point that can be new is using data, collecting new data, documenting the stuff that you’re already doing that enables you to really make a make a strong argument. I think, too with I’ve noticed this with the data that I do in my own reporting at RStudio when someone is given the raw data. It’s like they believe it more. Mm hmm. Right? When they see it in the interactive that it’s not just a static graph, when they can say, Oh, well, what happens if we look at last month or last year? So they ask their own questions, and they get it answered in real time, sort of their converts? They’re real believers, that what you’re telling them is, is fact.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, we, I try to tell my people, it’s very important that we measure what matters, and what and who that matters for it’s not necessarily what matters for us, but rather, what matters for the people that we’re trying to tell that story to or, or convinced that we need one more researcher or we need a data scientist to help us with that.

Marlene Gebauer: So how or where would someone start on a path toward making an impact with data science at their job?

Sarah Lin: I’ve got sort of a two-fold suggestion for that. So the first thing that I think folks need to do is to think back to those three aspects of data science data, tidying, statistics, coding, and figuring out which improving which of those skills is going to make the biggest impact for you sort of which Where are you going to get the most bang for your buck. And once you’ve got that area, you know, then pick and output that’s either something you’re going to create something you’re going to produce that’s either going to be totally essential for your job, or it’s going to be really, really fun, and you’re really invested in it. So the example that I had during the webinar was a data scientist Ryan Tempie. He’s a data scientist at Lego. And he gave a presentation at the RStudio conference, which is learning our through humorous side projects, and that will get you excited and 20 minutes of fun things but there’s, you know, every sport has statisticians in R who are, who are doing that thing. So, you know, find something that’s super fun. I mentioned in my learn text mining through the Jane Austen R package because like Jane Austen, but there’s an Office package that will give you the transcripts of the TV show The Office. So if that’s, you know, if that’s more in line, what you’d like, then, you know, go that way. But if kind of going back to work, just my own experience, I have worked with Google Analytics data for five or six years, you know, it sort of all the places I’ve worked in the last five or six years. And so that part, I’m used to data, Google Analytics, I’m used to doing the data analysis. But now that I’m at RStudio, I have to produce my reports in R. Some of my co-workers say that we make our own dog food. I have to do that. And so it’s been imperative for me that I learned the different packages that are related to reporting into the shiny dashboards that are interactive because that’s what the powers that be wanted. What my coworkers are expecting, you know if I give them usage data about their website. But I do want to mention, if you’re looking for information for like some of these specific skills just to give people something to start with, aside from Ryan Tempie’s video, which is really amazing, I nearly died laughing when the Golden Girls text mining thing came up, he has some stuff on Legos too, more dinosaur stuff. It’s It’s great. Anyway, but so if you want to look at like, if you want to focus on your data management or your coding skills, the organization, The Carpentries has workshops that are really wonderful for beginners, the if there’s not a workshop since they’re often more available just by nature for academic librarians. So if there’s not one by you, the lessons are online for free, you can work through, you could work through the R for social scientists curriculum in about three hours yourself. So it’s definitely doable. And then I think if you were looking at like those interactive dashboards that I’ve mentioned, they’re extremely popular. We have a website called https://shinyapps.io. And that is a place for general R users to post their dashboards for folks to see there’s also think about 80 templates from my coworkers who made the shiny package. So you can really see if you want to see what’s possible. That’s some really great stuff. And then, okay, so like statistical literacy statistics is the other bit. There’s a lot of sort of general audience statistics books that are out there. I think that is a good place to start not a statistics textbook. Don’t do that. But you can also look on Twitter, the R stats, and Tidy Tuesday, hashtags will bring up just hundreds of thousands of hits. Tidy Tuesday is an interesting one folks post on Tuesday, the tidy data sets that they’ve been working on in the last week, and they span the fun to the essential research every single week. So that’s a great way to see sort of what’s possible with statistical analysis.

Greg Lambert: Very interesting. And of course, the best thing about is, as someone who uses R themselves, how much does it cost me to use R?

Sarah Lin: Nothing.

Greg Lambert: So we’d like to hear.

Sarah Lin: That’s a great point, though, that I that we should underscore. So the software RStudio is free to download. Most of my co-workers have written sort of books on how to do data science in R and as a practice for our company. Those books are available for free. There’s tons of information about getting started, like on https://education.RStudio.com. And within the art community. There’s chat local chapters for folks to virtually meet up and see what other folks are doing. So lots of stuff, no cost.

Greg Lambert: All right. Well, I think I think that’s it free is where we want to post Sara Lynn, I appreciate you coming in and taking the time to talk with us today. It’s been fun.

Marlene Gebauer: Thanks, Sarah. We really enjoyed this conversation. It’s this has been a really good discussion.

Sarah Lin: Thanks, Greg. Thanks, Marlene.

Post Interview

Greg Lambert: All right, Marlene, I don’t know if you could tell. But I was geeking out just a little bit with Sarah on the data analytics talk. And

Marlene Gebauer: I’m so glad to hear that, you know, it’s good.

Greg Lambert: So it was interesting that she mentioned that, you know, MARC, which for the non-librarians out there stands for machine-readable catalog. You know, it’s the data structure that we’ve used in the library field for decades to build our library catalog, and the information that’s behind it, to make it you know, searchable to pull all of that information together. So before there were data scientists, and before there were IT departments, the computers were in the libraries. So while some of us may wonder why librarians would be a data scientist, I think for those of us that have worked in tech services, this is no surprise.

Marlene Gebauer: And it’s not just for library techies, she references in the interview that we did with David Kamien, talking about his ideas for producing results based on datasets, articles, and other text-based resources through the use of metadata. The data scientists and tools like R or Python help with those bigger more unstructured data sets as well.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. So you know, I’ve enjoyed myself using RStudios over the past few years. So, you know, Sarah gave us a number of links. So she sent us an email after this and put a number of links that we’re going to place on the 3 Geeks website. So if you’re interested in starting to use products like ours, to help you crunched some of the data, go check out those links and dive in. It’s free, and it really is a lot of fun to learn a new skill like this. All right. Well, thanks again to Sarah Lin, from our studios for joining us today.

Marlene Gebauer: Thank you, Sara. Before we go, we want to remind listeners to take the time to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, read and review us as well.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, it’s been a while since someone rated us so

Marlene Gebauer: I know we’re not feeling the love.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. So you give us some Love hear, I just want to hear how many people actually listen to the end of the show.

Marlene Gebauer: If you have comments about today’s show or suggestions for a future show, you can reach us on Twitter at @gebauerm or @glambert. Or you can call the Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 or email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com And as always, the music you hear is from Jerry David DeCicca. Thank you, Jerry.

Greg Lambert: Thanks, Jerry. All right, Marlene, I will talk to you later.

Marlene Gebauer: I’m off to get some more pumpkin spice whatever.

Marlene Gebauer: Pod Dog

Greg Lambert: Pod dog

The Geek in Review Ep. 89 – The Boston Legal Design Challenge with Jeff Marple, Robert ...

Thu, 01 Oct 2020 10:35:55 GMT

A few years ago, Robert Taylor and Jeff Marple of Liberty Mutual Insurance, along with Suffolk Law School’s Gabriel Teninbaum sat down at Back Bay Harry’s and hatched a genius plan over some truffle fries and sandwiches. The idea was to leverage Suffolk’s law school technology training for students along with Liberty’s desire for the law schools to help students actually learn how to address the issue of design thinking and how it applied to real-world legal issues they were facing. And while the truffle fries were still hot, the Boston Legal Design Challenge was born. On November 13th, 2020, the 4th Annual Challenge takes place, this time in a virtual setting.

Fifty participants, making up 10 teams of five students from around the country will learn more about Design Thinking, identify an issue within the legal industry which needs addressing, and at the end of the day, pitch that idea to a blue-ribbon panel made up of Cat Moon, Bob Ambrogi, and Jason Barnwell. The winning team walks away with a few thousand dollars, and all of the participants end up with significant new skills to differentiate themselves from their fellow students. The competition is not just limited to law students, or to those people within Boston. Bob, Jeff, and Gabe are looking for diverse teams made up of different schools, disciplines, and geographical regions.

Enrollment is open now, so go to LMI.co/BLDC to sign up.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

Sometimes efficiency comes from small improvements in processes. One basic efficiency for word processing is to keep your hands on the keyboard, and away from the mouse. Deborah Savadra at Legal Office Guru has a short 7 1/2 minute video showing how you can use shortcuts and macros to reduce the use of your mouse, and just be a better user of MS Word.

We’re all concerned about data privacy whether it is the type of browser, search engine, or messaging app we use.

Microaggressions are not small problems. They are the equivalent to death by a thousand cuts and can lead to an unbearable work environment for those who are the recipients of these acts. For Black attorneys, microaggressions are a constant issue. American Lawyer brought together five attorneys to have a roundtable discussion on the issue, and the result is an absolute must-watch for anyone who truly cares about improving themselves and wanting to learn how to identify when their own actions constitute microaggressions.

We all watch the news. Most of us saw that debate. We know misinformation is rampant in our daily lives. The Knight Foundation and a few other prominent organizations are working to help us learn how to identify this misinformation.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

[0:22]

Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to the Geek in Review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.

Greg Lambert: And I’m Greg Lambert. Well, welcome to October Marlene, or as I’ve been calling it, the eighth month of March this year. True.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah

Greg Lambert: Well at least we’re closer to the end of 2020 and I think most of us will be glad to get get this year in our rearview mirror.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, you know, it’s actually been very cool here and by that I mean 80 degrees.

Greg Lambert: Houston cool.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, Houston cool, which, which I’ve been enjoying and you know, in the 60s in the morning, now. Northerners will get a kick out of this, that I have seen men in turtlenecks already.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, but I was just testing that out.

Marlene Gebauer: It was just a look. Look.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, it Oh, it’s a look. Oh, well. This week’s guests are, I think a perfect follow up from last week’s episode with Olga Mack and her reference to transferring your individual skills as you progress through your career. So we have Jeff Marple and Bob Taylor from Liberty Mutual along with Gabe Tenenbaum from Suffolk law school. And they join us to talk about the upcoming Boston Legal Design Challenge which is happening on November 13.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, we really are suckers for design and innovation challenges, aren’t we?

Greg Lambert: Hey, you know, they’re interesting.

Marlene Gebauer: they really are.

Greg Lambert: We have a great conversation with Jeff, Bob and Gabe. So stick around for that. But first, let’s go ahead and jump into this week’s information inspirations.

[1:56]

Greg Lambert: Sometimes Marlene, you just want to get back to the basics. And this week, I wanted to start off with a great video tutorial on Microsoft Word shortcut keys and macros from Deborah Savadra at Legal Office Guru, and it was posted on the Attorney at Work website. So for anyone whether you the only shortcut you may know is Ctrl C and Ctrl V.

Marlene Gebauer: I know those.

Greg Lambert: Or you’re, you know, you’re super experienced with creating macros, kind of kind of like I am. This is just a seven and a half minute long video, and it has something for everyone. So as much time as we spend in our word processing documents, the more we can create efficiencies and the better off we’re just going to be. And one of the biggest ways to create efficiencies, as many of us know, is to keep your hands on the keyboard and off of the mouse. So shortcuts and macros are the best ways to keep those fingers moving. Go check out Deborah’s instructional video. And I bet that even the most experienced of you will learn a few things.

Marlene Gebauer: Privacy articles were at the top of my feed this week. So I combined three of them for this inspiration. So which browsers protect privacy more than others? Well, Safari, Brave, and Firefox all seem to have a better privacy profile than, say, Chrome, which is pretty terrible in this regard. Despite building a privacy sandbox. Trackers embedded in websites really highlight the privacy issue. Google is the worst with trackers installed on 75% of the top million websites. Facebook is second at 25%. And Twitter comes in third at 10%. There are ways to protect your privacy even with the worst of browsers like turning off password and search engine autofills and disabling location tracking. Or you can use my favorite browser extension DuckDuckGo. And shifting a bit to apps. Signal, which is an end to end encrypted message app has become the go to for organizing protests.

Greg Lambert: How soon before that one’s banned?

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah. Well, signal works similarly to WhatsApp. But it is owned and operated by a nonprofit, not a corporation. And it has more security. Edward Snowden is actually quoted in this article as stating that he uses it all the time. And it seems now that regular people are to.

Unknown Speaker

Okay, well, we definitely know it’s going to be banned.

Marlene Gebauer: Snowden.

Greg Lambert: Great, great.

Marlene Gebauer: I know it’s like Wonderful.

Greg Lambert: Well, my second one is and I watched this actually today, there’s this fantastic video of a roundtable discussion on the issues of microaggressions directed at Black attorneys. You know, this is a really difficult issue to cover. And the panel of Loreal Arscott, Moy Ogilvie, Catherine Smith, and Trelvis Randolph, along with moderator Gordon Weekes, they discuss their own personal experiences of being a Black lawyer in America and the issues that they have faced. It was just fascinating to listen to it. You know, the term microaggression may make people think that the that the issues that they’re facing are minor or small or insignificant, but it’s like the old death by a thousand cuts. issue. This is an issue that my friend and fellow former WCW president Ron Wheeler has covered for a number of years. This was just a great discussion, and I highly suggest that everyone take the time to watch this roundtable discussion.

Marlene Gebauer: Since the first presidential debate was last night and there are a couple more coming up, I thought this inspiration would be timely and useful. The link that I am sharing is a nice starting point to several articles from NPR, 538, AARP, the Conversation, The Verge, and one on Vox written by a misinformation superhero librarian that highlight how to spot fake news, and how some sorts of fact checking are more effective than others. It also links out to articles that cover why we are susceptible to misinformation, and how misinformation spread in the 2016 election. And this is a very cool graphical site by the Knight Foundation. I encourage everyone to take a look. There are also links to fact checker.org PolitiFact and Verified, stay informed folks.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, although I hear debate number two is just going to be a knife fight out in the parking lot.

Marlene Gebauer: Just like Jersey,

Greg Lambert: I think it is in Jersey.

Marlene Gebauer: And that wraps up this week’s information inspirations.

[6:54]

Marlene Gebauer: The fourth annual legal design challenge brings together a collaboration between Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Suffolk law school in Boston to give law and other graduate students the opportunity to learn design thinking skills and a real hands on way to rapidly develop and pitch big ideas within the legal industry. We asked three masterminds behind the challenge to talk with us and tell us more.

Greg Lambert: We’re joined by a trio of innovators out of Boston today. Returning to the Geek in Review is Jeff Marple, Innovation Director at Liberty Mutual. Gabe Teninbaum

, Assistant Dean of innovation at Suffolk University Law School. And Bob Taylor, Vice President and Senior Corporate Counsel at Liberty Mutual. We tried to also get the Liberty Mutual spokesperson Doug and the LiMu Emo out. But apparently they were busy shooting that commercial in that beautiful 1971 Dodge Duster that they they drive around.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, welcome everyone. The three of you are collaborating on the Boston Legal Design Challenge. Jeff, would you mind telling us a little bit more about what the design challenge is?

Jeff Marple: Sure thing Marlene. The design challenge was an event that the three of us sort of conceived over lunch probably about five years ago, in Boston. It’s a hybrid event between both a competition and an educational event. We spend the day doing a little bit of lecture, but also a tremendous amount of exercises, hands on exercises, to law students. And it’s like a hackathon. But instead of developing code, law students are trying to come up with ideas around the next great legal service or legal product. We organize a series of exercises for the different teams, those exercises sort of channel, the the participants ideas towards a presentation at the end of the day, and they have a very short time period to present at the end of the day. Very pithy, sort of quick, rapid fire presentation. And the winning team gets a cash prize. We also have

Marlene Gebauer: Nothing wrong with cash.

Greg Lambert: How much cash are we talking about?

Marlene Gebauer: Like, is it rude to ask how much cash we’re talking about?

Jeff Marple: It’s not rude ask. We’re not prepared to release the amounts just yet. I can tell you though, that it will probably be larger than last year, I believe last year’s first prize was $3,000 for the first prize team. So we we hope we’re hoping to exceed that.

Greg Lambert: Hey, for a law student as that’s not chump change.

Jeff Marple: No, that’s not bad for a day’s work.

Marlene Gebauer: For me. That’s not chump change.

Jeff Marple: Yeah. We have. And for those Iron Chef fans out there, we have a hint of Iron Chef in there. We give them a secret ingredient at the beginning of the day, either a type of technology or a domain that they need to work in. And they don’t they’re unaware that until they get there. So we don’t want teams necessarily working ahead. We want everyone sort of starting from the same spot. At the end of the day, I talked about the their pitches. We’re extremely proud of the our judging panel this year, we have I think what five time participant on this podcast, Cat Moon, from Vanderbilt, will be on the panel, as well as Bob Ambrogi, who if you follow legal tech at all, you know who Bob is. And then we have Jason Barnwell from Microsoft to give us a corporate perspective. We’re really excited about it. We’ll, we’ll have about 10 teams of five people per team. So if you’re out there, and you’re listening, we want you to register soon. And you can do that by going to lmi.co/bldc. So LMI stands for Liberty Mutual Insurance company. Dot co slash bldc. Boston Legal Design Challenge.

Marlene Gebauer: We’ll put that up on the on the site too.

Jeff Marple: That would be fantastic.

Marlene Gebauer: So that people can do that. Yeah, that sounds like an incredible program and an incredible panel. I’m very excited to see where this goes.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, and Bob Ambrogi is like my third favorite podcaster so…

Marlene Gebauer: Are you starting something? Why are you starting something?

Greg Lambert: Bob says I’m his third favorite podcaster too. So we’re on equal terms here. So Bob Taylor, you know, why do this why does a P&C insurance carrier host a design challenge with a with the law school?

[11:18]

Bob Taylor: Yeah. So when we were at Back Bay Harry’s, you know, which no longer exists. And we were having some sandwiches and truffle fries, my co conspirators here, we’re talking about that, like, what is the really reason why we would want to do this? And, you know, first, it’s not easy making insurance seemed cool. I know, that may seem as a shock to you. But you know, no one really ever ends up in insurance on purpose. I mean, certainly I didn’t. But one of the things we wanted to do was give law students an understanding of what it might be like to work within the confines of a Fortune 100 legal department. And then also to understand that working within you know, an insurance law department can be a very rich and varied and diverse experience as opposed to just dealing with auto matters all day long. Right. So you know, one is to give the students an interesting perspective on on what it’s like. The other is and why we also connected with Gabe and Suffolk University and their innovative approach to legal education, is to make sure that we are communicating with educational institutes out there about what kind of pipeline we’re looking for in terms of new talent, and within our legal department. And many people have this conception that all we do is hire six, seven year lateral partners or, you know, associates into our law department. And, quite frankly, we’re looking for students that have T-Shaped skills and that have the kind of diversity of thought and and design thinking skills that are going to help us solve problems, not just the way that law is being practiced today, but the way it’s going to be practiced tomorrow. And so this is a nice way for us to, to do that. And also, quite frankly, it helps us scratch a little bit of an itch. I mean, you know, Jeff and I, and I know Gabe loves this, too. We’re big devotees of design thinking and trying to solve difficult problems in unique ways. And, you know, if you want to learn something well and become good at it, try teaching it to 50 people at once. Right? So it’s, it’s a fun event for us, we really enjoy it. Quite frankly, I think I can speak for the other people involved. When you’re interacting with the students, you get a tremendous amount of energy and the excitement that they have and getting involved in this. So it’s not a one way street, we get a lot out of this as well.

Greg Lambert: Well, I can tell you if if two people can make insurance calls is definitely Bob and Jeff, right.

Jeff Marple: No tall order.

Marlene Gebauer: So you know, we we’ve heard the the the corporate side of the story here from Bob and Jeff, and what the benefits are. So Gabe, what’s the benefit that Suffolk gets by working with Liberty Mutual?

[14:01]

Gabriel Teninbaum: Well, you know, at the end of the day, we’re in the education business. And traditionally, in law schools, that meant being in the classroom, and then over the years that got extended to things like experiential courses and clinics. But the reality is, is that this sort of opportunity is exactly what we do. We’re in the business of educating our students and giving them really amazing experiences. And this is truly one of those really amazing experiences, that is really hard to attain in any other way.

