The Culture of Law (1): Peace of Mind

“The best way to predict the future is to create it.”

Dennis Gabor, Nobel Prize Winner in Physics

Since the first of the year, we’ve been talking about the future of law. We’ve seen how the practice of law is undergoing a massive paradigm shift, mostly driven by technology, entrepreneurship, and worldwide trends such as democratization and commoditization. We’ve looked at how these forces are changing law practice and lawyers, and we’ve speculated about how all this will ultimately change the law itself.

We’ve seen that the future of law isn’t out there somewhere, waiting to descend on us, but that paradigms shift if and when we embrace them, and that the new normal of the future is ours to shape and own to the extent we choose to engage with it. We can make the future happen, or we can let it happen to us. The former is challenging but rewarding; the latter is a quick trip to curmudgeon status.

I.e., we’ve seen the future, and it is us. Which is why it’s time to talk about the culture of law. The law of the future requires the law culture of the future. Culture is the context in which the future will occur. If we understand what culture is and where it comes from, we can most effectively shape both the law and its future — again, if we choose to do so.

Why would we want to? For our own peace of mind, for one thing. Quite literally. As we’ll see, culture is a brain thing. Culture takes shape in our brains, our brains then shape our minds, our minds shape our behavior, and — voilà! — culture happens. When we’re out of sync with this process, the result is disruption and dissonance in our brains. We become cognitively impaired in a profession that requires all the cognition we can give it.

Peace of mind isn’t a luxury, it’s enlightened self-interest. Cognitive wellness thrives on it. We need it to think, learn, analyze, decide, make sound judgments. We need it to be ethically competent. Successfully engaging with change instead of avoiding and resisting it brings emotional clearing and cognitive clarity, provides a still point from which to view a world apparently spinning out of control. It’s an essential trait of “supersurvivors” — something I’ll talk about in a short series later this summer.

We’ll tend to our peace of mind if we know what’s good for us, and we  usually do.

Before we go on, we need a working definition of “culture.” We’re familiar with the notion of company or firm culture. This is from Simon D’Arcy, founder of Next Level Culture:

“Think of a culture code as the DNA of an organization, carrying within it a code that defines the character and proficiency of the entire organism. Instead of physical traits, tendencies and aptitudes, it influences how people behave with each other, shaping how they work together as well as the results they produce.”

He’s speaking of organizational culture, which we find in individual firms. Expand that idea to the collective, over-arching culture of the profession within which all those individual firms operate, and now you’re at the level of culture we’re talking about in this series.

Culture on this level isn’t just for BigBox and BigLaw, and it’s not about firm outings and casual Fridays. It’s The X Factor — the difference between creating and sustaining the future we envision vs. waking up one day to just another unfulfilling status quo.

Starting next time, we’ll look at how culture is created from the inside out.

The Future of Law (18): How long before the future gets here? Cont’d.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Max Planck, founder of quantum theory,
in his Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers

Max Planck’s comment is right in line with what we learned last time from physicist Thomas Kuhn’s seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions about how paradigm shifts come to be adopted. Kuhn also speculated that it takes a full generation for a paradigm to shift.

How long is a generation?  This blog post from biological anthropologist Greg Laden provides a pithy answer:

“Short Answer: 25 years, but a generation ago it was 20 years.
“Long answer: It depends on what you mean by generation.”

(The post continues with an entertaining and informative commentary. It’s short, and worth a read.)

If these three scientists are correct, then the trends we’ve been looking at in this series will take another 20-25 years to become the law’s “new normal.” That can make us feel either impatient or complacent, but before we get too settled in our position, we might keep in mind the lessons of this year end 2010 New York Times article that points out that we often envision the new normal by extrapolating from the recent past, which makes for a lousy planning strategy. Why? Because we don’t take into account a simple, game-changing factor:

The element of surprise.

Many of the predictions made in this series are surprising, to be sure, but even more surprising is that these things are already happening but many of us just aren’t seeing them. Why not? Because our brains literally can’t take them in.

In this post at the end of 2014, we looked at research from the emerging field of cultural neurology that suggests our brains’ observation and cognitive faculties are so linked to our cultural context that we simply can’t see paradigm shifts when they happen. Our cultural bias blinds us. We’re caught in The Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome.

Who can see the shift? The new generation. By the time the new paradigm’s “opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it,” the paradigm we can’t see now will be the only one the new generation has ever known.

And just to make things a bit more complex, as we’ve also seen before, some trends don’t sustain their momentum, and some paradigms never shift for lack of a following. Which is why passivity doesn’t serve us in times of great change.

