I have seen business, legal and commercial counsel sought and provided in a variety of ways over my career. In a law firm the main channel of communication when I commenced my professional career was the post supplemented by telexes and then by fax machines. In some firms the partners would all gather in the post room to review incoming letters. Sounds bizarre and impracticable these days, but at least they knew what was going on. These were then gradually replaced by email and then a combination of email, instant messaging and Teams. If I am working on a legal matter now I will typically post messages (with attachments) and file documents on a Teams site set up for the transaction, using IM and email as well. This is enhanced by online professional knowledge databases and of course the ubiquitous AI. But does how we as professionals communicate actually alter the input and advice we are providing? The Canadian Marshall McLuhan first coined the phrase “The medium is the message” in 1964 in a book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man which is the title of the first chapter available at this link. “For McLuhan, it was the medium itself that shaped and controlled "the scale and form of human association and action". He observes “In a culture like ours, long accustomed to splitting and dividing all things as a means of control, it is sometimes a bit of a shock to be reminded that, in operational and practical fact, the medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium-- that is, of any extension of ourselves -- result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology.”
I accept that the increasing modes of communication facilitated by technology affect and influence how we interact with fellow professionals and clients. Take the increasing availability of online health services which assist in initial diagnosis, reducing the burden on doctors and potentially enhancing patient care. Yet at the end of the day if you are ill or have damaged your body in some way you will need to see a doctor, though admittedly this could be face to face or virtually through Teams or Zoom.
Please don’t get me wrong here. I acknowledge that the medium we use affects our behaviour, and not necessarily for the better. See this New York Times article I Didn’t Want It to Be True, but the Medium Really Is the Message where the author recognises the iniquitousness and intrusiveness of social media. Over the second decade of the twenty first century “Online life got faster, quicker, harsher, louder. “A little bit of everything all of the time,” as the comedian Bo Burnham put it. Smartphones brought the internet everywhere, colonizing moments I never imagined I’d fill. Many times I’ve walked into a public bathroom and everyone is simultaneously using a urinal and staring at a screen.” He also cites Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist who’s been collecting data on how social media harms teenagers: “First, that the way Instagram works is changing how teenagers think. It is supercharging their need for approval of how they look and what they say and what they’re doing, making it both always available and never enough. Second, that it is the fault of the platform — that it is intrinsic to how Instagram is designed, not just to how it is used. And third, that it’s bad.”
See also this LinkedIn article How modern technology has changed the delivery of legal services. This commences “Lawyers used to be able to dictate the pace of their day and prioritize their workload far more easily, as the natural delay inherent in posting correspondence allowed them more thinking and reaction time. In the absence of mobile phones and e-mail, daily interactions with clients were largely desk-based or in face to face in meetings. This relatively sedate pace has been almost totally superseded by e-mail, mobile phones, Blackberries and the inexorable rise of social media. However, despite the inconveniences and demands of e-mail and instant messaging, technology has also allowed legal services to be delivered in more efficient and innovative ways.”
I also recognise that social media brings its own perils for professionals. See this short Law Society Gazette piece Step away from the app, juniors warned which says “Compliance experts from both sides of the Atlantic have delivered a stark warning about the potential risks of communicating with clients via social media or text messages. 'I tell juniors that if you text and there’s a discovery process, you’re going to have to give someone you’ve never met your phone and access to everything on it,' said professional responsibility specialist Anthony Davis, Of Counsel at Clyde & Co New York.” It also observes that “Pressure to communicate via potentially unsafe media can come from clients as well as 'Generation Z' lawyers”.
No, what I am suggesting is that whatever the method or medium of communication (and our accompanying behaviour) the underlying professional task (negotiating a contract, providing advice) has, so far at least, remained essentially the same. In other words, the “how” a service is provided has fundamentally changed, but at least to date the “what” that service is has not. I am negotiating an international service agreement at present and we are exchanging drafts and ideas with the other side, meeting in person where necessary or on Teams and debating the usual suspects – liability, termination, service level commitments, etc. In private practice in the 1990’s I negotiated an outsourcing agreement acting for a supplier contracting with a local authority. We perhaps spent more times in meetings at the location of the customer, but that was at their behest and can easily happen now. And what were we negotiating about? Liability, termination, service level commitments, etc.!
I do however recognise that the evolution of technology may eventually affect the “what” with, for example, the rapid development of AI, though so far that has just been a sort of glorified (and not always right) assistant tailored to support law firms. I also acknowledge the profound thoughts of Richard and Daniel Susskind in The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts, Updated Edition. This book predicts the decline of today's professions and introduces the people and systems that will replace them. In an internet-enhanced society, …. we will neither need nor want doctors, teachers, accountants, architects, the clergy, consultants, lawyers, and many others, to work as they did in the 20th century. increasingly capable technologies - from telepresence to artificial intelligence - will place the 'practical expertise' of the finest specialists at the fingertips of everyone, often at no or low cost and without face-to-face interaction.
