Innovation

(5 minute read)

Avvoka’s Partner Spotlight

“Relying on financial metrics as the sole justification for automation is short-sighted and self-defeating“

Keywords: ROI, document automation, law, technology, legal, innovation, financial metrics

In this article the main topics we will discuss are:

• Relying on financial metrics as the sole justification for automation is short-sighted and self-defeating
• How accurately demonstrable are the financial elements?
• What are these other “softer” benefits and how can we measure those?
• Quality and consistency
• Reduced precedent maintenance
• Increased job satisfaction
• Client retention/acquisition
• Winning different client work
• So how do I factor these in overall?

Echo Legal – By Julie Saliba and William Sumners

Our Partner lineup contains some of the world’s most experienced automation lawyers. Echo.legal is one of Avvoka’s expert partners. They provide consultancy services and solutions that help law firms and corporate legal teams successfully implement and scale their use of legal automation solutions.

Their team comprises some of the world’s leading specialists with expertise in every aspect of the automation project lifecycle. Julie Saliba and William Sumners are the authors of this blog post by our partner echo.legal.

Julie is Echo’s Client Services Director and has 20 years of experience in implementing automation projects for leading law firms and legal operations teams in the UK, Europe and the US. Julie joined Echo from Linklaters LLP where she gained extensive knowledge of automating complex documents for lawyer use as well as client-facing projects. Julie is a graduate of the University of Surrey

Will leads Echo’s client delivery, relationship management and service innovation and manages Echo’s day to day operations. When it comes to legal automation experience few people have greater expertise. He has led automation projects internationally working across a range of law firms and legal operations teams, interacting with all levels of those organisations. His mastery of detail and a methodological approach has driven a long track record of project success. Will Sumners joined Echo from Thomson Reuters where he was Director of Software Solutions Services. He is a graduate of the University of St Andrews.

Relying on financial metrics as the sole justification for automation is short-sighted and self-defeating

There has been much written about financial Return on Investment (RoI) for document automation projects including many calculations for measuring this, but is this missing the true value of automation? In this article, we will explain why purely focussing on financial metrics risks ignoring the fact that innovation lets us practise the law better and more efficiently.

But – financial benefits are important and demonstrable!

Financial benefits are an important element of the success criteria – budget holders will require some form of financial metrics to justify their spending. This is relatively easy for a commercial organisation where a time-saving in the cost of production of documents means sales cycles can be shortened and busy legal departments can offer self-service to the business. For law firms, however, reducing the cost of production is not always as straightforward a goal to aspire to since hourly billing is still at the heart of most traditional law firms’ operation and therefore cost savings do not necessarily translate directly to financial gains.  Unless an alternative billing model is used for transactions, or there are significant obstacles impacting recovery rates, a purely financial justification for automation can be tricky.

How accurately demonstrable are the financial elements?

Nonetheless, it is a good place to start, and it all starts with time-saving. The basic calculation is centred around the time saved in generating an automated contract vs a manual version of the same contract, multiplied by the number of contracts created in a month/year:

(Time for manual draft – time for an automated draft) x no of contracts a month

Some go further and take account of the investment that is required to automate a precedent:

((Time for manual draft – time for an automated draft) x no of contracts a year) – time spent automating

Then build in additional factors that attempt to turn time- savings into financial benefits– 

• Cost of drafter (consider that lower cost drafters could be used post-automation)
• Amortised licence fees of the automation platform (with the bonus of the spread licence cost dropping with each additional template)
• Additional Revenue – using the time saved to apply a notional figure for potential additional revenue that could be generated.

At the end of it all, this is modelling of a complex process where the underlying data points are constantly shifting – multiple drafters of differing values will touch a document, the licence costs and template numbers change, new revenue opportunities are not consistent. So while reducing the cost of production is a clear line, translation to improved profitability is not.

A degree of modelling is always worth doing, but in reality, the importance is not precise accuracy, it’s finding a broad measure of a project’s worth that aligns with your goals. Saving time should be a goal of the project, but the firm using that saved time to generate revenue is not an easy metric to measure.

What are these other, “softer” benefits and how can we measure those?

Beyond the time/cost/revenue equations, however, there are a broad range of benefits to the organisation and its individuals derived from automation. These, though traditionally considered “softer” benefits, are measurable and tangible.

Quality and consistency

One of the most compelling benefits is that of improved quality and consistency of first draft documents created from automated content compared to those produced by manual drafting. Automated content always has the same base starting point (not, as is common in manual drafting, a previous similar transaction). This can have a massive impact on risk reduction and ensure your documents have correct, complete and up-to-date language.