Marlene Gebauer: And it seems to be pretty unique, too. I mean, you know, I don’t know of any other programs like this.

Gabriel Teninbaum: It’s about the only show in town. And you know, when you can get folks like the people from Liberty Mutual, who are so deeply engrossed in this sort of content to come and spend some time with students, it leads to these really remarkable things. And the other thing that’s cool about it is that we’ve extended, of course, beyond just being Suffolk law students. And having attended for the last several years, one of the real pleasures is watching students from different law schools, or from different programs outside of the law school work together and team problem solve using the things that they’re learning about in school with mentors from Liberty and other places who really have experienced this in practice. And then the third reason is, it’s just fun, and it’s joyful. And the reality is, is that there is not a lot of joy in law school unless you’re…

Greg Lambert: What? No…

Gabriel Teninbaum: I’m sorry. Look, there’s no

Marlene Gebauer: You didn’t enjoy law school, Greg?

Greg Lambert: Oh man

Gabriel Teninbaum: People do not want to leave this thing by the end of the day. And you know, this is a long day. And it’s the longest day is for Bob and Jeff and their team. And you know, they’re they’re in there when the sun comes up, setting up the event and the students rolling at breakfast time. And it goes all day with you know, appropriate breaks and, and they do a great job of setting up in a way that it doesn’t feel like work, but they’re really working all day. At the end of the day. Students don’t want to leave the room and they want to just grab more of it. And some of it is they want to spend time with Bob and Jeff and the other people involved because they they want to gather more knowledge from but it’s just like a joyful experience. It’s fun to do. So that’s what’s in it for us. And I you know, I’m so glad we’re able to do this with with Liberty Mutual. It’s just wonderful.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, well, and enough about the what’s in it for the three of you, what are the students getting out of it? And and I would also like to know, other than joy. But, you know, what are they getting out of it? And one other thing is you mentioned that there are students who may not be in law school, what other types of students show up for this, this sort of event?

Gabriel Teninbaum: Well, in the past, we’ve had MBA students, we’ve had students from other law schools, which we certainly hope to have this year.

Greg Lambert: Are there other law schools in Boston?

Gabriel Teninbaum: I’ve heard about a couple but I don’t know.

Jeff Marple: I think there’s one across the river.

Greg Lambert: I think one out of every five residences in law school in Boston.

Gabriel Teninbaum: There’s no doubt about that. But listen, you know, the students, the students at Suffolk law get this and I expect that we’ll have a lot of Suffolk law students you know, we have a long history and legal innovation and technology. We launched our program way back in the dark ages of 2013, which made us pretty much the first program if not the first program in the country. You know, we’ve been ranked number one by National Jurists, so we’re starting to get some positive attention to momentum. And we have a really good groundswell among our students, a student body that wants to think about design thinking and other sort of non traditional bits of legal work. One of the ways that we advertise this event among our student bodies with our legal innovation and tech Student Association, which has about 250 members, so our legal tech Student Association is larger than like a quarter or a third of law schools in the United States, you know, the students are fired up about this. And what they see is that this is an opportunity to learn a real skill to try a thing and to be able to create a product, but also to be able to go out to future employers and say, Hey, I have some experience, or I have some interest in design thinking. And to try to parlay that into some of their work or for it to become their job,

[18:12]

Bob Taylor: I would just add on if I could to look at the saying about what the students get out of it. I want to make something you know, maybe known to anybody who might be thinking about registering for this event, that people that have participated in this event, we’ve had three different summer law clerks come through and interview and qualify and be accepted into our competitive summer law program at Liberty Mutual, and one of the main impetus is for them applying for the program. And one of the ways that they were able to get in was their participation in the design challenge. So it was three or four?

Jeff Marple: I think it was I think it’s actually four Bob.

Bob Taylor: Yeah, four, yes, four. And even one of those students also now is in our attorney development program, and graduated from the law clerk program into the attorney development program. So there’s no guarantee obviously, of, you know, getting into the department that way, but I will tell you that it does help you differentiate yourself with employers. And that’s proven out by the fact that they’ve been able to get hired into our program. So I guess I’d like to say that only because we don’t just talk the talk, we we try to walk the walk in and put people in a position to succeed in their professional lives as well.

Jeff Marple: And I can tell you that all four of those law clerks are coming back to help us be facilitators this for this year event, which is fantastic. So happy.

Marlene Gebauer: That’s very cool. And I mean, that differentiation, I mean, I think that’s, that’s really key right now, where, you know, jobs are scarce. And and, you know, people really have to showcase themselves, you know, and, you know, highlight how they’re different than than the rest of the of the pack, if you will,

Greg Lambert: Yeah, before we get to the next question, Marlene. Yeah. Last on our last episode we had Olga Mack on and one of the things that she said that stuck with me that I think is relevant here is that you’re giving the students here a skill set that they’ll take with them. And that’s something that, you know, they’ll always have, and she had mentioned that no matter what job you have, you take your skill set with you. And the more skills that you have, the more viable you’ll be to to land that next job. So legal design thinking is not easy. And anything you can do to help them kind of understand the concepts and build on that is, is good for them.

Bob Taylor: Yeah, you know, you say something that’s really critical that we talk about all the time at Liberty Mutual, which is skills over knowledge. In that knowledge is a commodity, but skills are durable. So when you talk about delivering a skill to someone, we think a lot about that, and and our own development programs for our own lawyers within Liberty Mutual as well. So point well taken.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, so since we’re speaking about viability, you know, how viable are the ideas that that the student teams come up with during the challenge?

Bob Taylor: Yeah, so in fairness, I think a lot of the students lack context for what it is that they’re working on. And that’s not their fault, they just haven’t had the experience yet. So the reality is that, very few of the concepts or ideas there end up kind of emerging out of the design challenge itself. Oftentimes, those ideas are very similar to existing products. But maybe that’s only to validate that they’re good ideas in the first place, right, and that somebody has taken that idea and advanced it. But the truth of the matter is, you know, Marlene, we don’t go into this with the expectation of getting the next great idea out of it. Now, if something comes out, and the students want to continue to evolve it and pursue it, we encourage that. Or if it’s something that is interesting to us, we might pull the string on that a little bit. But it we really don’t go into it with that expectation. And I would encourage anybody who runs these events, and I think it’s true for people that run standard hackathon events, that if you go into it with that expectation, I think you’re you’re oftentimes let down the idea with this particular event that it’s experiential, right? And that you’re going to have an experience and that’s really what you’re taking from this and anything else beyond that really is kind of the cherry on top.

Jeff Marple: Just add on, you know, design product is like exercising the muscle. A lot of times this is their first time out, doing exactly that. So you can’t expect to deadlift a million pounds, your first time out. You got to Go to the gym a lot. Right? So this is this is like intro to the gym?

Greg Lambert: Yeah, so they’re going to be sore the next day, right?

Jeff Marple: That’s right,

Greg Lambert: Their brains gonna be sore. Well, Jeff, normally this type of event, you would bring everyone together in one location, but it’s 2020. So nothing is normal anymore.

Jeff Marple: Understatement of the year there Yeah.

Greg Lambert: Since this is going to be virtual, what are what are some of the challenges that you’re you’re going to run into with an all virtual event?

[22:51]

Jeff Marple: So traditionally, as you said, this was an in person event. And right out of the gate, we had some real sort of tactical challenges to figure out. We did a tremendous amount of work with sticky notes and dry erase boards and paper and pens, and physical tactile experiences. So obviously, that’s not going to work. So we started to look around at different solutions in this area that could help us get us that same, that same feeling, and then that same result, but to try to do it virtually. And as it turns out, there are some products out there. We’re going to use a product called mural.co, which is fantastic. It’s a fantastic product, it allows folks to have a big whiteboard that they’re posting stickies to. And you can all work at the same time, which is really a nice refreshing change. If any of you that have been on a Zoom call, like this one, or one person can talk at a time only one person contribute at a time. You know, I find so often now that we’re on these calls, and we’re so often leaning back and listening, this event promises to get people leaning forward and working together. And that platform helps facilitate that. So that was one of the things that we had to think about, we had to solve for that. We’re thinking a lot about Zoom fatigue, and you know, video conferencing, fatigue. So we’ll be doing a lot of breaks. And again, not a lot of listening this, there’s going to be a very small amount of lecture. And the exercises themselves will be designed to teach where in the past, we might have talked a little bit more about why this is important, or what we’re going to do here, the exercises should be pretty self explanatory about what folks will be doing. And then the other thing is, and I’m sure you guys have both felt this, it sometimes it feels like, you know, if you’re working in the same room with someone, you have a very strong connection with them. Because they’re right there, you can see the body language, you can see the room, you can see their faces, you can feel the energy in the room. When you’re working with someone virtually It feels like you’re sort of like, you know, that’s like a little string, that’s a delicate string that’s connecting you and that string can be cut very easily, or people can sort of get distracted, that kind of thing. So we’re we’re really looking to put these exercises on rails to really guide the participants through the different exercises. So there’s, it’s very easy and easy to understand what they have to do next. And that should drive their product design towards the end towards their pitch. Now, those are all the challenges. The positives of this, right? You know, when this all hit, Bob and I were talking and he’s like, Hey, you know, we wouldn’t really be innovators if we just let you know, the fact that we’re going virtual stop us from doing this event, we can’t cancel the event. So we had to figure out a way to do it. So we did. And we’re trying to make some lemonade where there’s lemons. So before we were very geographically restricted, right, folks had to travel to come to Suffolk in order to participate. Well, you don’t have to travel anymore. So we are really pushing this out nationally, we hope to have national representation. And by national representation, I’m hoping, you know, a team from every time zone would be fantastic. And so that’s kind of the good side of this. Is that really able to open this up to many more people?

Bob Taylor: Yeah, I mean, we don’t want to call anybody out, you know, directly on this podcast, you know, around the country for registering teams, but Margaret Hagen better get a team in from Stanford or there’s gonna be an issue, I think. But no, we love Margaret.

Greg Lambert: Not to name names, Margaret, but…

Bob Taylor: Not to name any names. No, I don’t know. Gabe, did you want to call anybody out on this?

Gabriel Teninbaum: You’re You’re nicer than me. I’ve been calling people out for weeks on Twitter.

Bob Taylor: Yeah, if you haven’t seen those tweets, if you haven’t seen those tweets, you should take a look. They’re there. They’re pretty good. I have to say,

Marlene Gebauer: Alright, so I’m gonna go check that out. And I will tell you that I have used Mural before for a design sprint, and it works incredibly well. And we were all over the place. And you know, we were able to sort of break out into rooms for our different groups. You know, once we, we chose, you know, the ideas. I think it’ll I think it’ll be great for you guys.

Jeff Marple: Right? I’m glad to hear that.

Marlene Gebauer: It does work. It can work.

Jeff Marple: Well, we run a few internals smaller much smaller events and had great experience on it. So Good, good. You know.

[26:57]

Marlene Gebauer: so this all sounds absolutely fantastic. So you know, not to put you on the spot Bob. But you know, do you actually do anything this interesting and exciting externally at Liberty Mutual?

Bob Taylor: Well, we do.

Marlene Gebauer: Very good

Bob Taylor: Because insurance is cool.

Marlene Gebauer: We know it is now.

Bob Taylor: For those of you that didn’t know, insurance is cool. We Do do stuff like this internally, we do a number of cultural type events during the year that help people think differently and bring together diversity of thought. And people with different disciplines to help solve thorny problems. And so we do this event internally. Internally, it’s a day and a half event, it’s a little more immersive. And also, it gives people the legal department that come from all over an opportunity to pitch in front of senior leaders and legal firm, including our chief legal officer. And, and I do want to mention that Jim Kelleher, our chief legal officer is insanely supportive of what I call legal R&D, he understands that there’s a need to invest in this kind of thing and prepare our folks for the way that law is going to be practiced and keep our practice groups modern, and moving forward. And so it’s been a great experience. We’ve been oversubscribed, every year, we’ve run it internally, we have to limit the total number of people. So it is competitive, actually, to get into it. It’s competitive to get the T shirt that we hand out internally. So it’s really been fun to run this event internally. One of the nicest things about the internal event is that people comment, not only do they love the experience and have a new skill leaving it, but they often are paired up in groups of people that they have usually interacted with, or didn’t get a chance to interact with normally.

Marlene Gebauer: I was going to ask.

Bob Taylor: Yeah, and so you might have a lawyer from London, interacting with a lawyer from Seattle, with a paralegal in Boston and a compliance person out of Plano, Texas, and that kind of conductivity, like that connective tissue that you create at the event tends to be sustainable after and it makes us a better organization. So it’s it’s kind of fun to see what happens with those.

Greg Lambert: Just out of curiosity, have you ever thought about doing something like this for your outside counsel, bringing them in?

Bob Taylor: You know, we’ve we’ve given it some thought we haven’t run an event exactly like this, we do run events for our outside counsel, that helped them understand about the culture of Liberty Mutual, so we’ll bring them in. And we’ve given some talks about innovation. And we’ve actually featured several of our law firms, in front of their peers and about the innovative things that they’ve done in their practices, in a way to create maybe a little FOMO, with the firms that maybe aren’t participating, right, and to spur a little action. But we are definitely trying to push culturally into our law firms. This type of behavior.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, yeah, firms don’t like to miss out on things. So

Bob Taylor: No.

Greg Lambert: Gabe, you know, there’s a, there’s a few of these innovation tournaments and things like that going on in different law schools across the country. Now, what makes this challenge different than then some of the other challenges that are out there?

[30:16]

Gabriel Teninbaum: Well, this one’s wonderful in a few different ways. One of the things that’s really cool about it is, of course, that we’re doing with Liberty Mutual, and they’re a great company, and they’re a great team. But the thing that’s really special is they actually come in and they share their experiences with students, and help them get trained up to think about the process that we teach them, the way that they’ve actually done in the wild and had been successful. So that’s, that’s a really wonderful thing. Next is its design thinking based. So there are a number of innovation related activities that are going on at law schools, including competitions nowadays. But it’s really hard to run a design thinking event, simply because it’s a hard set of skills to teach. And it is hard to gather people together in a format where it makes sense. I mean, this is an intensive, long, but enjoyable day. And we’re able to do that using the design thinking template. And then third, and finally, it’s not just a competition, it’s not like a moot court competition, where you walk in the door and you compete. And the judges, you know, maybe give you some feedback after. This is actually instructional we have a design thinking course. But most of the students in the competition haven’t taken the course. So when they show up, you know, they’ve read some of the materials, they have a broad sense about what’s going to happen. But they’re not only competing, they’re learning. So that’s a real special thing, because it becomes sort of a self contained day where you show up, you have some fun, you learn some skills that are transferable down the road, and then you actually compete it to practice those skills.

Bob Taylor: Yeah, I would just add to what Gabe is saying in that it’s very much experiential, and you kind of come into it not really knowing what to expect, and you kind of stretch yourself a little bit. You see, we see it every year where you know, there’s all this energy right at the beginning. And then you see this major dip where the students are doubting themselves, they don’t really know and they get confused and frustrated, and they may be arguing and then all of a sudden, right out of all of that difficulty, confusion and frustration with a little bit of guidance, then they start to coalesce and come together and then the pitches are typically fantastic. And so that kind of journey that the students go through I think makes this event you unique and I think we’re gonna do our best to recreate that in this virtual environment.

Greg Lambert: Sounds like a microcosm of law school.

Bob Taylor: Right? Yeah. 1L to 3L right, and everything in between?

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, well, I mean, I like the fact that you have this along with sort of a design, you know, thinking class. And this is just this is just another way to get more students familiar with the concepts and teach and teach them the skills. I’d like everyone to chime in on this one. But we’ll start with Jeff, is there a message that you’re trying to send to students or to the industry?

Jeff Marple: Yeah, the thing that I always come back to is this, it’s kind of like the reason I do it, right, which is, I always can try to figure out and this is probably arrogance, mostly. But I always try to think about like, a better way to do something like, Is there a better way to do X or a better way to do Y, you know, like, like, what are the issues with this? And is there a better way to do that? And can we just maybe not even do this anymore, like, let’s just skip that and go on to the next thing and, and sort of evolve us? All right, the work that we do. And, like spoiler, I usually end the day talking about this precisely. And the reason I like to do that is just because it’s fun. It’s really fun. And like, there’s a tremendous amount of fun to be had in doing this kind of work. That’s kind of the message that I’m sending out there, like, dare to be different. Dare to think about things differently, dare to shake things up and change things up. Because you know what, you might have a lot of fun along the way. And you know, job satisfaction, it’s an important thing. That’s kind of the message that I’m personally trying to send through this event.

Marlene Gebauer: And I’ll pitch it over to Bob.

Bob Taylor: So this may come as a little bit of a challenge to Gabe and his colleagues. Though Gabe has already taken up this challenge. I think one of the messages that we’re trying to send to the marketplace, especially to law schools, is the type of talent that we value or the type of skills that we value from graduates. We’re really trying to get law schools to think differently about their training. If you had said to me 10 years ago that law school students need to take statistics courses, I might be like, Yeah, I don’t know. But today, I’m absolutely convinced that they need to be taken crossover courses, and how to consume statistics and practice data driven law. Right. And that goes along with some of the innovation and technology thing. So what we’re trying to do is signal to the legal marketplace, what it is that we value as a Fortune 100 company. And I think what other Fortune 100, and Fortune 500, you know, large law departments appreciate in the talent, the kind of talent that we need. And the other is, you know, to signal to people that are out there that are interested in potentially working with Liberty Mutual, it’s a signal to, you know, people that are thinking about in house, they’re not really sure whether or not that’s a career path for them. And that we want them to think of Liberty Mutual as an employer of choice. And that, you know, we do more than just look at insurance policies all day long. We look at autonomous vehicles, you know, we insure drones, you know, there’s all kinds of different we have a, you know, amazing partnership with MIT and looking at AI and that all of those things need legal support, and that you can have a very rich and interesting career and very career with Liberty Mutual. So that’s the other signal I think we’re trying to send.

Marlene Gebauer: Okay, and I’m sending it to you Gabe.

[35:47]

Gabriel Teninbaum: You know, law students get traditional law, job exposure, starting on day one of law school, they’re pressed to do OCI and apply for summer internships and clerkships at traditional law firms. And I see my job in large part as getting law students to recognize all of the other opportunities out there beyond the traditional roles. And doing events like this legal design challenge is fundamentally what we want to do. We want to get students understanding that there’s so many opportunities out there beyond the traditional, and this is one way in a single day to get students involved. And for many of them, it’ll be the start of a really cool journey. For others, that will be a one day thing, where they just say, now I have some more exposure to what else can be done, and a different way to problem solve. And it’s just always been a win. Because even when students just view it as a one day experience, they carry on that experience with them after.

Greg Lambert: So what are you guys doing to make sure that you’re pulling from a diverse group of students for this event?

Jeff Marple: So I’ll go back to one of the things we talked about earlier. In the past, we’ve been extremely limited by geography. And I would say that, you know, New England probably has maybe one of the less diverse populations in the United States. With the ability for us to go virtual, again, we are opening this up to schools that may not have had the ability to compete in the past. So that is just one of the ways that we’re thinking about ensuring that diverse participation.

Bob Taylor: Yeah, and I would also say the most successful teams that I’ve seen In this event as we’ve been running it, both internally and externally, tend to be teams that are filled with people that have diversity of thought. And that diversity of thought often comes from diversity of backgrounds and culture and all of that, and, and diversity of their professional experience. And so, you know, one of the years, I think it was Northeastern, Jeff, that one and they had a really nice balance of law students and MBA students that were able to bring different perspectives. So I think it’s in the team’s interest that registered to have, you know, kind of that diversity of thought and and and we encourage it, because we think that sometimes the best creativity and the best outcomes come from teams that are assembled that way, and we believe that also within our own work at Liberty Mutual and we are very intentional about staffing up our teams, you know, within Liberty Mutual, that with people that have diversity of thoughts, that they can be more creative in their problem solving.

Greg Lambert: All right, well, Gabe Teninbaum from Suffolk, and Jeff Marple and Bob Taylor from Liberty Mutual, I want to thank you all three of you for taking the time to talk about the Boston Legal Design Challenge. Jeff, what day is this going to be on?

