I saw a great quote in the Sunday papers last week attributed to Princess Anne, the hard working and sometimes understated member of the British Royal family. “There is no such thing as bad weather, only unsuitable clothing.” This struck a chord with me as a philosophy that applies equally to our professional working life. There is nothing you can do about the weather. Walking our last dog a few years ago in Norbury Park in Surrey on a very rainy day I met a fellow dog walker who was looking out over a field. “Terrible weather today” I commented. “Ah” he observed stoically “True but you can’t send it back.”  We cannot prevent the arrival of the daily trials and tribulations that are part and parcel of work as a lawyer or commercial manager or indeed any other professional. This is inevitable like heavy rain and to some extent is what we signed up for. But what we can do is anticipate that there will be such challenges and be prepared – wear “suitable clothing” as it were. 
 
AI is a bit wishy washy when asked about this. “Professionals can prepare for daily crises by developing proactive plans, honing essential soft skills like leadership and emotional intelligence, and prioritizing continuous learning and self-care.” But this does make me think that in this context there are different categories of “crises”. First there are challenges that threaten the very existence or operation or capability of a professional practice like a cyber-attack or a pandemic. There is plenty of material and advice about how to deal with such events difficult though they are. AI suggests “Managing a crisis in a professional practice involves a structured approach encompassing preparation, a rapid and coordinated response, and post-crisis recovery and learning.” See also this very good Keystone Law article Crisis management for in-house lawyers: how to turn panic, fear and confusion into control, coordination and reassurance. This contains some sensible advice and suggested processes for such a potentially catastrophic crisis observing that “Successful crisis management relies on doing the right things at the right times.” It cites “the wise words of Anne Mulcahy, former head of Xerox, who pithily summarised the management of a crisis thus: first, get the cow out of the ditch; second, find out how the cow got into the ditch; and third, do whatever it takes to stop the cow getting into the ditch again.”
 
However, in a strange sense these “critical crises” are more straight forward to deal with, if very difficult and potentially dangerous. They are dire events recognised as such by everyone in the organisation who will pitch in to fix matters with an “all hands to the pump” mentality. The second category of professional crises is those which can occur on a more daily basis and often affect you and your team as well as potentially the organisation as a whole. They can nevertheless be extremely challenging. You arrive at work as the leader of a professional team with grand plans for an organised and productive day. You plan an early start in your office in the City, but your commuter train is delayed by “poor railhead adhesion” whatever that is. That does at least provide lots of time to check your email and messages on the train - and discover that a key senior member of your team engaged in a vital negotiation has called in sick – and will be off for at least a month. No sooner have you arrived and connected your laptop when the CEO’s executive assistant appears in person and requests your immediate presence.  The business has been served with a court order for a winding up in respect of a relatively small debt that has somehow gone unnoticed, and unpaid. As you head for the C suite meeting room a colleague rushes up and says she must speak to you urgently about a limit of liability in a another contract negotiation.
 
This is when a leader and indeed any professional will benefit from anticipating that such days and indeed events will occur and having an approach to deal with them. See by way of example this Harvard Business School article Leadership Under Pressure: 3 Strategies For Keeping Calm During A Crisis observing “The demanding situations and crises you face over the course of your career are likely to be the moments that define who you are as a leader”. It advocates 3 key strategies.
 
“1. Wait to Act
 
A leader is someone who responds to a situation calmly and with a well-thought-out plan. Before you jump headfirst into problem-solving, take a deep breath and pause to collect your thoughts and assess the situation with a clear mind.
 
2. Build a Strong Support System
 
Leaders rarely go it alone—it’s why they usually have a board of advisors
 
3. Understand the Reality of the Situation
 
It’s crucial to recognize the reality of a situation and acknowledge your limitations during a crisis, no matter how difficult that might be.”
 
I would add to this the art of anticipation. Instead of planning the perfect constructive day and being thrown when this just does not happen – it rarely does – have this as a Plan A, and then have a Plan B and even a Plan C at least in your mind. In sport such as football and rugby you may get a player sin binned or worse sent off. Practicing how to play with a reduced number on the training ground will pay off if this occurs on match day. 
 