Measure metrics: an easy way to measure how much impact this has on your documents is to note the number of inconsistencies found in manual forms when automating them. Removing those in the automated contract means those inconsistencies will be removed from all documents going forward.

Reduced precedent maintenance

All precedents will need some form of maintenance – whether that is adhering to the latest regulations or changes in the law. For certain types of documents where many versions can be consolidated, there are gains to be made maintaining a smaller set of automated precedents. Maintaining a range of varied precedents and riders can in fact be significantly more work than maintaining an amalgamated template. 

Measure metrics: it may be possible to compare the time taken on maintaining precedents (eg using historical data from your time recording system) compared to maintaining automated documents.

Increased job satisfaction

The Legal industry along with many others at this time is being affected by what is being named “The Great Resignation”. Not many lawyers took their chosen career path out of a deeply rooted love of preparing first drafts of contracts. Reducing the mundane elements of lawyers’ working lives in practice makes them happier and more engaged; it helps attract top talent to the firm and drives productivity through their being time spent on higher-value areas.

Measure metrics: consider surveying lawyers to produce quantifiable metrics before and after the project.  Consider a mix of general questions  – what are your least/most favourite elements of the role, overall job satisfaction levels, and more specific – do you spend too much time drafting, where would you most like to see technology deliver quality of life benefits to you? 

Client retention/acquisition

Clients increasingly want enhanced turn-around times and more transparency in their billing, and automation can help deliver on both points. As automation proliferates, it is becoming more commonplace for clients to demand its use in work, and more challenging for firms to justify why clients should pay for manual drafting. We’ve heard of several organisations that make use of such technology a pre-requisite for being on their panel. Using automation and workflow processes to solve specific client problems can also help embed a law firm into a client’s day-to-day activities.

Measure metrics: keep a record of all the times clients have requested information on automation capabilities during a pitch process. Where pitching and building automation into the proposal, ask clients about the impact it made. For billing, look at whether you have reduced write-downs in drafting across areas using automation, or if there are fewer challenges in billing reviews.

Winning different client work

We have heard of many occasions where automation has helped bring different types of transactions into the Firm – either from a client who would normally go elsewhere for a specific type of (lower-value) transaction or who wants to bring standard ancillary documents into the transaction where there is not much margin for the firm manually producing them. Once automated, documents can be charged on a fixed fee basis meaning once the time for automation is paid for, any further transactions will have a high RoI.

Measure metrics: keep a record of client-specific documents that are automated for transactions not usually done for the firm. Charging on a fixed fee basis will mean the financial gains will be easily calculable. Use the time-saving calculations to assess whether new types of work could be carried out where previously deemed unprofitable.

So how do I factor these in overall?

Marrying these various factors together is not straightforward, since they cover a variety of measurements ranging from maintenance effort to emotional state. Some choose not to measure them holistically at all. Instead, accepting the general value of automation, they target specific points that align to the organisation’s broader strategy such as: 

• Employee focus – looking at areas with high turnover or low satisfaction, using automation to improve the general operating model.
• Expansion focus – using automation across a transactional area to drive competitiveness and capability, or attract new clients.
• Client focus – delivering automation that supports one or more key clients to improve relationships and retention through innovation.

Others look to build a view of justifying automation projects based on a composite score rather than time-saving alone. This method assigns values to the various components based on how much the firm values the different benefits.

In summary, automation has delivered proven benefits to many firms and corporate legal departments, and its continued growth and the proliferation of automation tools in the market is testament to this. It is wrong, however, to think that financial benefits are the sole reason behind this: automation enables organisations to deliver better and faster while creating quality of life improvements for the lawyers who use them. Benefits that are not time/cost-based are just as measurable, but a little more creativity (and humanity) is needed in how we measure them.

Did you know that automation with Avvoka can be intuitive and easy to use but yet powerful? Unlike legacy automation tools, there’s no complex Word coding required. Get started with a free trial and experience it yourself.

Read more from Avvoka:

• How can a document automation API turbocharge your legal practice?
• Legal technology: how any lawyer can supercharge their practice
• Next generation of lawyers and the call for legal tech
• A Student’s Guide to LegalTech
• The power of no-code automation with Avvoka

By: Avvoka's Partner, Echo Legal

(4 minute read)

Interview with Dr. Anna Donovan

“The art of the possible”: What does our transforming legal services ecosystem mean for our existing legal education system and regulatory frameworks?

