I attended an excellent SCL seminar this week on quantum computing. It’s intriguing how once again IT law is starting to adapt to another new development even one based on science so obscure that even the experts do not claim to fully understand it. In the 19th century science was deeply driven by certainty convinced nature followed fixed, discoverable laws. This has all changed and relativity and quantum mechanics suggest a much more provisional understanding. Quantum physics doesn’t describe what things are — it describes probabilities. Instead of saying “this will happen,” it says, “this is the chance it will happen.” Nature, at its deepest level, seems to run on probability, not certainty. 
 
As professionals we are I suggest trained and to a degree expected to operate so as to seek absolute certainty as much as possible in our advice and assistance to our clients. We are a bit like 19th century scientists most at home when we can state “the law says this” or “accounting rules demand” we behave in a particular way. In my experience this is in fact a bit of a myth. Even laws set out with care and precision in statutes or codes in codified legal systems can be and are open to interpretation by practitioners and ultimately the courts. Clauses in complex contracts drafted with care and precision by skilled legal practitioners can be subject to surprising and unexpected interpretations in courts of law. This is especially true in the common law systems where contracts and statutes can be subject to some alternative elucidation not anticipated by the original authors. Sometimes this can be because the judge is seeking to apply an overall approach or principle which would not have been in the minds of commercial negotiators.
 
I recall working in private practice on a contract negotiation for IT services that was subsequently the subject of a dispute. I was grilled by a litigation partner who asked why we had agreed and documented a particular limit of liability provision which might be disadvantageous to our client if we went to court. It was quite hard to explain that the clause was the best we could achieve after intense discussions – and was far better than where we had started. It had also been carefully explained to our client who understood the compromise we had reached. The litigator expected perfection and certainty, but contract negotiations just aren’t like that however hard we may try as negotiators.
 
Given all of this I think we need as professionals to take a leaf out of the quantum scientist’s book and recognise that absolute certainty in professional work, be it in negotiation, advice or contract drafting, is just not possible. Perhaps the most we can hope and expect is to get somewhere near the truth or create an effective and workable contract that will probably achieve the reasonable expectations of the parties. AI suggests that “Absolute certainty in professional advice is generally considered an illusion or a dangerous overconfidence rather than an achievable, practical standard.” It proposes that “the most valuable advice is not that which claims to know the future, but that which is based on rigorous, data-driven analysis of probabilities, allowing for flexibility and adaptability.” 


In fact, embracing “uncertainty”, questioning the facts and status quo, is whilst potentially unsettling I suggest an essential approach for us to embrace as professionals. See this article Reframing uncertainty as a positive thing proposing, for example, that uncertainty:
 

• Drives growth and learning – [it] pushes you out of your comfort zone, encouraging you to face challenges and develop new skills.

 

• Encourages creativity and innovation – [it] can break down rigid thinking patterns and open up new possibilities.

 

• Builds resilience - when you embrace uncertainty, you strengthen your ability to cope with difficult or unpredictable situations.

 
Dealing with a lack of certainty is also a key attribute these days for leaders of professional practices. See, for example, this Harvard Business Review article Our Favorite Management Tips on Leading Through Uncertainty whose recommendations include:
 

• Become a More Courageous Leader. When uncertainty strikes, the default reaction is often to retreat. But courageous leaders don’t wait for clarity—they create it

 

• Communicating with Your Team When Times Are Tough. When business challenges mount, your team doesn’t need spin—they need clarity.

 

• Steady Your Team in Anxious Times. In times of uncertainty, your team looks to you not just for strategy, but for reassurance and direction.

 
As a partner recruiting trainees into a law firm many years ago one of the key qualities we looked for was flexibility and the ability to deal with uncertainty. This is as true today as it was then and if anything with the advances of technology like AI and quantum computing is an even more important and valued attribute. In fact, it seems there is a concept called “AI Anxiety”. See this article AI Anxiety: Strategies for Coping with Change and Uncertainty which suggests that “For some, the growing presence of AI creates a sense of uncertainty, pressure, or fear about what the future might hold. This feeling is often described as AI anxiety—a response to rapid technological change and the unknowns that come with it.” It advocates recognising and managing the emotions that come with change and building practical confidence.
 
For me as a technology lawyer this is something that, like many of my professional colleagues in this field, we have just had to accept and indeed embrace as an opportunity. Time and again advances like quantum computing have challenged the way we work and demanded change. But as a profession we have risen to the occasion every time and found ways to merge these changes into our practice. It is also perhaps worth remembering how absolute certainty is generally not a way to encourage progress.  After all until Copernicus in the 16th century science was convinced the sun revolved around the earth. Questioning conventional scientific or professional wisdom is a healthy trait. 
 
