Canadian Lawyer

w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m A P R I L 2 0 1 6 19 they've done this by seeding their own forms and documents, and allowing them to choose the specific legal help they need using simple, fixed prices. Solo or small firm lawyers benefit from the reasonably priced way of getting their bio in front of more eyeballs than they could possibly reach by themselves. All three platforms operate in the same consumer, retail, and small business areas. The precedents, documents, and simple/ fast legal help they provide are all examples of the "rote" and "robotic" type of work at the bottom end of the Robot Curve outlined in my last column. They have fully productized a set of legal services — simple consumer/employee legal prob- lems, small business formations, wills, etc. — to deliver in a commoditized market. According to Clayton Christensen's theory of disruptive innovations, this entry into the low end of the market is where all newcomers start as they work their way from the bottom to the top, eventually pushing the incumbents, at the rarefied end of the market, aside. We are starting to see evidence of innovation at larger law firms that share some of the features of the new platform businesses by delivering a suite of online services or "knowledge products." Ron Friedmann's recent Prism Legal review of Cadwalader Cabinet is an example. It is an online legal service covering finan- cial regulations created by Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP. Some of these online services oper- ate down at the commoditized end of the Robot Curve, with individual firms competing with Rocket Lawyer or Avvo to offer forms, documents, and restricted legal advice to small-to-medi- um enterprises and startups. But some being designed, developed, and deliv- ered by law firms are amazingly cre- ative and innovative. They often target a niche audience, like Goodwin Proctor's Founder's Workbench, or provide very niche knowledge and information in heavily technical areas of law, such as Allen & Overy LLP's aosphere.com. Legal technology providers are also starting to experiment with the platform model as they integrate tools and solu- tions into the workflows of a deal or case. It will be fascinating to see whether technology platforms like HighQ or the currently closed platforms of Thomson Reuters will nudge law firms to create more platform-like experiences for their clients. So, will we ever see the so-called Uberization effect? Might platforms be the only way we'll deliver legal services in the future? I think it's much too early to predict. But it is clear that there are legal innova- tors creating new types of value for both clients and lawyers, which, if they prove successful, will surely be copied and lead to a wider shift towards platform busi- ness models. First, we need to see whether clients of legal really value the social features of customer rankings, ratings, and reviews. I can't see why these wouldn't help indi- viduals or small business clients looking for simple answers. Even in a regulated profession, visiting a single web page and brand that funnels me in the right direction to a good lawyer is better than sifting through pages of Google search results looking for recommended local lawyers. It isn't clear that this will be borne out for larger clients or more complex cases though. Confidentiality, conflicts, and privacy issues will hinder sharing information publicly, as will the more complex personal relationship and net- working dynamics of larger clients and firms. Second, it will be interesting to watch how successful the new knowledge prod- ucts and online legal services become. For clients, the value is in making it easier to understand, find, and buy legal services — whether through more standardized services with predictable and low-cost pricing or through more niche offerings that can be productized by focusing on highly targeted market needs. But our legal needs don't always slot nicely into prefab boxes. The complex layers of legal obligations and duties can be lost when turned into the black or white or the zeros and ones of com- puter code. Unique legal problems often need unique solutions designed by lead- ing experts that welcome the grey, the unique, and the complex. And, finally, on the lawyer side, the value of these platforms will be in hav- ing greater access to clients. Avvo cre- ates a better digital storefront than a lot of small and medium law firms can through their own web sites. If more cli- ents start shopping around for lawyers, then the reasons for not joining such a platform may disappear. And, as we've seen with Uber, many people may not like the new models, but if there are enough competitors willing to go along with it, critics may not have much to say in the matter. While none of these value proposi- tions necessarily need to be part of a platform to be successful, the more value that is created and enjoyed in each will certainly point to a more platform-based future for legal. Kate Simpson is national director of knowledge management at Bennett Jones LLP, and is responsible for developing the firm's KM strategy and initiatives. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. FOR CLIENTS, THE VALUE IS IN MAKING IT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND, FIND, AND BUY LEGAL SERVICES . . . Who do you think deserves to be included in the 25 MOST INFLUENTIAL LAWYERS IN CANADA? NOMINATIONS OPEN APR. 1 - MAY V i s i t W W W. C A N A D I A N L A W Y E R M A G . C O M / S U R V E Y S f o r d e t a i l s

• Cover