Keywords: students, law, technology, blockchain, legal, innovation, education, legal education, community, transformation, AI

Dr. Anna Donovan:

Dr. Anna Donovan is a law tech education pioneer and a lawyer admitted in both England & Wales and New York. Since 2014, her work lecturing at UCL and revolutionising legal education for the 21st century has earned her UCL Laws’ Excellence Award for Legal Teaching in 2015, 2017 and 2018, the UCL Provost’s Education Award in 2018 and the UCL Education Award in 2020. Anna is also firmly embedded at the bleeding edge of the legal tech ecosystem as a panel member of LawtechUK, a co-founder of UCL Art Futures, and a fellow at the UCL Centre for Blockchain Technologies. She has also recently published her new book, Reconceptualising Corporate Compliance, Responsibility, Freedom and the Law.

We caught up with Anna to talk about the contemporary disruption of the legal services ecosystem through technologies such as blockchain, AI and no-code automation tools, as well as the role that education and regulation should play during this exciting transformation.

---

Let’s end the debate; what is the difference between LawTech and LegalTech?

Great first question! Whilst a historic distinction, the two terms are now broadly synonymous, LawtechUK defines lawtech as the technology used in law and the delivery of legal and court services. It spans a spectrum of applications and possibilities, including handling and resolving disputes, contract creation, management and analysis, regulatory compliance, paperless trade, digital documents and e-signing, process automation, research and information, marketplaces and advice facilitation, matter and practice management, risk management and predictive intelligence.

I. Changing the mindset: Transforming the legal ecosystem through legal education

Do law schools adequately prepare students for legal practice and the increasing influence of technology? Should preparing students for the realities of tech-enabled legal practice be universities’ responsibility?

We should first acknowledge that law school in the UK is slightly different from other jurisdictions, such as the US, which have a greater (although by no means exclusive) practical focus. In the UK, those studying for a law degree do not always go on to practice law and a key responsibility of a law faculty is to help a student to develop a particular kind of thinking, rather than prepare them for practice per se. 

In particular, a key concern of a legal educator should be to encourage rigorous critical thinking, analytical skills, and a curiosity about the big questions that law raises. Considering this, it is too strong to say it’s the sole responsibility of a law school to prepare students for applying technology in practice. 

However, lawtech has a truly transformative potential. Not just for the delivery of legal services but how we think about law. It can, and is, transforming how we can meet society’s needs, be that for individuals or the business community. In this way, lawtech raises a considerable number of interesting, challenging and increasingly pressing questions that are absolutely right for academic inquiry. Questions that range from regulatory theory and design to corporate governance and the application of property rights and contract law. My personal opinion is that this raises an important opportunity for universities to introduce lawtech into their curriculums (as some are now starting to do) so that students, who are our lawyers, academics and policy makers of tomorrow, can think deeply about these questions. 

The exciting opportunity for legal education is that there are numerous ways to introduce these debates on lawtech. At the moment, we tend to see discrete lawtech or innovation modules being offered, although an increasing number of innovative initiatives are continuing to emerge.  However, there is great potential to integrate lawtech debates as part of core modules (such as exploring within a company law module the questions that decentralised autonomous organisations give rise to).  In this way, we can encourage analysis which recognises that lawtech is not simply an adjunct to traditional legal disciplines but something that needs to be considered within them.

How have you managed to integrate technology and innovation in the curriculum at UCL?

At UCL, we have developed a number of initiatives to help our students learn more about lawtech, and to be curious about what broader questions of legal innovation look like.  For example, we developed a “Law, Innovation and Public Policy” (LIPP) module as well as offering our students various extracurricular activities about lawtech, such as our Laws Perspectives course on legal innovation.

The title of “Law, Innovation and Public Policy” was very deliberate. Drawing on our earlier discussion, lawtech and innovation are not simply issues concerned with the automation of legal practice, but they raise deeply important policy questions. As such, we need to support our students to develop as critical thinkers who recognise the interconnectedness of these questions, as well as the opportunities and challenges that they present. We need people who are acutely aware of, and deeply passionate about, the role of law in society to support innovation and also to protect against some of the risks that might emerge. To help with this objective, the module was structured in a very specific way – to reflect the need for rigorous theoretical understanding as well as an appreciation of how these questions can arise in practice – to recognise where tensions and opportunities might emerge. Therefore, the module was split into two parts, the first addressing substantive issues of law and theory, with the second seeing the students develop their own projects, supported by mentors from practice. 

We also have a number of extracurricular activities to help students that are interested in lawtech and innovation. This year, we launched a final year course as part of our “Laws Perspectives” programme, which explores innovation in legal services. Much like LIPP, it focuses on the innovation mindset, of developing a curiosity about innovation, rooted in the core objectives of the law and legal services. For example, if a goal of legal practice is protecting societal, business and individual interests how can we think differently to realise this objective in a more effective, accessible and efficient way? Achieving this goal often requires a different mindset to just saying “this is the way we’ve always structured contracts, how can we make the process a little bit cheaper or faster?” It requires a new way of looking at legal delivery and design, who we collaborate with and how we structure legal matters. It is an exciting transformation in the way we approach legal services, and it is important to help prepare our students for these opportunities.