As Abraham Lincoln said “Courage is not the absence of fear. It is going forward with the face of fear.”
 
While the American theoretical physicist Richard P. Fenyman observed “What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth.”
 
And to conclude an apt comment by Albert Einstein: “If it is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science.”
​

​Wq2    SDX§§P)_- this is what our 4-month-old kitten typed running over the keyboard while I was writing this – some kind of feline code? All large organisations have hierarchies and authority delegation for decision making. And some of them, particularly in global organisations can seem as dense and impenetrable as our cat’s contribution. Many can run to 20 or 30 pages and typically have different levels of country management sign off followed by regional and then head office sign off. Some are initially drafted in a language other than English – and translated badly if at all. They reserve decisions on specific topics like standard contract terms or parent company guarantees or settlement of significant disputes to the ultimate parent company. Try changing the software or cloud terms for a US corporation in the UK. I have and you can’t without the buy-in of head office – who generally won’t amend their conditions without very good reason. Don’t get me wrong this is not a criticism of large corporates. Rather the need to recognise that authorisation processes are often complex. It follows that on any deal for say an IT outsourcing contract internal governance approval at the right time and level in the UK and globally is not a nice to have but absolutely essential.
 
Governance in this sense can be looked at from the perspective of the individual negotiation team seeking stakeholder buy in – or from a corporate perspective where contractual governance will or should be a part of this overall corporate governance which is “the structure of policies and processes that steer a company’s direction, management, and compliance efforts.” See this article Corporate Governance: Definition, Principles, Models, and Examples. Senior stakeholders at an appropriate designated level should also sign off on any significant contract once it has been fully negotiated and prior to signature. This ensures the buy in of the whole organisation not just the negotiating team to the project and its delivery. This incidentally assist the other side in the negotiation. There is nothing more soul destroying than working hard to reach a viable and fair contract, only to then find out that the other side won’t proceed to finalise the deal because its management is not on board.
 
I have often been asked to bring the full panoply of internal legal review to a complex service contract bid, only to find that it is a figment of some salespersons individual agenda, which has not been sanctioned even in principle by senior management. If this approach is followed for all review functions – commercial, technical, finance and project delivery – it can be a gross waste of valuable professional time and resource. It is also incredibly helpful in a contract negotiation if the key parameters have already been understood and at least provisionally signed off at an executive level. You then know when you have to go back for further senior authorisation to say a higher-than-expected limit of liability. It also prevents the other side from going behind the back of the negotiating team to exploit contacts with say the chief executive of your client. This actually happened to me and because we were all aligned when I forewarned the CEO by email of such an approach by a customer, he emailed back almost instantly reiterating his support and telling us we could circumvent this tactic by saying we had his full backing.
 
AI quite sensibly suggests that “Stakeholder buy-in in contract negotiation is critical because it ensures organizational alignment, facilitates smooth execution, and is essential for achieving long-term success. It transforms a mere formal approval into active support and commitment from all parties involved.” A “stakeholder” is someone involved as an individual or a group such as a contract approval board with significant influence, power and a vested interest in the success of a project. They should have the organisation’s wider interests in mind. See this Project Management article Understanding Different Types of Stakeholders and Their Roles which observes more generally in the context of projects that “stakeholders are indispensable in shaping outcomes, influencing priorities, and determining overall project success.” It proposes there are two types:
 
Internal stakeholders - individuals or groups within the organization who are involved in the project or directly affected by its results.
 
External stakeholders - entities outside the immediate organizational structure that have an interest in the project’s execution or success.
 
It then recommends an organised approach to managing such stakeholders: “Effective stakeholder engagement begins with a disciplined approach to stakeholder analysis and mapping.”
 
See also this article Securing Buy-In from Stakeholders: An Overview which discusses who a stakeholder buy-in is and identifies different types including: 
 

• Emotional Buy-In - Stakeholders support the project because they feel comfortable, they trust and respect those involved, and they feel connected to the work through their participation or relationships.

 

• Intellectual buy-in – Stakeholders are aware of and understand the project, and are convinced that it has merit based on a logical consideration of the facts.

 
It also recognises the importance of effective and timely stakeholder involvement.  “Every project comes with risks — but many of these can be identified ahead of time and managed by working closely with stakeholders and gaining their support. Plus, if you have good relationships with your stakeholders, this will help to carry you through if/when challenges arise or there are problems with the project.”
 