What’s the alternative? We can position ourselves to be surprise makers instead of surprise takers. We can grab the new paradigm and run with it, and in so doing help to shape it the way we’d like.

We’ll talk next time about how we can do that.

The Future of Law (Part Ten): Mindfulness Doesn’t Mean Wimpy Lawyers

Mindfulness is another trend driving change in the law. Here’s DU Law professor Debra Austin’s definition from her Killing Them Softly law review article:

“[M]indfulness is attention without labels, ideas, thoughts, or opinions.  Mindfulness means “being fully aware of something” and paying attention to the moment, with acceptance and without judgment or resistance.  It requires “emotion-introspection rather than cognitive self-reflection,” and specifically does not involve the analysis of thoughts or feelings.   Mindfulness is a form of self-understanding involving self-awareness rather than thinking.”

My CLE workshops don’t talk about or teach mindfulness, but they do require comparable reflection and self-awareness. Occasionally someone worries out loud that too much of this kind of thing will make you lose your edge, become less zealous as an advocate.

In other words, mindful lawyers are wimps.

I don’t know about you, but the most mindful people I know are rarely comfortable to be around. Penetrating, insightful, honest, no-nonsense, yes. Laid back and careless, no. The “mindfulness is for wimps” assessment no doubt comes from the Legal Borg, which has its own issues with fostering cognitively- or chemically-impaired lawyer brains, and never mind that there’s plenty of research and experience out there to support the notion that mindfulness provides a competitive advantage.

Judging from the strength of the mindfulness trend, this is another area in which the Legal Borg is losing its grip on the legal profession’s cultural ethos. An ABA Journal article last year announced that Mindfulness in Law Practice is Going Mainstream. As evidence of that, check out these resources:

Mindfulness in Law:  Articles, books, websites, exercises, with categories for bar associations, law schools, the judiciary, and lawyer groups.

The Mindful Lawyer:  More programs, resources, events, and articles, collected by lawyer and educator Scott Rogers, founder and director of the Institute for Mindfulness Studies, the University of Miami School of Law.

How will the mindfulness trend change the law?

  • We will see the emergence of new “best practices” that address and reverse areas of chronic dissatisfaction with the law among both lawyers and clients. For example, toxic stress and intentional destruction — both uncivil behavior toward other lawyers, and self-destructive lawyer responses to stress — will simply no longer be tolerated in the legal profession or the legal marketplace.
  • In their place, mindfulness practice will foster a new kind of “thinking like a lawyer” that will create new laws and legal procedures characterized by the kinds of benefits mindfulness produces in the individuals who practice it — e.g., decisiveness, clear thinking, intolerance for “brain noise” (drama, distraction, histrionics), and an uncanny awareness of invisible factors driving behavior.
  • As the law takes on the characteristics of mindfulness practice, the result will be more self-appraising, self-guiding, and self-correcting pathways to legal end results. The result will be more efficient and satisfying legal options and outcomes.
  • A new equity system — maybe formal, certainly informal — will arise in which the process of getting to results through informed collaboration will be valued, encouraged, and enforced.

Next in our excursion into futurology, we’ll look at the increasing polarization of three divergent pathways in legal practice and the law:  commoditizing, expertise, and mastery.

The Future of Law (Part Nine): Hacking the Law

Hackers used to be known by the color of their hats:  black, white, and gray. There were good guys, bad guys, and in-between guys. Nowadays, hacking is the new caché in the self-improvement culture. Self-hacking is the ultimate DIY — it’s how you step up, take responsibility, get it done.

Remember DU Law professor Debra Austin from the Killing Them Softly series? Here’s her advice re: neural self-hacking for stressed-out lawyers. Or check out this video on neural self hacking, Google style.  And how about this conference in London last summer on The Future of Self-Hacking that asked:

“What are the best methods for “hacking” improvements on ourselves? What do recent insights from science and technology have to say about self-development? What methods are likely to become more widespread in the not-too-distant future?”

At that conference, an all-star group of presenters talked about:

  • Smart methods to improve our consciousness, memory, and creativity
  • Meditation as self-engineering
  • Diet, drugs, and supplements – impacts on fitness and performance
  • Actions based on self-measurement (QS: quantified self)
  • Best insights into goal-setting, affirmations, etc
  • Risks and opportunities in the frontier lands of DIY brain-hacking and mind-hacking.