At UCL, we are also a member of the global community Legal Hackers, which was initially born out of Brooklyn law school, to become a global movement. The initiative is comprised of both student and non-student members, bringing together people who share an open-source mentality of looking at what’s going on in the world and working out how we can contribute. Legal Hackers ask themselves how they can come together, share information, and move to action. It’s been great having the students join this global community. Open-source thinking is something that I believe is imperative to embed as a norm at the education stage, namely encouraging students to think in a community-based way, so that this is an approach that they can take forward into their careers. Aside from its immediate benefits, this mindset contributes significantly to the resilience our students need in a changing and dynamic legal practice environment.

What parts of the technology and innovation law curriculum at UCL tend to stick most with students?

Two things stand out. First, our students have been very quick to embrace the community-based and open mindset I was talking about earlier. They immediately recognise the intrinsic (and extrinsic) value of collaborating in an interdisciplinary and very genuine way, of true collaboration. I think they realise not only the potential that this brings for innovation but also for the quality of their own experience at work, in whatever field they decide to pursue.

Secondly, we have also seen how keen our students are to explore the art of the possible in legal services vocations. Many people with an interest in law thought they could only become a solicitor or a barrister, and that was it. Certainly, when I graduated, this was the fairly binary choice. We now have people building new firms, exploring (and creating) new markets, and developing their own path.  That’s tremendously exciting to see and be a part of. 

By thinking in these new ways, students discover that there is actually this wonderful open space for them to explore now. There are all of these different roles from legal engineer and legal designer to entrepreneur. There are so many opportunities to be supported through that journey and we help give students the confidence to explore that. This is one of the reasons we are so excited to be a partner at the Barclays Lawtech Eagle Lab, not only is it great to be involved in such an important initiative for the sector but it helps to show our students what is possible in this space.

Our students recognise that the UK is a global leader in the sector and if we are going to continue to create exciting jobs and do important work it is essential that we come together as a community. As trite as it is to say, for our studentsit’s not just thinking outside the box; it’s recognising that there doesn’t have to be one. That’s how transformative lawtech can be. If we adopt the right mindset then we can truly transform the delivery of legal services. This is what makes it such an exciting time for the sector.

What is LawWithoutWalls (LWOW), how are you involved with it and what makes it special?

For those who don’t know about it, LawWithoutWalls (LWOW) is an initiative developed by the University of Miami. It’s a programme designed to bring together students from the leading law and business schools around the world to think about the challenges and opportunities that exist at the intersection of law and technology. 

I was actually a participant on the first year of the LWOW programme after I left practice. I’m qualified in both New York and England & Wales, so I have always had an interest in international legal practice. LWOW is a global programme focused on innovation, technology and making a difference so it was a perfect fit for me.

LWOW brings together groups of students supported by mentors (from academia, industry, and practice) to work for three months to develop a solution to a challenge or opportunity often arising at the intersection of law and practice. These projects span a wide range of issues from legal education and industry challenges to social enterprises. Every year it is incredible to see what the teams come up with in such a short period of time.  The teams usually comprise of four students, supported by a similar number of mentors.  At the start of the programme each team is given a broad project that they have to narrow down and develop a viable solution to. When the students present their projects at the end of the program, I never cease to be amazed at what they come up with. If you bring people together who have a common goal, an open mind and support them with the right network of people, the ideas that they generate are incredible.

One of the interesting aspects of LWOW is that sometimes there are teams that have similar or even the same topic.  However, the way that each team approaches the problem and the solutions they create are completely different. Over the years, we have seen such a wide range of projects on LWOW. We’ve had projects looking at helping the immigration crisis, redesigning law schools and creating legal chatbots to support the delivery of in-house legal functions. It’s just such a unique opportunity for students to explore their curiosity and develop a broad range of skills. They learn how to work in a multidisciplinary team, how to work across jurisdictions and how to undertake thoughtful and rigorous research. It really is a valuable model for collaboration. 

As you can imagine, it is a very competitive process to be accepted into LWOW at UCL. Those that are successful experience an incredible journey both in terms of their skills but also the contributions that they want to make to the sector. It’s a unique learning opportunity and a brilliant network of people. It’s been running for over ten years now, and it’s wonderful to see the community grow, with people returning year after year. Amongst the mentors, we often talk, collaborate and think about the ways that we can make a difference outside of LWOW.

