Dissecting FT's US Innovative Lawyers 2010 Report

US INNOVATIVE LAWYERS 2010

In the years that the Financial Times has been writing about innovation in the legal sector, we have never arrived at a static definition for an innovative lawyer.

That is an interesting way to start out an article about innovative lawyers.  Perhaps we need to channel Justice Stewart who probably can identify innovation when he sees it.

Regardless if we can specifically define innovation or not, this much is certain:  In the coming years the pressure from clients to deliver "innovation" will not dissipate.  As FT points out:

In our search for legal innovation, we have found ourselves charting the rapid evolution of an inherently conservative profession.  The innovative lawyer or law firm has to keep up with a changing world that in the past few years has focused attention on what it means to be a lawyer and posed complex challenges for the profession as a whole.

What is clear from the research is that the demand for legal innovation has not waned since the credit crisis of 2008.

There are so many nuggets of value in this FT article that I thought it would be useful to dissect it in order to point out key issues and determine if we could come up with a workable definition of innovation.  I have an opinion on what constitutes innovation; let's see if it is defensible. 

A small hint about innovation in any sector...the client, or customer, gets to label what is innovative.  Much like what I wrote regarding client service..."what clients care about is value.  And they get to define how that value is measured."  So don't spend too much time trying to identify what makes you innovative.  Experiment and let the market vote.  If you self-proclaim innovation, generally your clients just snicker behind your back as they compare you to real advances they see in the market.

A key point of this FT report is that even though they are reporting on the changes affecting the profession, this effort is about the value lawyers can bring their clients as opposed to the state of innovation in the legal industry.  This is an important distinction.  Certainly individual lawyers working under the aegis of a firm should convey the combined value of the firm and their individual skills, approach, style and expertise.  However, for purposes of this discussion we are focused on innovation at the level most clients see it...at the receiving end of services from individual (or small teams) lawyers.  As FT puts it:

We seek to highlight instances where lawyers have achieved significant commercial outcomes for businesses.  We have focused on the work that lawyers do rather than the business of law

As one looks at the specific examples of legal innovation contained in this report, finding examples of innovation is hard if you use the strict definition of innovation - a new idea, method, or device.  It is rare when something novel breaks on to the legal scene.  The invention of the poison pill, the first use of a reverse breakup fee, establishing new precedents or Supreme Court cases are a few that FT lists in the annals of legal innovation.

Lee Meyerson of Simpson Thatcher is quoted saying that in the "new normal":

Lawyers will have to see the big picture to be able to achieve successful outcomes for business.  The difference is that we need to be agile, thoughtful and creative in an environment where things change hourly.

To be ranked in the US Innovative Lawyers report, "a legal team needed to have exceeded client expectations in a market where those expectations were riding high".  Brad Karp, Chairman of Paul Weiss is quoted saying that since the credit crisis, "there has been a flight to quality and a dramatic divide between those firms that can handle 'bet the company' work and those who can't".

FT does a good job highlighting the fact that while much of the work profiled in their report can be categorized as company survival work, extreme life or death business circumstances are not always required for lawyering to be classified as innovative.  Moreover, if we are honest, a great deal of important work doesn't fall into the 'bet your company' category. 

There are many instances in the report where lawyers have transcended the traditional parameters of the legal role while going about their everyday jobs.

Again, we ask, what then qualifies as innovation if it can come about during your everyday job?  I think we need to be careful to not hang too much emphasis on innovation.  What strikes me about the report is it is talking more about creativity that is born from looking at client issues from a wider perspective than just addressing the technical issues.  This is how I begin to define innovation among lawyers, and other professionals for that matter.  This is what clients care about more than a true breakthrough.

Are you achieving successful outcomes by adding to your core expertise  a wider range of skills, perspectives and understandings?  A world-class physician is sought out not solely for their use of innovative technology or practices, but for their track record of successful outcomes.  They best combine innovative procedures with a deep and holistic understanding of their patient's circumstances that lead to better outcomes.

FT says:

Innovative lawyers come in all shapes and sizes, but they have a set of attributes in common.  First, they have to be excellent technicians and masters in their field of legal practice.  Second, they have to be business people.  The ability to knit these two skill sets together seamlessly is the foundation of the innovative lawyer.