Hacking may be enjoying a surprising new respectability in its social status, but not all quarters of the hacking culture are so benign. Hacking still has an edge where the radicals hang out, playing a sort of X Games version of the democratization of knowledge. That’s where you find WikiLeaks, open source social entrepreneurship, corporate open source and its anti-intellectual property orientation, and the rest of the voices denouncing the keeping of ANY kinds of secrets or protecting proprietary interests in them.

  • In the realm of law, these radical players will increasingly bypass conventional modes of entry into the legal profession and law practice, and will offer their own alternative solutions to perceived injustice and inequities.
  • These radical players are already changing the law, hacker-style.
  • And they will continue to do so.

Consider, for example, the swift race towards justice we see daily in online news, as surveillance footage and ubiquitous smart-phone videos capture people in the act. Or consider the kind of visceral responses we make to images captured on police body cameras. As lawyers debate about them, these technologies are already changing evidentiary standards and criminal investigative methods. It’s not hard to imagine other applications — if you need to prime the pump, Google “whistle-blowing as cultural ethos” and check out what comes up.

Hacker law is the law of outcry and outrage, fueled by an insistent impatience that flies in the face of the law’s historical emphasis on rational, language-based deliberation. Are those who practice it vigilantes? Anarchists? Underground heroes? Tomorrow’s Gandhis and MLKs? It depends on where your sympathies lie, but like it or not, the hacker ethos has invaded the law. And, as is true of all the trends we’re looking at in this series, we’ve only seen the start of it.

The Future of Law (Part 5): The Democratization of the Law (Cont’d.)

 Follow this link for a collection of my past three years of blog posts. It’s a FREE download!

We’ve looked at the ethos of the legal profession before. Here’s that definition again:

Ethos:  the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community
as manifested in its beliefs and aspirations.

Democratization has its own ethos. Its characteristic spirit is a popularized impatience, a marketplace riot in which “power to the people” pushes aside the traditional gatekeepers (lawyers) of specialized knowledge (the law). We looked last time at some of the beliefs and aspirations undergirding the democratization of knowledge, and the kinds of philosophical debate they generate.

It’s one thing when lawyers take the law in directions we didn’t anticipate (like what happened when RICO and HIPAA drifted from their originally intended moorings); it’s quite another when consumers and non-lawyers do that. (HIPAA’s original intent:  “to make it easier for people to keep health insurance, protect the confidentiality and security of healthcare information and help the healthcare industry control administrative costs.”  RICO’s intent:  to provide for criminal and civil redress “for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.”)

The law might have seen it coming. Democratization often creates high leverage events that seem sudden — e.g. the Arab Spring — but there’s usually a backstory of chronic popular discontent stonewalled by those in power, until one day enough is enough and the trend busts through.

In the case of law, a significant component of the backstory was chronic consumer dissatisfaction. For example, clients have been unhappy with hourly billing (and other fee practices) for a long time. (Billable hours are no picnic for lawyers, either.) Or consider the well-documented client dissatisfaction with the litigation process:  e.g., this 2002 article about “just how pernicious litigation is for the average non-repeat player,” or this 2008 article about the problems judges face when litigants represent themselves. The latter notes that “These trends present real and significant challenges to a legal system designed for representation by trained advocates.” That pretty well sums up democratization’s impact on the law.

This week’s prediction:  the legal democratization megatrend will spawn several powerful derivative trends that will erode the ethos of the law and the legal profession, in favor of a push to outcomes unencumbered by traditional legal process.  For example, we can expect:

  • A break from sole and perhaps even primary reliance on the sacrosanct cornerstone of precedential appellate authority in legal decision-making.
  • Non-traditional practitioners executing commercial transactions without what we would consider adequate contractual consideration, and resolving disputes without regard to historical evidentiary strictures (who cares about — or for that matter understands — hearsay anyway?).
  • Along the way, we’ll witness the continued diminution of the economic value of the knowledge base and skillset traditionally learned in law school and developed in the early years of law practice.

There will be other derivative trends as well; each will have gentler and more extreme versions. We’ll look at some of those in coming posts. Meanwhile, the debate about who can practice law better — the experts, or the empowered people — will rage on, mostly in vain. Democratization is a juggernaut that already can’t be stopped, and — in the law anyway — it doesn’t even have a full head of steam yet.

The Future of Law (Part 4): The Democratization of the Law

Follow this link for a collection of my past three years of blog posts. It’s a FREE download!

We looked last time at the globalization megatrend and its impact on the law. Democratization is another megatrend having similar impact. It’s not just about flash political revolutions, it applies in other spheres as well, particularly technology, information, and — of particular interest to lawyers — knowledge.