I thoroughly endorse the timely and effective involvement of stakeholders in service contract reviews. If your manager will be present on a final contract approval board then thoroughly briefing and discussing any challenges and risks with them beforehand will not only inform that process, but also enable it to operate far more smoothly and effectively. If the leaders of your function do have some concerns then these can be addressed before they are asked to make or endorse a final recommendation. Apart from anything else it is extremely embarrassing and potentially career limiting to have some position you have taken in a contract negotiation undermined in a public forum by your department head. 
 
As an example of good contract negotiation governance, while in private practice I acted for a major UK IT supplier bidding for a large public sector communications contract where the purchaser was using a competitive negotiation process that culminated in “locking” the final four bid contenders in a hotel for a week to see who could negotiate the best contract. My client had not only obtained all necessary internal buy in for each stage of the process including this last one, but sent the head of the relevant division to the hotel one evening to join in the discussion, understand what was going on and coincidentally talk to the customer. All of this eased the way for the company to endorse the contract bid process which it eventually duly won.
 
Improving governance processes is probably where AI has the potential to come into its own as a means of managing the involvement of key stakeholders at the right time. The expression and implementation of internal governance processes can be time consuming and sometimes inconsistent. AI could streamline the approval process by “intelligently” routing contracts to the appropriate stakeholders (legal, finance, procurement, etc.) based on predefined rules, such as contract value, risk level, or type. This could help eliminate bottlenecks and promote timely reviews. There is however in my view no substitute for personal involvement in endorsing a major procurement project either as a proponent on the bid team or an approver.
 
As the entrepreneur and speaker Cheryl Sew Hoy observed “The best way to minimize disagreement is to make sure that all the stakeholders are in the room.” 
 

​On Christmas Eve in the late afternoon, I drove my son and his girlfriend back to the house they were living in a few miles away (they had walked to see us). It was 3.45 pm and on the way back I decided to hurry into the local village and do some last-minute shopping. Big mistake. As I rushed into the car park avoiding a vehicle coming out, I touched a concrete pillar at the entrance - causing some minor but no doubt expensive damage to the paintwork of my car. And both shops I planned to visit were closed anyway for the holidays!  As I look back on 2025 and forward to the new year 2026, I was struck by one thing I could do better. I, like I suspect many of my fellow professionals, always attempt (like my shopping example) to cram one more task into an already busy day – when we really don’t need to. Inevitably as I found out to my cost this is invariably when things go wrong. 
 
To put this in a work context if, for example, while you are in a critical contract negotiation you get asked on Teams for urgent advice on another matter. It is so tempting either in the meeting or in the next breakout to try and deal with this and respond online – juggling priorities but by doing so not giving your full attention to either your response or a crucial discussion amongst your team on say limits of liability or some other critical issue in the meeting. The inevitable result is that both clients suffer because, however capable we think we are, it is very hard to do justice to two potentially complex tasks at the same time. It could also be that the new ask is not in fact as time critical as the originator thinks. I recognise that ignoring the request would be irresponsible, but why not delegate a response to a colleague - or put it off for a day? Or speak to your manager and see if they have any other ideas or resource. They won’t think the worse of you and will probably appreciate your seeking help rather than potentially providing a poor service or even making a mistake.
 
AI suggests “Trying to do too much in a workday leads to stress and burnout, so the key is to prioritize tasks, set boundaries, communicate with your manager about workload, and take regular breaks to maintain focus and well-being. Break down big tasks, focus on one thing at a time (avoid multitasking), and create daily/weekly plans to manage expectations and prevent overwhelm”.
 
While this article 10 Simple Tips to Help When You Have Too Much Work comments that “While it may seem admirable to take on additional work and support your team when the workload increases, recognising that there are limits to your productivity is essential.” It proposes some simple but effective ways to manage too much work which include:
 

• Ask for advice from an experienced colleague. Speaking to experienced co-workers is a great way to gauge if the entire department is overwhelmed or if your colleagues have the capacity to support you.

 

• Ask if you can share your workload. A positive way to ensure you complete your tasks while fostering a sense of teamwork is to ask your team for help.

 

• Create a prioritised task list. Writing a task list and prioritising items by urgency and importance helps you establish what projects need immediate attention.

 
This is where investment in creating and being part of a great team at work really helps. Then you have others to call on in your hour of need, whether a colleague or manager, who will recognise your request for help and readily pitch in – knowing that you would do the same if the roles were reversed. They also will respect your ask and won’t judge you and think you are somehow shirking taking on your full workload.
 
Rather than feeling guilty about not achieving all of the items on our “to do” list by the end of the business day maybe, as the author and business consultant Jim Collins advised in his book Good to Great, we should have a “stop doing” list. “Most of us lead busy but undisciplined lives. We have ever-expanding ‘to do’ lists, trying to build momentum by doing, doing, doing—and doing more. And it rarely works. Those who built the good-to-great companies, however, made as much use of ‘stop doing’ lists as ‘to do’ lists.”
 