In the scenarios above the following preparation and actions would I propose chart a calmer passage through the troubled waters of the day.
 
1 The Unexpected Illness
 
Have an arrangement with a provider of temporary legal staff where they understand your business and will be able to find a substitute quickly.
 
2 The Court Order
 
Keep a litigation firm on standby who can and will drop everything in an emergency and come to your offices to help or at least be available online.
 
3 The Flustered Colleague
 
Discuss and agree with the business and your colleagues a framework for what limits of liability are acceptable and where the organisations redlines are well in advance of any such individual contract crisis.
 
Then you will not be caught out by the daily storms but will be wearing suitable clothes to weather them – and indeed not just survive the day but take the opportunity by solving complex or urgent problems to enhance your and your department’s reputation and contribution. As Winston Churchill remarked - "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
​

I have been debating with my son who is a university lecturer the good and the bad influence of technology such as AI on academic and more generally professional learning and research. In any research project accuracy, in depth understanding and verified sources are critical. You cannot take anything for granted. I learnt only very recently something about abbreviations I had used without much thought for most of my working life. Did you know that:
 
“e.g.” is a shortening of the Latin phrase exempli gratia, which means "for the sake of example" and
 
 "i.e." comes from the Latin phrase "id est", which means "that is"?
 
When I was training as a lawyer I was asked to summarise the impact of the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which is still in force today and defines the fundamental structure for the regulation of workplace health, safety and welfare in the United Kingdom. It is a framework that enables regulations on specific topics, such as workplace welfare, personal protective equipment, hazardous substances - and even how many toilets a workplace requires! It was actually quite important because of a planned move into new premises. However, perhaps because of the “dull” nature of the subject matter nobody else wanted to do the work and I was given a free rein. As with many apparently unrewarding tasks, the research turned out to be an unexpected opportunity to both prove myself in the eyes of my peers and learn how to improve my legal research skills, working out the principles and then finding and investigating the relevant underpinning regulations. It meant understanding the exact meaning of abbreviated terms such as RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations!). This had to be captured in a report my superiors and the business could understand. All fascinating stuff! But important for all that.
 
It also illustrates my theme this week that as a professional it is a critical part of our work to be able to investigate and research any relevant topic thoroughly and accurately.  AI suggests that “To conduct professional legal research, begin by identifying the core legal issue and the relevant facts and jurisdiction. Next, develop a research plan using a mix of primary sources (like statutes and case law) and secondary sources (like legal commentary), and refine your search using online databases and traditional resources. Finally, analyze and synthesize your findings, evaluate the sources for accuracy, and document your work with proper citations.”
 
While this very useful Thomson Reuters article How to do legal research in 3 steps advises “How to ask the right questions, find the right sources of law, and use good law” citing Black’s Law Dictionary which “defines legal research as “[t]he finding and assembling of authorities that bear on a question of law."” It observes that “Each step — from defining research questions to synthesizing findings — demands critical thinking and rigorous analysis.” It discusses how research has moved from the library to online when however, you should “use an online research service designed specifically for the law.”
 
In the days when I carried out the above research I had to find hard copies of the Act and the statutory instruments and any relevant commentary. Then along came the Internet with its Google searches followed by AI telling you the so-called complete answer. This is where the wheels can come off without proper professional discipline. I was a partner in one law firm where we noticed our trainees had a worrying tendency to assume that what Google told them had to be right. They did not seem to want to drill down beyond the immediate answer presented to them on their screens. Maybe this is also about the generational shift in the workplace. See this Microsoft article New Culture of Work: “For the first time in the history of the modern labor market, the workforce spans five generations—from the last of the Silent Generation through Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, and now to Generation Z. Millennials have become the largest generational cohort in the labor force. By 2025, they will constitute 75 percent of the global workforce. Meanwhile, Generation Z is beginning to surge into the workforce as
well.”
 
