How Do You Measure Success? (A Lawyers’ Tale)
By: Erik P.M. Vermeulen
Tags: Education, Business, Innovation, Self Improvement, Law

“Things used to be so very different.”

It was the start of a fascinating conversation I had with a corporate lawyer a few weeks ago.

He described how, until earlier this year, his morning routine involved putting on a pinstripe suit and mentally preparing for a hectic day of traveling, meetings, and contract drafting and reviewing. His job was to navigate his corporate clients through the complex legal challenges of a global economy.

He had little time to catch his breath — let alone reflect on what he was doing or why.

He measured success by the number of billable hours, the long hours he worked, the size and reputation of his corporate clients, and, of course, his salary and bonuses.

While listening, I was reminded of Groundhog Day — a dismal existence in which routines, habits, and the expectations of others dictate your life. There must have been a lot of posturing going on.

But I am a lawyer myself and understand where he was coming from.

What seemed obvious was that his life is different now and he is having doubts about going back to the way things were. He gave the impression that he doesn’t care much for the old version of himself.

He explained how the disruptions of 2020 had reset his work and helped him open his eyes to another way of life. He felt healthier, has a better work-life balance, and is working on becoming a new kind of lawyer.

The conversation stuck with me. One phrase that he used, in particular: “How should we measure success?”

It is a question we all ask ourselves at some point in our lives. Late at night when we are lying in our beds. Or, early in the morning, when we briefly catch our own reflection in the mirror and ask: “What am I doing and why does it matter?”

For sure, such thoughts aren’t always healthy. And, they can easily seem a little self-important. But, from time to time, it helps to ask such questions and think about what is valuable in our work and what we might do to improve things. I am sure most of us want a little less routine and a little more sparkle.

Goodbye box-ticking

Legal work is largely standardized. And this is OK. There is no need to continuously reinvent the wheel. The use of templates makes sense. It makes work more efficient — but not necessarily cheaper. The introduction of LegalTech tools only contributes to the standardization of large chunks of legal work.

But this standardization has a downside. A lawyers’ contribution is increasingly viewed as a “box-ticking” exercise. “Do we have a contract?” “Are the legal documents available?”

It’s astonishing to see how few people actually understand (or care) what’s in these documents. The only thing they care about is the existence of the “necessary” legal document that they can then sign.

Here are three scenarios that I have experienced recently.

An agreement has been signed. The clauses are fantastic (in the best lawyers’ prose). The only problem is that they don’t reflect the intentions of the contracting parties.

The contract clauses are cumbersome and convoluted. A few weeks ago, I discussed the meaning of a contractual clause with five experienced lawyers, and we couldn’t agree on its intention. We literally had five different interpretations of the same words.

Non-lawyers draft an agreement (because they are under the impression that they need one). But the wording is nonsense, written in a language that they imagined is “proper legal English.”

Goodbye disconnect

The world has become more complicated. We (as consumers) have to accept more and more online terms and conditions. I recently bought a new gaming laptop and had to click through a dozen “agreements” before I could start using my shiny, new purchase.

The option was to accept or not to use the full potential of the computer. There was no way to “renegotiate” the terms. Not that I intended to do so.

I opted for the quick way and accepted all of them without reading any of the terms and conditions. I am lawyer and I don’t even bother. I suspect I am not alone — can anyone read these statements without switching off?

Goodbye “archaic” rules

Lawyers often like to see themselves as the “moral compass” of an organization. This can be amusing or irritating to others, I know, but it is a common view amongst the lawyers, at least.

To make sure that employees do the right thing, lawyers are good at drafting (and co-creating) policies and guidelines. And the number of such policies and guidelines are only increasing. Working from home. The use of social media. The use of emojis. If you work in any organization, you know the kind of thing.

However, there two issues here. The policies are often “over-lawyered” products covering the least significant issues. Good business leaders recognize this and send the lawyers back to the drawing board. They might be smart and first ask about the number of pages of the policy. I bet you that the “lawyer version” is far too long.

Another problem is that these new rules often have unintended side-effects. They kill innovation and entrepreneurship in an organization, particularly when employees have to comply with all these stringent processes and procedures.

All this leads to the obvious question: Do we still need lawyers?

The successful lawyer

The lawyer of today understands that a “no rules” or “simple rules” strategy will often have a better result. Also, a successful lawyer is tech-savvy, knows how to build and manage a community, and excels in collaborating with others.

I was reading a tech review about a voice-activated and connected light bulb a few weeks ago. It was the usual tech review about the hardware and software of the product. But it was the end of the review that caught my attention. The reviewer appreciated the company’s privacy policy, which was drafted in plain English.

The tech review shows a significant trend. It isn’t about looking smart (and drafting inaccessible legal terms and conditions, which people accept without any thought) but being smart (creating confidence and trust).

And the trust can only be created by explaining legal terms in plain language. It will usually even make sense to include graphics and illustrations. The combination of legal thinking and design thinking about language, visuals, and animations is undoubtedly becoming a crucial skill for every lawyer.

This takes me back to my original questions: “How do we measure success? What am I doing and why does it matter?”

The conversation with the corporate lawyer made me question the uniqueness and “value-added” of legal thinking. Sure, at their best, the old-fashioned lawyer brought precision to complex situations and accurately documented a clear picture of a snapshot in time.

But this is no longer enough. More emphasis needs to be put on technology, better, more authentic, communication and bringing precision and clarity in an accessible and understandable way.

The last part is really important, by the way. Everything is about community-building, better communication, transparency, and improved understanding. Otherwise, any trust quickly disappears.