See this Forbes article Stop Trying To Cram So Much Work Into A Single Day which comments “Multitasking isn’t just a productivity-killer, it’s a recipe for unfocused and fragmented work. Focusing on a single project for an extended period is a skill that requires cultivation”. It proposes creating key themes for your working life which helps planning and can free up time to manage crises.
 
Technology including AI can and will increasingly be used to enable professionals to work more efficiently and effectively and perhaps help to avoid or at least mitigate this sort of workload dilemma. See, for example, this article Let AI Handle The Busywork So Humans Can Drive Strategy which discusses how agentic AI can help procurement teams focus on adding strategic value. “This is where agentic AI helps. Unlike traditional generative AI, agentic systems serve a specific purpose; various specialized AI agents combine across a workflow, where they will reason, learn and collaborate alongside humans to complete a task.” It concludes “Ultimately, the hybrid human-agent model allows procurement to regain its human side, combining AI’s speed with human judgment to create a smarter, more resilient and trusted function.”
 
However, the use of more effective processes to prioritise our workloads will only work if we first of all recognise when we have too much on out professional plates and that we need to manage our workload better. One of my New Year’s resolutions is to look out for those times when I am adding yet another task to my daily rota, perhaps unnecessarily, and, having recognised this, do something about it.
  
“The key is not to prioritize what’s on your schedule but to schedule your priorities”. Stephen Covey.
 
"It's not the daily increase but daily decrease. Hack away at the inessentials." Bruce Lee.
 
“The butterfly counts not months but moments and has time enough.” Rabindranath Tagore – the Bengali polymath (poet, writer, playwright, composer, philosopher, social reformer, and painter).
 
A happy productive, and efficient, New Year to all.
 

My first road trip was 40 miles over bush roads in a 1950’s Land Rover just after I had been born in Lusaka hospital in Zambia. These were very rugged off-road vehicles with two ratio gear boxes capable of dealing easily with the dust, potholes and sometimes mud of central Africa. I saw this sign recently “Don’t grow up just get bigger toys” on the back of one of its more modern successors, but still in the old style of Land Rover Defender (the newest ones are in my view just rebranded SUV’s, impressive and well-built but aimed more at the Home Counties than the veldt). It made me laugh and the sentiment struck a chord. I think maybe we have all become too serious in our professional lives, unable with the day-to-day pressures of always being “on” and thriving to succeed to see any lighter side to our work. I am told the latest generation entering our workforces are particularly serious and perhaps less able to relax with a drink down the local pub or wine bar – not least because many don’t drink. This is of course an admirable trait from a health perspective, but it does rather hamper one way of relaxing, especially when coupled with the ever-present phone addiction we are all prone to.
 
AI (which as far as I know has never exhibited any intrinsic propensity to a sense of humour – see its attempted joke below) suggests that “Humor in the workplace is an essential tool for building connections, reducing stress, and boosting productivity. When used appropriately, it creates a positive and engaging environment where employees feel comfortable, motivated, and more likely to collaborate effectively.” The benefits of humour in professional practices are:
 
Improved Communication and Relationships: Humor acts as a "social lubricant," reducing social distance and making individuals appear more approachable. Shared laughter can build trust and rapport, strengthening working relationships and team cohesion.
 
Enhanced Leadership and Credibility: Leaders who use appropriate humor are often perceived as more confident, competent, and effective, which can lead to increased employee engagement and job satisfaction.
 
Stress Relief and Well-being: Humor serves as a powerful coping mechanism, helping professionals manage stress, prevent burnout, and reframe difficult situations in a less overwhelming light.
 
Boosted Creativity and Problem-Solving: A humorous atmosphere can foster playfulness and psychological safety, encouraging divergent thinking, innovation, and the acceptance of new ideas.
 
Increased Persuasion and Learning: Incorporating humor into presentations or educational settings can capture attention, improve memory retention, and make messages more persuasive.
 
I did ask ChatGPT to “tell me a joke about lawyers” and it came up with “Why don’t lawyers go the beach? Because cats keep trying to bury them in the sand!” Do tell me why that is funny because I don’t get it.
 
Anyway see this Forbes article Laughter In Leadership: How Humor Enhances Workplace Performance which comments that “one powerful—and often overlooked—leadership tool is humor.” which “fosters creativity and innovation, helping teams think outside the box and solve problems more effectively”. It does sensibly counsel caution “understanding when and how to inject humor appropriately without disrupting professionalism.” concluding that “Mastering the use of humor in leadership is about striking the right balance—making the workplace enjoyable while maintaining professionalism and respect.”
 