AI has vastly amplified this learning challenge with Large Language Models (LLM’s) tending to hallucinate or fabricate information including non-existent cases, citations and legal texts. In a New York case a lawyer was fined after his firm cited US cases that did not exist. See this BBC article ChatGPT: US lawyer admits using AI for case research which cites the ”conversation” between the lawyer and ChatGPT where they ask “Is varghese a real case” Chat GPT says “Yes” and when asked “what is your source” “responds again that the case is real and can be found on legal reference databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw”.
Discussing this with my son he explained that AI does not always know what its sources are and hence cannot cite them. But the fault here is not actually AI’s. As with the trainees it is incumbent if any research points to a source like a legal case to go and find it, look up the citation and read it before relying on the information in court or indeed for advice. 
 
Underpinning this all seems to be a reduction in our attention spans. See this discussion from the American Pyschological Association on Why our attention spans are shrinking which suggests that “Research has shown that over the past couple of decades people’s attention spans have shrunk in measurable ways”. This is not a good development especially as “we find in our research a correlation between frequency of attention switching and stress”. While this Open University blog supports the trend. “The average human attention span – how long we can concentrate effectively on a single task – was recently reported by Microsoft to have dropped below the level attributed to goldfish.”
 
Actually, the Microsoft report which I eventually tracked down, is a microcosm of this research challenge. The link in the Open University link does not go to the report it cites and in fact the quote is a little out of context. I eventually found the report (which is very detailed and well written) at Attention spans. It is about consumers in Canada and while it does indeed note the dwindling of the human attention span, it also discusses “brain plasticity”. “It is able to rewire and form new capabilities throughout the course of one’s life. This ability allows humans to adapt both to new, or changing situations in their environment.” Accordingly, “Canadians’ digital lifestyles are changing the brain, decreasing the ability for prolonged focus and increasing their appetite for more stimuli.” Its conclusions are therefore more positive than the out of context quote about goldfish. “Canadians’ increasingly digital lifestyles are also making them more efficient at processing information and recording it to their memories. They’re able to do more with less, so that they can move on to the next new/exciting thing.”
 
Thus we are adapting and the proper use of technology in professional research is a good thing and here to stay. As the Canadian article says, “While it introduces some challenges, it also creates significant opportunities.” AI and online resources generally offer better more immediate opportunities for research than existed when the only resources were your law firm’s hard copy law textbooks or reports, supplemented by the Law Society’s excellent library. However, the research still has to be done thoroughly with an inquiring and focused mind seeking the ultimate sources, with an awareness of the challenges technology heralds – and an appropriate attention to detail. 
 
William James, the American philosopher and psychologist, said back in the 19th century, “Everyone knows what attention is. It's the taking possession by the mind in clear and vivid form of one out of what seems several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought.”
​

​We have a large garden which requires a lot of maintenance. I have always believed in using the best electric tools available to help with these tasks. For example, a couple of weeks ago I trimmed the front hedge with a cordless rechargeable battery powered strimmer which is a huge improvement on the corded variety. I had accidently cut and then repaired the electric cable countless times on its corded predecessor. AI powered tools can also use image recognition to mow your lawn, monitor plant health or control automated watering systems. See this RHS article How will AI change gardening? And yet there are times like clearing wet leaves and the seeds of strawberry trees (there are such things!) from your driveway when none of these gadgets or processes work and it is back to serious manual labour with a broom and a large garden dustpan and brush. As a quote in the article by a professional designer says, “Humans have a unique connection to nature that cannot be replaced by artificial intelligence, and I do not believe that gardeners or garden designers are at immediate risk”.
 