II. Frontier Technologies

You’re internationally renowned as a leading authority on the intersection of blockchain and the law. What key emerging trends do you see in that intersection?

You will no doubt have seen that the UK has taken several critical steps in supporting the widespread adoption of DLTs.  For example, the UKJT’s Legal Statement provided important certainty on the legal status of cryptoassets and smart contracts.  The UKJT has also recently published its digital dispute resolution rules. In addition, the Law Commission is undertaking two important projects on smart contracts and digital assets.  

This increased legal certainty has been complemented by efforts to provide greater technical certainty and capabilities.  For example, the UK Legal Schema that was developed within the LawtechUK Sandbox, which provides a universal structured data format for digitalised contracts.  Creating this uniformity of approach provides a critical foundation for widespread adoption and development.  All that is to say that in the UK at the moment we are developing the legal and technical certainty necessary for greater investment, innovation and deployment in this field.   

In terms of trends, we are seeing a number of interesting applications emerge.  DeFi or ‘decentralised finance’ is obviously one key area, supported in part by the composability of the applications that are being developed.  That is, the ability for DeFi products (or aspects of them) to interact with and build on each other. For this reason, an analogy is often drawn to lego bricks, reflecting the ability for each component to connect with another.  

One area I am particularly interested in (hence my role as a co-founder of UCL Art Futures), is the way that DLTs can support the creative industries.  The creative sector is at the heart of the UK’s competitive advantage and DLTs present significant opportunities for creative innovation as well as a mechanism for protection, curation and preservation (see for example DACS’ and Verisart’s launch of Bronzechain).  There are a number of really interesting initiatives in this space already, with significant scope for further innovation to come.  What I find particularly interesting is the possibility not only for shaping existing markets but also how (much like with smart phones) new markets might be created in ways that we don’t currently envisage.  Needless to say, the legal services community has a critical role to play in this development, by supporting these new and emerging relationships in a way that protects fair and equal collaboration.

What has LawtechUK got planned for lawtech information and education in 2021?

We are looking forward to launching the LawtechUK Hub, which will provide the community with a central resource where they can explore, learn about and be inspired by lawtech activities.  The Hub will provide access to information about LawtechUK’s work and how to get involved with it, together with an interactive ecosystem map sharing information about lawtech startups and interviews with community trailblazers. Importantly, the Hub will offer accessible short courses, which have been developed by expert practitioners, on the core technologies that are relevant to lawtech.     

LawtechUK wants to work with a range of organisations towards a common purpose. Avvoka for example, does a considerable amount in the legal education space with the Avvoka Academy and its other initiatives (like your guide to document automation), and we very much believe that a rising tide lifts all ships. I love the approach that Avvoka takes by sharing knowledge to support understanding and adoption. It is this approach that helps to develop market and consumer confidence, which is critical in supporting new paths for further innovation. 

Much like the law itself, education is an enabler of innovation and a core focus of our work is on how to support transformation through legal education.  One of the things that has always been inspiring about the lawtech community is how everyone shares the vision of working together to help improve the delivery of legal services and I am excited to see what the next year brings!

Read more from Avvoka:

• How can a document automation API turbocharge your legal practice?
• Legal technology: how any lawyer can supercharge their practice
• Next generation of lawyers and the call for legal tech
• A Student’s Guide to LegalTech
• The power of no-code automation with Avvoka

By: Macarena Valenzuela

(4 minute read)

The secrets of great legal service design, and who and what it takes

Interview with Erika Pagano and Drew Winlaw

Keywords: legal, lawyers, multidisciplinary team, legal engineer, women in law, legal design, legal education, law careers, law firms, businesses, in-house, law students, lean thinking, legaltech trends

This week we had a great discussion with Erika Pagano and Drew Winlaw, a dream team hailing from Wavelength, the legal engineering team at Simmons & Simmons.

Drew Winlaw:

Drew co-founded Wavelength, which has unquestionably changed the face of the legal profession and the way that legal services are delivered globally. It is a pioneering legal engineering business. Drew’s leadership has resulted in the whole legal services market using far more technology, data science and design to improve and transform how legal expertise adds value to businesses.

Drew is a leading proponent and expert on transformational change in the legal services sector. Before he started revolutionising law firm management, he practised as a commercial lawyer, and prior to that worked in several manufacturing businesses focusing on data and scheduling issues, and was also the legal and compliance manager for Booking.com (one of our amazing clients). In his work, Drew draws on lean philosophies and uses smart legal technologies in his design of innovative legal services and systems.

If you want to know about how to create great legal service designs, and who and what it takes, Drew is your man.