It also refers to research which suggests humour enhances productivity. See this World Economic Forum article How Laughter in The Workplace Can Boost Confidence And Creativity which cites “two Stanford University academics who have examined the effects of laughter in the workplace and concluded it makes us better bosses and better employees.” Echoing my concern above it says of its global study “One of the things it found was that around the age of 23, people everywhere start to laugh less…..We don’t start laughing again until 70. So that’s 47 very serious years.” It observes “Studies have shown laughter can decrease stress hormones in the blood, as well as increase our “feel-good” chemicals, endorphins. It could even have a positive effect on the immune system.” There is even a book on the topic called Humour Seriously which says that “a recent survey of more than 700 CEOs showed that 98% prefer job candidates with a sense of humour, and 84% think that funny employees do better work.”
 
Having a sense of humour, and appreciating this in others, can also prevent us taking ourselves too seriously – an occupational hazard I suggest for dedicated hard working professionals. Of course, this can be taken too far, and we should not condone cruel or inappropriate jokes or teasing. And some may say laughter has no place in our serious work. I beg to differ and think if used properly it can enhance our interaction and work performance. See this article No Laughing Matter: Humour in Corporate Life which discusses this dilemma and suggests that “humour is the best way to break barriers” proposing “Adding humour if you are a manager or team member will make you more approachable, fallible and human.” It concludes that “while humour in corporate life may feel like a risky endeavour, it’s one worth pursuing…. a smile might just be the most valuable return on investment you’ll ever see.”
 
So, as we roll into the festive season, with all of its attendant and inevitable work and personal pressures, let’s enjoy the corny jokes in the Christmas crackers and try to have more of a laugh at work and at home. And continue playing like our children do - but with bigger toys.
 
“Humour is not about making work funny, but making work fun.” Andrew Tarvin an expert on humour in the workplace (I didn’t know there was such a thing!).
 
“If I can get you to laugh with me, you like me better, which makes you more open to my ideas.” John Cleese.
 
“A sense of humor is the art of leadership, of getting along with people, of getting things done.”  Dwight D. Eisenhower.

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.

​I was talking to a new contact last week, also in the business consultancy world, about the different ways of effectively resolving commercial disagreements. These should take into account the nature of the issue and even the culture of the parties concerned in order to arrive at a true meeting of minds and hence an effective resolution. It reminded me of the absolute (in my view) need to reach a proper in depth understanding of the expectations and requirements of the parties to a commercial IT outsourcing service contract when the agreement is negotiated and formed. This can greatly enhance successful delivery and help avoid any dispute in the first place. Many years ago, I attended an IT law conference in London where a very experienced technology lawyer explained during a panel discussion the approach he and his firm had taken to a very large and significant UK government IT outsourcing negotiation involving multiple parties. He said that acting for the customer they presented a “polite brick wall” to all suppliers listening carefully to their concerns and as it turned out legitimate issues, but not changing anything in the contract in response. Guess what happened? The contract delivery was something of a disaster resulting in numerous disputes and failing to achieve the intended benefit for the public sector.
 
And this attitude is not confined to government customers. I once acted for a supplier in the negotiation of a major outsourcing contract in the private sector with a major player in the pharmaceutical industry. We raised a number of comments intended to enable our client supplier to better understand the ask, and also negotiate a more reasonable deal. We all travelled hopefully to the Midlands for a discussion with the customer and their American legal firm. We were put firmly in our place mainly by the lawyers - all our comments were rejected as were our attempts to gain a greater understanding of the requirements. The contract was eventually awarded to a large Indian supplier, presumably the cheapest bidder. Through some strange coincidence I subsequently spoke to a consultant who told me how the project had gone badly wrong. It had been reallocated to a different supplier to sort the problems out at great expense and with resulting significant delay. Whilst I don’t know the details, I doubt this was due to the competency or otherwise of the original supplier, but rather to a lack of clarity as to what was required mapped onto the capabilities and offerings of the contractor. This was probably coupled to its inability to make the anticipated profit margin.
 
AI suggests that “a "polite brick wall" refers to a respectful yet firm resistance to unreasonable requests or expectations, often encountered in UK construction projects.” All well and good but what if those “requests” are to understand or even dare one say it improve the contracting model, and the “expectations” are merely to make a reasonable commercial return? There are of course many reasons why there are so many failed outsourcing contracts. See this SCL article Whose fault is it anyway? Why complex IT and outsourcing projects fail which provides a balanced view of the customer and the supplier causes and who might be to blame. Interestingly they include on the customer side “The customer does not know what it wants or how the IT system will meet its objectives” and on the supplier side “The supplier overpromises”. However, a reason why both parties may be at fault is that “The requirements of the new system are generally not specified to a level of detail to allow development until after the supplier has been selected”. 
 
