There are always attractive opportunities waiting for us when we’re ready to see them, I wholeheartedly agree.

Looking forward to Volume 2 of The Naked Lawyer!

Enjoy,
Christine Hueber

However, I don’t completely see eye to eye with Kotter on this as he implies that ‘management’ can, by virtue of good analysis and clear communication of the result cause the scales to fall from peoples eyes and they will as a result ‘get on board the bus’. In my experience, unless the situation is truly dire, there will always be groups who don’t accept what they are being told. Rarely will an entire organisation agree on reasons for change as the different stakeholder groups will view the situation with different lenses. One person’s compelling problem is another’s item of trivia.

Influential people (usually experienced middle managers) tend to assess a proposed change in terms of what they are likely to lose and act accordingly. So although the intention of creating a sense of urgency about the need to change is good, it can be incredibly difficult to achieve whereas those who would protect the status quo have very little convincing to do and are free to try and derail an initiative covertly. And that is how you end up with a box of frogs.

Even if you can get a critical mass of people aligned around the need for change, getting them to agree on what to change to can be equally difficult. I have observed a great deal of distrust of senior managers because ‘if they had been doing their job, we wouldn’t be in this position’ and that distrust is often articulated as ‘how do we know you have got it right this time’.

In the West, our organisations are predominantly hierarchical and change tends to be imposed top down – yet 70% of initiatives fail to achieve the results they promised at the start. There are other more effective approaches, to do with mobilising the workforce to define the problem and design the solution, but that requires those in charge to relinquish control and that is not something we are good at.

I love the Box of Frogs analogy but I think the situation is not as diametrically opposed as the two types: 1 and 2 (it reminded me a bit of the Cat in the Hat!).

I don’t believe lawyers, even those that might be regarded as ‘old school’, are immune to or against change (whether lawyers would be happy to admit to being entrepreneurial I don’t know), but their is an inertia issue. In short there is too much friction: the rather hidebound approach that goes with hourly rates or even something a little more creative; the intense focus on regulation (right in most respects but still not to everyone’s liking); too little investment in developing lawyers outside of their traditional area of competence (I remember talking to someone about Nissan and advocating that a training contract should be multi-disciplinary and not just cross-departmental); the need to limit risk and not going wondering around on a frolic of your own; and, and it is a mighty AND, the fear of failure. Don’t we all know that but it is unsettling at the best of time doing something that is new (I would prefer not to use the word innovative – not yet anyway). For me the place to start is at the individual level with a game-changing plan; not to throw out centuries of tradition but to try and exploit the creative intellectual capital of all lawyers to the maximum as well as the firms’ internal resources (and leveraging them for all they are worth). Now wouldn’t that be innovative: the HR team being offered for sale as well as the lawyers; and the IT team working with clients and charging for their services. I believe that lawyers are more adaptable and intuitive than they are given credit for but they do need to be let free a bit more and in that way market opportunities are more likely to arise.

Best wishes
Julian

http://www.maintenanceassist.co.uk

and we recognise the Dickensian lawyers you are talking about who exist in the family law area.

On the other hand we have first hand experience of dealing on a businesslike basis with some of the newer competitors such as

http://www.divorce-online.co.uk/

who readily embraced what we are offering.

You are absolutely right to highlight the need to look at new business models and particularly within family law.

Well done.

Nice blog. Would it be such a bad thing if more lawyers left the business? Like any other business, when supply outstrips demand something has to change if profit margins are to be maintained.

Also, and more towards your blog, differentiation needs to focus on what the perceived needs are of the end-user. I think you are correct in defining a core area where lawyers can differentiate and that is knowledge. While prepackaged downloadable DIY documents will continue to proliferate, the real value a lawyer can bring is in their deep knowledge of the intricacies of the law. A prepackaged DIY document can’t do that. Companies want to know what is the value you bring and if it is not significantly more than a prepackaged DIY document, you lose.

Thanks for the blog.

Another awesome post and thanks. I think that lawyers need to start thinking more like their clients and adopt individual buyer personas for their clients.

If lawyers want to differentiate themselves then now is the time to embrace social media – both to reinforce their personal brand and the firm’s offering.

Best wishes
Julian