Outstanding!  We still can't define innovation, but at least we know what forms its foundation.  I have long argued that what is more important than worrying about whether you are innovative or not, is whether you understand the needs of your client and can speak their language.  I have worked with many clients helping layer on top of their excellent technical skills the ability to be a business person, thus creating innovation.  Or at least creating an competitive advantage over their competitors. If a lawyer can achieve this, then they don't need to be concerned if the moniker of innovation is hung around their neck.  They will be too busy with top tier clients and critical work to be worried about how they rank on the innova-meter.  I will address the concept of the general specialist later, but that too fits into my definition of innovation.

FT also points out that to be a stand out entry in the report you have to add another step to the attributes listed above:

As can be seen from the top-ranked entries, the lawyers have stepped into the shoes of actuaries, scientists, ambassadors, artists and historians - they have crossed their own professional constraints in pursuit of their clients' objectives.  From the five years of publishing this report...it is clear that those most able to innovate are lawyers who have wide-ranging personal and professional experience or legal teams that can bring together diverse specialists.  If there is an argument for cognitive diversity in professional life, it is the FT's reports on legal innovation.

Some of the most effective professionals (lawyers, accountants, consultants, etc.) I've worked with are those who started their career's with a top tier firm, mastered their specialty, went in-house, grew beyond their technical area (e.g. a lawyer who took on a operational business function, a accountant who became a COO), then came back into a professional practice.  They had knitted together these two skill sets.  They sat on the client side of the table and realized the difference between providing advice and having to execute on initiatives.  They stepped into the shoes of their client by becoming the client.


Not to be self-serving, but for professionals who can't take that career path, we provide coaching and consulting to round out their technical skills with business acumen and soft skills needed to become a trusted advisor and perhaps an innovator.  We help skilled technicians develop their own cognitive diversity.  Our ultimate goal is to help professionals expand their practice, land high-quality clients and win opportunities to do the most critical and interesting work.

It is my opinion that to operate at the top, lawyers will increasingly need to think of themselves, and act as well-rounded business advisors/consultants who are using their core legal competency as the foundation for their strategic advice.  Anything less and you will find yourself fighting the downward pull of commoditzation and fee pressure.

The final point I wanted to comment on is the issue FT raises on whether the generalist lawyer is returning.  Their European edition of this report goes into detail and provides additional clarity as to what they mean.  Essentially they are putting forth the idea that a generalist approach allows a lawyer to be better at innovation than a specialist.  Those who have the ability, experience or skills to look at a wider perspective are better suited to come up with creative solutions than the specialist who is too focused to see beyond their blinders.  I agree with this concept.  Often a narrow specialist misses the mark because they don't take into consideration additional data or don't have a full understanding of the client's needs.

The danger for a young professional it to think that being a generalist will lead to innovation and trusted advisor status.  One has to be known for something first.  What is it you do better than anyone else?  I am a strong niche-aholic.  Generally, we start our careers as generalist.  Actually, we start out as empty vessels and meander around trying to find out spot.  Therefore, to be successful we need to develop from being a vague professional towards being a specialist.  This is a critical step in developing your career and practice.  Done right you become positioned as an expert in a specific area for specific types of clients.  However, to become an innovator or trusted advisor one must eventually make the move back to being a generalist.  Firms need to do a better job helping their professionals navigate towards specialization and back again to a well-rounded advisor if they want to create a solid position at the top of the food chain.

To sell magazines, books, reports, etc., publishers often use the term innovation to catch our attention.  However, as we can see from FT that word is often tossed around without a clear definition or a path to achieving innovation.   While I am strong advocate of positioning yourself as a thought-leader, guru or innovator that is not always a possible goal.  Often the best clients and most important engagements gravitate towards those professionals who combine expertise, business acumen and a holistic understanding of the client's needs and pain.  As I said earlier, that is what clients are seeking.  Certainly, there are those unique circumstances where breakthrough innovation is required.  Nevertheless, clients would be ecstatic with a professional who combines their solid skills with wisdom, lateral and creative thinking, and a willingness to think outside narrow technical boundaries.  That is my definition of innovation.

I guess innovation boils down to this:  Achieving successful outcomes for businesses in complex situations.  Whether this is attained through innovation, great service, creativity, high level performance, flawless execution, combining knowledge, working outside silo's, a holistic generalists approach to deeply knowing your clients business, or a combination of all these components - clients want professionals who provide deep value and a strong return on investment.

Regardless of the label, it is clear from the FT report that the future holds great promise for those lawyers and firms that push across the divide and reap the rewards as clients further bi-bifurcate the market.  The flight to quality is not something one should lightly dismiss.