find the latest legal job
Banking Associate - 1-6PQE - Allen & Overy
Category: Banking and Finance Law | Location: United Kingdom
· Banking Associate - 1-6 PQE - Allen & Overy
View details
Academic Dean and Head of School of the TC Beirne School of Law
Category: Other | Location: Brisbane QLD 4000
· An outstanding opportunity · Provide educational, research and organisational leadership
View details
Senior Property Lawyer I Commercial Litigator
Category: Property Law | Location: Arncliffe NSW 2205
· Rapidly growing law firm, working with a highly experienced team in a high growth industry across all areas of property and strata law
View details
Senior Property Lawyer I Commercial Litigator
Category: Property Law | Location: All Sydney NSW
· Rapidly growing law firm, working with a highly experienced team in a high growth industry across all areas of property and strata law
View details
Senior Property Lawyer I Commercial Litigator
Category: Property Law | Location: Sydney NSW 2000
· Rapidly growing law firm, working with a highly experienced team in a high growth industry across all areas of property and strata law
View details
Debunking the disruption myth

Debunking the disruption myth

Claire Vines

‘Disruption’ is the latest buzzword floating around the legal industry today – but what does it actually mean and how, as lawyers, can we make it work for us, asks Claire Vines.

American scholar Clayton M. Christensen coined the term ‘disruptive innovation’ in the 1990s. He used the phrase to describe innovation that shaped a new market for a particular service, which eventually disrupted the existing market for that service. New legal technology (namely software in the fields of automation and artificial intelligence) has been lauded as the disrupter of the traditional legal services model (i.e. large multi-partner law firms), and has in turn given rise to alternative NewLaw legal service providers.

The problem with this concept of disruption is that it creates a divide between the different sectors of the legal industry, and furthers the idea that disruption is something that is only achievable by alternative legal service providers that are ‘nimble’ and ‘innovative’. However, disruption is actually something that is achievable by all – not just a select, special few.

Adopting and employing new technologies doesn’t necessarily require a complete overhaul of every established system and process currently in place, nor does it mean acquiring the latest and most advanced technology money can buy. If we stop viewing disruption as mass organisation-wide change and transformation, and instead recognise it as achievable changes that can be made to improve work practices, then all lawyers have the ability to disrupt.

When considering which processes to disrupt, start by separating technology from your processes to try and understand what you do and why. Following this, you’ll need to assess and categorise your day-to-day lawyering activities into three areas: ‘simple repetitive and routine processes’, ‘complex repetitive and routine processes’, and ‘matters or issues that require expertise and knowledge’ – or what I like to call the ‘vibe work’.

Interestingly, when lawyers are asked to identify a ‘simple repetitive and routine process’ that clogs up their day, most (including myself) tend to cite non-disclosure agreements. I’m not entirely sure why this is, but time and again automated non-disclosure workflows are touted as the poster boy of automation. However, unless you are one of the rare lawyers who perform hundreds of non-disclosure agreements a year, choosing to streamline this process over others is probably not the most practical use of your time.

Instead, I recommend identifying monotonous processes that you perform day in, day out – for example, the processes behind answering questions for clients, or the processes to deal with issues that seem to arise at the same time each month, or at the end of each financial year.

Once you have identified and analysed a process that can be improved, it’s time to identify the necessary steps to better that process. First, consider the technology you currently have access to – the technology needed to sufficiently improve simple processes is likely at your fingertips. If you use an email program such as Outlook or Gmail, or a word processor like Microsoft Word, then you already have some powerful technology that can help you automate your repetitive and routine processes. For example, Microsoft Word features ‘building blocks’, which allows you to create standard blocks of text (such as alternate liability or indemnity clauses) that are available to be dropped into any document in future. ‘Click and type’ is another great feature, as it enables you to use Word to create brainstorming diagrams, convert a Word table to a Excel graph in one simple click, and co-author in real-time. In sum, the basic tasks that you perform in email and word processing each day only represent a fraction of the functionality that you could be accessing to help you automate – so start exploring.

Once you have mastered improving simple processes, it is time to consider mapping out and documenting the more complex ones. Again, it is important to consider whether or not a dedicated technology solution is actually necessary. In the case of complex repetitive and routine process, such as discovery or contract life cycle management, dedicated technology may be required. To assess whether this is the case, break down the steps in the process to ascertain whether the activity is unique and needs a sophisticated technology solution, or whether the process could be undertaken by standard technology such as Microsoft Office, Google Docs or iWork.

Most importantly, try to avoid the trap of grouping ‘complex repetitive and routine processes’ together with ‘vibe work.’ Many lawyers struggle to differentiate between the complex decision-making and assessment that accompanies ‘vibe work’ and ‘complex repetitive and routine processes’. To make the distinction, carefully consider whether a process actually necessitates unique assessment each time it occurs (i.e. formal regulatory investigation), as opposed to work that is complex and detailed because there are multiple parties involved and it has never been formally documented or mapped before.

Claire Vines is a senior legal counsel and technology designer/consultant at lexvoco.

Like this story? Read more:

Book commemorates diamond milestone for WA law society

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

Debunking the disruption myth
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Legal body disappointed with DPP emails leaked to tabloid
The NSW Bar Association has expressed “profound disappointment” over leaked emails from the NSW ...
Gavel, legal book, criminal lawyers
Jan 19 2018
Three criminal lawyers named NSW magistrates
The NSW Attorney-General has announced the appointment of three new local court magistrates. ...
Jan 18 2018
Lawyer highlights ‘unintended consequences’ on SSM estate planning
A succession lawyer has warned that the right for same-sex couples to legally marry could have a sub...
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...