Thursday, September 24, 2015

How do you feel about the future of the legal profession?

(thanks to globallegalpost)

Following the brouhaha of Jonathan Sumption's remarks on equality and diversity in the legal profession and especially the higher judiciary--just be patient and wait 50 years--it's time to find out what people think about their futures. For those of you interested in following up the debate on Sumption, it's worth reading Steven Vaughan's astute response.

The Legal Week Turning Points hub for future lawyers has commissioned a survey which you can complete here. It has questions on diversity and more. The more who complete it the better.

I hope this is the beginning of more sustained research along the lines of the Harvard Law School Career Study.


Friday, September 18, 2015

Solicitors from Hell Don't Go Away.....

Four years ago I came out of the BBC after a heated radio discussion with the former CEO of the Law Society, Des Hudson, about the website Solicitors from Hell. He was furious with the website for defaming lawyers while I said it's a manifestation of a feeling among the public that you should tackle: don't shoot the messenger.

Of course they shot him (Kordowski). The court imposed damages, injunctions and closure. But I pointed out to Des, this is the internet. Solicitors from Hell will pop up elsewhere outside the UK jurisdiction and you won't be able to do anything about it. Mirrors, dear boy, mirrors....

In a judgment by Mr Justice Warby in the Queen's Bench Division, the boutique law firm, Brett Wilson, sought and obtained summary judgment against Solicitors from Hell ( in its latest manifestation this September--damages and an injunction.

I'm not going to rehash the case except to say the judge declared the words used had a defamatory tendency. See paragraph 25 of the judgment. But much of what the judge said referred to bringing unknown defendants to court. The problem being that no one could discover who the operators of this website were. No one ever replied to the plaintiffs' communications.

WHOIS searches revealed the owner to be Anonymous Speech, a proxy registrant, and appeals to them brought no response. There were two physical addresses, one in Tokyo and another in Panama. The claims were brought against "Persons Unknown". And successfully so.

Yet Solicitors from Hell is still there. And it's there in more than one manifestation. There are solicitors,, as well as

I'm not sure what Brett Wilson or the courts think they've gained by this. Brett Wilson has a moment's publicity via the Law Society Gazette saying they were defamed, which will be forgotten, in a flash; a claim for damages that will never be enforced; an injunction that is virtually unenforceable; against the continuation of a newly-publicised website far from the reach of the courts.

This is a losing battle for the legal profession. In fact it's a bit like wars in the Middle East. It doesn't matter how much you bomb them, they ain't going away. Constructive engagement is the only way to go.


Thursday, July 30, 2015

You Robot! What Does It Mean to Regulate Artificial Intelligence?

(thanks to howstuffworks?)

There's a huge amount of discussion in the media now about killer robots annihilating hordes, autonomous (driverless) cars running amok and mowing down people, and at the point of singularity Skynet will say no to being switched off and we are in a continuous war of us against them.

There's also a huge amount of rubbish being spoken too, so it's time to introduce some clarity and (real) intelligence to the arguments surrounding us.

My colleague, Dr Paresh Kathrani at the University of Westminster, is organising a debate on the question posed in the title of this post. We will hold it on October 8 at the university.

Paresh has put together a great collection of thinkers in the field. We have

Joanna J Bryson of Bath University' Computer Science Department. Her web page says: "At Bath I do research in both artificial and natural intelligence, with a particular emphasis on cognitive systems."

Lisa Webley of Westminster Law School who researches the legal profession with special interest in issues of gender and diversity. She is also fascinated by the changes occurring in the profession occasioned by technology.

Paresh Kathrani of Westminster Law School who instigated this as a result of a longstanding discussion held on Twitter (which rages still). He comes at this through a philosophical interrogation of what it means to be a human agent in a technological age.

Alan Whitfield of the University of West of England where his "work at UWE spans Research and Public Engagement. I conduc​​​t research in Swarm Robotics within the Bristol Robotics Lab. I am director of the Science Communication Unit, and undertake public engagement work centred upon robotics. Within that work I have a particular focus on robot ethics."

Chrissie Lightfoot of Chrissie is one of the most notable thinkers on the future of the legal profession and has written a well-received book on this provocatively titled: The Naked Lawyer.

And, me.

We aim to be kicking off around 6pm. There will be more details soon.

If you want to join the debate early, then start following us on twitter @PKathrani, @j2bryson, @alan_winfield, @TheNakedLawyer, @lisawebley, @JohnAFlood.