The legal profession, like others, has long enjoyed protected status as a commercial monopoly characterized by the specialized knowledge and skill (e.g., professional judgment and the ability to “think like a lawyer”) of its members. Not just anybody can practice law or do so correctly — that’s been the creed, and the non-lawyer public has agreed (they don’t always like lawyers, but they like their lawyer).

Democratization is changing that. The “lawyers know best” ethos has eroded. Non-lawyer legal service practitioners and their customers have stormed the professional citadel, gobbling up free access to legal knowledge and putting it to work for themselves. Lawyers can argue all day that they practice law better than non-lawyers, but we’re talking to ourselves. Knowledge is power, and democratization is on a mission to give that power to the people.

The specialized knowledge that was formerly the sole province of the profession must be transformed under this non-professional handling. To recognize that this is already happening and predict we’ll see more of it is to come late to the party. So I’ll make the only prediction left to make:  not only is the democratization of the law going to continue, but we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Anything that starts with “Wiki” is at the forefront of the democratization of knowledge. The creation of a common people’s knowledge base is empowering, and there’s been a lot of euphoria over full and free access to information and the creation of a citizen-based common body of knowledge. But second thoughts about all this are surfacing from within the revolution’s highest ranks:  Larry Sanger, one of the Wikipedia founders, left to start a competitor he’s calling Citizendium. Why? To provide an expanded role for experts in the determination of what knowledge is worth knowing.

Sanger’s Citizendium manifesto is entitled Who Says We Know:  On the New Politics of Knowledge. We’ll let him speak his piece at some length here, since his framing of the issues is spot on for the legal profession:

“So today, if you want to find out what “everybody knows,” you aren’t limited to looking at what The New York Times and Encyclopedia Britannica are taking for granted.  You can turn to online sources that reflect a far broader spectrum of opinion than that of the aforementioned “small, elite group of professionals.” Professionals are no longer needed for the bare purpose of the mass distribution of information and the shaping of opinion.  The hegemony of the professional in determining our background knowledge is disappearing—a deeply profound truth that not everyone has fully absorbed.

“The votaries of Web 2.0, and especially the devout defenders of Wikipedia, know this truth very well indeed.  In their view, Wikipedia represents the democratization of knowledge itself, on a global scale, something possible for the first time in human history. Wikipedia allows everyone equal authority in stating what is known about any given topic. Their new politics of knowledge is deeply, passionately egalitarian.

“Today’s Establishment is nervous about Web 2.0 and Establishment-bashers love it, and for the same reason: its egalitarianism about knowledge means that, with the chorus (or cacophony) of voices out there, there is so much dissent, about everything, that there is a lot less of what “we all know.”  Insofar as the unity of our culture depends on a large body of background knowledge, handing a megaphone to everyone has the effect of fracturing our culture.

“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; but it is also not a necessary one.  We can imagine a Web 2.0 with experts.  We can imagine an Internet that is still egalitarian, but which is more open and welcoming to specialists.  The new politics of knowledge that I advocate would place experts at the head of the table, but—unlike the old order—gives the general public a place at the table as well.”

In other words, as cool as the unrestrained democratization of knowledge may be, we may still need experts and professionals after all. At least one Wikipedia founder thinks so.

It’s a fascinating debate, but now that we’ve given it an airing, we’ll turn to further predictions about how the democratization of the law will change it in ways “not everyone has fully absorbed” or — especially for many in the profession — will absorb any time soon.

The Future of Law (Part Two): New Ethos, New Ethics

Follow this link for a collection of my past three years of blog posts. It’s a FREE download!

For our first prediction, we’ll do an easy one:  the Model Rules of Professional Conduct will be changed to accommodate multijurisdictional practice and nonlawyer ownership of law firms.

This will happen when the tipping point of all the new practice developments we’ve been talking about is reached. The creation and adoption of the new rules will come quickly after that, because a new cultural ethos must have new ethical standards. In the meantime, the snowball is already rolling down the mountain — see, e.g., the ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services we talked about last time.

