Let’s start with this question: what is a “virtual
law firm?” I believe that it is a law firm that:
- Has a stable core group of attorneys;
- Has established collaborative relationships with
other, specialized law firms that possess expertise
that’s occasionally needed;
- Is glued together with appropriate computer and
telecommunications technology; and,
- Expands and reduces personnel as needed.
Frankly, there is nothing new, or even frightening,
about the virtual law firm, provided you use due care.
Indeed, most attorneys have already had at least some
experience working in a “virtual” law firm
setting, often without even realizing it. For example,
attorneys regularly associate with, and work closely
with, local counsel in other states or distant cities
as the need arises. They also regularly associate with
other attorneys who have known expertise in specialized
areas like mass torts, maritime law, or labor law. It’s
common for several law firms scattered across the country
to join forces on major cases, such as tobacco litigation
or the Exxon Valdez litigation, that are too big for
any single law firm.
Attorneys also regularly work with professional and
paraprofessional staff who either telecommute or otherwise
work off-premises. We are comfortable working with temporary
contract investigators, court reporters, attorneys,
expert witnesses and researchers whom we may not physically
meet very often, if at all. Likewise, in large corporate
legal departments, government agencies and national
law firms, we often have little physical contact with
co-workers upon whom we depend and with whom we frequently
work.
In a very real sense, the voice telephone and later
the fax machine were the first transitions away from
working exclusively with people whom we typically met
face to face. Over the next several years, however,
efficient long distance collaboration among attorneys
who may never physically meet will likely dramatically
increase as Internet technologies finally make the process
fast, easy, and efficient. I’ll examine several
possible models of how attorneys can leverage new technology
to realize the "virtual law firm" as a viable
means of organizing law practices.
Here are some of the changes and opportunities that
I anticipate as we transition toward a virtual law firm
environment.
Providing Non-Legal Services
We’ll likely see a virtual law firm that thrives
by offering a passel of subsidiary services that are
needed by our clients but are perhaps somewhat outside
the boundaries of traditional law practice, such as
general consulting, risk management, technology, preparation
of non-litigation exhibits, and similar services as
part of our overall client services. The services that
we might offer are limited only by our imaginations
and by applicable ethical and statutory standards.
Here are just a few examples that readily come to mind.
CaseShare, a spin-off of Holland and Hart, Denver, now
provides extranet services and specialized database
programming to companies across the country. Its sister
affiliate, Persuasion Strategies, provides computer
graphics, jury consulting, and other technology services,
not only to litigators but also to non-litigation technology
clients.
I can foresee specialized construction law firms, or
their subsidiaries, providing more operational services
such as project management. Construction claim law firms
are already advising their clients how to structure
transactions, are writing the contracts for all of the
involved parties, and are helping their clients ride
herd upon lagging contractors and vendors. It’s
only a small step, a step with manageable ethical concerns,
for that law firm to hire professional engineers and
the other specialized personnel necessary to fully flesh
out the ability to help a client inspect and oversee
a project from inception through the final claims process.
As it is, most of our clients contact us whenever they
hit a snag in their business dealings.
As attorneys become comfortable working in a virtual
environment, my sense is that we will see several trends
arising from the desirability of attorneys becoming
more expert in the substantive businesses whom they
serve. In addition, the successful attorney must become
even more computer-literate because this is the only
way that he or she can successfully coordinate the virtual
team and effectively bring to bear all of the cooperating
disciplines upon the client’s problems.
Legal Practice Will Become More Specialized
We’ll likely see even further specialization
of legal practice, with law firms focusing upon those
areas of practice where they have real substantive knowledge.
Thus, we may see more boutique practices emerging and
successfully competing. In fact, I suspect that law
firms will be competitive in more specialized areas
of law only to the extent that they likewise develop
specialized practice groups. Generalist attorneys will
have an increasingly difficult time competing for high
quality business when an already highly competitive
environment becomes even more so, and they will face
more difficult competition finding quality work as unspecialized
solo or small firm practitioners.
Hiring and Traing Employees
We may see a premium placed upon hiring attorneys with
substantive specialized backgrounds in technical disciplines,
engineering, accounting and finance, and possibly some
social sciences. Such attorneys will (a.) be able to
better understand the overall scope of the client’s
objectives and problems; (b.) avoid the need to first
become educated in depth about the client’s line
of business; (c.) be better able to communicate with
the client; and, (d.) be better able to effectively
coordinate and combine the efforts of the different
disciplines needed to solve the client’s problem.
For example, a law firm with a construction claims
practice may seek out attorneys with a construction
or civil engineering background because such attorneys
already know what to look for, speak the specialized
language used by the client’s project managers,
engineers, and workmen, and have a much greater ability
to understand the nuances of a substantively complicated
area of practice.