---

Erika Pagano:

Erika is a lawyer, innovator, and educator, shaping the future of the legal profession. She is also a speaker and facilitator to legal teams and law students, focusing on applied design, creativity, strategy, culture creation, teaming, technology, and cross-border initiatives.

Erika has a passion for problem-solving, culture creation, teaming, technology, and cross-border initiatives. She is Head of Legal Innovation and Design at Wavelength Law and Guest Faculty at IE University. Previously, Erika was the Director of LawWithoutWalls and Lecturer at the University of Miami School of Law.

Erika is a regular speaker, published author, and award-winning innovator. She sits on multiple boards (Awesome Foundation London, University of Miami School of Law Alumni Board, LawWithoutWalls Advisory Board, Georgetown University Class of 2008 Committee, and others). She is a graduate of Georgetown University and the University of Miami.

Basically, we’re super lucky she agreed to have a chat with us.

---

I. The Wavelength model

What’s the manifesto of Wavelength at Simmons & Simmons?

Drew:

The manifesto is evolving, but it’s centred around the theme of making law and legal processes:

1. understandable;
2. sensible; and
3. data-driven.

A lot of the things that we do come back to those three things.

Essentially, introducing elements of transparency into businesses that currently are just tremendously manual and very heavy. There’s so much that we can do in that area as creative thinkers.

We’re not trying to transform from the outside and sort of “bash our way in.” We’re trying to transform from the inside; understand what’s going on around us and sensibly introduce incremental benefits that occasionally bring to our attention the opportunity to do amazing things. But in most of the work we do, we need to work very closely with the way things are already done and just take things step-by-step. This is because legal services are a component of a wider ecosystem, and it simply isn’t possible to change everything at once.

Erika:

A simple way to explain the Wavelength manifesto is that we put a team of multidisciplinary people together to think creatively about how the experience of law can be better. Whether you’re a lawyer, whether you’re a business that relies on lawyers or whether you’re a consumer of legal documents – which, you know, most of us are at some stage in our lives, if not every day.

How do Simmons & Simmons and Wavelength cross-pollinate?

Drew:  

I think an important thing for Wavelength is that we’ve maintained our culture, multidisciplinary approach and our operating model but can now benefit from the firm’s world-class international platform. The relationship between our team and the rest of the firm is very synergistic – it allows us a great route to spread the benefits of legal engineering around the world and Simmons has a real market differentiator – together we can do things that probably cannot be done by any professional services firm in the world.

The end goal for us is to reimagine how legal advice and legal services are delivered completely. By that, I mean a completely joined-up offering. This offer draws on the skill sets that currently exist within Wavelength and the rest of the firm.

Simmons partners refer us to work with clients directly, and we do work for those clients,  sometimes in a fairly self-contained way. We also identify new clients and introduce those to the legal teams within Simmons. But I think the really exciting things come when we’re jointly delivering work and together identifying the need, and jointly coming up with new approaches.

Is Wavelength like a separate practice area in Simmons & Simmons?

Drew: 

Organisationally we are, but in practice, we deliver solutions in a very joined-up way.

We have all the facilities at our disposal to join firmwide matters at very short notice to help achieve amazing outcomes. So, suppose that Simmons & Simmons is advising a client on a litigation matter and some complex information or data needs to be analysed or investigated. Wavelength can join that matter straightaway and immediately spin up the required legal data engineering support, or legal design support, or policy and strategy support.

Erika:

I think there are four main ingredients that make this all happen:

1. Curiosity. Folks are naturally curious, and lawyers especially are naturally curious. The curiosity element is fantastic because it means that people want to know, that they want to understand what this is all about, and that they’re open-minded to it.
2. Drew was talking about how you know it’s easy for us to slot into different projects. Often, the best brainstorming happens through conversations with colleagues where you discover the pain points they are experiencing. How might we be able to help? Other times, colleagues see work that we’ve done on a particular project. They think, “Oh, I might be able to adapt something similar to this project I’m working on right now.”
3. Then that third ingredient kicks in, creativity. It’s about getting people (our colleagues across the firm, across the business and within Wavelength, even) to think creatively about how we apply the things we do and collaborate together.
4. I think that the fourth element it’s actually not collaborative but client-related. 100% of what we do is client-facing which is exciting because it means that we are face to face with our clients hearing about their priorities and their issues. That allows us to be part of the conversation as we navigate how to solve them in new, exciting, and different ways.

II. Legal Design

What’s your view on the popular LegalTech vendor’s catchphrase “designed by lawyers, for lawyers”?