Jeff Marple: Sure it’s November 13. And if you want to sign up, you’re going to go to LMI.co/BLDC. I encourage you to sign up soon. Space is limited. We’re limiting to 50 participants and 10 teams this year. So go ahead and sign up. We’ll put the I’m going to ask Greg and Marlene hopefully to put the link in the show notes. And we hope to see you on the 13th

Greg Lambert: All right. Thanks, guys.

Marlene Gebauer: Thank you very much.

Jeff Marple: Thank you.

Gabriel Teninbaum: I apprecate it all.

Bob Taylor: Thank you.

[39:03]

Greg Lambert: Marlene, I can’t wait to hear how this thing goes. You know, I like the theme that consistently came across in the way that Bob, Jeff, and Gabe described the challenge as intensive, thought provoking, challenging, and fun. So you know that every one of them mentioned how much fun that they’ve had, and the competitors have had as well during this competition.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I really look forward to hearing the lessons of how this actually works virtually because this could really be a model for the future.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, I think you’re right. So I don’t know about you. But the whole time I was talking to Jeff and Bob. All I wanted to say was liberty.

Marlene Gebauer: Liberty. You know, we had to get that in. We knew we had to get that in.

Greg Lambert: We had to get it in there sometime. All right. Well, thanks again to Jeff Marple and Bob Taylor from Liberty Mutual and Gabe Teninbaum from Suffolk law school for coming on the show today and good luck to them and the competitors in this year’s Boston Legal design challenge.

Marlene Gebauer: Yep, good luck, everybody. Before we go, we want to remind listeners to take the time to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Rate and Review us as well. If you have comments about today’s show or suggestions for a future show, you can reach us on Twitter at @gebauerm or @glambert, you can call the Geek In Review Hotline at 713-487-7270 or email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. As always, the music you hear is from Jerry David DiCicca.

Greg Lambert: All right. Thanks, Jerry. Okay, I’ll talk to you later Marlene.

Marlene Gebauer: Alright, bye, Greg.

The Geek in Review Ep. 88 – Olga Mack on Valuing Your Skills, Reputation, and Determination

Thu, 24 Sep 2020 11:01:49 GMT

No matter what happens during this economic, political, health, and social crisis, Olga Mack reminds us that our skills are ours to keep. Olga is the CEO of Parley Pro, and brings her wisdom to the podcast on what lawyers and other legal professionals need to do to take care of themselves and thrive through the good times and the bad. Olga is the CEO of Parley Pro, a company that developed an innovative contract lifecycle management (CLM) tool, but she is so much more than that. A prolific speaker, a thought leader in the legal industry, a litigator, a transactional attorney, an in-house, as well as BigLaw attorney alumni. If you can name it, she’s probably mastered it. We sit down with Olga to talk about a range of topics and share in her wisdom and experiences. Come along for the ride.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

Artificial Lawyer and Legal Examiner both covered stories about a unique type of litigation funding company called LawAsYouGo. While they tout their ability to enhance Access to Justice (A2J) issues, there are a number of issues that we’d like to see addressed with how they actually create a positive influence on the A2J movement.

Our friends at Legal Innovators produced a White Paper called “Restoring Lost Hope: How to finally achieve meaningful diversity and inclusion in the legal industry.” Bryan Parker and Jon Greenblatt cover the issues of current and historic racial discrimination in the legal industry and suggestions on how to move forward. One major issue that we worry about is the fatigue that seems to be setting in on certain segments of the population. Now is not the time to rest, or think we’ve learned enough. Sharing this paper with the powers that be at your organization might be one way to help power through and look for meaningful ways to encourage diversity, inclusion, and equality.

In a recent Lindsey, Africa, and Major survey, women partners are paid an average of $332,000 less than their male counterparts. Business Insider looks at this report and explains how one of the best options for female partners to increase their pay and their happiness, is to leave and go to somewhere else.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to the geek and review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene gay, Bauer. And I’m Greg Lambert. So Marlene, we are finally out of beta.

Greg Lambert: Yes, thankfully, in and by that I’m I mean, the tropical storm, not like we’re some software that’s coming out of.

Marlene Gebauer: I know what you mean. my backyard knows what you mean. Yeah.

Greg Lambert: Well, I don’t know about you. But I could use a little sunshine. You know, to be honest, I would much rather have the inconvenience of being just a little bit soggy then from the tropical storm than having those wildfires that they’re having out west. So, you know, we’ll, I’ll take the rain and best best luck to the people out west or in during those wildfires? Absolutely. All right. Well, let’s jump right into this week’s information inspirations. Marlene, we’ve talked about major litigation funding before on the podcast with the likes of Scott mazursky. And recently with legal value network webinar that I attended on the subject really interesting. But I saw two stories this week about a new funding company called law as you go, which claims to help fill the access to justice gap by creating a line of credit to individuals needing legal assistance. Oh, boy. Yeah. Now I’m going to come right out and say that my initial reaction to the story, which ran both in the artificial lawyer and the legal examiner, the past couple of days is that, you know, there’s a sea of red flags that are going on here. You know, it has this feel of a cross between a payday loan company and a bail bonds operation. You know, and those are perfectly legal businesses. But you know, we all know that, that they have some serious issues, which, you know, tend to create a lot of residual issues, you know, for people who are financially vulnerable. Exactly, yeah. So we know that we have an access to justice problem in the United States, there’s just no doubt about that. That you know, and the issue is that people just can’t afford the high cost of justice, you know, and that’s a big obstacle in the legal system. So being able to finance that costs could be a reasonable approach on helping people obtain justice. This type of operation, however, you know, seems to come with a lot of questions that I would like to see answered before I would view it as a reasonable approach to an atj issue.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I have to agree. I mean, there would have to be a lot more transparency as to how this works and how it’s explained to those who are going to use this the service. And and you know, what their liabilities are for it? Well, Greg, our friends, Brian Parker and john green Blatt at legal innovators have come out with a white paper, and it’s highlighting how to achieve meaningful diversity and inclusion in the legal industry. They start out with highlighting the state of the legal industry, and you can cue up the sad music. Yeah,

Greg Lambert: I can kind of envision what the state of the legal industry is, right?

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, so not surprisingly, the industry has been slow to embrace diversity. And the 2008 recession, disproportionately impacted attorneys of color. So it’s set levels back, and it’s taken a decade to recover that ground. The report also notes that there’s higher attrition rates by females and racially and ethnically diverse lawyers from law firms. And if you just get on to Twitter, you can hear all of the reasons why people left.

Greg Lambert: Twitter’s a good place to find out all the reasons.

Marlene Gebauer: It’s like the after dark, you know, it’s like the after dark. So many in 2020 are worried that they’re going to see a repeat of diversity inclusion goals receding. And so what they’re talking about is is what’s the business case for it? So they know the McKinsey report finds a solid business case for increasing diversity. But you know, what we’ve seen is turning aspirational talk into action has remained a problem. And the issue of diversity fatigue, which I did not know was a thing until I read this is real. You know, there’s real burnout about how to recruit and retain, racially and ethnically diverse and female talent. So they talk about how do we move this needle, and they go a little bit into the history of it. So you know, the ABA has made recommendations for reforms, including areas of planning, culture, assessment and accountability. So Sherman and Sterling way back in 1997, had a partnership with the n double A CP, to attract aspiring candidates that were unlikely to go into corporate law, but firms still have not succeeded in making a model where diversity is sustained. The paper suggests that a practical way to sustain diversity and inclusion efforts is to make it a business imperative and to consistently measure and report results, culture needs to be addressed. So talent feels included and valued. Good culture also has to concern itself with the lifecycle of talent management. So the hiring, development promotion. So the white paper is great. A lot of research has gone into this and legal innovators lays out their model and you know how it supports the case for helping law firms. And in addition to deep content, it has really easily digestible infographics. So take a look forward to your HR or talent management recruitment or DNI teams.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, yeah, one of the things you mentioned there is the, you know, worry and you see it in some of the current federal government educational programs and some of the rules Now, is this backlash against the DNI training. So that type of what did you call it? fatigue? diversity, fatigue, diversity? fatigue? Yes, yeah, is real. So we have to be very careful, because this is not something that we need to be fatigued about. Alright, so I have a quick one to wrap it up. So Business Insider had this article that caught my attention, and it caught my attention because it was a little click Beatty in the title. So first of all, I want to read the wording of the link that I saw in safe it grabs your attention to so here’s the link, female partners and big law make $332,000 less than male partners on average. But one change has been shown to increase women’s salaries by more than 40% and boost their happiness as well. Did that graveyard, I want to know what that one change is?

Marlene Gebauer: That’s good. I gotta say, it’s like, I want to click

Greg Lambert: I know, I know. Well, there’s some really good information that’s been gathered by the recruiting firm of Lindsay Africa and major in their salary survey. And I think they do this every other year. The one thing that boosts pay and happiness for female partners, I’ll go ahead and jump in that. And so you don’t have to click on row. So the one thing is kind of good and bad, and that is that they need to move to another firm.

Marlene Gebauer: Bingo. So what did I just talk about? Like, oh, yeah, people leave? Why do they leave to go

Greg Lambert: play cells go someplace else? So again, while it may not be a shocker to many of us, you know, in a way it is it’s very sad that law firms can’t do better at finding ways of keeping talent and appropriately paying the talent, especially if that talent is historically underpaid, and underappreciated. So

Marlene Gebauer: yeah, you know, it’s interesting because I you know, when I’m on Twitter, I see some of these people talking about why they’ve left firms and and a lot of them just go out and start their own because you know, how they feel that the culture is so sort of unaccepting and unwelcoming. Yeah. And that wraps up this week’s information inspirations. Olga Mack is the CEO of parley pro and next gen contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. If you haven’t seen her LinkedIn posts, you absolutely should. Let’s hit the interview.

Marlene Gebauer: Today we have a very special guest, Olga Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next gen contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. She’s presented at TEDx on how smart contracts will change the world, and several webinars and podcasts on why corporations need women on their boards. In 2019, she received the Agents of Change Award from Diablo magazine. In 2020, the women of influence award from the San Francisco Business Journal. And most recently she was inducted into the Fastcase 50. This year, Olga, thank you very much for being on the show.

Olga Mack: Marlene, it’s fantastic and exciting to be here. Thank you for inviting and Greg, it’s great to be with you again.

Greg Lambert: Well, it’s good to have you here. So, Olga. I mean, you’ve got a, you know, an arm’s length of awards that you’ve done, but can you give us a little bit about your journey to where you are professionally?

Olga Mack: Yeah, I’m what you would describe as a tech lawyer by design. I immigrated to the United States when I was 13. And in the middle of Silicon Valley, and have observed my family change and transform through technology, through the opportunity that has provided. Both of my parents engineers, and I just had a little bit of pressure to become one. And I became completely apparent that I cannot spend my entire day in front of the computer, I decided to go to law school. I wanted to be on the corner product knowledge, I wanted to shape policy, and I wanted to have people and companies to really be on this digital journey. And when I went to law school, I basically studied intellectual property security and privacy. A sort of very classic training for a tackler. I after law school, I joined Wilson Sonsini as a patent security privacy litigator, and that at some point I went in house, my first in house job was at Visa Inc, the fortune 500 company. And that’s when my traditional career ended, and I ran away with the circus coke startups. And I joined Zoosk, which is online dating company as the number two lawyer. And I was there, trying to help the company to go public. I was then recruited to be the General Counsel of ClearSlide, which is online and sales engagement platform. And my job was to help the company be acquired and I helped on the journey for about three years. After that, I joined as VP of strategy of a Y Combinator company called Quantstamp, and my job was to help to build products, protocols and partnerships. And that’s when Parley Pro came into my life. Parley Pro has approached me to join as a CEO because of their former general counsel, because I’ve been on the cutting edge of technology. And because I deeply care about the future of law, especially as it relates to the in house community. I’ve had numerous conversations with the in house community, through my writing through my webinars, through my speaking about technology aspects of the future of law. Skills aspects of the future of law, and, frankly, emotional preparedness. As we’re seeing the future of law, the way it’s practiced in house and other areas change right in front of our eyes.

Greg Lambert: What a shame that you’ve had such a boring career.

Marlene Gebauer: I was gonna say,

Olga Mack: I really like to be predictable.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, Olga, I know you have your fingers in many pots, though, there’s a lot of things that we could talk about. But what we’re going to focus on for the podcast today is the importance of attorneys taking care of themselves. And you’ve recently been posting a lot about the importance of this. So things like you know, mentioning, you know, lack of sleep is not an act of heroism. And thinking about the stress from having to act in a way that’s expected rather than being genuine being chained to a desk. And I think that’s particularly stressful now, you know, if people have to go back to the office. Eating poorly, not exercising, you know, the list, the list goes on. How the heck did we get to this place? And what do we need to do to reverse course?

Olga Mack: That’s a very good question. You know, back to law school, Somebody once told me that being aware is 1000 year old path and to be successful, you have to keep going on it. And otherwise, you’re sort of on your own, and the wolves and the sharks will eat you. I’ve been told that basically the beginning of law school. And it’s sort of fueled the desire to change law from the day one, the way we practice it, the way we consume it, the relationship we have, both as professionals and as recipients of that advice. One of the things that we accept for granted, is how much we push lawyers to the limits, how much we don’t train them to be, you know, good humans first good, take care of themselves, and how we really worship on a pedestal a lot. But I think law cannot be divorced from humanity. When we talk about concepts of justice and doing the right things, and law is very related. Doing justice to yourself, is important. And unlike business schools, where you spent two years, in law school was spent three. That’s a lot of time, we have plenty of time to teach future lawyers how to be human first, how to take care of themselves, how to contribute to society, and frankly, how to be a good lawyer. So law school is long enough, and somehow we fail to teach 80% of what’s important. And it shows in a lot of anxiety, numerous folks have written spoken about it, and how many lawyers exit this profession, and just general dissatisfaction. You know, what I in my transition to on the business side, which actually was not all that intential, I was a very, very happy lawyer, I really enjoyed practice of law, I just sort of happened. What what struck me as a very remarkable is when folks have told me that I’m a “recovering lawyer.” And that does not sound good. It made it sounds like law somehow was a bad choice, or it was just an indiscretion, or some sort of addiction. And I assure you, it was none of those things, I was a very happy lawyer. But a lot of people feel this way. There’s a reason why we use words of addiction to describe practice a law. And that has to change.

Greg Lambert: So you’ve posted recently, and and I think maybe somewhat controversially, that lawyers are not as risk averse, as everyone seems to claim that they are. What about this particular topic, especially like with self care? Do you think they are that they’re risk adverse on on this issue?

Olga Mack: I think self care, I think an education will go a long way. I don’t think it’s a question of risk so much. Really. I think it is the baseline expectation and education and giving tools to take care of yourself.

Greg Lambert: Well, let me let me follow up on that. What kind of if you could be the the leader of a of a law school and you had, you know, 1L, 2L, or 3L, what would you inject into the system that would help?

Olga Mack: Oh, so many things?

Marlene Gebauer: Where do I start?

Olga Mack: So many things. I mean, in fact, I taught at Berkeley law, and none of them were traditional subjects. I was teaching financial statements, leadership and design thinking. I think it was a great addition. But specifically to taking care of yourself. I really break clause that I sat through once, was will is by the author of Anxious Lawyer, Jeena Cho. And she lead, you know, very hardcore litigators through the meditation exercise. She asked everyone to close their eyes. That is not a common ask for lawyers. And then very calmly, in her soft voice, proceeded to a very different conversation. And then she asked everyone to open their eyes, and I saw how they looked at the world differently, like right in front of my eyes. That is something would be useful to teach the law students. You know, when you see this really hardcore lawyers, who argue all day long and on top of their licenses, know case law, first law, the idea of closing their eyes right in the middle of the day in the big round table? And then just you can tell how they enjoyed life so much better after that exercise. It was so visible, it was unforgettable. It’s things like that. And I think if you show. Lawyers are some of the smartest people I know, if you show them a better way, if you show them technology, if you show them skills, if you show them tools, they’ll use them.

Marlene Gebauer: So I want to get back to the the expectations comment that you you made a little bit earlier. So you know I think on a certain level, legal organizations and maybe more specifically big law You know, they want their practitioners to be healthy and happy, you know, they don’t want them to be miserable. But, you know, at the same time, leadership is faced with an economic issue. That revenue has to keep coming in to keep the lights on. So how do they facilitate this health conscious working environment, and still keep a focus on the bottom line?

Olga Mack: I think I’m gonna say something that may be a little controversial.

Marlene Gebauer: Um, please do.

Olga Mack: I’m gonna inject some drama. you know, look, you know, in a big law, I was in big law. And actually, I was in big law right at the time of last recession. And a couple of things, you know, some long as you tie your profits to hours, your intentions may be good in terms of helping you lawyers to thrive, but I think if you tie profits to hours, your business model has to depend on overworking people.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, that’s what I was wondering like, since we’re all still married to the billable hour, how do we get around that?

Olga Mack: Hey look, there are many ways to get around it. And sometimes it is the easier way to go. But a lot of times, it’s not necessary. There are ways to structure legal services. You know, my, my plumber doesn’t charge me by the hour. My gardener does not charge by the hour. They could, but and that incentivizes them to look for efficient ways to add value to my household.

Marlene Gebauer: And, and they have a sense of what it costs, like they have a sense of how long it’s going to take. And so they can price accordingly. You know, based on that, that’s right.

Olga Mack: But they’re also incentivized to look for efficient ways to to add value to my household. To work with me and be open minded. So um, you know, I do think that maybe in some circumstances, our win rate may be easier. But not every time, you really don’t have to charge hourly to add a lot of value to your clients. I think if we change this model largely or completely, that will force us to buy, look for efficiencies, I think acknowledge is going to be a big chunk of look for ways to measure volume, as opposed to hours. That’s a very crude way. I used to joke at a law firm, me telling you how many hours I work makes me feel a little bit objectified, it’s a little bit like describing older in pounds and height, but it just whole lot more to older than how much a weight and how tall I am. So I do think that we can and we should find the value of legal services. And I think changing the focus from hours to value will really demonstrate how much volume most lawyers give to businesses to humans. And I think that will change the reputation of lawyers.

Greg Lambert: Now, you know, we talked about how how we take care of ourselves, but with this profession, you know, it’s it’s very confrontational. And so a lot of times we we don’t necessarily treat each other very well. And I was thinking of you had shared an amazing story about how you were working as a prosecutor in court while being almost nine months pregnant. And the judge asking you in front of the court, how you plan to handle your cases.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I’m gonna jump in, like your response here was was brilliant. So I hope you share it for the listeners, you know, the judge may have not met anything by this but you know, it was viewed as Okay, and it’s not okay. You know, bad behaviors notoriously tolerated in law firms, you know, big stakes, high pressure. How do we do better?

Olga Mack: Yeah, very interesting. Um, yeah, I was fortunate enough to be part of justice program where I spent half a year in San Francisco DS office under Kamilah to prosecute cases. And that’s where I had an experience of doing 30 trials. And they were not trials of the century. Many of them were possessions and he lies. But for a young ambitious lawyer, seeing the courtroom was a really big deal. And I learned so much, and doing everything from arraignments to various motion practices do doing trials, and I grew up in San Francisco. I know San Francisco very well. I immigrated when I was 13. And I even had to be Ida for someone who I knew growing up. And so I really understand the problems of the of the city, a big city, and how some people get lost in this world. And I, my very first case, I was, I was very excited about it was a case of stolen goods from a store in downtown. And I was over preparing just like every little bit of work for a trial. And I might have been a little nervous, but I was super excited. And I was also visibly pregnant. I was nine months pregnant, like they gave birth the day after we got a birthday. So I was pretty big. And then the judge was looking at him with a lot of curiosity. And then at some point, he’s a well respected judge, she said, madam da, I always wanted to ask you how you’re being pregnant affects your ability to prosecute the case. You know, I didn’t really think about it, I just sort of said, Hey, you know, my stomach grows, but my brain stays the same. I really wish it were the other way around. I wasn’t trying to be brushed, I just I did not know how to answer that question. That’s the first thing that came to my mind. I’m also pretty honest and truthful. You know, if you want to know how I’m doing, I’m going to tell you exactly how I’m doing. And so, you know, I think it kind of led to a pregnant pause in the middle of a courtroom. And that would just serve proceeded as if nothing happened. But you know, I, I do believe he did not necessarily come from a bad place. I think he was probably curious, being, you know, my, the public defender was a male, the judge being a male, you know, being a young pregnant woman. And as that in front of the jury, where you probably don’t necessarily want to be seen as weak as a prosecutor, you know, yes, I was a little stripy. And maybe that’s why I was a little brush. But yeah, I often look back on that comment and question. I don’t really he meant it in a bad way. I do believe that. You did that the question didn’t make me comfortable. But I think we could educate sensitivity. That’s another thing you can teach in law school. I’m here you can even to judges go through a lot of training judges through training.