It is the same I suggest for all professionals as we adjust to and utilise this new technology like other advances beforehand. There are times when AI is incredibly useful, and others when it is no substitute for the sweat of the brow endeavours of human intellect. Take a scenario where an in-house legal counsel seeks advice from a specialist in an external law firm on competition law and its application to a joint venture being formed amongst several suppliers to bid for a government contract. I posed the question to ChatGPT and it advised quite correctly that there are significant competition law risks around possible bid collusion, information exchange, market power, merger control and post bid behaviour proposing mitigation activities. This is helpful in getting some initial sense of the potential challenges. What it did not do is first ask some of the obvious question any competition lawyer versed in this sort of activity would have done. What is the size of the deal and what services are involved? Do any of the parties have a significant or even dominant market position in the provision of these services? Critically is this a contractual joint venture such as a prime bidding with agreed subcontractors? Or are the parties intending to form a separate corporate vehicle to submit the bid in which they are all shareholders? The latter can be far more complex and demanding and the vehicle itself would have an independent existence and, for example, may require its own legal and financial advice.  Drawing out this sort of fundamental understanding of the potential risks and issues right at the outset is what an experienced competition lawyer can bring to the party.
 
Take another example drawn from a contract negotiation. Suppose you are acting for a supplier in the negotiation of an outsourcing contract working long hours in the meeting suite of the customers lawyers. One of the last few sticking points, as is often the case, is the amount and extent of the limit and exclusion of liability clause. After a heated exchange the customer takes the rather drastic step of halting the negotiations and throwing your team out of the lawyers’ offices. You gather in a nearby coffee house to plan your next move. It is very difficult to do this effectively without a “feel” for the people and position of the other side which can only come from experience, involvement and knowing your counterparts. AI can’t do this, but actually it can help and maybe remove some of the inevitable emotion. ChatGPT did come up with some quite sensible options; Pause – Don’t Escalate, Senior to Senior Outreach, Reassess Position, Separate Relationship from Issues, Use Mediation Techniques, Document Your Position, Prepare Alternatives. This actually happened to me a few years ago in London and (without any help from AI) we decided this was not terminal and that we would have to just wait it out until we were invited back in. We also felt (rather than reasoned) that the emotion and anger of the buyer meant paradoxically we were probably close to a solution, which indeed proved to be the case. 
 
Surely in the preparation of cases for litigation AI coupled with document management software removes the need for careful legal scrutiny? It is true that technology can streamline evidence gathering churning through and analysing vast amounts of data and highlighting relevant material. However, it needs to be “pointed” in the right direction in the first place by a litigator. Then in my experience the results need further review by a professional to determine its precise relevance. I participated in such an exercise and found that whilst the software had indeed produced lots of material which was potentially relevant, I and other colleagues had to sift through this to identify evidence our litigation colleagues could then focus on and utilise.
 
Lawyers and other professionals often participate in internal corporate governance processes. This is when, for example, senior management in an IT supplier review a potential bid for outsourcing services scrutinising the proposed solution, programme, price, legal terms and associated risks. Each relevant area of expertise within the business will put together and present a summary of its specific topic. Technical architects describe the service to be provided, project managers explain the plan for delivery, the finance team produces detailed spreadsheets showing how much profit the business will make, lawyers and commercial managers provide a contractual analysis describing the proposed agreement and drawing out any particularly significant risks (such as the limit of liability discussed above). Now AI could certainly help in the preparation and in theory even be presented with all of this material and perhaps make a determination as to whether this was good business and the company should proceed or not. However, again in my view there is no substitute for the ability demonstrated by senior managers (who will have seen many such proposals) to get to the truth, cutting through the details, and sometimes deliberate attempts to pull the wool over their eyes by an overzealous and committed bid team. I once watched the chief executive of a major IT company I was advising get so exasperated with the lack of precision or thought being presented to him by a programme manager that he stood up and literally banged his head on the wall in frustration! Not to be recommended, but his dedication to searching out the truth was highly commendable and the correct application of his role. The programme manager did not last long. It is very hard to see AI having this level of management insight and intuition and metaphorically banging its digital head on a virtual wall.
 
Rather I have concluded that as with my garden automation, robotics and AI are very useful and even provide a partnering skill set, but will not supplant the skill, knowledge and sometimes back breaking efforts of professionals like the lawyer and the gardener.
 
"Technology is just a tool. In terms of getting the kids working together and motivating them, the teacher is the most important." Bill Gates.