Drew:

It’s quite a difficult question because you’re generalising about lawyers who are a cohort within which there is a spectrum of understanding about data and the power of data. There’s also diversity in amenability to new ways of working. I think “designed for lawyers bought by lawyers” emphasises the need for lawyer involvement in solutions with legal subject matter expertise at their core.

It’s impossible to make a solution for the legal market without the involvement of lawyers. But I do think it requires a lot more than just lawyers. It requires people with different skill sets and different ways of thinking to challenge the way things are and bring new approaches. Through our multidisciplinary teams, we achieve that. Our teams are composed generally by a data scientist, a solution owner, and then a set of legal engineers in between. We have a team with skill sets that straddle the state of science and the law, and I think this is key.

What makes good, impactful legal design?

Erika:

Great question, because the concept of legal design means many things to many people. And the way that we like to see legal design is that it looks at three different factors, which are:

1. Communication, because better communication means more efficiency, understanding, equality, and inclusivity.
2. Empowered information, because information, when crafted in the right way, delivers more value and a better outcome to the folks supplying and receiving the information.
3. Culture creation, because design transmits values to end-users and stakeholders, whether through a document, system, or process. We think through how good legal design helps that end, either through shaping culture, creating change, or embedding a brand.

With that in mind, I think there are a few other elements that make a perfect legal design.

1. Listening; listening is vital (like in so many things). In legal design, you’ve got to listen to what your end-users and different stakeholders want carefully. Often it’s the things that they’re not saying. Usually, it involves looking at what the data shows. Sometimes, the consumer testing data will conflict with the opinions that folks are volunteering, so it’s up to us to test that out.
2. Open-minded creativity. As you can imagine, there’s a lot to be said there.
3. The third element is having the courage to be okay with iterating. We say we love iterating, especially in the legal design and legal innovation spaces. Iterating is great, but the reality is that there’s a real emotional component to moving on from an idea that you thought was best and didn’t quite work. So, there’s a sense of bravery and courage you need to embark on this new frontier.

III. Legal Engineering

What’s the difference between being a lawyer and being a legal engineer? When does someone stop being a lawyer and start becoming a legal engineer? What traits do those with the potential to be great legal engineers typically possess?

Drew:

People who work in the legal engineering field do not necessarily need to be a qualified lawyer. Generally, but not always, a grounding in law can be helpful to provide an understanding of legal principles. Of course, every person who studies law will be grounded in the essential institutions, the role of contract, tort, and the importance of understanding about risk and risk management.

I think great legal engineers can come from all walks of life, and all stages of their career. In terms of what I call an “entry-level legal engineer” type person, it would be somebody who’s done some legal study. And there is undoubtedly a role for a lot of those people in this industry. But there are also roles for people who have 20 or 30 years of experience behind them and do want to make a difference to the industry and want to challenge the things that they’ve learned or they’ve had to do in the course of private practice or in an in-house team to improve things. There are just so many things that need to be improved. We need an army of legal engineers to help bring this profession into this century. That’s the critical thing. The boundary between a lawyer and a legal engineer is just the extent to which you decide that you want to rely on somebody else for the legal subject matter expertise. You keep the understanding of the principles and the architectures that are necessary to solve these problems.

We leverage a version of the lean methodology at Avvoka. What place does “Lean Thinking” have within large commercial law firms?

Drew:

On the point about Lean thinking, and whether there’s a place for it in commercial law firms, I can’t think of, anywhere, any process, anywhere in the world where lean thinking doesn’t apply. Lean thinking is completely universal in its application. It’s universal, because it has at its heart, the elimination of waste, the elimination of duplication, and in general the elimination of things that don’t add value to the end client.

This thinking does exist in law firms; it is just not called “Lean”. Lean thinking started in the manufacturing environment and from my experience sometimes people working in the professional services environment aren’t so comfortable with parallels between what happens in industry and what happens in professional services. But I see the parallels or the links between those things very intensely. That’s because of my previous experience in manufacturing and analysing processes that occur in factories and also in very fast-growing businesses, like Booking.com was when I worked there. I think any organisation that embraces Lean should see incredible benefits. These benefits will be applied to enough people who share that understanding and desire to improve things continuously, remove the hurdles, remove the duplication, and waste.

One of the most exciting stages of lean training is when somebody who’s an expert at their job realises that what they do is part of a more extensive process. That can be pretty surprising for somebody, and that is not self-evident in the beginning. But it can be quite a revelation for some people. This understanding leads to a higher degree of empathy about people who contribute earlier in that same process and how behaviour in one part of a process can have significant effects on people who deal with outputs further downstream. So, I think it’s an incredibly valuable methodology.