Marlene Gebauer: So it’s good. We’re like, we’re putting together all new classes for for law schools, just in this podcast. So that’s good.

Greg Lambert: I have to say, I really enjoyed that. Olga, injected pregnant pause into that. Yes.

Olga Mack: I was actually sometimes more powerful than my words. Yes. You know, sometimes when people say funny things, it’s this extra few seconds of stare, that will set a very strong message.

Marlene Gebauer: Like the sensitivity training is, is, you know, a great idea. Because, you know, you’re dealing with many kind of Type A folks who, you know, perhaps that’s sort of not their first focus in terms of, you know, working, it’s really kind of getting things done and getting the project done and being successful. But being trained to kind of stop and think about what kind of impact that you’re having on, you know, the community around you, I think would would be very valuable.

Olga Mack: Yeah. You know, but, you know, in house behavior that is rewarded is actually much less confrontational. interest, I spend most of my career in house. And I would say, you can try in house in most in house positions. On the legal side, if you don’t prioritize collaboration, I definitely think that my ability to collaborate focus on adding value to the business to the stakeholders to the department has been ingrained and polished in my in house practice. You know, I when I when I graduated from law school, I didn’t know a whole lot about my options and war. That’s something we can educate lawyers about too. Because, you know, folks asked me what kind of lawyer I would like to be, and I’ve never been in kind of work. So it’s a really hard question to answer. And one of the things that could have been going in house and I have to say the first year in house was an eye opening after being at a big law and actually being a prosecutor for half a year. It’s a it’s a very different world, and the soft skills, the collaborative abilities are much much much more important. Your your legal skills are definitely table stakes, and you succeed in that world. both internally in your legal department and externally with your clients by being a really good team player.

Marlene Gebauer: Oh, that’s, that’s certainly, that’s good to know. And, and certainly good for the listeners to know. COVID has been stressful for all of us. And you know, but perhaps it’s given us a jumpstart on understanding that careers aren’t static. You know, maybe we’ve learned along the way, there’s a basis for a different approach, or different work or different goals. So what advice would you offer for those practitioners who want to be, you know, their more modern version like the attorney 3.0?

Olga Mack: Look, I have written a lot about her and happy to share my views. But I do think that in the end of the day has to change quite a lot. We are very rigid, we think of swim lanes, and those swim lanes and not, you know, you know how swim lanes are just kind of beads in the world. They’re concrete.

Marlene Gebauer: They’re like the ends of the pool.

Olga Mack: Yeah, you cannot jump over. It’s very granular, right? It’s the swim lanes are rigid. They’re not just rigid. In between the legal world and business world. You are up until recently, we have seen very few lawyers to go from this legal world to business world. Yet, if you look in the business world, somebody who is marketer could easily be a product person could easily become a sales professional could easily then become a customer success person. This is a much more fluid business world. In law, there is a big concrete wall that is like lane number one. But even if you look within law, you know, the number one question that I’m asked, because I’m done with what’s seen in law, as lots of fields have been a litigator, I went in house at a fortune 500 company, I went to down to a startup that I become a general, I never had the same job twice. And in law, those seamless, big pivots, because people somehow when you when I was applying in house will tell me you’re a litigator, you’ve never negotiated contracts. Well, at some point I’ve never taught. And at some point, I wasn’t a lawyer, contract negotiators. I’m not born, they’re made. When I was applying for general counsel position, people will tell me you’ve never been a general counsel, or I’ve never been a lot of things before. Right. At some point, somebody has to give me my first. And that’s it. If you talk to lawyers who go from litigation to corporate to from big law to in house to government, to General Counsel this people to heart, and a lot of it is because we think that there are different skills and you can’t learn and Yeah, that makes no sense. Some of the smartest people I know, are lawyers, you give them a learning opportunity, they will devour they spent, like their entire career jumping through hoops of increasing difficulty. And all of those hoops require learning yet somehow, when they become lawyers will pretend that they’re completely incapable of learning and tell them that if you happen to choose to be a litigator, you cannot be a corporate lawyer. That makes no sense. That absolutely makes no sense. Somebody asked me what why I became a litigator. I’ll be honest with you, I have no plans to become a litigator. I love reading, writing and arguing. But I did not like making other people’s life miserable. I did not like leaning on Discovery. And I think a lot of law cases are or one discovery. So why did I become a litigator? Very simple. I graduated from law school in 2006, as the corporate work was diminishing, and my law firm, told me quite bluntly, Olga you’re very welcome, you think you’re talented, we would love you to join the law firm as a litigator. Otherwise you’re on your own, you can practice it just not transactional on the litigation side. And I spent about three and a half years proving to myself what I already know that I did not want to do it again. Right. And then it was very writing, but after three and a half years, when I was looking for opportunities to you know, I find a way I acknowledge to myself that you know, I am done with proving to myself that I did not want to be litigator and I want to go in house. Then I got another obstacle. Olga, you cannot become a corporate lawyer because you spend three and a half years being away to get this makes no sense. This makes no sense. We wish would allow much more fluid it was in law and frankly, across disciplines. From law. I’ve seen lawyers in product roles in sales roles and customer success roles and all kinds of role and not just in, in other discipline, and they’re capable, they’re absolutely capable. And they’re interested and willing to learn. They’re capable of the smartest people I know. And they can succeed in any view. Now, you

Greg Lambert: have mentioned that you you practice during the last downturn. And I know, there’s a lot of anxiety, especially from some of the younger attorneys, and specifically amongst those who graduated this year, and are finding all these challenges, just, you know, barriers on entry into the market right now, with your experience and understanding what’s going on. Now, what would you advise for someone just starting out to kind of curtail some of that anxiety that they’re feeling right now,

Olga Mack: I can actually relate to that, if that was a very junior were at a big law firm as my class was shrinking. And the law firms of the time were not as honest about that they were shrinking. They were talking about performance. Somehow, every, all my friends mother’s had cancer, and they were no longer practicing law. And I found that the person on the right office was empty One day, the person on the web, and being a junior person and the young lawyer and just a young human, it’s a scary place, especially because, you know, in the United States, in law, we our identity is very closely tied to our trade, you know that every conversation you have a stranger will likely end up what do you do for a living in one shape or another, some people will ask you that overtly others will ask you kind of more diplomatically. But basically, that is something that everybody will ask you our identities, we are as people very much, especially in law, but frankly, just in our society, revolve around what we do day every day in providing services or, or building products. And so I think so during that recession, so number one thing in the place where you don’t know things are happening is is just very easy. Number two, I I made a lot of observation is that in that downturn, there’s number of high profile lawyers who were either laid off or, and unfortunately, there’s a number of suicides. I think it shows to you that one, about our identity, and two, that lawyers are probably not equipped to take care of themselves, especially when their identities challenged. Those are skills that need to be taught in law school, we need to know economic turbulence, environmental turbulence, are becoming normal, we need to have skills to seek help when we need it. So with respect to how, you know, what did I think works, because I definitely know I made a decision in house during the bad economy, when everybody told me that it was impossible. I think, one is that I realized that Everything I have is here. You know, there are many ways to learn. And nobody can take your skills away. You you acquire skills, and they are transferable things, and you can have them with you. Your reputation, your skills, and your determination. Those are your skills, no matter what you did before whether you had a job or not. And so I went on the mission to acquire skills. That’s how I made my transition in house. Because everybody told me I never negotiated a contract, I found a way to negotiate contracts. I sat down, I asked my friends to share 40 contracts, I compared them, I created an outline, not all that different I would create in Moscow. And when somebody told me that I had no idea what I’m talking about, you know, actually contracts are a very finite universe. Every contract has about 20 clauses, there’s about what 10 to 20 variations of every clause. And if you look at about 40 to 400 contracts, I guarantee you, you will know quite a lot. Um, and then I was on the board and later become a general counsel of a nonprofit in RSA deeply care about arts and trained artists. And I practiced that negotiation. By the time I was interviewing the visa, and they were looking at my very litigation driven resume, and trying to suggested that I’ve never seen a contract. I could have a very robust discussion about contract negotiation just through self learning and small practice. So I do think that in this chicken and egg problem where you don’t get a job because you don’t have a skill, you don’t have a skill because you don’t have a job. You know, sometimes I my advice is to sell for the skill and be very creative. You have a lot of controllers and some of the smartest people I know. They can learn, they can find very creative ways to learn self learning is absolutely the way to do it while engineering another there’s deal in other ways. I see very senior lawyers learning business through being advisory members for startups, that is absolutely the way to do it. I’ve done that many times. Again, look for opportunities to learn. look for opportunities to upskill look for opportunities to streamline your practice or technology. Nobody can take that away. It’s portable skills, you will survive and thrive in any economy. I guarantee you.

Greg Lambert: That’s some wisdom.

Marlene Gebauer: to say those are good words of wisdom. That’s that’s a good ending point, I think.

Greg Lambert: Olga Mack, we both appreciate you taking the time to come on and talk with us today. Thank you

Post-interview

Greg Lambert: Marlene, it’s always good to talk with Olga. I was glad she could make it onto the show. The you know, the one thing that my favorite takeaway from talking with her was her comment on how skills are something that you take with you, and no one can take away from you. You know, that’s just a great way of thinking about I don’t want to say your value but the you know, your skill set and that’s yours. And it doesn’t matter what path your career it takes. Yeah, and and so I mean, you can take that from job to job.

Marlene Gebauer: Of course. Absolutely. I mean, You can’t think of well, just because I’m no longer at this job doesn’t mean that I, I don’t have my skills anymore. I mean that that’s silly. Another I’ll add to yours. Another thing that that I liked is that, you know, she feels that it’s really important to be genuine and to really sort of be your genuine self and I think we’ve we’ve had that theme, you know, with with with cat moon and with Brian Parker, and you know, with numerous other guests about, you know, you got to be your real self in order to really shine at what you do. And so and Olga is definitely if she definitely embraces that, and, and so I really appreciate it. Before we go, we want to remind listeners to take the time to subscribe on Apple podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts rate and review us as well. If you have comments about today’s show or suggestions for a future show, you can reach us on Twitter at at gay, Bauer M or clamber. Or you can call the geek and review hotline at 713-487-7270 or email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. And as always, the music you hear is from Jerry David DeCicca. Thank you, Jerry.

Greg Lambert: Thanks, Jerry. We’ll talk to you later Marlene.

Marlene Gebauer: All right, bye. stay dry.

The Geek In Review Ep. 87 – Phil Flora on Leopard Solution’s New Gender and Ethnic ...

Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:00:26 GMT

Gender and diversity analysis is necessary to the success of law firms. In fact, diversity metrics are quite openly a common ask from law firm clients. Firms may not often have this sort of information readily available, due to siloed information and custodial/privacy concerns. We get the scoop from Phil Flora from Leopard Solutions about their new searchable gender and ethnic diversity platform, how it works, what it reveals, who can use it, and why. We discuss what was found in terms of the top 200 and below in terms of racial diversity and there is room for improvement. Quite a bit. If firms want to establish a baseline for improvement, this platform might prove a good way to start.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

Mike Whelan, the author of Lawyer Forward, is doing something crazy. He’s starting 90 episode podcast series called the 90-Day Known Expert. During this time, he plans to teach lawyers how to leverage their writing and publishing skills to become both known in the industry, as well as seen as an expert in the industry. Best of luck on your adventure Mike!!

Professor Bill Henderson lays out a two-part series that wants to turn law firms away from their Rainmaker model into a team model. It worked for Goldman Sachs, why not for BigLaw? (Part One. Part Two.)

Christina Herrmann, Chief Talent Officer at Shipman & Goodwin penned a LinkedIn article reminding us that law firms are a business and that to have a competitive advantage, the C-Suite needs to be filled with the proper talent for what’s coming post-COVID.

Need a visual representation to help you identify common cognitive biases? We have a chart of 50 for you to peruse.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

[0:19]

Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to the Geek in Review. The podcast focus on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.

Greg Lambert: And I’m Greg Lambert. So Marlene, I just love reconnecting with old friends especially during this crazy year of 2020,

Marlene Gebauer: who doesn’t love connecting with old friends?

Greg Lambert: So we do just that on this episode by bringing in Phil Flora from Leopard Solutions to talk about the Leopard Solutions, new gender and ethnic diversity tool, which allows for the measurement of diversity across different law firms for benchmarking, pitches, and other metrics, which are important not only to firms, but to clients and as to the industry as a whole. So you know, we’ve both known Phil for a long time, and it’s always fun catching back up with him.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, it seems like not so long ago we met Phil when he was at ALM. Leopard Solutions seems to be a very natural progression for him. So he’s going to lay out what they do and this new gender diversity tool is absolutely fascinating and so, so much that I peppered him with a ton of questions about this just rapid fire. You know, and Phil, as always was very good natured and answered all of my questions very graciously.

Greg Lambert: Yes, he did. Yes, he did.

Marlene Gebauer: He was very patient with me.

Greg Lambert: All right, well, let’s jump into this week’s information, inspirations.

Information Inspirations:

[1:48]

Greg Lambert:: Marlene, my first one is from Mike Whelan. He’s the author of Lawyer Forward, and he’s doing something that even he thinks is a little crazy. So he’s doing a daily podcast for 90 days called the 90 day known expert series.

Marlene Gebauer: Wow

Greg Lambert: Yeah. So on that podcast, he’s going to discuss lawyers who are looking to be both known and who are experts.

Marlene Gebauer: Known Experts.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, but you know, some people might think it’s the same thing. If you’re, if you’re known. You’re an expert. If you’re an expert known but it’s, you know, but according to Mike, it’s not the same thing. And the introduction to it, which I believe started today. He says that becoming a known expert means having the prestige and the know how to deliver insights that no one else can. So basically, it’s it means having a topic and publishing your expertise on that topic. You know, it kind of reminds me of an interview I did with Craig Levinson on the In Seclusion Podcast, where he talked about the needs for lawyers to find a topic to write on. Mike Whelan is is … he’s taken on a lot here

Marlene Gebauer: That’s putting it mildly.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, he’s usually pretty good at delivering on these types of projects and and he definitely has the voice for podcasting but better than mine, so hopefully we can get Mike on this pod at some point and after his pod, get started and see how it’s going.

Marlene Gebauer: That’s is very exciting, you know, I love podcasts experiments and you know people putting out different things and trying them. So, you know if Mike survive this one. Yeah, we’ll definitely have him on.

Greg Lambert: Well, we’ll talk to him as he’s a rehydrating in the hospital.

[3:40]

Marlene Gebauer: Well, we’ll have we’ll have lots of saline for you, Mike. So I read a Bill Henderson post in legal evolution regarding training for lawyers. So this is a two part post and I have both links in the notes. The the focus of Part one is revamping of lawyer compensation systems so they reward teams, rather than individuals. Professor Henderson uses the example of Goldman Sachs in the 1960s, which moved from an individual Rainmaker model to a team model. And of course, we all know what happened after that. World domination. Basically, yeah,

Greg Lambert: pretty much,

Marlene Gebauer: pretty much So the focus Part two is the training or retraining needed to make that model work. And I really I really had to chuckle because I was as I was reading this because Professor Henderson is well aware of how hard it is to get buy in for change management, particularly when the old reward systems make many rich and clients bear the costs. So his core claim is that a law firm can excel at teamwork if team based metrics are combined with the right types of training, lawyers need foundational training and a few management concepts to balance the decades of learned behavior. So things like rewarding intra firm cooperation, investing in training because of impact on culture and loyalty, creating a sense of mission and shared values and transparency about financial matters. Now Professor Henderson also suggests that lawyers need to understand historical arc of their business model And understand that it needs to be retooled really good nerdy stuff here.

Greg Lambert: That’s right up your alley.

Marlene Gebauer: Mm hmm.

[5:31]

Greg Lambert: All right, well, my last one, it comes from Christina Herrmann, who’s the chief talent officer at Shipman Goodman in Connecticut. And she wrote a really interesting piece on LinkedIn entitled, “Now is the Time for Law Firms to Maximize Their C-Suite.” So Herrmann talks about the transitioning and advancement of the C-Suite, post 2008. And the changes on how we viewed the lens, say, like on HR by instead of viewing it as human resources, we view it as the lifespan of talent, or how we shifted the idea of the firm’s financials by looking at the way we planned and priced matters. So the same types of shifts are in process right now. You know, law firms are unique businesses. As you mentioned, Professor Henderson Before he understands, but they are businesses. And there is a need to bring in the experts to make sure that it is actually run like a true business, and not just the result of a disjointed organization with hundreds of owners. So let the attorneys do what they do best and hire the best specialist in the C suites to do what they do best. And Christina Herrmann writes something that many of us hear time and time again, especially as we face challenges, and that is that the law firms who maximize the contribution of their C suite executives to achieve these efficiencies will place themselves in a competitive advantage as we come out of COVID. So I couldn’t agree more.

[7:07]

Marlene Gebauer: I agree. It’s, it’s something that was drilled into me early on in my career. You know, even as a manager and director I was running a small business, offering and marketing a strategic vision, building a brand, assessing and delivering tools and products to customers, measuring client appetite for what we were delivering and adjusting as needed. hiring staff with the necessary skills, change, management, budgeting, all the things you need to run a business. Christina is absolutely right. Hire the experts to run things like a business and you have the advantage. My last inspiration at Greg is visual, I came across a chart of cognitive biases to be aware of. Now the audience for this particular chart was children. So you know, they were using bright colors, they were using animals representing certain types of biases

Greg Lambert: Well you’re spot on for our audience then.

Marlene Gebauer: It was very well done. So I put on my researcher hat and found a chart that was more appropriate for adults. But the catch is there are 50 cognitive biases on this chart. Fifty! One I liked was the Dunning Kruger effect, which is the less you know, the more confident you are. So you’re confident there’s no kelp and ice cream, but you don’t work in the industry, nor have you read the ingredients. I thought that one was very apropos for our life today. And the other one I like was digital amnesia or the Google effect. All right, Greg, I know you’re gonna like this one. So, which is that we tend to forget information that is easily looked up in search engines. So, you know, what was the name of that actor? You know, he was funny. He was in that funny movie with Robert De Niro. Sound familiar?

Greg Lambert: Yeah, but but I will tell you this it. I think that falls in that could also be called the librarian effect is that we don’t know the answer, but I can look it up.

Marlene Gebauer: That’s right. That’s right. And on that note, that wraps up this week’s information inspirations.

Guest Interview:

[9:23]

Greg Lambert: We all understand that when you have goals, there must be ways to measure progress toward achieving those goals. One of the biggest goals that the legal industry is asking law firms to measure is their progress toward a more diverse and inclusive workforce, specifically among the lawyers and the partners of the firm. But how do you find ways to measure diversity? Today’s guest works for a company that released a tool this week that aspires to help the industry do just that.

Greg Lambert: Phil Flora is the Senior Director of Sales and Marketing at Leopard Solutions and is a longtime friend of many of us in the legal information industry dating back to his days with ALM and Leadership Connect. Hey, Phil, thanks for taking some time to talk with us today.

Phil Flora: Thanks. Greg. Thanks, Marlene. I really appreciate you guys having me on.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, we remember you from our days with Kevin Iredale. And I don’t know if you listen to our interview with Kevin. But I’m gonna blame you for letting us say his name wrong this whole time?

Marlene Gebauer: Did you know this?