Quality control and the training of associates will
become even more important, but also more difficult,
in the virtual law firm. We’ll lose some of our
ability to informally and efficiently review intermediate
work and discuss it with staff, attorneys, and experts
who are not physically located in our offices. Mentoring
will become more difficult. I believe that quality control
issues are an under appreciated problem arising in connection
with virtual law firms.
The traditional law firm placed great emphasis upon
grooming promising attorneys and staff for the long
haul, training less experienced staff, and gradually
giving them more authority as they gained experience
and ability. Generally, the more experienced senior
attorneys understood, and could do, everything assigned
to new staff, and thus could effectively mentor and
supervise less experienced staff. Senior partners met
with the client and set strategy, often being the only
persons who really understood the Big Picture. Small
portions of a matter, along with explicit directions,
were given piecemeal to less senior staff. Later, as
information slowly worked its way to senior attorneys,
the efforts of many junior people were gradually combined
and sharpened by more experienced senior associates
and junior partners. Ultimately, the finished product
arrived back on the desk of the partner in charge of
the case, who theoretically checked the work for quality
and judgment.
The days of the generic junior attorney and staffer
are gone along with the pencil-and-paper era. We need
to hire and retain better-trained, technically adept
staff, many of whom must have skills that most lawyers
currently comprehend only with difficulty. Such employees
are in high demand and very mobile. Rather than directing
such employees in detail, we need to motivate and lead
them. We’ll need to adapt our management style
to a more collegial, democratic approach that better
suits an increasingly professional staff.
We now require employees who are comfortable working
with advanced computer systems and who can readily learn
new techniques and approaches. Because advanced technology
requires advanced skills, we'll have to invest a substantial
amount of time money in training employees to a mix
of constantly evolving skills through specialized outside
trainers. And, rather than training new staff, the senior
partners will need to take the same training themselves.
Employees with specialized knowledge are no longer interchangeable
and, unless we maintain a professionally rewarding place
of employment, employee mobility will increase as law
firms compete for better-educated, more productive paraprofessional
staff.
The virtual law firm has some real staffing advantages.
Although there is a strong premium upon highly knowledgeable
senior staff, routine clerical chores such as filing
and low-level data entry, conversely, either disappear
or become simpler and require less case-specific knowledge.
That allows a firm to be less dependant upon highly
experienced and costly clerical employees.
The Internet is Forcing Law Firms to Restructure
Internet-based legal applications are not yet able
to fully compete with the features, stability, and maturity
of tried-and-true desktop applications. Until then,
performance and security issues will limit the range
of features. However, when that day arrives in the near
future, and as mainstream web-based legal applications
mature, they’ll clearly influence not only how
we practice law but also how we organize our law firms,
or should I say our practice associations. One thing
is sure, though: traditional law firm structure will
change greatly.
Mainstream use of Internet-based legal practice systems
will force law firms to change into radically different,
flexible practice associations that respond more quickly
to market and technological changes. Future law firms
will likely adopt a more flexible and democratic horizontal
structure that facilitates the quick and efficient flow
of critical information, something that's critical to
the quick parry and thrust of almost any law practice.
Further, almost every other industry has found that
flexible business structures also lend themselves to
better profit margins.
I've identified below several possible models of how
the forward-looking law firm might consider structuring
itself. Thus, like the U.S. military, law firms--particularly
litigators--need to "re-engineer" their operations
to emphasize excellent internal communications and fast,
precision delivery by a small, often ad hoc team. Information
has always been power, metaphorically, but it’s
now king.
Why are a law firm's structure and internal communications
becoming so important? In the paper-and-pencil era,
we used the brute force of many associates and paralegals
to manually collect and process the vast amount of information
required by any significant litigation or transaction.
Because the raw data could not be readily analyzed by
a single person in the pencil-and-paper era, we resorted
to extensively summarizing the data.
We added intermediate layers to supervise employees
and to control the quality of the paperwork as it gradually
flowed to the ultimate users. Nasty surprises resulted
in court or negotiations when our summaries did not
match our evidence. Potentially important raw data and
research, and a coherent overview of the entire matter,
was often blurred or lost in the process.
Information may get to the decision makers too late.
Staffing costs have become prohibitively expensive and
clients have become less willing to pay such costs.
Continuing to insert several potentially superfluous
layers of associates and junior partners between the
senior litigator and those gathering the raw data simply
causes critical information to move too slowly. Too
many intermediate lawyers and clerical staff not only
reduce the firm's productivity and responsiveness but
badly hurt its overhead, increasing costs to the point
where either profits or competitiveness are stifled.
To some decreasing extent, traditional law firms continue
to employ these vertical "channels" as the
primary conduits for information flow within a firm.