Thursday, July 16, 2015

The Future of Law Firms

Great conference coming up courtesy of University of St Gallen, Switzerland, on October 1, 2015. The conference itself is being held at Haus zum RĂ¼den in Zurich. Interesting line up of speakers (including me). Here they are:

Details of who's who here:

Booking details and registration are here in English and here in German. And if you would like more information contact Rahel Germann at


Wednesday, July 15, 2015

How Foreign Lawyers Failed to Colonise India

Recently the big corporate law firm of Amarchand Mangaldas split between two brothers, Cyril and Shardul Shroff. The settlement is published above. The division allowed outsiders in to the strange world of Indian law firms, generally private and very profitable. Although the number of corporate law firms in India is small they are powerful. The number of lawyers in India is huge, however. Together both have resisted and repelled attempts by foreign law firms (UK and US) to set up offices in India.

As part of the GLEE project at Harvard Law School under the direction of David Wilkins, I've written a chapter for a forthcoming book The Indian Legal Profession in an Age of Globalization (eds) David B. Wilkins, Vikramaditya Khanna and David M. Trubek, Cambridge University Press. The paper is available on SSRN at

My chapter is "Theories of Law Firm Globalization in the Shadow of Colonialism: A Cultural and Institutional Analysis of English and Indian Corporate Law Firms in the 20th and 21st Centuries".

The abstract reads: For many years foreign law firms have been trying to establish themselves in India. But the resistance from the Indian legal profession is so strong they have successfully prevented any establishment. The Indian government has from time to time tried to enable foreign law firms to enter the Indian legal market but without success. The paper examines the legal cultural and institutional reasons for this predicament. I argue that although India has a highly regulated market its corporate law firms are antithetical in their organisation and culture to the way the big global UK law firms are organised. In order to aspire to the 'single firm' ideal UK law firms have invested heavily in developing their normative and cultural positions. This enables UK law firms to exist almost independently of regulation because they have shifted the burden of organisational control from outside to within the firm. In these respects Indian law firms are weakly organised because they hew to kinship, family based structures that resemble the 19th century iteration of the UK law firm. There is also the colonial legacy that lives on in India and the struggles of the new international law firms appears very much like a new imperialism, hence the fear and rejection.


Friday, July 03, 2015

Death of Big Law Announced Prematurely....

More often than not the sirens of the future predict the demise of Big Law, that the traditional law firm model has run its course, millennials won't work there, general counsel refuse to pay outrageous hourly rates for fat cat partners. The likes of Jordan Furlong, Richard Susskind, George Beaton, and occasionally myself, will tell us why and how the new age of lawyering will be upon us like the anthropocene age.

Are we professional clones of Klaatu in The Day the Earth Stood Still?

The death of Big Law may be premature.

My thoughts on the premature burial opened up on reading Dealbook's article in the New York Times about the rise in mergers and acquisition work in the first half of 2015. Almost 20,000 deals worth $2.2 trillion have been announced in the first half of this year. It's up 40% on the same period in 2014 and is just shy of 2007 levels of $2.3trn.

Deal book comments
Bankers and lawyers say that their “pipelines”—their backlog of pending transactions—are more stuffed than ever, claims that are both braggadocio and an acknowledgment of the sheer numbers of companies weighing mergers and acquisitions.
We know from previous economic cycles hubris usually overtakes any caution that existed in recession. So, despite the pitfalls of Grexit and the pricked Chinese bubble (let alone the future prospect of Brexit), the boom is on.

Law firms ride on these waves and The Lawyer has been reporting a steady flow of profit rises for most law firms in the last year. Certainly some firms are shifting resources to nearshoring and outsourcing and introducing various online portals for clients. Most of this is marginal at best.

Law firms also closely align themselves with investment banks who are doing these M&A deals. These alliances go back many years. What then are the figures?

The top four banks doing the biggest M&A deals are Goldman Sachs (31% market share), Morgan Stanley (26%), JPMorgan ((22%), and Bank of America Merrill Lynch (20%). They have the largest and most transactions of the major banks.

The key law firms doing M&A show how alliances often endure in such relationships.

There are few surprises with Skadden, Cravath, Davis Polk, Sullivan, and Wachtell. These firms are renowned for their M&A work. We are, however, seeing the incursion of the outsiders in the guise of Latham (Los Angeles) and Freshfields (London). Both are boosting their New York capacity. 

For me the law firm of interest is King Wood & Mallesons rising from number 49 last year to number 15 in 2015. This may be on the back of outward Chinese M&A, but it shows the rise of Chinese law firms in a world dominated by New York and London. 

The revenues from this work are significant and will be reflected in profits per partner. What is also significant is the the role of "the dog in the night". There appears to be no barking from general counsel in these deals, no demands for cut price work and the like. Given deals like Royal Dutch Shell's $70 billion takeover of the BG Group, this type of work is of the "bet the house" class. It is perceived as too risky and too valuable to be assigned to a second tier law firm. 