Phil Flora: Yeah, probably, but I’m from Long Island. So you know, so I’ve butchered a lot of people’s names.

Greg Lambert: Alright, well, well, Phil, you’re now with Leopard Solutions. And most of us know them for their legal recruiting database. But it’s also used by people like me and other business and competitive intelligence professionals to gather insights on on the market as well. Do you mind just giving us just a quick overview of what leveraged solutions does?

Phil Flora: Sure. And I appreciate that. Yeah, I mean, leopard solutions definitely is known for their database of attorneys and helping search professionals legal search professionals with candidate placement. Laura Leopard started the business in 2002. Initially, she looked at top law firms for major metropolitan cities. She went on law firm websites, she put them on CD ROMs. She sent those around to clients. She promised updates every quarter. And then from there, we kind of expanded out from, you know, just those regional cities, the metropolitan cities, to larger firms expanded a database, we have over 4000 firms now, we’re online, obviously, we’re updated weekly. Now we’re updated, actually bi weekly. From there, we launched our firm intelligence tool, which as you mentioned, a lot of legal researchers and competitive intelligence folks use for benchmarking did that around 2012. We also have an in house corporate counsel database About 70,000 in house corporate counsel, that’s updated quarterly, we have a job search platform. So those are our legacy products. And and we’ve been doing that for almost 20 years. from that. Our next big push has been in more predictive analytics. We’re taking all that historical information that we have, and we’re creating algorithms that can predict outcomes based on you know, functions like mergers and acquisitions and what the potential outcomes from that would be from connections tools that you know, will allow law firms to see relationships between law firms and corporate counsel, our law firm predictability, Attorney move predictability tool, which will allow law firms to maintain attorneys and also attract attorneys to, to to their firm, all this while rolling out the diversity search and benchmarking tool, which I think is really exciting for for a lot of reasons, and all that during COVID. And while we’ve been in isolation, so it’s been

Marlene Gebauer: you You’ve been busy.

Greg Lambert: But really what else have you had to do?

Marlene Gebauer: And I mean, I love that history that you’ve given us. I mean, it’s always interesting to see sort of the trajectory of a company like where you start with with, you know, the CD ROMs. And now you’re moving into predictive analytics. So that’s, that’s fantastic. All right. So you touched on the diversity tool, and and you had a major announcement about this, in regard to the leopard solutions, gender and ethnic diversity tool. Now, obviously, with the issues surrounding race in the United States, as well as the demands that law firm clients and other social and economic pressures to show law firms are working on diversity and inclusion within their ranks. This tool seems really timely. What’s the mission behind creating this tool?

[13:46]

Phil Flora: Yeah, I mean, as you mentioned, you know, race and diversity is very top of mind right now. You know, it’s been something that we’ve heard a lot about from our clients over the years. We have a searchable database of attorneys, it’s come up from our users, is there way to find diverse attorneys, either based on ethnicity or gender? To be quite honest, we’ve been a little fearful of doing this in the past to potential for it to be used for the wrong reasons to exclude folks. So, you know, we never really thought the timing is right, you know, law firms aren’t adept at change. They’re a little slow as you guys will know, we think really the the biggest driver of this has been this Mansfield rule which the diversity lab is initiating with a number of firms and outside corporate counsel, that with everything that is going on in the cultural landscape of the world, you know, and we’re a gender diverse organization, the owner, Laura, is a woman, certified women business organization. We have a very diverse culture, in our organization. We’re not very large company, you know, we just felt there was a moral obligation on our part to have, you know, we have the capability of rolling out something like this, we feel that there’s actually pressure being applied to law firms to change their culture, but not only from internal, but it’s also from their external clients. And we really feel the change is coming. And we could be, you know, help be a driver of that change. So, we felt it was a little bit of a moral obligation on our part to be able to really help the industry grow.

Greg Lambert: Now, you mentioned that you tied this to the Mansfield rule. So why Why did you do that? And let me ask, is it limited to only the firms that have made a commitment to the Mansfield rule?

Phil Flora: With the Mansfield rule, we just feel that this is where law firms are really seriously thinking about changing the culture of their organizations. We feel way putting this pledge down to reach minimum standards of 30% inclusion and having corporate counsel apply pressure in their hiring of culturally diverse organizations and partners. We just felt like this was the right time to do it. So that’s, that’s when we really push forward. You know, as far as who can use it, it’s users of our database. We’re not charging anything additional for customers to have access to it. A Mansfield rule firm will have access to it. They have access to it right now. That was launched yesterday. If you’re a non Mansfield rule firm or a legal search professional, and you’re interested in using it for the reasons that are the right reasons to advance diversity in the industry, we’re actually having them sign a Leopard’s Pledge, which is similar in a lot of ways to the Mansfield pledge, it’s, but they have to sign it. Their users have to acknowledge it, when they log in, and they’ll they’ll have access to the search filter. Once they do that. If they don’t sign off on our pledge or they’re not part of the Mansfield rule. They actually won’t have access to the search filter.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, I mean, this this sounds wonderful Phil, but um, we also Know, though that trying to nail down statistics on diversity, especially ethnic diversity can be a moving target. So what are the guidelines that Leopard is using to determine how to identify diversity?

[17:11]

Phil Flora: It’s a good question. So we, you know, we use our AI technology to pull in data from law firm websites. That’s how we do it. And that’s how we’ve been doing it for years, we have over 20 data points that we have currently collected and have collected historically on attorneys in our database. We use that technology and we we create an algorithm looking at specific data points. We looked at specific data points within the attorney profiles, such as their name, such as their memberships, such as their organizations that they’re part of, their countries of origin. And we use that to create what we feel is a list of folks that are highly probable, have a high probability of being diverse from there, though We used our internal data team to go and review each profile individually, further to ensure that the individual would meet our characteristic of being highly probable of being diverse. We’re not tagging individuals with ethnicity, we are not saying this person is of a particular ethnic background, we are just categorizing people that we feel are highly probable being diverse. And that’s the key indicator what we’re doing so

Marlene Gebauer: and that’s and that’s based on the algorithm and on the human review,

Phil Flora: human touch. That’s correct. That’s right.

Greg Lambert: What do you expect law firms and your other clients to actually do with the data?

Phil Flora: Great question. I mean, you know, we expect number one, or you know, folks like yourselves, you know, they’re going to be looking at it for benchmarking purposes, benchmarking their statistical information on their firm versus their competitors. We envision, obviously using the tool to understand just a diverse landscape finding internal individuals into you know, that they could promote from associate to to partner. We want to see them find external folks to bring onto the firm to really meet those diverse goals. You know, some of the statistics we found when we did this research, only 17% of all attorneys in the top 200 are ethnically diverse. Only 10% of the top 200 partners are ethnically diverse, the gender numbers are similar, the under 200 Law Firm numbers are actually worse. So we really want to, you know, see the change happen. And, you know, we think providing the data, you know, the number one thing that we heard from, you know, when we spoke to Diversity Lab was the missing element in all this is the data and we feel like we have that now or we could provide access to that now. It’s going to be updated as all of our information is updated twice a week. You know, again, we just feel like we’re providing a resource for For them to use to really meet their stated goals that they’re pushing, and their clients are pushing.

Greg Lambert: You mentioned the Diversity Lab, which is overseeing the Mansfield rule. So what kind of collaboration and relationship do you have with them?

Phil Flora: Um, nothing, nothing specific. We had an initial call with them, just the the owner Laura and spoke with Karen over there and they had an initial conversation and we basically showcased what our methodology would be, what we could do and how we could help and they were very receptive, you know, everything they said their response back was, again, the missing element the missing piece in all this is the lack of data on diverse attorneys and they felt if we could provide any assistance in that that would really help bridge that gap. They have not put their stamp of approval on this they have not said that this is what you know you guys should do with law firm should do but they really felt the initiative was was a good direction for us to go.

Marlene Gebauer: You’ve mentioned you have, you know, you’re able to call a lot of data points, you know, how granular are we going in terms of the information you can provide? You know, I think in terms of like RFPs, where clients want to know, not only what are your numbers, but who’s at the leadership level, who’s working on my, my work, and my matters, you know, how, how granular can you go?

[21:23]

Phil Flora: Extremely granular. We can slice the data, any number of ways. Like I mentioned, we have over 20 data points on an individual attorney. So you can you can run a search and Leopard list for a partner’s IP partners in Texas that have 10 years of experience that went to certain law US law schools that have a high probability of being ethnically diverse. You can say you can even combine that with gender diversity and say, how many of those are ethnically and gender diverse? You could do again, geography The practice areas specialty job type, pull all that information together, you can even then review the individual law firm BIOS, you have a keyword search filter where you can plug in individual key words within the BIOS, and add that to your search result. And then you’ll be create a report of those of those individual attorneys. And again, you can do that at the law firm level as well. So if you wanted to see which law firms have the most, you know, they have the most gender diversity or ethnic diversity, you know, within a certain practice area within a certain region, and so on. And then you’d be able to, you know, understand that information,

Marlene Gebauer: is there a visual component to the search? Like, are you looking at images? I’m just curious.

Phil Flora: It’s a great question. I mean, you know, it’s a part of it, right? We look at the entirety of the profile, we you know, read the bio, reread, we understand the memberships we understand, you know, the person and you know, we understand the picture is obviously a company component of it, but it’s not the driving force of it. It’s one aspect of it, you know, we look at the entirety of the law firm profile, in conjunction with our algorithm that touches on all those different points. And again, we’re not stating that that person is of any particular ethnicity. We’re just saying that there’s a high probability that that person is diverse. And I think that’s the key aspect of this. This is not self reported data. This is data that we’re using statistical, you know, modeling, if you will, and we’re creating what we feel is a, you know, a fairly accurate representation of what the law firm culture looks like.

Marlene Gebauer: So how do you like, I would figure it’d be easier to get the partners because generally their information is out there, but like, what about the associates and even some of the staff? You know, are you looking at those are you gather information on those? How do you get that?

[23:52]

Phil Flora: Yeah, I mean, it’s it’s at every attorney that has a profile of some capacity on a law firm website is going to have a, you know, a record in our database. You know, one of the good things that we have because we’ve been doing this for 15 years or over 15 years is we also have historical information on a lot of these folks. So you know, an attorney might have been associated another firm, and that might have had an expansive profile. And then you might have lateral over to another firm, which maybe they don’t do as high of a profile. We’ve tagged that person with a unique ID in our database. So we’ve tracked that movement of that individual. So we have our own historical information to also add to that perspective, as we’re showcasing individuals in our in our database. And in house database, we get to track that movement to know well if the in house database only been around since 2017. Again, some of those folks that are in that

Marlene Gebauer: move from firm to in house so you have them too. Great. What efforts are you taking to make sure that the information is accurate and I know I’m getting Kind of harping on this. I’m kind of harping on this point. But this is again a point of interest and concern for me. But what kinds of safeguards do you have in place to correct data? If necessary? And and do you allow input for users of the data to identify any need for correction?

Phil Flora: It’s a it’s a great question. So, you know, obviously, we did a lot of work, our product and development teams have did a tremendous amount of work leading up to the launch yesterday, while living in isolation, they’ve been working really hard, and there was a lot of initial work that needs to be done to roll this out. Moving forward. It’ll be part of our normal updating process, which involves twice a week pulling in the data from law firm websites going through all those, those 20 plus data points that we have with now gender and ethnic diversity being parts of that process, and doing the same type of process of reviewing the information, reviewing the individual BIOS, that human touch is extremely important that we rely on at Leopards. So that’ll be the process moving forward. With that said, I mean, we rolled it out with kind of a disclaimer that we do feel that there’s an error rate about plus or minus 5% for about 95% of the firms that we we have in our database right now, moving forward, we’re obviously going to continue to fine tune that error rate to ensure that we have accuracy and, and and everything is verified. Law firms are there’s going to be inevitably questions. You know, a law firm is going to feel that it’s not represented completely for their firm. And we’re willing to have conversations, Laura has made it very clear that she’s willing to talk directly to anyone at a law firm, and really go through the rosters because we’re, if a law firm said that they’re 20% diverse and we have them at 15% diverse we’re not just going to change the number from 15 to 20%. Because it all rolls back down to the individual attorney. That’s where our numbers come from. So that would mean that we have to look at the roster of each of the individual attorneys and have a conversation and really, you know, understand if there is a diverse individual or diverse attorney that met the criteria that, you know, the National US Census criteria that we’re using, and we did not include them initially, then we will make that change, we’ll have a conversation. It’s not the kind of a one size fits all discussion. With that said, we need to see the verified information. We need to have that data, that conversation back down with each of these firms at the attorney level.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, this is really interesting, because it you know, it’s sort of an evidence based discussion, right? Like, you know, you’re presenting evidence, it’s like, Okay, well, you got to present some evidence back to us. In order for us to make the change. It kind of reminds me about when RAVEL first came out, and judges were like, Oh, I don’t rely on that same, you know, same quote all the time and my decisions until they’re presented with the evidence. I was like, oh, okay, maybe, maybe, maybe So, that I think that that’s a that’s a wise way to do it.

Greg Lambert: What are you doing to keep a tool like this from doing the opposite of what the intention is? And I think about things like, you know, Facebook ads, which allowed and I think they’ve stopped doing this, but you know, they allowed realtors to only reach out to people that fit a certain profile, which was not necessarily a diverse profile. So what do you do to keep someone from flipping the process around and using it as a way to exclude diverse candidates instead of actually including them?

[28:27]

Phil Flora: It’s a great question. I mean, it’s, as I mentioned earlier, it’s one of our big was one of our biggest fears and why we didn’t initially do this. We just felt you know, the majority of our customers will use the product or have had great intentions of using the product. If we rolled it out years past, the right way and the correct way for advancement opportunities. We just feel that the climate has changed. You know, it’s it’s a very different time right now. The Mansfield rule would by the Diversity Lab, you know, I brought it up earlier, I just think that lends serious consideration and credibility to the initiative. There’s more data out there that just makes it transparent with, you know, each of the organizations have diversity wise. With that said, we still build some, you know, some functionality into our database to, you know, keep folks from using it in a incorrectly. There is no exclude function within the search for word search tool. You can only include those those components within your search filter. You cannot say, I want IP attorneys in Texas, and that are not averse by gender or ethnicity. With that said, obviously people can do a lot of different things to beat a system if they want.

Greg Lambert: You’re helping honest people stay honest?

Phil Flora: Yes, we’re doing the best we feel it’s the best. It’s the best possible approach. We did our leopards pledge, you know, so they’re on the They’re on the hook, you know, they can violate our pledge, if we find out, you know, if they have saved searches that are in some ways inappropriate. I mean, they’re putting themselves on the line. It’s establishing our it’s establishing, the positive change, and putting the mechanisms in place to create that. And I think we’ve done that. Like I said, we have a very diverse organization. And we had a, we had a win the people over internally that are doing this work before they actually wanted to go and do the work. There was some internal discussions about what this was the right thing to do. And I think ultimately, everyone sees that there’s a general consensus of positive change happening. And I think we’re, we’re happy to be you know, hopefully part of that.

Marlene Gebauer: Well, Phil, if this works out, as you hope, are there any other categories of diversity that you might look at including later?

[30:48]

Phil Flora: Yeah, so the next big area is that in house corporate counsel database, we did not roll out this search. Filter within corporate counsels. It’s only within law firms right now in the law firm side of our database. So that’s obviously next. We also only are showing current diversity data on the law firms and the attorney information, our database, we got over 15 years of data on all the attorney information. So we want to go back and run historical information so that law firms can see how they’ve trended over time. And and they can benchmark, you know, the growth, you know, if someone’s at 15% now, but they were at 5%, three years ago, well, that’s significant. That’s significant, and that should be profiled and recognized. So that’s a big area we’re going to focus on with this. And diversity in general is being applied to really the next big thing that we’re doing, which is our Business Intelligence Suite, which has got all those predictive analytics that we kind of talked about initially. So the mergers and acquisitions predictability tool, which is out now has a cultural perspective of that. So to firms looking to Combine, you know, there’s a lot of different elements that go into that combination. Obviously practice areas and tourney types and all that is important their clients for you know, picture and any potential conflicts are obviously important. A financial aspect is important. But the cultural aspect is, I think tremendously important when you combine two firms and looking at the diversity of the two firms. Looking at their the tenure of the individuals at the firms. Where they went to law school, and all the different elements that go into the individuals at that law firm. And where they potentially could be some conflicts just from looking at the cultural breakdown, I think is important. So that’s right now available. The other aspects, I mean, we’re just rolling out a lot more aspects of our BI suite. You know, I didn’t mention this, but we, we rolled out firm financials for all the non top 200 law firms using predictability as well. So that’s being rolled out a connection tool to see relationships between law firms and corporations. Again, diversity will be an aspect of that. So there’s just a lot of a lot of stuff that 2020 has been an interesting year for for Leopards. And, again, I’ve only been here for six months, and I feel like it’s been six years.

Greg Lambert: We all feel like the last six months has been six years.

Marlene Gebauer: In a good way, in a good way. Well, hey Phil, thanks so much. This has been a really, really interesting conversation. I mean, I, you know, I could go on with with these questions forever. And I’ll probably ask you some once we stop recording. But thank you so much for taking the time to talk with us today. And I’m really excited to see where this this new diversity platform goes.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, me too. Thanks, Phil.

Phil Flora: Yeah, thanks, guys. I really appreciate you having me on.

Post Interview:

[33:49]

Marlene Gebauer: So that was a really great interview with with Phil today. I mean, I, I was really interested in the history of how they got to this place with with the diversity and the gender and diversity tool that they have. And I mean they’ve just seemed to have a wealth of information, you know, not only in that area, but but all kinds of type of business development area and all types of potentially hiring information. So I thought that was that was just A great insight into to what they’re doing.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. Yeah. And and I know you peppered him with a lot of questions, but, but I thought it was good. I mean, there’s, you could tell, and I and I sat in on the webinar that that Laura Leopard did, introducing this product. And she came right out and admitted that you know, that they were fairly nervous about doing this. And this has not been something that they just came up with this year. This is something that they’ve been thinking about for years. But kudos to them for you know, taking advantage of this situation, this environment that we have in 2020 to roll this out, and really kind of put the ball in the court of the law firms and other clients to say, Okay, this is what you want. Let’s see what you can do with it. So, and I appreciate Phil, you know, that we asked Phil some pretty hard questions.

Marlene Gebauer: We did. I asked Phil some hard questions. He handled them really well.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, we owe Phil a drink.

Marlene Gebauer: Or two

Greg Lambert: Or two. But, you know, I, I appreciate him, you know, being very, very upfront and honest with what they’re doing, what they’re attempting and what they’re not doing. So, again, kudos to them. And I look, I look forward to seeing how well this is accepted into the legal industry.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah. Because and you, you kind of raised sort of what it does and what it doesn’t do and and look, you know, any type of tool like this is not going to be, you know, 100% solution, but, you know, is it a solution? Is it getting us further than where we were before? You know, it absolutely is and, you know, we have to look at it as just that that this is basically a starting point to be able to do these these measurements and and use them.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, my my only hope is that the issue spotters that are lawyers don’t sit here and get get down into the weeds on this and get and get mired. into the details. So yeah,

Marlene Gebauer: well, I think we talked about it’s a starting point.

Greg Lambert: It’s a starting point. All right, well, thanks again to Phil Flora from Leopard Solutions for taking the time to talk with us.

Marlene Gebauer: Exactly. Before we go, we want to remind listeners to take the time to subscribe on Apple podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Rate and review, as well. If you have comments about today’s show, or suggestions for a future show, you can reach us on Twitter at @gebauerm or @glambert. Or you can call the Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 or email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com And as always, the music here is from Jerry David DeCicca. Thank you, Jerry.

Greg Lambert: Thanks, Jerry. All right, Marlene, I will talk with you later.

Marlene Gebauer: All right, ciao. For now.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

The Geek in Review Ep. 86 – Using Data to Really Know Your Clients and Predict Their Needs ...