In many law firms, the way that Lean is packaged Begins like this: “Let’s have a look at the process. Let’s map the existing process and see whether there are any well-understood patterns of work within the process that can be eliminated or automated.” The discussions that arise from talking through the steps in a process map are fundamental to applying lean thinking in a sensible way.

IV. Legal technology, education and women in law

What’s the role of legal education in the context of legal technology? Should universities be doing something different, and how can they keep up to date?

Erika:

I think legal education faces a critical role in shaping the future of our profession. Especially with LegalTech, law schools are finally starting to wake up and recognise this as not only a real thing but also as an opportunity. LegalTech is an opportunity for students to have a wide range of new jobs and to have thriving careers. Especially in the US system, law schools are often judged on things like their employment rate for recent graduates. I think they’re starting to see this as a great avenue and a worthwhile avenue to sink time and budget into training students because they can have healthy, long, exciting, and profitable careers in this area.

I think it’s also for law schools to think differently about their curriculum. A few years ago, just a handful of schools touched on innovation and technology in the legal environment. Fortunately, that landscape has improved. You’ve got all kinds of pure legal tech and innovation courses, and also multidisciplinary courses that bring lawyers, law students, and business together. For example, I’m entering a course at Oxford that brings together law students and computer science students, which is fantastic. In my legal innovation course at IE University, students learn from folks across a wide variety of disciplines, from classic legal to femtech, data science, crisis management, and more. It’s so encouraging to see that there is support from the educational sector, and I hope that continues to grow.

Erika, you are a highly-respected female leader in the legal sector. Do you think there are enough women involved in LegalTech? If not, what can be done to increase the number of women in the field?

Erika:

Thank you. That’s very nice for you to say that I am a female leader in the legal sector! That’s only because I have great women role models and a tremendous support network. What I have achieved wouldn’t have been possible without that and allies. For example, people like Drew who are supportive and understand that this isn’t an easy journey and that we still got much work to do in the area.

I don’t think that there are enough women involved. What I would love to see in general is not just the inclusion of women, but going into a more holistic way of thinking about diversity. A good friend of mine, Alexis Caught (he’s a real leader in the legal inclusion space), said to me that “equality should be available to everybody.” And I think that’s so true, no matter how you identify. So, for example, no matter what your orientation is, no matter what your background is, and we’ve all got work to do. It’s a daunting task, but we can all help make even incremental change, even just by educating ourselves, listening to the conversation and changing some of our preconceived notions. Just because I’m a woman in the profession, that doesn’t mean I know everything about what women in the profession have experienced. They’re always opportunities to grow and be a better ally on that front.

V. Future Trends

What’re you focussing on for 2021, and what do you expect the most significant innovations in legal services delivery to be this year? More of the same from 2020, or a course change?

Drew:

I don’t think that there will be a significant change from the existing direction of travel, but the pandemic has accelerated digitalisation efforts, or at least raised more awareness about the value of them.

For in-house legal teams, this means more thought and more budget available on legal front doors and how to manage the incoming demand into a legal department. It is for them to reflect what kinds of services are available to the business, what kinds of tools can be made available, what kind of automation tools are sensible and can be implemented with the appropriate guardrails from a risk perspective, and how you manage workflow in a more designed way.

I think there is a desire to move away from email and track changes in Word. This trend is being more universally recognised. Some people are pushing hard to change that so that it is not the default behaviour. But this change is going to take some time…

What does the future of law look like from your perspective?

Erika:

Oh, this is an exciting one. When I started law school, back from a fascinating life and career in Shanghai, I thought I would become a maritime lawyer—I’m not joking! Then I thought, well, maybe I’ll become a prosecutor, or perhaps I’ll become a trial lawyer. And then I had this “revelation moment” with the exposure to legal innovation, and I thought “oh my God, this is the thing”.

For me, legal innovation is the confluence of all of the amazing skills that I love and have developed and am passionate about. I hit it lucky at the right time and was able to create a career in it. I say that because this was over ten years ago. I don’t know what the next ten years are going to look like yet.

What I do know is that, in terms of the future of the profession, is that I hope that we continue to see a more significant push for equality and inclusivity and accessibility. I do hope that we see a broader value placed on multidisciplinary teams. I hope that we see folks who have quote non-traditional legal skills, really valued in the market and included on teams because they are the ones who can help bring in those experiences that’ll transform our marketplace. That’s what I think the future of law looks like.

Read more from Avvoka:

• How can a document automation API turbocharge your legal practice?
• Legal technology: how any lawyer can supercharge their practice
• Next generation of lawyers and the call for legal tech
• A Student’s Guide to LegalTech
• The power of no-code automation with Avvoka

By: Macarena Valenzuela