“All professions are conspiracies against the laity.”
George Bernard Shaw
But what if, Mr. Shaw, consumers could get timely, pertinent, accessible, and affordable legal expertise indirectly — because it is incorporated into democratized and commoditized legal service offerings — without the need to confer with a lawyer? Would that end your “conspiracy”?
We saw earlier in this series that one of the Wikipedia founders has backtracked on the radical democratization of knowledge, admitting instead the ongoing need for experts:
“As wonderful as it might be that the hegemony of professionals over knowledge is lessening, there is a downside: our grasp of and respect for reliable information suffers. With the rejection of professionalism has come a widespread rejection of expertise—of the proper role in society of people who make it their life’s work to know stuff. This, I maintain, is not a positive development”
From Larry Sanger’s Citizendium manifesto entitled Who Says We Know: On the New Politics of Knowledge.
- It’s not hard to buy Sanger’s position and predict there will still be a need for legal experts in the future.
But what will their expertise be, exactly? And how will they obtain it? More good questions. We’ll take them in reverse order.
Until now, conventional wisdom has been that new lawyers should develop expertise Malcolm Gladwell-style, logging their ten thousand hours in a career path legal futurist Richard Susskind described this way in his 2008 book The Future of Law:
“Traditionally, lawyers have developed their skills and evolved to the status of specialist by apprenticeship and then ongoing exposure to problems of increasing complexity”
Susskind also foresaw that legal commoditization could end this career path:
“Given that this book suggests IT would eliminate, streamline, and proceduralize increasing amounts of conventional legal work, does this not eliminate the very training ground upon which all lawyers cut their teeth and rely upon in progressing to specialist positions?”
It was a rhetorical question. The answer was yes, of course, and five years later, Susskind’s book Tomorrow’s Lawyers cited multiple lawyer surveys revealing what most of us already knew: this practice was flawed anyway, since it takes only a few of those ten thousand hours to learn due diligence, discovery, and the other kinds of work that pass for lawyer training. No, it seems that the real reason for this ‘”training” was law firm economics:
“[W]e should not confuse training with exploitation. It is disingenuous to suggest that young lawyers are asked to undertake routine legal work largely as a way to them learning their trade. Rather, this delegation has been one mainstay in supporting the pyramidic model of profitability that has enjoyed such unchallenged success until recently.”
- Regardless what we think about this path to expertise, it will end as “routine legal work” is increasingly commoditized.
- The new legal experts will be lawyers who are proficient with the kind of systems thinking that commoditization requires.
Commoditized law requires people who can understand the larger context in which legal knowledge will be used, and then package it into self-executing, self-correcting, automated sequences to be used not just for a single client but over and again. You don’t learn this skill from ten thousand hours of legal grunt work. If you either have the cognitive knack or can learn it, you’ll be one of tomorrow’s legal experts.
More next time.
A collection of Kevin Rhodes’ Legal Connection blog posts for the past three years is now available in print from Amazon. Also available from Amazon as a Kindle, and as an ebook from Barnes & Noble, iTunes, Smashwords, and Scribd.