Thu, 10 Sep 2020 10:00:16 GMT

David Kamien is the CEO of Mind Alliance and is someone who understands that in order to truly collaborate with your clients, you have to understand their needs on a granular level. That means capturing the data in a way that proactively predicts legal and regulatory risks that companies like them are likely to face, but also list the probable impact that those risks are likely to impact them specifically. While this may sound like a pipe dream to some, and a delusion to others, Kamien thinks that improving the state of data in law firms through knowledge graphs and taking concrete, and logical steps toward improving and leveraging data, will help get law firms to where they can leverage the data in ways that will truly turn them into counselors to their clients. It means creating a data strategy for the firm that creates higher levels of sophistication so that the data turns into answers, and those answers turn into the types of action that clients are willing to pay for. Law firms should not sit back and wait for this to magically happen. If you want to generate value, you are going to have to collaborate very closely with clients. And in this day and age, that involves data.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

Most of us in the information profession have touted our skills as fact finders. In this time of misinformation on the Internet, that skillset is needed more than ever and seems to be showing up more and more in the media as they look for Misinformation Experts like the University of Washington’s Information School, Jevin West. West appeared this week on one of our favorite non-legal podcasts, Make Me Smart, where he uncovered some of the reasoning behind the cult that is QAnon, and why its ability to manipulate information makes it so popular, and so hard to convince those believers in the conspiracy that it really is misinformation.

Staying in touch with clients and others isn’t simply about setting up the next Zoom meeting. Julie Saravino produced a great list of ways to have that personal interaction with others in a way that “ups your game” and makes you stand out from those who still rely upon Zoom, email, and phone calls.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

[0:24]

Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to the Geek in Review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.

Greg Lambert: And I’m Greg Lambert.

Marlene Gebauer: So Greg, I was reading the other day that chess has become a really hot e-sport. Believe it or not.

Greg Lambert: Of course it has it’s 2020. What else would you expect?

Marlene Gebauer: Right? So you know, you have these younger chess masters who are signing on and having their own eSports channels. They have hundreds of thousands of followers that watch them play chess, and this has been a big thing since COVID. The one thing I was reading about it is that they don’t play the sort of like a regular game of chess, they play what’s called Blitz chess. And so they move you know, it has to be really fast. There are times and so I think that that’s kind of a nod to the video that you know, you got to keep these things moving in. And you know, one of these guys, in particular, they were talking about, he was he you know, he talks while You know, he sees that they love him because he sees talking to his audience while he’s dead. I was like, that’s pretty impressive.

Greg Lambert: Well, you know, one of the things and I and while you were talking, I googled it. I’d heard that you know, chess is really kind of a calorie-burning event. So it says here, chess grandmasters can lose 10 pounds and burn 6000 calories just by sitting. So apparently, you can really put your mind to work and burn off those calories too. I don’t know what we’re doing wrong.

Marlene Gebauer: What are we doing wrong?

Greg Lambert: Well, we got a good conversation this week. We got David Kamien from Mind Alliance that’s joining us and we go deep and we go geeky on some data this week. So But enough of that, let’s jump into this week’s information inspirations.

Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to the Geek in Review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m more than gave hour.

Greg Lambert: And I’m Greg Lambert.

Marlene Gebauer: So Greg, I was reading the other day that chess has become a really hot e-sport. Believe it or not.

Greg Lambert: Of course it has it’s 2020. What else would you expect?

Marlene Gebauer: Right? So you know, you have these younger chess masters who are signing on and having their own eSports channels. They have hundreds of thousands of followers that that watch them play chess, and this has been a big thing since COVID. The one thing I was reading about it is that they don’t play sort of like a regular game of chess, they play what’s called Blitz chess. And so they move you know, it has to be really fast. There’s times and so I think that that’s kind of a nod to the video that you know, you got to keep these things moving in. And you know, one of these guys in particular they were talking about, he was he you know, he talks while You know, he sees that they love him, because he sees talking to his audience while he’s dead. I was like, that’s pretty impressive.

Greg Lambert: Well, you know, one of the things and I and while you were talking, I googled it. I’d heard that, you know, chess is really kind of a calorie burning event. So it says here, chess grandmasters can lose 10 pounds and burn 6000 calories just by sitting. So apparently, you can really put your mind to work and burn off those calories too. I I don’t know what we’re doing wrong.

Marlene Gebauer: What are we doing wrong?

[2:27]

Information Inspirations

Greg Lambert: Marlene, you’ve heard the saying that once is a fluke, twice as a coincidence, and three is a trend?

Marlene Gebauer: Hmm.

Greg Lambert: Well, I’m seeing a trend in the media lately when it comes to reaching out to library school faculty to cover misinformation. Which you know, if you think about it, it totally makes sense. But it does seem to have expanded recently. So you remember, I think it was last week I mentioned. Dr. Tufecki, from the University of North Carolina library school. Well, I’ve seen a couple of additional interviews from other library professors, including one on this week’s Tuesday episode of Make Me Smart, where they tackle the QAnon conspiracy. So this time the person interviewed was from the University of Washington’s library school Professor Jevin West, who is also the director at UW Center for an Informed Public. So how would you like to run that department Marlene?

Marlene Gebauer: You know, I think that would combine my librarian skills and my broadcasting skills. I think that would be fantastic.

Greg Lambert: My other thing was he was he was introduced as a disinformation expert. So

Marlene Gebauer: see now that the T shirt I want.

Greg Lambert: So the episode does a good job of explaining the beginning of the QAnon conspiracy and how it apparently convinced hundreds of thousands maybe even even over a million people that there’s some elaborate conspiracy to sex traffic children by the powerful and politically connected here and in the US. But one of the things that they talked about in the episode, which I thought was interesting from an information angle on it was that it talked about you you can’t really convince people by giving them facts on that it’s wrong. And part of that is because and this was what surprised me was that Members are being pulled in because they’re being led by their empathy. So which is something that really I hadn’t really thought about. But you know, when if you use it,

Marlene Gebauer: it’s a brilliant tactic.

Greg Lambert: So, you know, at first, this caught me off guard. But again, it made sense in many of the QAnon folks are sincere in their belief, because, you know, they’re really, the principle of it is they’re trying to save children from this big sex trafficking ring.

Marlene Gebauer: Right, right, of course.

Greg Lambert: And the internet just plays into that by giving them some kind of sliver of truth and then shooting them down a rabbit hole. So

Marlene Gebauer: Because we know these things are happening, and then they’ve tied it in a shadowy sort of way to people because we want accountability.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, yeah. Well, and it’s just one of the things about you know, and I think this is good again, it’s probably more than just a T shirt but you know, to be a disinformation expert. I think we need more experts on this. On how things are being generated, and the disinformation is being sent out into into the world. So, hey, again, kudos to the library schools out there.

[5:37]

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah. So you know, it’s a funny coincidence. You mentioned trends, because I see

Greg Lambert: Oh, I see what you did there.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah. I tied it in. Because I got skills, man. Because after talking about having an online client communication plan on the last episode, now, I’m seeing a lot of posts and hearing podcasts all about this. Yeah.

Greg Lambert: And like when you buy a new car that you’ve never thought you’d never seen before, and then and then suddenly, they’re scattered, they’re all on the road?

Marlene Gebauer: Exactly right. So what I saw the other day is from Julie Savarino. Thank you, Julie. Who laid out some very simple ways to stay connected with clients when you can’t meet face to face. I will give you a taste of the list she posted but I would encourage you to check it out for yourself. So sending a text message and iMessage by LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, or you could use encrypted message apps you know, as approved by your organization. I think that’s important to note. I will add VOXER to this list and what’s a little different about this one is that it offers walkie talkie type messaging, so you basically push the button you speak and then you’re communicating in real time. So it’s kind of fun and pretty cool. And another suggestion is to do a video meetup but you know, have something to do have a theme to it. So you know, have a wine tasting or you know, you’re all cooking something or you know, book club or you know, some sort of shared hobby activities. And finally, the one that I really appreciate and honestly I need to work on myself. Is old fashioned way. Writing. It really is special when someone takes the time to write and send you a note.

Greg Lambert: So I don’t understand what what is it? I haven’t done that since 1995. Since I got my first yahoo email.

Marlene Gebauer: I can tell you from my perspective, it makes a big difference. So, and I don’t think everybody else is like Greg either. So see what you can do to incorporate from Julie’s list. And that wraps up this week’s information inspirations.

[8:01]

Guest Interview

Marlene Gebauer: Okay, everybody buckle up and get ready for a deep dive on the data strategies within law firms, or lack thereof, as we address the issue of leveraging data to better collaborate with clients with David Kamien of Mind Alliance.

Marlene Gebauer: Today’s guest is David Kamien, CEO of Mind Alliance systems LLC, a technology consulting firm, David works with Fortune 500 and AmLaw, 100 and 200 firms on tech solutions for business development, research and knowledge management. David, welcome to the Geek in Review.

David Kamien: Thank you Marlene, it’s great to be here with you and Greg.

Marlene Gebauer: So David, when we spoke about this podcast idea a while back, we were batting around some different ideas, and we settled on companies emerging legal risks and the need for risk proactivity and how law firms in-house consultants and alternative legal service providers should be positioning themselves to help. So that’s a pretty big topic. And honestly, you know, I’m not hearing this bandied about too much.

David Kamien: It’s easy to say the words proactive risk management. The question is, what does it actually mean and what do you do once you grasp the concept?

Marlene Gebauer: Right. So let’s start at the beginning. What emerging legal risk are we talking about?

David Kamien: Well, we’re living through an obvious example of a risk that could have been anticipated, was anticipated by many public health officials and scholars, but probably was not in focus for most law firms and legal departments. It doesn’t take. I mean, COVID-19 pandemic is an extreme example of a risk at a scale that hopefully we won’t encounter again in our lifetime. But certainly there are many other types of risks that can and will impact law firms and their clients.

Marlene Gebauer: I imagine a lot of this has come out of the COVID-19 pandemic.

David Kamien: Every time there’s a major incident, whether it’s 911, Hurricane Katrina or financial crisis, it wakes some people up for some of the time and then you start seeing more money and hiring around risk management. And there are some industries where it’s not a nice to have, you know, the regulatory requirements, force industries like financial services to spend a boatload of money on compliance, much of which has to do with risk. But law firms and legal departments are not as oriented towards proactive risk management, certainly not as much as they could be.

Marlene Gebauer: So do you have some specific examples about some of the risk we might be talking about for companies?

[11:04]

David Kamien: Sure. So let’s take a common use case. You are a technology company, and you’re growing and you’re starting to operate in more and more countries. And one way or another what you do impacts on people’s privacy or potentially impacts privacy. So by the nature of what you’re doing, think about, you know, wearable health technology or anything having to do with health is usually immediately going to fall into the fall under requirements to comply with privacy law. So this is an area where there’s a constant flow or appearance of new regulations, potential new regulations are emerging all the time. And so most law firms think about this in the context of Okay, how do we set up monitoring for new regulations, you know, bills, laws, rules, and also litigation pertaining to fill in the blank. But if you really want to be proactive, you don’t start there because the indicators to use the intelligence terminology, the indicators that regulation will appear, that new regulation will appear that regulation will intensify that compliance demands will intensify those indicate are visible way before there’s a draft bill or notice of proposed rulemaking.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, one of the things that I was thinking about as a knowledge professional is I think we attempt to do these things, we tend to try to be proactive and identify certain risks that are on the horizon. But I can tell you a common stumbling block that we have is the old perfect is the enemy of good in that you can lay out the information and say, Hey, here’s this big thing that’s coming. You need to pay attention to it, and then they go, okay, but only tell me when it affects my region, my particular legal issue and my particular clients. So it’s that whole proactivity seems to go out the window, and it says, okay, don’t bother me and until it actually happens too. I don’t know, Marlene, if you found that in the past, but what do you think is the best way to address these types of getting prepared to be proactive without waiting too long?

David Kamien: I think the first step is to understand the causes for the lack of proactivity. And they’re going to be different for different types of lawyers and for different types of risks. If we generalize, we can say that there’s sometimes a lack of proactivity. That’s due to people being overworked and burdened with kind of putting out fires here and now. So it doesn’t leave attention for over the horizon risks. Obviously, there are cases when it’s not about the workload on the shoulders of a particular attorney, or the department or a practice group. It has to do with the culture of the industry and the organization. And if you were going to model this out properly, as analysts should do, you’d need to look at things like the amount of litigation and what the penalties are, what does the downside look like? And if you’re at risk, because you have an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, it’s not the same as if you’re operating a bodega, and someone would slip on a banana. So you have different scales of downside risk. And that’s going to affect how much time and money people are going to be willing to spend in proactivity. And also, obviously, insurance can play a role here because if someone is insured, that may reduce their willingness to mitigate risk proactively. And then another dimension is like, how do you, practically speaking, start to wrap your hands around managing the risk proactively? One of the key leavers you’re going to have is probabilistic thinking. You’re going to have to start scoring one way or another in terms of probabilities. And no, you’re not going to get it exactly right. But you should be able to base on the baseline incidents of the types of hazards you’re dealing with, know where you should focus. For example, we have a client now that wants us to focus on helping them with risk intelligence related to wildfires and hurricanes. Why wildfires and hurricanes? Because they happen a lot. Because they have been frequently sure there are terrorist attacks and their plane crashes. And there are all sorts of other hazard incident types, but it makes sense for them to focus on the ones that are most frequent.

Greg Lambert: When we’re looking at this issue. What are some of the industries that you think are going to be the most affected? And are they all going to be affected at the same time? Or is it just like everything else? It’s, you know, it depends.

[16:21]

David Kamien: So um, I think the real question behind the question should be, where can law firms make the most money?

Greg Lambert: Well, let me restate that, then.

David Kamien: Let me get to your question.

Marlene Gebauer: We’re gonna get to that.

David Kamien: But I think the industries that are going to be interested in proactive risk management and be willing to pay for it are industries that are growing and making money. And industries that are growing and making money include, for example, technology, right? Not all technology companies, many of them will not become huge companies, but certainly big, rapidly growing global technology companies. They’re going to be good candidates. Healthcare, I think in the COVID era, we’re going to see awareness and…

Marlene Gebauer: Probably going to be a ton of regulation coming down and as far as that’s concerned, too.

David Kamien: Absolutely. So many people have died, sadly, and in circumstances that perhaps could have been avoided, that I think we will see a lot of regulation. And I don’t know about you guys, but you know, almost every device I use in the context of my personal health, you know, my bathroom scale, obviously my phone and various other things. They’re all connected. And it’s all mining our data, and in some cases sharing it. And so I think increasingly people are going to want to see what’s happening with that data. And that is going to drive greater regulation and greater spend to comply with that regulation.

Marlene Gebauer: Like I you know, like it’s ethics and privacy types of concerns. That’s what you’re thinking?

David Kamien: Absolutely. There’s no shortage of examples, but to answer your question once more of the industries are going to be affected if they have a global scope, because they have a global supply chain. Think of all the hardware companies that manufactured in China or manufacture in China and other countries around the world that were disrupted. And obviously, there’s no shortage of data and information providers that will happily help you look at your supply chain, and will assign risk scores to your vendors. But that kind of supply chain risk management thinking doesn’t. There’s no corollary in law firms in a kind of very systematic sense, like, show me a law firm that can pull up on a computer screen one of their clients, and not just see the matters that they have brought to them in the past. But a list of all the types of matters that they are most likely to encounter given the type of company it is based on comparison to other companies like it. And now go to an even more advanced place and say, Show me a law firm that can pull up the name of a client and do that at the level of a particular business unit or product line. And then you know, show me the law firm that can fill up a profile of a client company, and see not only just a list of the emerging risks that their industry is likely to face, but the probable impact, that the likelihood of that trend impacting them specifically. Law firms are not there yet.

Marlene Gebauer: No. So, if a firm is sort of doing their due diligence is doing their research on this, what sort of impediments should you know, they are looking for, you know, when you’re talking about looking at an industry or particular business units or a product line? What should they be trying to find in terms of impediments, that are in the way of companies dealing with potential risks so that they basically know where they should be targeting their message?

[20:16]

David Kamien: Well, this may be a controversial answer, but I think that one of the biggest impediments, it’s hourly billing, right? Because with an hourly billing model, it can feel to the client like a fishing expedition, like there’s no shortage of risks in the world and go burn a million dollars on looking for risks that we might be exposed to. I don’t want to pay for that. A client might think. But once there was a dream of a different kind of health care system where your doctors didn’t just kind of treat you when you were sick, but try to keep you healthy. And when you look at the trend about the devices we’re using, and how we’re living, and we’re more conscious of what we eat, and we’re counting steps and so on

Marlene Gebauer: wellness checks, and you know, coverage for things like that.

David Kamien: Yeah. And it’s even becoming a benefit and employment benefit in many large companies, right? And so, productivity and mitigation and lifestyle that ultimately reduces costs to the company and to society. It just makes economic sense. But pricing, your sort of risk analysis on an hourly basis may not make sense. So I think that there will be some innovative law firms that are capable of determining how to price, you know, proactive risk mitigation in such a way that the cost doesn’t fall on any one client in an uneven manner. Right. So, if I’ve got lots of financial services clients, and between all those clients, they operate in, you know, 80 countries in the world, right, maybe any one financial services company only operates in 30 or 20. But if I want to provide a global service to all the financial services companies, I support them because I, between all my clients, they all care about, you know, all the countries that matter. So once a law firm starts thinking Along those dimensions and starts modeling it out, they may realize that economics could work for them. And they don’t have to charge on an hourly basis. They can come up with an information product or service or combination of knowledge as embodied in a report or alerts plus consultation, not charged for an hourly basis, all the clients benefit because they get that global coverage that they wouldn’t ever afford to pay for if they had to do it on an hourly basis.

Greg Lambert: The holistic model of legal practice, and I think everything that you said law firms are doing pieces of that. I think you’ll see law firms that put out client alerts, they do webinars and that I think they tried to fit that under that umbrella. But there’s been this whole push to know your client for a dozen years, at least But I think you’re right. One of the things that we run into is that hourly billing, is that they say, Oh, well, we want to do this. But I don’t want to take my lawyers time to do this. Let’s get somebody else to do this. Pull it together. And of course, then you run into the traps of, well, I don’t know what you know, you’re not telling me what it is that I really need to focus on. So I’m going to give you this, you know, generic report back on an issue that may or may not actually be what you want.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, that and this isn’t my day job. You know, it’s like I’m doing I’m doing on all these other projects. And you know, now you’re asking me to do this special thing where there’s no revenue coming back.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. And David, I can verify that I have seen examples of when lawyers have gone out to the clients to say, look, we want to be your advisor and we’ll set up a way to Come talk to your employees, your HR department, train up your GC on these things that are coming. And literally the client will come back. So that’s nice, but I don’t have to pay for that. Right?

David Kamien: Exactly.

Marlene Gebauer: You know, and at the same time if they subscribe to something that did it, it didn’t, you know, provided similar information, but certainly not to the extent of having a legal adviser on call. They would pay for that.

[24:50]

David Kamien: And you want a combination, right, you want to send them those alerts. You want to sort of spread the risk, the cost of producing those alerts across multiple clients, but you want to have your attorneys, you know, right there at the ready to answer questions that are really hyper specific and also interact when we help clients connect with their law firms and vice versa. Increasingly now, in the COVID era, we’re looking to support it by video and audio and not just text because now everyone’s used to working on Zoom. And it doesn’t always have to be synchronously the way we’re talking now. It can be asynchronously, and yet still via audio and video, which kind of lightens it up.

Marlene Gebauer: Now, do you feel that sort of having that video connection that there’s sort of a better connection between practitioner and client or, you know, I think I think about sort of the younger generation where it’s just like, they text everything. And so it’s not necessarily a visual that they need. But, you know, I know from my own perspective, I think seeing somebody does increase the connectivity between the two parties

Greg Lambert: You can put it into a Tik Tok, Marlene.

David Kamien: Why don’t just give people the options and they can answer by text or audio or video as they see

Marlene Gebauer: whatever they want to do. Right.

David Kamien: Right. Just give them the full range of options. You know, another impediment to proactive risk management is, you know, we talked about being willing to pay for it. Coming up with a business model to make it work. But there is another kind of technological impediment, which is the state of data in law firms. I’ve spoken about technical here, but I do want to make a little plug for this new approach. It’s not proprietary to my company. It’s just a general idea of knowledge graphs, right?