And it is not as if guidance, knowledge and experience is not now available in this more mature IT outsourcing market. See, for example, this thorough and well thought through, Deloitte document The Outsourcing Handbook A Guide to Outsourcing. This sagely observes that outsourcing is a challenging relationship – “”Outsourcing Failure Stories” is its own Google keyword. The potential to achieve significant savings through outsourcing is well known. However, there are a number of examples where companies hit obstacles, get entangled in complexities and simply get it wrong.”  It comments on the negotiation phase that “Throughout all of this activity the client should remember that the objective is not a deal with the smallest possible initial price but a deal which provides optimal long term benefit to both parties.”  It also points out the importance of a “Contract for Outputs” where from the customer’s perspective service descriptions “should be described in terms of the end outputs that the client requires …which allows the vendors to develop the most appropriate solution.” Too often customers in my experience fail to recognise the skills and ability of suppliers and try to tell them not just what they want but exactly how to deliver it.
 
What amazes me is that despite all these war stories, guidance and advice nobody seems to have learnt the lessons of history. Customers still look for the lowest price during procurement processes and hardball suppliers, forcing them to “cost scrub” and reduce their final bid price, whilst refusing to “open their kimono” and tell them what they really, really want. Suppliers still sign up to deals knowing they don’t have a true understanding of the requirements and hence the solution and cannot deliver on time, sometimes if at all. They optimistically hope they will somehow be able to sort it out “in the wash” and at some stage return to profitability for the project because of the new work opportunities the customer must eventually provide them.
 
The solution in my view is to abandon traditional vendor/supplier relationships and seek instead to establish a strategic outsourcing partnership between the customer and supplier, recognising that their mutual success is a common goal. See, for example, this article 13 steps to building and maintaining a successful outsourcing partnership which discusses “how to build and maintain a durable outsourcing partnership” observing “Finding an effective way of working when the fundamental principles of the sector, organisation and even the individuals you’ll be collaborating with, may be significantly different from your own, so it can be challenging and may well be a constant juggling act throughout the relationship.”
 
See also this Forbes article How To Create A Successful Outsourcing Partnership which proposes that for successful outsourcing “the essential concept here is that of a partnership. If you consider your outsourcing choice as a service provider, everything can go wrong. I believe you want to choose someone who has a similar philosophy to yours so you can trust them to fulfill your vision”. It then proposes what to consider in this context including:
 

• Cultural Proximity - how like-minded you and your partner are. Do they share your worldview?
• Trust and Communication - choose the best-fitting partner you can find — and then trust them.
• Flexibility - You’re likely going to have to evolve from your initial concept.

 
Ultimately and perhaps ironically in my view outsourcing success comes down to relationships and people, not AI driven technology. We should be the opposite of “polite brick walls”. As professional legal and commercial advisers on outsourcing deals our roles should be to enhance and promote understanding, rather than be pleasant but unmovable. We should listen, engage, construct, be creative and adapt, and advise our clients to do the same, rather than just deflect nicely. Above all outsourcing contracts should be seen as constructive and evolving partnerships, not rigid vendor/purchaser relationships.
 
As Mother Teresa said "I can do things you cannot, you can do things I cannot; together we can do great things". 

In my Tai Chi classes we start off with standing meditation and then do some quite serious stretching to develop greater flexibility. It works – whilst I can’t quite emulate the man in the picture (yet), I can now touch my toes for the first time in years! In July of this year I wrote a blog Time Management and Beyond where I proposed that working life is not just about organising the time given to us in the home or work office, but rather  what we pay attention to in our busy days. I have been thinking more about this as I balance the various aspects of my working and leisure life and am coming to the conclusion that in addition to focusing on the right things, the modern professional and business leader needs to be truly flexible in dealing with the inevitable flow of events coming at you from all directions during an average working day. 
 
Gone many many aeons ago are the times when you commuted to an office building in the City every day, got a coffee, chatted to fellow workers, retreated to your private office to read the newspaper and then the post – called in your secretary (remember those) to dictate some pressing letters, chatted to a few colleagues – then went off to a boozy business lunch. The afternoon involved some telephone calls and a team discussion followed by a partners meeting; then off to Waterloo to take the 18.30 train back to Surrey. I am exaggerating to prove a point, but working life then was more structured and to an extent predictable.
 
