Canadian Lawyer

18 M A Y 2 0 1 7 w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m And that's where design thinking can have the most impact for lawyers in their practices: when a more complex client problem lands on your desk. With the ever-onward march of the machines, we need to distinguish what makes lawyers different. Simple interpretations of the law may ultimately become the purview of the robots, but they're not creative enough to find novel solutions and to build strategy and consensus around that option. Law- yers can. Adopting some of these design- thinking techniques can empower lawyers to stretch their problem-solving skills in new and transformative ways for both cli- ent and firm. What is design thinking? At core, design thinking is a method used by designers to solve complex problems and find desirable solutions for clients. In the literature, it is often described as a process, such as: Empathize — Define — Ideate — Prototype — Test (What a perfect example of using catchy power verbs to supercharge an idea!) Designing for Growth breaks it down into simpler questions: What is? What if ? What wows? What works? What is? The first step is to make sure we under- stand the problem with which we're faced. We have to resist lumping a current problem into the same bucket as others we've encountered. For the simple and standard files, this can make sense on efficiency grounds. But even in those, it is still vital to understand the individual client sitting on the other side of the table. We must understand the specific client goals and what a suc- cessful outcome looks like for them. We need to clarify the client's position and stand in their shoes as we unwrap the problem. For the big and complex files, we have to understand the client's risk tolerance and the shifting nature of that appetite as the circumstances of the deal or case change. In design thinking, there are many different techniques that engage this ability to reframe the problem and see it from different viewpoints. One power- ful but simple way is to ask "Why?" The more we ask that question, the more we can dig deeper into the reasons behind a client's need for a solution. It allows us to see the problem through different frames or perspectives. A recent Harvard Business Review article on the topic ("Are You Solving the Right Problem?") uses the "slow elevator" example to explain problem framing. Simple solution find- ing may suggest options to make the elevator go faster, whereas design think- ers faced with the same problem may reframe it as "the wait is annoying" instead. They may map out the experi- ence of using an elevator to consider solutions that can make the wait feel shorter. (The reason mirrors or reflective surfaces are often near elevators is that apparently we lose track of time when we're given something incredibly com- pelling to look at, i.e., ourselves.) What if? Once we're sure that we're solving the L E G A L I N N O VAT I O N N O W O P I N I O N imple questions and simple problems require simple answers and simple solutions. Our world, however, is often more complex than that. And complexity needs us to think more innovatively and to find creative ways to solve the problems that arise. Design thinking, according to Jeanne Liedtka and Tim Ogilvie in their book Designing for Growth, "fosters creative problem-solving by bringing a systematic end-to-end process to the challenge of innova- tion." S Design thinking We can wow our clients by shifting our mindset when we solve legal problems By Kate Simpson @k8simpson

• Cover