Innovation a hot topic at CCCA conference

I recently attended the National Conference of the CCCA. Unsurprisingly, there were several sessions that dealt with some aspect of innovation in legal services.

Richard Stock

I recently attended the National Conference of the CCCA. Unsurprisingly, there were several sessions that dealt with some aspect of innovation in legal services. Titles included “Innovation Reality Check: Measuring What is Real and Important to Your Organization,” “Innovation and Efficiency: Tales from the In-House Counsel Trenches” and “Managing Uncertainty: Tools to Implement Your Innovation Idea.” It is often the case with panels that some presentations are better than others.

Mark Le Blanc, general counsel of TV Ontario, described the transition of his organization from broadcaster to digital company. While other speakers focused on the technology aspects of innovation, Le Blanc was quick to point out that most of the innovation was in processes rather than technology. It becomes important to engage employees in the change and transformation processes. Friedrich Blase, executive-in-residence at Ryerson University’s Legal Innovation Zone, agreed, first by observing that requests for proposals for the application of technology to legal services are usually too broad and need to be simpler. Like Le Blanc, he said processes and the resources to run the technology are prerequisites.

Corporate law departments will wait a long time for their IT departments or their strategic sourcing departments to write technology specifications that fit the bill. Yet, there are few lawyers with the skills, let alone the time, to contribute to the acquisition of technologies such as matter management systems or artificial intelligence applications that lighten the load of individual lawyers for document analysis and drafting. A few years ago, then Boston-based Casey Flaherty developed a 10-part technology literacy test for law firms and lawyers. Law departments were then able to compare the scores of their preferred law firms and then decide where to allocate work cost effectively.

In the spirit of “what gets measured gets done,” I asked one conference participant whether changing the compensation architecture of in-house counsel would focus and accelerate innovation in legal services. As an example, I asked whether it would be possible to allocate 15-per-cent of earnable compensation to successful innovation. Thinking that innovation meant technology, the response was “certainly not more than one or two per cent.”

Approaching innovation more broadly, in the sense that it could include new processes or increased proficiency in certain skills or in making clients more self-sufficient and less dependent on the law department, then yes — compensation of in-house counsel for successful innovation begins to make sense. No doubt, lawyers do substantively excellent legal work and are under continuous pressure to turn around advice and documents. Yesterday is never soon enough. It is hard to innovate with work backlogs and interruptions from all quarters. Better to start with three or four changes that have immediate impact and that do not rely on technology to implement.

As part of regular interviews of in-house counsel, I ask:

  • What percentage of your files in a year require five or fewer hours, six to 25 hours or more than 25 hours to complete?
  • Who can contact the law department? Are there restrictions?
  • How many individuals in the company, as opposed to business units, account for 80 per cent of your work each year?
  • Is there a written policy in the company that stipulates “when to call your lawyer”?
  • How many hours do you work each week?
  • How long is your backlog of work?

After reviewing workflow and workload data with more than 40 law departments in recent years, I have found that senior in-house counsel can spend up to 70 per cent of their time on matters (read non-complex) that require less than 25 hours, that most law departments have no restrictions on who can call the legal department and no written guidance on when to call and not call. Our studies reveal that work weeks average 50 hours, especially in smaller law departments, but that the backlog of work that can be achieved without further client or other input averages three days.

Imagine if more clients were self-sufficient, that guidance on when to call the legal department was explicit and that counsel would not spend more than 25 per cent of their time on matters requiring fewer than 25 hours. There would be more time to innovate, to help clients with business solutions and to be faced with professional challenges throughout a 30-year career. Innovation in legal services can take many forms and does not have to be complicated.

Richard G. Stock, M.A., FCIS, CMC is a partner with Catalyst Consulting. The firm has been advising corporate and government law departments across North America and abroad since 1996. 

Free newsletter

The Canadian Legal Newswire is a FREE newsletter that keeps you up to date on news and analysis about the Canadian legal scene. A separate InHouse Edition is delivered on a regular basis, providing targeted news and information of interest to in-house counsel.

Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

Appellant’s conduct signalled agreement to pre-incorporation contract, SCC finds

Former lawyers file complaint with Manitoba Human Right Commission over courthouse accessibility

N.B. law society urged to require members, articling students to take domestic violence course

Solving the ‘problem-solution’ problem for patent applicants: Choueifaty decision

Businesses may obtain cyber certification via CyberSecure Canada’s web portal

COVID-19 and the courts: Oct. 26 update

Most Read Articles

Cybersecurity due diligence becomes focus in M&A transactions

New Brunswick case a reminder careful wording is needed in termination letters, employment contracts

What corporate lawyers really do: Konata Lake on why he loves what he does at Torys

Disciplining a nurse who criticized long-term care via social media infringes free speech: case