Picture the equivalent scene now. You arrive as the leader of a professional team at the London office clutching your Costa Coffee cappuccino for one of your two or three days a week there. The company policy is bookable hotdesking, but you have not bothered to book one because your team usually find workspaces together. However, now that annoying PA (the last vestige of the secretary but now reserved for senior management) from the US head office has booked out all of your normal desks for the visiting American sales team and is guarding them zealously – even though they will not arrive until after midday. You finally find a vacant space on the other side of the office and have just opened up your laptop when one of your team appears and asks if they can have just 5 minutes of your time on a thorny and urgent contract issue. Your coffee is now getting cold. 30 minutes later you just have time to log in for your monthly department meeting. During that you note your 100 unread emails for the day, 10 Teams meeting invites, and a rather annoying IM from the cost-conscious finance director claiming to have found an AI programme that will replace your team at a fraction of the cost.
 
What I suggest that this means in our present-day volatile business world is that a key skill set for managers and indeed for employees is flexibility and adaptability. See this interesting McKinsey article Developing a resilient, adaptable workforce for an uncertain future which suggests that “A key task for 21st-century leaders is to develop their own capacity for change while also fostering resilience and adaptability in others across the organization.” This is not easy as “Human beings have a natural affinity for order, predictability, and control. They will do everything they can to avoid chaos, uncertainty, and volatility.” However, leaders and employees need to be resilient and adaptable – “the ability to view change as a challenge or an opportunity to bounce forward.” It then proposes four actions leaders can take “so they and their workforces can successfully weather even the most extreme periods of volatility”.
 

• Set a compass or North Star to help people move in a common direction.
• Build a psychologically safe community, not just a workforce.
• Ensure that they, themselves, are demonstrating resilience and adaptability and serving as role models for others.
• Encourage employees to learn and build these skills in groups.

 
It concludes we need to be resilient and adaptable to avoid the fate of historical factories. “When electricity was invented and replaced steam machines in factories, it took 30 years before that innovation led to improved efficiency and productivity.”
 
While this Indeed article proposes How to demonstrate adaptability and flexibility at work explaining how they are two different if related skills. When someone is:
 

• adaptable, they have a willingness to change to match different conditions;
• flexible, they can easily adapt to various situations and respond well to new environments

 
It proposes that there are key skills to be: 
 

• adaptable including communication, problem solving and teamwork;​
• flexible including the mentality to embrace change, taking on new responsibilities and  working with new people.

 
For me the key here is not to see yourself in the second example above as overwhelmed or driven by the events which occur. Instead embrace the opportunity for variety, continuous learning and open communication. Cultivate a growth mindset in yourself and your team – see Carol Dweck’s great book Mindset. Foster continuous learning and promote experimentation making yourself available to your team. Imagine in the example if the manager had told their colleague with a problem to go away and come back later while he or she caught up with their emails and drank their coffee.
 
To some extent being flexible and adaptable is a little bit scary because it inevitably involves some measure of loss of control. See this Harvard Business Review article written just after the pandemic The Secret of Adaptable Organizations Is Trust which postulates “a “less is more” approach to adaptability, where management loosens their hold and gives the organization the freedom it needs to work effectively.” To some extent this mirrors a crisis mode. “With the company in a sink-or-swim situation, the employees pull together and develop the ability to surf.” It proposes that “The problem is, tightening controls often stifles the organization. In fact, what management should do is loosen their hold and give the organization the freedom it needs to work effectively. The idea is that management should stick to defining what they want to achieve and let the organization focus on how to achieve it.”
 
This relaxation and resulting flexibility would be anathema to the office worker in the more traditional example I first set out above. However nowadays this sort of flexibility and adaptability is I suggest a professional imperative.
 
“The best leaders don't know just one style of leadership - they're skilled at several, and have the flexibility to switch between styles as the circumstance dictates.” Daniel Goleman the American psychologist and author.
 
“To maintain balance while constantly shifting body weight is an art few ever acquire.” Bruce Lee.
 
“Blessed are the hearts that can bend; they shall never be broken.” Albert Camus.

