Click here to see full sized version.

Mercers (traders in fine cloths and silks), tallow chandlers (candle makers), cordwainers (fine leather workers) and wheelwrights (makers of wheels) all provided goods and services for centuries, before eventually being displaced by innovation and technology.

Might lawyers one day fade from society like these once venerable craftsmen and traders? Richard Susskind begins his book, The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services, by posing this provocative question.

A distinguished legal academic and advisor to international law firms, Susskind has written extensively on the evolution of the legal profession and the impact of emerging technologies. The End of Lawyers? is the sequel to his 1996 legal bestseller, The Future of Law, in which he explored how information technology (IT) would transform the legal profession. Susskind delights in reminding the reader that when he predicted a decade ago in his earlier book that e-mail would become the dominant means by which clients and lawyers communicated, he was roundly scoffed at by the legal community.

In his latest work, Susskind makes even bolder forecasts about the future of legal practice, some of which are also bound to be derided by lawyers before grudgingly being adopted.

Viva la revolution!

The legal profession is on the brink of fundamental transformation, Susskind argues. The role of traditional lawyers in some legal fields will be eroded and in others eliminated. Driving the revolution are two forces: the relentless commoditization of legal services and the rapid development of new innovations and technologies, particularly computers, IT and software.

To grasp what Susskind is getting at when he refers to the “commoditization” of legal services it is helpful to look at the current model for the provision of legal advice.

At present, most legal advice is crafted to individual client’s needs, similar to a “bespoke” suit from Saville Row, which is tailored to each customer’s specifications. In contrast, commoditized legal services are like suits sold off-the-peg, which are designed to fit a range of sizes.

Substantial legal work is routine and repetitive, such as document review and drafting generic agreements. Standard legal tasks could be handled by improved systems and software. The end result? Law firms won’t be able to charge premium rates for legal work, which is destined to become a commodity, easily sourced from many cheaper alternatives.

Even complex legal issues can be broken down into constituent tasks, processes and activities, Susskind argues. Once legal work has been broken down and the optimal ways of conducting each task have been identified, these tasks can be sourced in a variety of lower cost ways. For instance, many duties can be “delawyered” by being delegated to non-lawyers, such as paralegals and law clerks. Some work may be subcontracted to law firms with lower overhead or lawyers who are leased on a project-by-project basis. Other tasks can be outsourced to specialist companies often located in low-cost locations, such as Mumbai. The bottom line? Less demand for high-priced lawyers.

Disruptive legal technologies

What makes Susskind’s vision of the future of legal services so compelling is that most of the innovations and technologies required to transform it into a reality already exist. While Susskind does extrapolate from present day hi-tech to envisage what tomorrow might bring, he really doesn’t go too far out on a limb. Given the rapid pace of technological progress, is it really farfetched to envisage a day when the average desktop computer will rival the human brain (circa 2020 according to technology guru Ray Kurzweil)?

Disruptive legal technologies, however, aren’t necessarily groundbreaking innovations. Rather, Susskind’s definition encompasses technologies, systems, techniques or applications that do not simply support or sustain the way a business or sector operates, but instead fundamentally challenge or overhaul such a business or sector.

For the legal marketplace, Susskind has identified several potential game-changers, such as: automated document assembly, which will enable laymen to draft legal documents without reliance on lawyers; the electronic marketplace, which allows clients to investigate the reputation of lawyers and law firms, post requests for proposals for legal services and even hold auctions to obtain the lowest cost and most qualified providers; and online legal communities, such as LegalOnRamp, which allow users to share legal information and facilitate collaboration between clients and counsel.

How much will these disruptive technologies hurt lawyers’ pocketbook? Consider how much freely accessible legal information and guidance is currently available online, which law firms used to be able to bill dearly for in the past. Yesterday’s chargeable information services, formerly packaged as advice, are today’s online marketing materials.

Justice delayed is justice denied

Members of the judiciary will be relieved to read that Susskind does not believe their jobs are in jeopardy. In the mid-1980s as a doctoral student, Susskind’s dissertation examined whether computers could replace judges. He concluded at the time that it was neither possible nor desirable for computers to fully assume the judicial function. His position has not changed with the publication of his most recent book.

Judicial decision-making in hard cases — when judges handle complex issues of principle, policy and morality — is well beyond the power of current and foreseeable computing, Susskind writes.

 For basic legal claims, however, online dispute resolution (ODR) may offer more efficient and effective alternatives to the judicial system for settling high volumes of fairly low-value disputes. Consider Cybersettle (www.cybersettle.com), an ODR service that has handled over 200,000 claims and settled more than US$1.5 billion worth since it was launched in 1998. Here’s how it works: using a process referred to as double-blind bidding, a plaintiff and defendant each submit the highest and lowest settlement figures that are acceptable to them. These figures are not disclosed to the other party. If the two ranges overlap, a settlement is achieved, the final figure is generally a split down the middle. If there is no overlap, the process can be repeated. The City of New York has successfully used Cybersettle to process a backlog of 40,000 personal injury claims.

Many judges in Canada have spoken eloquently about the lack of access to justice. One way to address this burning issue, would be to modernize courtrooms and judicial procedures. Electronic filing (e-filing) is a natural next step in streamlining and enhancing the interaction between court users and the courts, Susskind advises. The judiciary could implement case management systems to allow judges to deal with the deluge of court documents and also enable parties to track the progress of a case through the court system. Courtrooms could introduce video-conferencing and document display systems to make it easier for witnesses to provide evidence and testimony remotely.

Any of these innovations and technologies would do far more to facilitate access to justice than a finger wagging lecture from the bench.

New breeds of lawyers

Lawyers over the course of the next few decades  will have to evolve if they wish to remain a viable part of the emerging legal ecosystem, Susskind warns. Lawyers who function as trusted legal advisors, fashioning new solutions for clients in a highly personalized way, will only be bit players in the brave new legal world.

Four new breeds of lawyers will displace traditional lawyers: (1) enhanced practitioners, who will support the delivery of standardized, systemized and packaged legal services; (2) legal knowledge engineers, who will become the dominant species of lawyer and organize the vast quantities of complex legal content and processes that will be needed to be analyzed, distilled and then embodied in standard working practice and computer systems; (3) legal risk managers, who will develop a wide range of legal services with a focus on anticipating and pre-emptying legal problems and will reduce the reliance on in-house counsel; and (4) legal hybrids, who are multi-disciplinary practitioners, schooled in more than one discipline, will be required to provide sophisticated legal advice that bridges specialties.

Adapt or die. That’s the stark option Susskind offers lawyers. The coming seismic shift in legal services will result in the demise of many law firms, the extinction of many legal fields, and will force many lawyers to scramble to find new lines of work. Susskind reminds lawyers: “Law is not there to provide a livelihood for lawyers any more than illness prevails in order to offer a living for doctors.”