The new Model Rules will trigger a cascade of related and derivative developments. None of these are hard to foresee. Here’s a sampling:

 

  • The process of adopting the new Rules will of course happen state by state, starting slowly, with intense polarization between adopters and non-adopters. The historically progressive states will lead the way.
  • Some states will be opportunistic in the early going, vying for status as the go-to jurisdiction. (Think Delaware corporate law. I saw this in my law practice when domestic asset protection trusts came into vogue, and states like Alaska and South Dakota jumped to the front of the line. The same thing happened when LLC’s first appeared, and Wyoming and Colorado jumped in.)
  • Because the new rules will be vigorously contested, a decision comparable to the lawyer advertising case (Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977)) will be required to pave the way.
  • Once the new Rules are in place, professional corporation and similar laws governing law firm ownership will be revised.
  • Confidentiality and privilege will be expanded to nonlawyers in the new organizations.
  • With respect to clients, the earliest versions of implementation will be based on client disclosure, waiver, and consent, and likely will also require registration of the organization and its principals with the state (with background checks required).
  • There will be supervisory mandates governing the roles of the lawyers involved in the new multidisciplinary practice models.
  • BigLaw will jump in with both feet. Mergers with multidisciplinary and multijurisdictional partners will become the news du jour.
  • Group and prepaid legal service organizations, legal franchisors, and comparable market players will also be quick to jump in.
  • And so will industries that have historically worked closely with law firms — e.g., insurance, stockbrokers, financial planners, accountants, investment bankers.
  • But not too quick: these industries are highly regulated, and therefore new enabling laws and administrative rules will be required.
  • The malpractice industry will get a complete makeover.
  • Bar Associations will reinvent themselves to accommodate the newcomers who aren’t members of the bar.
  • There will be a huge CLE bonanza around all these developments.
  • Law schools will restructure curriculums to both teach the new rules and to offer classes in legal organization structures and business management that entrepreneurial lawyers are currently getting elsewhere.
  • Litigation and legislation and administrative proceedings will abound, and the whole thing will become a massive growth industry.
  • And so on and so on and so on.

It will take at least a full generation to assimilate all these changes, but 50 years from now lawyers and their nonlawyer colleagues will wonder what all the fuss was about.

More predictions coming re: how all of these and other developments will change not just law practice but the law itself.

The Future of Law (Part 1): Beyond the Borg

Follow this link for a collection of my past three years of blog posts. It’s a FREE download!

We finished last year talking about the law profession’s cultural ethos, and how new practice models and wellness initiatives are liberating lawyers from its harmful aspects (the Legal Borg). An earlier 2014 series also looked at alternative practice models. Another considered how the law’s cultural ethos can cause stress-induced cognitive impairment and how mindfulness practice can help.

These developments may have sneaked in unnoticed, but now they’ve become the elephant in the room, and it’s time to deal with them. They’re causing a seismic shift in the profession’s ethos, and a new ethos requires a new ethic:  i.e., new standards for how to enter the profession and how to behave once you’re in it.

The ABA Journal published a piece on that very topic on New Year’s Day, entitled Does The UK Know Something We Don’t About Alternative Business Structures?  The article begins as follows:

“For two nations sharing a language and legal history, the contrast in the visions at play in the legal systems of the United States and United Kingdom is more than striking. It’s revolutionary.

“The debates in the U.S. go on: Should ethics rules blocking nonlawyer ownership of law firms be lifted? Is the current definition of unlicensed law practice harming rather than protecting clients? What about the restrictions on multidisciplinary practices?

“And those debates are by no means ending: Witness the newly created ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services. Though ABA President William C. Hubbard does not mention ethics rule changes in the commission’s primary task of identifying the most innovative practices being used in the U.S. to deliver legal services, some of those practices have been questioned as possible ethical breaches. Meanwhile, the rules and restrictions stay in place. The situation in the United Kingdom couldn’t be more different: Such restrictions have largely been lifted, and under the Legal Services Act the creation of new ways of providing legal services—including through alternative business structures—is more than simply permitted; it is actively encouraged.”

Nonlawyer ownership of law firms, unlicensed practice, multidisciplinary practice… those are big issues. We’ll let the ABA tackle them. If you’ve been following these issues for awhile, you’ll remember the ABA did just that at their summer convention 17 years ago, and again the following year.

This blog won’t try to keep pace with the pros on that debate’s current version. We will, however, do some guessing of our own about how current trends in law practice and lawyer wellbeing might change not just lawyers and law practice, but our very stock and trade:  the law itself. A new cultural ethos in the law will do precisely that. It is already. We’re going to talk about that, and speculate about what it might look like going forward.

According to Wikipedia, futurology is an “attempt to systematically explore predictions and possibilities about the future and how they can emerge from the present.” We’re not going to be systematic here. Instead, we’ll engage in some moderately-well-informed-but-we-don’t-know-what-the-insiders-know curiosity.

Should be fun. So draw the shades and polish up your crystal ball (maybe you prefer this kind, or maybe that) and let’s take a look!