We are definitely not there yet, and I still think there is a positive future for us human professionals, though we will need to adapt how we practice to take advantage of evolving technology. Robotic lawyers are still some way off!
As the American writer Elbert Hubbard proposed “One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man”.
While Michael Dell said “Our business is about technology, yes. But it’s also about operations and customer relationships.”
And for a last wry thought from Douglas Adams the author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. “Technology is a word that describes something that doesn’t work yet.”
I accept that the increasing modes of communication facilitated by technology affect and influence how we interact with fellow professionals and clients. Take the increasing availability of online health services which assist in initial diagnosis, reducing the burden on doctors and potentially enhancing patient care. Yet at the end of the day if you are ill or have damaged your body in some way you will need to see a doctor, though admittedly this could be face to face or virtually through Teams or Zoom.
Please don’t get me wrong here. I acknowledge that the medium we use affects our behaviour, and not necessarily for the better. See this New York Times article I Didn’t Want It to Be True, but the Medium Really Is the Message where the author recognises the iniquitousness and intrusiveness of social media. Over the second decade of the twenty first century “Online life got faster, quicker, harsher, louder. “A little bit of everything all of the time,” as the comedian Bo Burnham put it. Smartphones brought the internet everywhere, colonizing moments I never imagined I’d fill. Many times I’ve walked into a public bathroom and everyone is simultaneously using a urinal and staring at a screen.” He also cites Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist who’s been collecting data on how social media harms teenagers: “First, that the way Instagram works is changing how teenagers think. It is supercharging their need for approval of how they look and what they say and what they’re doing, making it both always available and never enough. Second, that it is the fault of the platform — that it is intrinsic to how Instagram is designed, not just to how it is used. And third, that it’s bad.”
See also this LinkedIn article How modern technology has changed the delivery of legal services. This commences “Lawyers used to be able to dictate the pace of their day and prioritize their workload far more easily, as the natural delay inherent in posting correspondence allowed them more thinking and reaction time. In the absence of mobile phones and e-mail, daily interactions with clients were largely desk-based or in face to face in meetings. This relatively sedate pace has been almost totally superseded by e-mail, mobile phones, Blackberries and the inexorable rise of social media. However, despite the inconveniences and demands of e-mail and instant messaging, technology has also allowed legal services to be delivered in more efficient and innovative ways.”
I also recognise that social media brings its own perils for professionals. See this short Law Society Gazette piece Step away from the app, juniors warned which says “Compliance experts from both sides of the Atlantic have delivered a stark warning about the potential risks of communicating with clients via social media or text messages. 'I tell juniors that if you text and there’s a discovery process, you’re going to have to give someone you’ve never met your phone and access to everything on it,' said professional responsibility specialist Anthony Davis, Of Counsel at Clyde & Co New York.” It also observes that “Pressure to communicate via potentially unsafe media can come from clients as well as 'Generation Z' lawyers”.
No, what I am suggesting is that whatever the method or medium of communication (and our accompanying behaviour) the underlying professional task (negotiating a contract, providing advice) has, so far at least, remained essentially the same. In other words, the “how” a service is provided has fundamentally changed, but at least to date the “what” that service is has not. I am negotiating an international service agreement at present and we are exchanging drafts and ideas with the other side, meeting in person where necessary or on Teams and debating the usual suspects – liability, termination, service level commitments, etc. In private practice in the 1990’s I negotiated an outsourcing agreement acting for a supplier contracting with a local authority. We perhaps spent more times in meetings at the location of the customer, but that was at their behest and can easily happen now. And what were we negotiating about? Liability, termination, service level commitments, etc.!
I do however recognise that the evolution of technology may eventually affect the “what” with, for example, the rapid development of AI, though so far that has just been a sort of glorified (and not always right) assistant tailored to support law firms. I also acknowledge the profound thoughts of Richard and Daniel Susskind in The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts, Updated Edition. This book predicts the decline of today's professions and introduces the people and systems that will replace them. In an internet-enhanced society, …. we will neither need nor want doctors, teachers, accountants, architects, the clergy, consultants, lawyers, and many others, to work as they did in the 20th century. increasingly capable technologies - from telepresence to artificial intelligence - will place the 'practical expertise' of the finest specialists at the fingertips of everyone, often at no or low cost and without face-to-face interaction.
We are definitely not there yet, and I still think there is a positive future for us human professionals, though we will need to adapt how we practice to take advantage of evolving technology. Robotic lawyers are still some way off!
As the American writer Elbert Hubbard proposed “One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man”.
While Michael Dell said “Our business is about technology, yes. But it’s also about operations and customer relationships.”
And for a last wry thought from Douglas Adams the author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. “Technology is a word that describes something that doesn’t work yet.”
RSS Feed