As is common with booms and slumps, the upward slope of the cycle induces a form of amnesia that negates the incentives for change and there is a regression to the mean. In this case the mean is business as usual. 

Now one could ask about changes in hiring practices and the habits of millennials who won't partake of the partner tournament. If millennials do view careers as portfolios of different jobs then the tournament has lost a critical player. I would argue differently in that the tournament is busted and that it was never a sustainable programme. It contained the seeds of its own self-destruction.

Indeed the death of tournament has played into law firm partners' hands. It is evident, as Bill Henderson and others have shown, that equity partnerships have shrunk over this century and become more elitist and less of a reward. That millennials and Gen Y refuse to play the game only assists law firms in rescaling themselves for the modern era. They have freed themselves from long term commitments equivalent to the Greek pension system. 

Am I reading too much into a set of short term figures? I wish I were. But the forces of change in law and legal services are remarkable for their resistance to change and pressures to modernity. We only have to look at the resistance of the Irish legal profession to market liberalisation and new regulation. In four years the Irish bill implementing these changes is yet to emerge from the parliament. And what eventually comes out will be considerably watered down. I would even cast a sceptical eye over British changes and the ability of the legal profession to countermand their spirit.

Perhaps we shouldn't yet gather for a premature burial...


Monday, June 22, 2015

The Irish Bar, Magna Carta and the Future of Law

(thanks to Irish show bands)

I was asked to speak to the Irish Criminal Bar Association last week in conjunction with the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. Why not, I thought, I've given around twenty talks this academic year. One more is fine. It meant I would see the new criminal courts in Dublin, designed by Henry J. Lyons.

We were two speakers, a Senior Counsel on what Magna Carta meant, and me on the future of law for lawyers in the cyber age. Those of you who've read Maeve Hosier's book, The Regulation of the Legal Profession in Ireland, will know the Irish Bar is best characterised as conservative. The King's Inns' (where barristers are trained) motto is Nolumus Mutari--we do not wish to be changed.

I started with the observation that Magna Carta, for all its virtues, was a treaty between the king and barons, not the common man. Instead a better commemoration would be the Charter of the Forest of 1217 under Henry III which opened up the Royal Forests to the common man for cultivation and foraging and grazing. The Charter also established Special Verderers Courts to enforce the forest laws.

From there to the 21st century where mainly focused on the delivery of online "law" in its different forms. Their benefits I argued are the democratisation of law, the reduction of information asymmetries in professional-client relationships, and the empowering of individuals. Which means a different role for lawyers. I don't think my audience was overwhelmed by my vision.

The examples I used were, eBay's former online dispute resolution system, which is now working on online divorce resolution and neighbourhood dispute resolution in the Netherlands, and property tax assessment appeals in Canada. I ventured that small criminal case courts could use this technology to sentence accused by algorithm without their having to appear in court--a seeming inefficient use of lawyers' time where most cases plead out.

I shifted to IBM's excursions into data analytics and their use in professional services, notably medicine. The instance which really intrigues me, however, is IBM Cognitive Cooking, where you pick an ingredient and a region and out pops a recipe.

(thanks to IBM)

Why shouldn't law be as inventive as IBM's Cognitive Cooking? Corcoran gives examples of in house counsel using big data and predictive analytics to deal with problems like product recalls and tricky mergers and acquisitions. Ireland is already thinking about these issues with the Programmable City project at Maynooth University. Of course there is a need for skilled legal judgment outwith the algorithm. My audience wasn't enamoured of this prospect.

I gave them a run through of some of the innovations in legal provision including LegalZoom, Radiant Law, and (I think this last caused the most consternation). The new "agile" legal providers such as Lawyers on Demand and Axiom were clear interlopers.

As a result of being bailed out by the EU, ECB and the IMF, Ireland agreed to a reform of legal services which resulted in the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011. The legal profession, true to that motto, has resisted and rebuffed, and the bill has yet to be passed. The originating Minister of Justice has fallen by the wayside, as politicians do. The new one seems to have been well house trained by the legal profession and the bill is weaker than at the start.

Perhaps cyber law will not be so welcome yet in Ireland but the country still has a big problem with inadequate access to justice and diminishing legal aid isn't about to become fruitful. The legal profession exercises a tight monopoly which needs breaking.

Time for a new charter.......?


Sunday, June 07, 2015

Trade in Service Agreement (TiSA) and Legal Services

(thanks to Wikileaks)

Wikileaks has just released 17 documents TiSA related documents. For those of you who haven't heard of TiSA before it's the Trade in Services Agreement. It is the largest part, but least known, of the three main trade agreements being negotiated now. They are TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), TTIP  (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnerships) and TiSA.