Marlene Gebauer: I’m just gonna do a shout out. I love knowledge graphs.

Greg Lambert: Before you dive in, asking for a friend, what’s a knowledge graph?

David Kamien: Right? So everybody encounters a knowledge graph. Or there is the benefit of a knowledge graph in a certain sense when they do a Google search, and they get an answer to their question in a box, as opposed to a long list of websites that they need to check. The answer in the box only appears when you ask Google certain questions, which they can answer because they have structured the data in a knowledge graph. Where the meeting principally of the metadata is defined semantically. Meaning that if you connect IMDb, the Movie Database, you know that movies have directors that movies have actors that movies come out in certain years, you know, have dates when they’re released and so on. And so if you feel enough queries about movies, you’re going to be able to figure out how to actually answer those questions by surfacing the answer, as opposed to just saying, go search IMDb, you’re going to actually be able to show the actor or the director of the name of the movie that you’re looking for. So that is made possible when the metadata in the data model is defined in a very rigorous way that supports machine reasoning. And I’m not going to go into ontologies and machine reasoning. I’ll just say that sometimes. And this is sort of another way of answering your question. Sometimes knowledge graphs are depicted visually, you think of the Carrie Matheson wall with the pictures of terrorists connected with string, right? The six degrees of separation. Yes, knowledge graphs are sometimes depicted as a visual graph. But the essence of the graph is the fact that there are entities usually nodes that are linked with edges. And the types of things that the nodes are and the nature of the relationships that are reflected in the edges or the lines connecting those nodes. They’re all defined in a machine understandable way. Now, what does this have to do with law firms? In law firms, you have, and in legal departments, you usually have many, many different sources of data, different applications, different databases, and the meaning of the data in those various sources has not been defined in one coherent normalized ontology. Or if Let’s just say it has not been defined semantically in a machine understandable way. And so consequently, you cannot query all of your data at all, let alone ask it natural language questions and get an answer that depends on inference or reasoning across the different data sources and what the data means in each place. Long way of saying that if you really want to manage risk, you need data about risk and an order and that data exists in different places. And unless the data is described in a really clear way, you’re going to be stymied in your effort to have to have true risk awareness informed by data.

[30:01]

Marlene Gebauer: So it’s, it’s very interesting what you’re saying, because so oftentimes, you know, I’ve heard people say, look, you know, I need to be able to find the answer, like I’m on the phone, and I need to turn this around and like 60, less than 60 seconds, you know, basically, I’m chatting and while I’m doing that, I have to find the answer to be able to give it to them. And you know, it sounds like a knowledge graph. would be something that would be quite useful to satisfy those types of just in time requests. Now, I know Google is using them. But is the legal industry using this type of technology or other types of technology that can help them in this regard? On a scale of one to 10, how prepared is the legal industry to assist?

Greg Lambert: You can’t use negative numbers.

Marlene Gebauer: No

David Kamien: I would say law firms are at a one. Law firms, there are some tech forward law firm CIOs, and CKO’s and so on, that are starting to read about knowledge graphs and are starting to become more aware of what they can mean for data management and knowledge management in law firms. But at the end of the day, it’s often about a particular use case and solving a particular point. problem, although realistically, that’s not the right way it should be approached like there should be a data strategy in a law firm that has on its pathway going towards, you know, higher levels of sophistication, i.e. semantic data management. But what use case could be compelling for a law firm? Well, one law firm recently talked about the Pardon the Interruption emails, the ubiquitous Pardon the Interruption, emails, and part of the ready statement, they waste so much time. And part of the reason people need to send out these Pardon the Interruption emails is, well, there are multiple…

Marlene Gebauer: Because they can’t find anything.

David Kamien: Why can’t they find anything? Well, first of all, because let’s say you’re an attorney at the firm, how do I know what you know? How do I know that you’re the right person to ask? Well, if I really wanted to do a great job profiling, who you are, and what you know, what data sources do I need to use to fingerprint you? I need to use the documents that you’ve worked on your time notes, you know, billing time notes, your email, your bio, obviously, your thought leadership publications. Who are your specific clients? Absolutely right. What industries have you worked in? What deals Have you worked on? You know, so do you guys think that all of that data is in one place? In one sense?

Marlene Gebauer: Gee David, let me think.

David Kamien: It’s not. So here, too, you have a use case for Hey, you build a knowledge graph to describe the attorney and her experience. Okay, that’s one side of the matching equation. Right. Now, on the other side, we’ve got the question, or the matter or the thing that is driving you to send out that Pardon the Interruption email. Right. So where does that usually get started? Right, a client asked. Question. And that may or may not be formulated in one nice little concise question and maybe like a paragraph of text and maybe in an email. Okay, so when faced with that, what do you need to know what you need to do? You know, from a technology perspective, and just from a human information interaction perspective, what do you need to do to move towards the point where you can now do the matching to that knowledge graph that we talked about before the lawyers expertise graph? Well, one of the things that you could do to help the machine along and doing better matching is first of all say, Well, what area of law is this even talking about? Right? Is this in the realm of intellectual property? Is this in the realm of technology M&A? Now, obviously, if you had enough of those examples, like enough of those requests or questions from clients, you would have the ability to create a label training set and use machine Learning and you’d automatically categorize that question as this is an IP law question. This is a tech M&A question. But usually, there aren’t going to be enough of those to train on. That doesn’t mean that you can use automation to suggest things to the attorney to classify that request. We’re certainly aware, right? We don’t want to make that attorney jump through 15 hoops to characterize that request at the outset of the matching exercise. But if the machine can just say, Oh, that looks like an IP question, correct? Yes. And let’s say there’s a name of a country mentioned in the question. Oh, that seems to pertain to Japan. Yes. Right. So you’ve already just tagged that question with two very critical pieces of metadata. And if you can provide a user interface where the lawyer does not have to spend 15 minutes, adding a lot of tags to characterize the question, you can help the software system that you build to do This kind of thing, you can help it achieve much higher precision. So once you’ve said oh, this is a question pertains to this area of law and this geography and maybe a few other parameters, boom, now you have enough to do a match to Marlene’s expertise graph. And that way instead of sending out a Pardon the Interruption, email to everybody, just do it to the highest matching attorneys. Circling back to the Knowledge Graph point. This is another use example or use case where having the knowledge graph will enable you to do other things much more efficiently. Pardon the Interruption email reduction being just one of, you know, numerous examples.

[36:06]

Greg Lambert: So most of the I would say most of the audience for this podcast are going to be knowledge professionals. You know, one of the things that I’m hearing I think we have a number of some raw tools that we have. Whether it’s KM systems, we might have ERMs, CRMs. So we’ve got a lot of tools out there that may capture bits and pieces of the information. But we’re also, you know, well, let me let me ask you this. Who should own this? And how do you make it a, a product or something that’s worthwhile that you actually can get the attorney buy-in? Because we can create all kinds of wonderful things. And I think we probably have, but getting that getting the end users to use it in a way that really changes the dynamic of how they do day to day operations. That’s a whole different game. So you know, who should own it and how should we promote it?

David Kamien: That’s a great question. So I think that there should be sort of a horizontal owner who owns the infrastructure that is going to be used again and again by the law firm, regardless of the use case. And think of people like Dave Cunningham and Winston and Strawn who have built sophisticated infrastructure based on search technology. And then you have the owners for the use case, right? That could be a business process owner, like a head in marketing, or it could be a practice group chair who has a very, very particular client need in mind. The main thing is to, instead of creating yet more fragmented pieces of software to have that horizontal reusable layer of semantic data management so that you can very quickly efficiently reach in and use whatever data you need from whatever wherever it needs to be sourced. Now that I’m still I’m not arguing that you should integrate all the data systems in and outside the law firm into one big pool right from day one. No, of course, you’re going to be doing this driven by those use cases that you know, business process owners and are willing to sponsor. And then you’re going to just be reusing that for the next project. So let’s say a chief marketing officer says, I want the CRM to be integrated with these other four systems, because I am unable to produce these three reports today, which need to pull from all those systems. Three months later, the head of pricing or the CFO wants to do some other report and there’s, you know, an 80% overlap in terms of data sources, but he or she needs one more data source integrated in order to make it work for them. Well, you’ve already integrated the other data sources, so you’re going to be leveraging that and in that way, organically, you’re going to develop this capability.

Marlene Gebauer: Alright, so clearly, there’s opportunities out there, David, and so how should legal organizations approach their client base to kind of get this synergy going, you know, or should they kind of sit back and wait?

David Kamien: Absolutely not. They should not sit back and wait. I think that now I’m seeing this more and more in the COVID post COVID Arena. clients, some clients, by the way, are cutting back on headcount. And they are looking for more value from law firms. And very often, if you want to generate value, you’re going to have to collaborate very closely with the client.

Marlene Gebauer: And just I just heard this on a webinar that I was on yesterday where they’re just like, we you know, in house was saying, We are expecting more, even though you have less.

[40:06]

David Kamien: This is Greg and Marlene’s podcast. So no, we’re not just going to stop and say, yes, you should collaborate with clients. We’re going to take it two or three levels deeper than that.

Greg Lambert: That’s right

David Kamien: And add more value to your listeners. So what do we mean by two or three levels deeper? Yes. Of course you should collaborate with your clients. But what does that mean? How do you do it? How do you make it successful? Let’s explore that. I’m happy to jump in first and throw out a couple of ideas. So first of all collaborating with clients, in this day and age is often going to involve data. One way or another. It’s going to involve data, it’s going to involve documents from the law firm side, or content on the left hand side, content on the client side or both. And when you look at most law firms, they don’t have a model for doing this. Like, smoothly and like clockwork, and in a very agile fashion, they just don’t, right. The IT department has been busy for years just keeping the lights on and having just sort of the operational systems of record working. Same with every particular line of business owner. They’ve been working with IT to get the particular systems that support them to work, feeling…

Marlene Gebauer: Getting tied up with information security issues and that slows things down.

David Kamien: All of that business as usual stuff that’s been going on for years is not this new thing we’re talking about, which is how do you deal with, you know, 20 different clients every week that each one wants to do a project with you that’s going to involve some data related activity. Do you really have 30 project teams sitting around waiting to take those on? Do they have agile project management skills? Do they have an onboarding process? Do they? Do they even know how to do that? Most law firms answer is no. So that’s level one. Beyond saying, Oh, yeah, collaborate with your clients, you need to develop the culture, the skill set the human footprint needed to engage in Agile Project Management with them at scale. And then of course, to manage many of those projects.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, one of the things that I hear mentioned from time to time is that you can’t just take the lawyers to the meeting that you have to take some of the support that you have to those meetings and have your client also bring their teams in. And so the nice thing is usually we don’t charge for those project managers, folks right off the bat, they may be built into an AFA later. But very rarely do you see that, but I’ve heard great success from attorneys who think beyond just the Attorney/GC interaction, rather more and go back to…

Marlene Gebauer: sort of all that transparency and the questions that might come up, you know, get answered right away, because you know, the experts that deal with all of these things are in the room, so to speak.

David Kamien: Right. Now, I’ll add another sort of point about how you build effective collaboration with the client. We talked about some of the organizational elements. Let’s get the technology elements out of the way. If the law doesn’t have the infrastructure and the approach to managing data that lends itself to just agile new products, new projects, and so on. It’s going to be like pulling teeth, right? The IT department won’t have the resources to move quickly. The law firm probably doesn’t have a team of UX designers that can quickly mock something up to show to the client to say, Hey, is this what you were thinking? Or this is what we’re thinking, what do you want as a starting point, and sadly, most law firms and I don’t want to make the mistake of naming any particular extranet technology providers. But most law firms are still banding about the name of the same two or three extranet or internet technology providers that simply don’t have the capability to manage data semantically, and to reuse data at the most granular or atomic level. Knowing what that thing is about. So they don’t have the fundamental technology infrastructure to build systems that will support AI. I mean, because at the end of the day, that’s what we’re talking about. Everything I was saying before about knowledge graphs, is a key component of AI. You know, there are different kinds of AI, right? Machine learning is finding patterns in the data, hopefully meaningful patterns that help you predict stuff and tag stuff and classify stuff, great. But AI, in many cases, requires formal semantics that define the world, a domain ontology, what is this stuff that we’re talking about? And most law firms lacked that. So whatever they build now in collaboration with their clients, you’re gonna have to throw it away very soon because the clients are living in the AI, forward world. Now. Yes, there are legal departments are probably a couple of years behind, but not all of them and they’re going to catch up a lot faster than the law firms

Marlene Gebauer: And they’re looking to their to their partner firms to move in that direction, I think, yeah, it sounds from what you’re saying that clearly we are at a juncture where we need to reassess our platforms and you know, maybe we need to pivot rather quickly in order to deal with sort of this influx that that’s going to be coming. Well, David, this has been a great conversation.

Greg Lambert: Yes it has.

Marlene Gebauer: And thank you so much for coming on the show today.

[45:52]

David Kamien: It’s my pleasure. And I just want to invite anyone who wants to subscribe to our free, completely free.

Marlene Gebauer: We like free we love free

David Kamien: Free weekly newsletter about innovation in legal tech. So whenever we see a press release, or a news article, talking about a law firm or a vendor, or an ALSP, doing something new doing some new deal, we write about it on Fridays, and we push it out to whoever wants to subscribe to it.

Marlene Gebauer: I’m subscribing, I’m subscribed.

Greg Lambert: How do the listeners find that?

David Kamien: Oh, it’s on our website, mind-alliance.com. And in another two weeks, we’re probably going to be announcing a Knowledge Graph based knowledge base of legal tech. So you’ll be able to come in and say, show me all the news items you’ve written that pertain to this area of technology, this law firm, this geography, show me everything you’ve covered over the last year on contract review software, and then you’d be able to see all that at a glance.

Greg Lambert: Excellent. I’ll make sure that we put a link to that on the show notes as well. So David, thanks, always a pleasure talking to you.

David Kamien: Likewise, take care, Greg, and thanks Marlene.

Outro

[47:09]

Greg Lambert: Marlene, I think this may have been one of our more truly geeky conversations. Since maybe maybe I was looking back maybe Heidi Gardner and Brian Stearn’s you know, that episode on collaboration tools in psychology,

Marlene Gebauer: Psychology. Yeah. So I think you might be right. It’s nice to get back into the geeky feel of things. It is it

Greg Lambert: is. So you know, it’s what we do.

Marlene Gebauer: It’s how we do.

Greg Lambert: David was great person to dive into the rabbit hole of data with I mean, let’s let me review some of the things we covered probabilistic thinking, proactive risk management, normalized ontologies, semantic data managementm knowledge, graphs and my personal favorite Carrie Mathison Walls. So this is this is fun. I mean, where else are you going to hear this type of conversation? Am I right?

Marlene Gebauer: I don’t think there’s any place. I really don’t. This is the place to be if that’s what you’re looking for folks,

Greg Lambert: That is exactly right. And and I appreciate David coming on and talking with us and letting us go deep on the on the gift this week.

Marlene Gebauer: Yes. Before we go, we want to remind listeners to take the time to subscribe on Apple podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, rate and review us as well. If you have comments about today’s show or suggestions for a future show, you can reach us on Twitter at @gebauerm or @glambert. Or you can call the Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 or email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com And as always, the music you hear is from Jerry David DeCicca. Thank you, Jerry.

Greg Lambert: Thanks, Jerry. Alright, Marlene, I’ll talk to you later.

Marlene Gebauer: All right. Bye.

The Geek in Review Ep. 85 – Williams Lea CEO, Clare Hart on Letting Lawyers Do What They Do ...

Thu, 03 Sep 2020 09:00:58 GMT

A law firm’s primary function is to enable lawyers to practice law. In fact, many of us on the operations side of the law firm business have heard the complaints of lawyers that there are too many “other tasks” that take away from their practice of law. On today’s episode, we talk with the CEO of Williams Lea, Clare Hart, about the challenges she and her company have faced during the pandemic, and what she sees happening as we push through the current situation, and what will happen as we eventually find our way to the other side. Whether it is the issues of working in the office or at home, or it is outsourcing, virtualization, or elimination of tasks, the world is going to look far different post-COVID than it did pre-COVID.

Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Overcast | Spotify

Information Inspirations

We know that you may be overloaded with webinars and online training, but trust us when we say that both Legal Value Network and Legal Operators are pushing out some great content. Marlene mentioned that in one of the webinars the presenter mentioned that “what go you here today, won’t get you there tomorrow. You have to improve with fewer resources.” So true.

Crisis brings out creativity. That is evident with the way that protesters across the country, and probably the world, are using CARRD to set up single-page websites that host relevant information for those attending the protests or looking to help or learn more. CARRD and other one-page sites combine easily accessible information with the elegance of web design, especially for the mobile devices that protesters rely upon while out in the streets.

Brick and mortar stores aren’t the only types of businesses that needed to find ways to pivot in 2020. Relation-based businesses such as Mary Kay also needed to change their business strategy, sales, and relationship models. Are there parallels between these types of relationship-based businesses and law firms? Most definitely.

If you’re looking for a fun couple of podcast episodes that combine libraries, true-crime drama, and legal podcasts, then Laurence Colletti over at Legal Talk Today has what you need. In a two-part interview with Travis McDade, they tell the story of how the Pittsburgh Carnegie Library ended up missing $8 million worth of artifacts and didn’t even realize it for years.

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

[0:20]

Marlene Gebauer

Welcome to the Geek In Review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.

Greg Lambert: And I’m Greg Lambert. So Marlene, do you follow Tiffany Graves on Twitter?

Marlene Gebauer: I don’t know. I do. I do not.

Greg Lambert: So she’s a pro bono counsel at Bradley Arent in Mississippi. And she puts out a lot of great tweets. So I highly suggest that you follow her.

Marlene Gebauer: All right.

Greg Lambert: And I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned it on the show before but you know that I lived in Mississippi as a teenager. And there was something that Tiffany had posted last week that reminded me of my Mississippi history class that I took in the Eighth Grade.

Marlene Gebauer: Oh boy, so I can hardly wait for this.

Greg Lambert: You ever have one of those grudges that you just, you know, just can’t let it go, you know, an eighth grade has you know, it’s been a minute since I’ve been in eighth grade. So

Marlene Gebauer: it’s a pivotal time in your life.

Greg Lambert: It is and I had moved from Illinois to Mississippi. So you know, I was an angry teenager too. And in Mississippi History, you have to memorize all 82 counties. So there’s a county and it’s named after the French military officer, Lafayette,

Marlene Gebauer: Lafayette?

Greg Lambert: Lafayette. And so you may think that it is Lafayette County. Right? But no. In Mississippi, they pronounce it La-Fayette County.

Marlene Gebauer: Uh huh.

Greg Lambert: And so we had that when I was doing the test. I said Lafayette, she counted wrong. Oh, I know. I should. I should let it go. I should just let it go. But every time I watch Hamilton now and Lafayette shows up, it just enrages me all over again so,

Marlene Gebauer: Okay.

Greg Lambert: All right enough of my eighth grade anger. Let’s go ahead and jump back into this week’s information inspirations.

Information Inspirations

[2:14]

Marlene Gebauer: I’ve been listening to several good webinars recently put out by Legal Value Network and Legal Operators. I encourage all of you to subscribe and sign up for both. It’s really excellent content and presenters in one from legal operators. One in-house Counsel told us what got you here today won’t get you there tomorrow. You have to improve with fewer resources. Expectations surrounding value and delivery for partner firms are increasing among in House Counsel so much that it’s becoming table stakes. So I was musing how firms will respond to that. I expect more outsourcing and consulting relationships and relationships with more alternative legal providers are going to happen, because firms will not be able to maintain a staff that’s able to manage large scale innovation practice and also focus on practicing law. So I think there’s real opportunity for outside experts to assist firms deftly and accurately from business perspective, and managing innovative processes and adoption. So I think we’re going to see a real expansion of importance and impact there.

Greg Lambert: Yeah, I agree with you there. So, so mine is, you know, Marlene, I think I can finally admit that the Internet may have passed me by, okay. I actually had to go and ask my 20 year old to explain something to me that I saw last week. So in this instance, in it, and I say in this instance, because I’m pretty sure there’s probably going to be more of these instances over the next few years with this newfangled internet thing. There’s this one page website product called card and it’s spelled C A R R D.