I am writing this blog in the South of France listening to Riviera Radio and being cooled by the ceiling fan we had installed last year. The photo is the view in the evening from a restaurant in Port Grimaud. First may I say that I am a big fan of France and the French and have enjoyed personal and business connections here for much of my life. I am trying hard to improve my modest spoken French taking a lesson every week. That said there are unique challenges in this wonderful country. I was driving back from the beach yesterday obeying, as an Englishman should do, the 30 kph speed limit near the beach resorts when a small lorry went round the wrong side of a roundabout to overtake me dramatically well in excess of the speed limit, then a car right behind me also overtook again aggressively and at high speed. Often you have motorbikes or mopeds weaving in and out of traffic and sweeping by with little margin for error. Don’t even think what e-scooters are like. They go by the charming French word “trottinette” - but there the charm ends. They are ridden at high speed on roads and pavements day and night with no helmets or much regard for other users. And then as my native French teacher sagely said in our last lesson “the French have no concept of service”. I drove for 30 minutes to Cavalaire to change a broken remote for the security garage and barrier to our building. They gave me the wrong one which I found out when I got back. So off I went again to arrive 10 minutes before their office opened – they were all however sitting there and could see but ignored me – OK fair enough so I went to get a coffee. Returning they recognised I had the wrong remote and changed it. However, they made no apology for their mistake, and worse still they tried to accuse me of not paying a service charge by cheque. I had as I explained paid by a bank transfer. I stepped towards the back of the office during the discussion, and one of the two ladies there told me aggressively to move back to the front! 
 
This is a bit of an extreme example as mostly the French are charming and helpful, but it nicely illustrates my theme today which is that there are some givens you just have to accept and deal with in our professional as well as personal lives. If the culture of a law firm that you join is “eat what you kill” i.e. everybody for themselves, other partners may try to steal your clients. In a “collegiate” firm you can share clients and expect reciprocity. If in the context of an in-house legal department the leadership of the business has no moral compass (this happened to me much earlier in my career) you can as a lawyer expect challenges.  Well run companies respect honesty and ethics and I have been privileged to work for them. If you do not like the situation you find in a professional practice or in-house role you have two choices: work within this and recognise the constraints – or leave. What you cannot generally do is change this status quo. That would be banging your head against the proverbial brick wall.
 
What you can within reason try and do is understand and fit in. Here is an interesting Forbes article How To Cope And Thrive In A Challenging Corporate Culture, Like Netflix which discusses “its unique and distinctive corporate culture that centers around high performance and the hiring and retaining of top talent.” It operates a “keeper test” which “requires managers to ask themselves two questions: “if X wanted to leave, would I fight to keep them?” and “knowing everything I know today, would I hire X again?” If the answer is “no,” the streaming platform suggests everyone part ways.”  There is nothing wrong with this (the article says “The company has a reputation for providing its workforce autonomy and decision-making power”) but it could represent a challenge for some business leaders with a different philosophy.
 
Turning more to professional practices the first requisite is to understand what the culture is if you plan to join say a law firm. This applies whether you are joining as a graduate or an equity partner. See this Yale Law School article Assessing Law Firms: Culture, Clients, Compensation and Beyond which observes  “The factors that create a firm’s “culture” can be challenging to nail down, but typically come from a firm’s behavioral norms and expectations. Does the firm articulate a set of core values? What does the firm focus on when evaluating performance? Is there a sense of collegiality? Are doors in the office open or closed? What is the firm’s attire policy? Are the attorneys of certain political affiliations? How do the attorneys treat the support staff? What opportunities does the firm provide for social and professional interaction among attorneys?”
 
While this article Law Firm Cultures which discusses potential change contains a good analysis of culture which “is the consistent pattern of day‐to‐day behaviors by which members of a group interact with each other and choose how to spend their time.”  It proposes “a simple but effective approach, adapted from Rob Goffee’s and Gareth Jones’ seminal book The Character of a Corporation (New York: HarperCollins 1998), for understanding your firm’s culture and how it may need to change”. This involves dividing possible cultures into:
 

• Networked Cultures (High Friendliness, Low Common Focus)

 

• Silo Cultures (Low Friendliness, Low Common Focus)

 

• Meritocracy Cultures (Low Friendliness, High Common Focus)

 

• Collaborative Cultures (High Friendliness, High Common Focus)

And culture in a law firm is really important to its success and indeed the provision of a fulfilling career for its professionals. See this Thomson Reuters article Why law firm culture matters more than firm strategy. One of its key insights is “A well-defined strategy alone cannot guarantee law firm success; firms need to pay close attention to crafting a firm culture that reflects the firm’s values, goals, and practices”. It observes that “Firm culture is not just a trendy buzzword — it’s a key strategic lever that can determine whether a firm is on track for sustainable success, or whether it will face struggles to keep up with more agile competitors and a rapidly evolving market.”

“Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” Peter Drucker.

“The only way to do great work is to love what you do.”  Steve Jobs.

“There’s no magic formula for great company culture. The key is just to treat your staff how you would like to be treated.” Richard Branson.
​
And returning to French culture at the close, it is very powerful. I will never forget a road trip many many years ago to the South of France in a battered old Renault 5 car listening to the 1965 Joan Baez album (they existed before streaming) Farewell Angelina. If you have never heard “Colours” I recommend you listen to it.