But those sorts of law firms are expensive, counter-productive
anachronisms in an era where a fast Internet connection
makes a paralegal on the other side of the continent
almost as accessible as one down the hall. As a result,
an Internet-based virtual law firm can leverage the
effectiveness of a few highly competent staff, regardless
of where they live. As we enter the era of web-hosted
document-imaging files, we don’t even need to
be overly concerned about where the paper files, if
any, are located.
There are several possible structural solutions,
most of which use networking technology to flatten
a law firm's overall structure, allowing freer electronic
communication between all personnel, regardless of
rank, seniority, or geographical location.
One approach may be to form small ad hoc action teams.
Such teams would form and dissolve in response to individual
projects or to specific aspects of a very large case,
with their results quickly available to the ultimate
decision makers. These teams should include professionals
already knowledgeable in specialized areas, to ensure
a competent immediate response. Action teams should
have their own budgets and their choice of the firm's
personnel. The team's members would cooperatively process
and share information through remote networking technologies.
This approach might be particularly useful in medium-to-large
litigation firms. Web-hosted applications are particularly
useful to this sort of action team.
Another solution might be to form a separate, highly
specialized boutique firm that already has the specialized
knowledge, research, and forms to work quick-breaking
projects. Our economy's increasing demand for fast action
leaves little time to become acquainted with a new practice
area after taking on a project. Here, the premium on
specialization probably places this option beyond the
immediate reach of most general practitioners unless
they are already well known in a particular area of
practice and getting referrals from less-specialized
counsel. Small, specialized firms would joint-venture
as needed with other similar firms possessing complementary
expertise, again an option made feasible primarily by
Internet technology.
Most commonly, the law firm of the future will likely
tend toward the virtual law firm, combining a small
permanent core group similar to military cadres or large
construction contractors, drawing upon contract professionals
and paraprofessional staff as necessary for particular
projects. This firm's ability to maintain a broad network
of cooperating joint venture partners with expertise
in different areas of the law will be crucial to future
growth into new areas of practice when existing practice
areas stagnate.
I believe that this model will prove the most feasible
for the average small-to-medium law firm of the future.
This approach will only work efficiently if and when
the data, documents, and case management and collaborative
technology are immediately available across the Internet
in a responsive, high-bandwidth technological environment.
Although practicing with people we rarely meet physically
may seem unnerving, upon reflection we see that we do
it all of the time using plain, old-fashioned telephone
service. The only difference is that Internet technology
makes the process smoother and more efficient. One possible
advantage to this structure, compared to the preceding
two law firm structural models, is that the core group
will already be familiar with working with each other,
reducing possible personal clashes, startup times, and
initial confusion.
Another possible intermediate solution might be to
generally retain the same vertical law firm structure
but flatten it by reducing the number of intermediate
lawyers and paraprofessionals who actually research,
process, and summarize data, and also by reducing clerical
staff. Instead, we'll involve senior lawyers directly
with processing and using the raw data through advanced
technology. We can minimize the burden upon senior lawyers
through the use of a few associates and paraprofessionals
who develop raw information and then input it into advanced
document assembly, case management and litigation support
programs. These programs help key lawyers find evidentiary
items quickly and spot critical information and important
patterns. And, easily-accessed online and CD-ROM legal
research materials allow the senior litigator to quickly
research questions at his or her desk rather than relying
upon library searches by associates. The quality of
litigation may even improve as information flows more
smoothly to the end user and as intermediate overhead
costs decrease.
Not all, nor even many, of these thoughts about structuring
a virtual law firm will be directly applicable to your
situation. However, cost-effective technology is pushing
the entire economy, and thus law firms, to become much
more streamlined and efficient. Making the leap is now
more a question of changing our mindset and working
habits than a technological issue.
Most likely, a slimmed-down traditional law firm structural
model will hybridize with the pure Internet-based virtual
law firm to produce an intermediate law firm model that
has both solidity and flexibility, a model that I believe
will retain long term viability.
Regardless of which approach is taken, we'll see law
firms adopting a more horizontal structure that emphasizes
networking, document imaging, and electronic communication.
Expect to see radically different law firms that feature
reduced litigation staffing, lower overhead, and reductions
in the number of clerical staff, associates, and mid-level
partners. There’s little future in simply hunkering
down and waiting for the asteroid to hit.
Top
Joseph Kashi is an attorney and litigator
living in Soldotna, Alaska, who is active in the Law
Practice Management Section and a technology editor
for Law Practice Today. He has written regularly
on legal technology for the Law Practice Management
Section, Law Office Computing magazine and other publications
since 1990. He received his B.S. and M.S. degrees
from MIT in 1973 and his J.D. from Georgetown University
in 1976, and is admitted to practice in Alaska, Pennsylvania,
the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
|