Fifty-one nations participated in TiSA yet the BRICS were excluded. Moreover, the detailed contents were to remain secret for five years after signing. TiSA is much more far reaching than GATS and its negotiations have been ongoing since 2013.

According to the New Republic
The deal would liberalize global trade of services, an expansive definition that encompasses air and maritime transport, package delivery, e-commerce, telecommunications, accountancy, engineering, consulting, health care, private education, financial services and more, covering close to 80 percent of the U.S. economy. Though member parties insist that the agreement would simply stop discrimination against foreign service providers, the text shows that TiSA would restrict how governments can manage their public laws through an effective regulatory cap.
Among the documents released is the TiSA Annex on Professional Services which includes legal services. So what does TiSA say about professional and legal services?

If a member state has restrictions on trade in services it should enable cross-border supply of professional services without limit. So how will India be affected by this? It's a BRIC so it has had no role in this negotiation and it tightly forbids cross-border legal services. And parties must not try to impose national restrictions on cross-border suppliers of professional services.

If you want to practise in a member state, you don't have to set up an office there or be resident.

If a foreign provider is providing services through a "commercial presence", no limits on the amounts of foreign capital can be imposed in investment or share capital. Nor can the nationality of the partners or senior management be restricted.

A member state can't require that professional services be provided through a joint venture. Wholly owned foreign suppliers should be allowed. In addition member states can't impose discriminatory hiring practices, namely, nationals only.

As a professional services firm, you can keep your firm's name. Baker & McKenzie won't have to forage for partners with these names to open their offices. Interestingly, Japan is one of the proposers of this change and yet used to be one of the perpetrators.

If you as a lawyer want to provide foreign or international law advice, you will be permitted to fly in and fly out to do so for up to 90 days, and nor do you need an office in the other's state to do this. Again this will impact on India.

Member states should work to recognise each others' qualifications, licensing and registration regimes. At least there should be a regime for temporary recognition of other member states' licensing and registration procedures. Moreover, temporary recognition should not operate as a block on subsequent full recognition.

To make sure this happens member states must set up a Working Party on Professional Services with a mandate to working with the regulators to pursue mutual recognition.

If you take this set of proposals in conjunction with those on financial services--very liberal and will forbid restrictive local regulation--London and New York law firms especially are going to do extremely well. Local law firms will have to play catch up.

For legal services I don't see anything that perturbs me, at least too much. But I can see why the BRICS were excluded as this effectively stampedes their sacred cows. What will make it hard for countries such as India is that most of the foreign lawyer/law firm disputes that its courts have heard will become instead part of the investor-state dispute settlement system, i.e. arbitration. This could be explosive, I imagine.


Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Are We Seeing the Real Multidisciplinary Practices Emerge?

(thanks to nierodzim)

EY Law has hired partners from Baker & McKenzie and Weil Gotshal & Manges to join its financial services practice. They combine with lawyers from Freshfields, BLP and Addleshaw's.

It makes sense, and since the SRA is easing its rules on forming ABS and therefore becoming an MDP, that the big accounting firms are resurrecting earlier ideas about becoming multidisciplinary practices. Despite Enron and the debacle of Arthur Andersen's implosion in the early 2000s, the Big 4 accounting firms realise legal services are too important to be left to the lawyers alone.

EY Law's website shows their imperial ambitions with the sole exclusion of North America (but for how long?). They have a neat and colourful graphic (which needs recolouring drastically--awful) detailing how legal services form a core element in their work.

The other Big 4 are plucking lawyers from law firms to build capacity in their own legal services units. Deloitte Legal has over 1300 lawyers but is not becoming an ABS, which is odd. PwC Legal,  KPMG and EY Law have received ABS licences from the SRA. Even in Ireland KPMG has taken on six lawyers from the Dublin law firms.

I presume that gaining the ABS status is a precursor to moving out into the market as an independent entity in the way that BT has done with BT Law. And why not? One of the main complaints of clients of law firms is that their lawyers don't understand their business. One could argue that accountants ought to have great insight into the running of businesses and so offer significant value to legal clients. Despite noises from accounting firms that they don't intend to challenge law firms on their core services, which I don't believe, it's inevitable they will compete. One of their strengths is in their global networks which lawyers can only dream about.

Years ago when the senior partners of Clifford Turner and Coward Chance, two somewhat insignificant London banking law firms, held secret merger talks on park benches they imagined they could form a law firm so big that they could merge with an accounting firm. Of course they didn't but now that would be impossible. No law firm could merge; it could only be taken over.