Marlene Gebauer: So it’s like the pirate version of card. CARRRGH

Greg Lambert: Yeah.

Marlene Gebauer: Gotcha.

[3:21]

Greg Lambert: MIT Technology Review has a, they had a recent article entitled, The Internet of protest is being built on single page websites. And it was in that that they discussed CARRD as one of one of those platforms. So it’s basically the usefulness of Google Doc where you’re putting information so that people can read it, you know, easily, you know, links, phone numbers, checklists, and other practical information. And it combines that with the beauty and flexibility of an elegant website with an easy to use graphics and other attributes. So it’s, it’s actually really kind of neat and it works really well on mobile devices as well.

Marlene Gebauer: That’s important. Yeah.

Greg Lambert: And of course, one of our favorite law students in training, Kim Kardashian, did a shout out for them a few months ago. You know, and since then it’s taken off like wildfire.

[4:54]

Marlene Gebauer: So I’m going back to my webinars because I was I was I was inspired by these webinars that I was listening to. So another speaker, one of the webinars focused on the critical need to build online relationships. Now this is becoming a big area of focus given our need to connect online. And as you can imagine, maybe you and me included, many people didn’t know they were going to have to build and maintain relationships without lunches and outings or just in person meetings. You know, we all know that an in person meeting is a totally different feel than then remote you know, even if you know the people right. So you know, I know you moved as a kid as you mentioned, and once you move, you know, you lose touch with people, right. And of course, at that time, there was only the telephone and mail to keep you connected. But you know, your internet expert kids, consultants and also digital marketers may prove to be Good resources when it comes to using all the social media tools we have today to stay truly connected with clients. I will give you a great example of a company who made that jump successfully. So Mary Kay the beauty company has made its business based on relationships. The message is about celebrating each other and sharing experience and customer service is pinnacle. But Mary Kay has always been focused on in person connection so the makeup parties right now when COVID hit the company and it salesforce had to regroup and regroup they did boy they took their parties online they shifted focused ordering online as a convenience both to their Salesforce and customers and use video and imagery, social media and hashtags to get the word out and all the while your personal sales representative, a la concierge service is still there, and they’re just asking text chat or email a way to answer questions and offer suggestions and it’s promoted throughout the organization as a whole. So there’s a consistency that way that engages and delights clients. So law firms may need to take a lesson from Mary Kay.

[7:08]

Greg Lambert: So Marlene if you like libraries and I know you do,

Marlene Gebauer: I do.

Greg Lambert: True Crime maybe,

Marlene Gebauer: Meh.

Greg Lambert: legal podcast you like those?

Marlene Gebauer: I do like legal podcasts.

Greg Lambert: All right. Well, then our friend Laurence Colletti over at Legal Talk Network has all three of those for you in this two part episode is legal talk today podcast. He talks with author Travis McDade about an $8 million heist that happened in Pittsburgh at the Carnegie Library. It’s a pretty good whodunit story from McDade, who breaks down how the caper took place over a number of years, and why it took so long for the library to even notice that it was missing $8 million in artifacts. If anyone’s aware In the library, he you know, it takes a while to know something’s missing.

Marlene Gebauer: Got a lot of stuff. There’s a lot of stuff you know. And that wraps up this week’s information inspirations.

Guest Interview

[8:07]

Greg Lambert: Claire Hart is the CEO of Williams Lea, which many of us in the legal industry know for their handling of parts of our firm’s day to day operations. So we asked her to come on the show to discuss how she and her company have handled the changes in business operations with the pandemic and to discuss her recent survey, which looks at law firm operations after the pandemic.

Greg Lambert: Back in June, I talked with Clare Hart, CEO of Williams Lea about how they adjusted to the pandemic, as most of us shifted to working from home the Williams Lea staff were the ones who are holding down the office operations and made sure things were continuing to run smoothly in our physical absence there at the offices. While that was just a couple of months ago, as with most things 2020 you know, time is very relative, things are pretty fluid and Clare’s already looking at where we’re going once we get past the immediate challenge of the pandemic. So, Clare, welcome to The Geek in Review.

Clare Hart: It’s great to be back. Thank you, Greg.

Marlene Gebauer: In late July, Williams Lea, in coordination with Sandpiper Partners released the results of an instant survey focused on the impact of COVID-19 crisis on law firm support operations. Can you tell us what the survey asked of those who responded?

Clare Hart: Sure. Actually, we commissioned a survey in May two because we were talking with a lot of our law firm clients and clients were eager to understand what measures the peer group had implemented to mitigate the immediate impact of COVID-19. And the plans that they had to protect profits and sustain growth in a post pandemic world. So everybody was kind of interested in the same thing. How are you dealing with work from home? How are you dealing with the new world of getting people the things that they need to do their jobs? And what are you thinking about in the context of what does the future look like in the in the post COVID 19 world? And so we decided this was a good thing to survey. We focused on the ways that people are working in the under the they pandemic and the lockdown in many cases, and how are they working around staffing and support models, so about 100 Law Firm leaders from the US and the UK and it was about a 50/50 split where the People that responded and the majority, roughly 76% of those who responded, worked for mid to large law firms, that is firms with over 500 lawyers.

Greg Lambert: So with these types of surveys, of course, you want to make sure that you’re measuring what matters. So in the surveys, what was it that you were trying to measure?

[10:57]

Clare Hart: Well, we were looking to get a sense of the firm reactions across two distinct populations, the fee earners and the support staff. So in other words, were they implementing changes unilaterally or were cost measures and remote working policies different for these two populations, or were they the same? And we wanted to understand the challenges they each had in managing the day to day realities of the decisions, you know, to work from home. So for example, were the challenges of remote working the same for partner as they were for a secretary. And we also wanted to understand the longer term impact that of the pandemic on the firm’s you know, what are they thinking about timelines of when they would return to normalcy like, you know, how did people think about it? How much and what would be forever altered? Versus you know, what additional profit improvements and efficiency measures were the firm’s thinking about as they looked to the other side of the crisis, and specifically, their views on outsourcing and virtualization digitization, as every industry was looking at digitizing. So those were the key areas.

Marlene Gebauer: So Clare, were the responses mostly align with your expectations for the legal industry?

Clare Hart: I would actually say yes, for the most part they were. There weren’t too many shocks. You know, a lot had been covered in the press already. About salary reductions, furloughs, partner compensation deferrals. And, you know, none of that I would say was really unique to law firms, but law firms were doing a lot of the same things. And, you know, our clients had already been sharing their challenges around remote working. And actually, we were helping them set up shop and home offices, adjusting workflows, moving equipment, supporting their technology challenges, there weren’t a ton of surprises, in some ways, because our people were going through the process with the law firms.

Greg Lambert: Well, I’m sure there was something in there was that I’ll ask was it. Was there anything that caught you off guard as far as the response in reaction from the people taking the survey?

Clare Hart: I think the AHA data point for me was that 44% of the respondents said that, you know, the implications were across the entire spectrum of law firm activities. So from how lawyers are interacting with clients, and how that matters are managed to how they’re supported by the legal ops team and support staff. And, you know, for law firms who used to who are used to using Williams Lea’s services to handle their operations. We were with them through this whole process. And so in some ways, some of it wasn’t a shock. But I think like I said, the implications were across the entire firm, it wasn’t just one area.

Marlene Gebauer: So for law firms who are used to using services, like Williams Lea to handle some of their operations. What changes if any, do you foresee with them?

[14:16]

Clare Hart: Well, I mean, the one big change is legal services will absolutely be more digitally enabled and virtual in the post COVID world. Absolutely more digital, more virtual. I mean, there was a time where you would talk to partners are senior partners and they would look at you like you had two heads if you ever suggested that an executive assistant or Secretary didn’t have to be right down the hall. And I think everybody understands that they don’t need to be right down the hall. This whole notion of digital enablement and virtual affects our services. So we see more of the support we provide to clients moving from a world where it’s completely on site in the client location. We are many of our clients that were absolutely just serving them in their offices, to a hybrid model, where services is is provided on site at the client location, or onshore in our onshore environments in Wheeling, West Virginia, Columbus, Ohio, Normanton, England, or offshore in our offices in Chennai or Kochi, India. So you know, some examples of the digitization that we’re seeing And the virtualization. One that has sort of taken off like wildfire is the notion of a digital mailroom. So can our people instead of walking the mail around to deliver to the partners, virtualize it, scan it, make it digital and email it to the individuals so that when they’re working from home, they’re still getting access to information. And if there is some law firms want the envelope scanned, and then the recipient can decide, do you send it to me? Do you open it and scan it? Or do you throw it away? other firms just want everything scanned and distributed to the individual via email or put into a document management system. So we have options in either case, and even before the pandemic. A lot of our clients were looking at virtual secretarial and virtual administrative support services that we provide out of Wheeling, Columbus, and Normanton. You know, they’re looking to improve the attorney to Secretary ratios and gain efficiencies. Now, as I said, with everybody understanding virtual works, this area is another key growth area. And there’s another driver. I mean, for Williams Lea, this is a center of excellence for us. We do this for a living. So we’re investing in technology. We’re investing in training around virtual support services. And our ambition is we want the people when they go back to work, whether you know, the lawyer or the associate the senior partner to say, I’m staying with Williams Lea that service was better than what I had when I had someone right down the hall. And then I think the final piece on that is, you know, incorporating technology, the digitization. So, we have a digital client platform that we call Engage, and with it is Engage Analytics and basically Engage is a workflow tool that enables you know the attorney to send a request to someone who’s going to do document processing or administrative support or financial support. The person does the work. It’s all managed through Engage. And we’re capturing information and data the whole time, so that we can present a dashboard to tell, maybe it’s the attorney, but more likely it’s the administrator or the CAO, or the CEO and the firm who’s looking at it to say, what are people doing all day? I don’t want to micromanage. But I do need to understand where are people spending their time. With Engage Analytics, you have utilization rates, you can tell who’s requesting the most amount of work and which offices which attorneys which associate so it’s really giving you a level of granularity that most firms don’t have. In fact, we’ve had partners who have literally admitted they have no idea what their secretaries are doing at home now, that’s a terrible thing. And I it’s hard to Imagine, but …

Marlene Gebauer: Did they even know what they were doing when they were in the office?

Clare Hart: I don’t think whether they do or not.

Marlene Gebauer: They think they do.

Clare Hart: Yeah, they think they do. That’s exactly right. So whether they do or not…

Marlene Gebauer: This analytics thing sounds great, it sounds like you’d get more information out of that than even if you were in the office.

Clare Hart: Well, that’s the beauty of it, and people will have a line of sight on what their resources are doing. And you know, there’s a little anxiety and I would say a very little but there’s a little anxiety this might feel like Big Brother, but actually it’s not law firms or businesses and just like every other business, the people responsible for the financials have an obligation to understand where they’re spending their money and how their resources are working.

[19:24]

Greg Lambert: Clare just to follow up on something you mentioned earlier on the virtualizing a certain task In your survey or just in your comments, with the people that you collaborate with, are you finding that there’s anything that either absolutely can’t be done virtually or there’s absolutely no willingness to do virtually?

Clare Hart: I have not run into we have not run into, you know, people saying we’re not interested. Everybody is interested in looking at driving efficiencies, driving cost savings and driving, client relationships. So anything that you can either virtualize, digitize that drives improvement is actually absolutely interesting.

Greg Lambert: So let me ask you about law firms that and I’m sure there’s a few of them out there that still do all of their operations in house and don’t necessarily look at outsourcing or Collaborating with outsourced companies to do certain operations. Do you think that they will change post COVID? Or will they just continue to go back in the office and do the same thing?

Clare Hart: I think they will absolutely change and look, some of it, you may say, well, that’s a little self-serving Clare and supports what you guys do. But I think the real driver is the law firms are you’ve been in law firm offices, the beautiful offices in some of the most expensive cities in the world. And law firms have to reimagine how their business is going to operate just like we do as service providers to law firms and anyone in the in the business community, you have to reimagine what your business is going to look like in the post COVID world. And I think law firms are no exception. And what the survey results told us is that basically, you know, 69% of the survey respondents said they would look at documents support and word processing as virtualization, you know, that they could figure that could be done elsewhere. I don’t need that on site. Printing reprographics mailroom that’s been you know, you know, this is Greg, it’s forever been Williams Lea type support people, you know, close to 70% said that could be virtualized. Document processing, secretarial support, you know, all in the 60s. So, there will be some people that won’t, you know, that might not move it to provide to virtualization. But I think those that are really looking at streamlining services, focusing on what they do best, practicing law. And I had one senior partner say to me, it was music to my ears. He said, I don’t want to do what you do. I want to practice law. We want our people practicing law. We’re not good at what you do. You do that you do the operations you do the administrative support. We’ll stick to practicing law. And that’s what we want. That’s why the center of excellence around secretarial support around transactional financial services, around document processing, of course, and then you know, our heritage business, of course, the print and mailroom and reprographics. But that’s what we do. And we’re always working on improving that. That’s why digital mail was a logical next step for us in the mailroom, and why we’ll continue to add technology enablement to the services we provide, because that’s what we do. We don’t practice law.

[23:05]

Marlene Gebauer: That’s really refreshing to hear that your clients are basically saying, you know, you do that, and we’ll do what we do. And it seems like it’s a movement away from the, you know, we have to, you know, have a say on, on on most everything. Do you think that’s a COVID thing, or has that been moving in that direction beforehand?

Clare Hart: I think it’s moving in that direction beforehand, and mostly because as we think about what A lot of law firms are doing in terms of the chief administrative officer or Chief Operating Officer. Their jobs, jobs are basically to run the firm like a business. How do we drive efficiencies? How do we drive profitability? And so you have to look at every area just as, as companies have been doing for years, you know, publicly traded companies, private companies that are not partnerships, but they look at driving a profit, and they look at driving efficiencies. And I think there’s another dynamic at work here, which is digitization law firms would be the first to admit look, we’re not technologists, we’re not IT specialists. Again, you people do that, that that’s why we hire services like Williams Lea, because you do it for a living. And it’s just like, we don’t practice law. We have a General Counsel. We have a legal department, but boy, if it’s anything where you really need expertise? We’re going outside counsel.

[24:36]

Greg Lambert: Well, one last question before we let you go. I noticed this morning as I was scanning through LinkedIn that you are actually going to be at a Sandpiper Virtual Conference on September 23. And it caught my attention because the title of it is managing law firm profitability, pricing and data analytics conferences, which is a big topic here at three geeks. Can you give us a little bit of a preview of what you’re going to be talking about there?

Clare Hart: Sure. And it’s actually linked to the the last, you know, sort of discussion, it’s, it’s about firms managing profitability, and using data and analytics to manage their business and, you know, that’s where our service like Engage will come in. And I’ll talk a little bit about you know, utilization and using data, to understand utilization to understand ratios to understand peer groups because within Engage we’ll have not only trend analysis, but benchmarking data. So you can see how does my law firm stack up compared to, you know, other firms in the industry? So data plays a key role. I think a lot of it is about what firms are going to be doing to drive, manage the dynamics associated with the changes, digitization, and virtualization, how are they dealing with it? And one key area is going to be around pricing. Does the world after the pandemic look different from a pricing perspective? And what does that mean? And so I think that’ll be very interesting. And, you know, how does how does it change? It’s changed a little for our business, I have to say because, you know, we’ve gone to what we call role based pricing. So what role Are you hiring? Are you hiring a secretary? Are you hiring a Document processor? Copy editor? And we worked with third parties like Mercer and Robert Half to say okay, what are these roles cost? If I hire this person in New York? If I hired them in Washington, DC? In London and San Francisco and Chicago? And then what are they cost in Wheeling, West Virginia, Columbus, Ohio, Normanton, England, so that we can show, this is what you’re going to pay in a major city. This is what you’re going to pay in a an onshore model in a in a less expensive part of the country. So I think, you know, pricing is going to be a big discussion for a lot of businesses and law firms will be no exception. So I think the topic, profitability, pricing, and then, you know, really, data and analytics is about digitization and just understanding your business, the underlying theme of the business. And as it’s been said, if you’re managing data, you can be a leader. If you’re managing it in an excellent way you can be a leader. If you’re managing data, just okay. You’re going to be status quo. And if you’re not managing data, you’re going to be a laggard. And the legal industry is no exception to that rule.

[27:43]

Greg Lambert: I know people can’t see it, but Marlene is smiling big because you’re talking her language right now.

Marlene Gebauer: Okay. And I say and I was gonna say, so we wrap this up. And it’s like, you know, last word advice is don’t be a laggard.

Clare Hart: Don’t be a laggard, invest in data and analytics. So you got to have a digital platform that’s going to enable you to get the big picture of what’s going on in your organization. And I should add, the Engage digital platform is not only about Williams Lea data, clients are using it for their own data and their own workflow, so that can be incorporated into it. So it serves as yes use it for our workflow users. other suppliers workflow and use it for your own workflow and then get the dashboard.

Greg Lambert: Well Clare Hart, thanks for dropping by and catching up with us. It’s good to talk to you again.

Clare Hart: Good to talk to you, Greg. Nice to see you Marlene. Good to meet you. Take care.

Marlene Gebauer: You too.

Post-Interview

[28:55]

Greg Lambert: All right, Marlene, I had to chuckle a little bit when you and Clare joked about attorneys wanting to know what their secretaries and others were doing while they were working remotely. And then you pointed out so they didn’t have a damn clue what they were doing what they were down the hall.

Marlene Gebauer: I hope I don’t get in trouble for that. But I mean, you know, it’s, it’s true. It really is. And I mean, to be honest, like, how are you going to know? How are you going to know unless you’re sitting there the whole time?

Greg Lambert: Yeah. and and the the Engage product that she was talking about sounds really interesting is you know, that you want data analytics on the work in it sounds like a good idea. But again, I want to, you know, I would really stress that you want to do this in order to improve efficiencies. You don’t want to use this as a leverage of proving that people have butts and chairs at the you know, at a certain time, you know, and I’ve I have worked for and I’ve heard horror stories of people that would like you know, call all of their management staff at a certain time every day, just to make sure that, you know, they were there in the office.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, and send an email out just to see if they respond that type of thing.

Greg Lambert: You know, just like the internet, it can be used for evil or it can be used for good.

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, and I mean, to your point, you know, I think a lot of what these types of programs can do when you’re using analytics is, you know, they’ll set they’ll set a level like, okay, you know, everybody has to sort of achieve this this level, but generally, these analytics are not sophisticated enough to kind of tell the difference between Okay, this person has, you know, fewer projects or work, you know, whatever. But, you know, these are ones that normally take much you know, much longer, you really have to know the process and you have to know what people are doing in order to really assess whether they’re, they’re doing the work that you want them to be doing so it’s not just simply like okay, Here’s the data and that’s just going to tell you the answer.

Greg Lambert: Yeah. And and I thought that her other aspect of looking at allowing attorneys to do what they do best, and that is practice law and then figure out as far as the business operations, what’s important to them? Because I will tell you, you know, I’ve told a number of people, we are not a software development company. We’re a law firm. And that applies across so many other things. Now, you know, granted, there are certain things you want to do in house, there’s certain things that you have to do. But you don’t have to do at all.

[31:35]

Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, and I think this this goes back to what I was saying earlier, I mean, organizations like, like Clare’s, you know, outsourcing and, you know, alternative legal consulting. I think this is this is sort of areas where, you know, you’re going to see more growth just for the reasons that you mentioned. All right.

Greg Lambert: Well, thanks again to Clare Hart for joining us.

Marlene Gebauer: Before we go, we want to remind listeners to take the time to subscribe on Apple podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts rate and review us as well. If you have comments about today’s show or suggestions for a future show, you can reach us on Twitter at @gebauerm or @glambert or you can call the Geek in Review Hotline at 713-487-7270 or email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. And as always, the music you hear is from Jerry David DeCicca. Thank you, Jerry.

Greg Lambert: Thanks, Jerry. All right, talk to you later Marlene.

Marlene Gebauer: All right. Adios.