Plenary: Leaders’ Visions for 2025
Presented By:
Lynn Chard Institute for Continuing Legal Education Ann Arbor, Michigan
Carmen Hill Connective DX Portland, Oregon
Josh King Avvo, Inc. Seattle, Washington
Pat Nester State Bar of Texas Austin, Texas
Presented at: ACLEA 52nd Annual Meeting July 30th – August 2nd, 2016 Seattle, Washington Lynn Chard Institute for Continuing Legal Education Ann Arbor, Michigan
Lynn P. Chard has been the Director of the Institute of Continuing Legal Education (ICLE) in Ann Arbor, MI since July 1, 1993. Prior to that time, she served as the Institute’s Publications Director and also practiced appellate law for several years. She has expanded ICLE’s services beyond traditional seminars and practice books to include extensive digital web and mobile services.
She holds a JD, cum laude, from the University of Michigan Law School and earned a Certificate of Completion from HBX/Harvard Business School on Disruptive Business Strategy with Clay Christensen in 2015.
Ms. Chard is active in the Association for Continuing Legal Education Administrators (ACLEA) and recently served as a Director‐at‐Large on the Executive Committee. In the past she has held many positions including Director‐at‐Large, Publications Committee Chair, and editor of the ACLEA Newsletter. Ms. Chard has served on the Advisory Board of the CLE Journal and on the Planning Committee for the CLE Summit. She is a member of the State Bar of Michigan, the State Bar’s 21st Century Law Practice Task Force, and the Continuing Professional Education Committee at the University of Michigan.
Carmen Hill Connective DX Portland, Oregon
A long‐time B2B marketer with a passion for content and digital, Carmen considers herself an early adopter, enthusiastic experimenter, grammar geek and social butterfly. As director of marketing at Connective DX, a digital experience agency headquartered in Portland, Oregon, she oversees content and digital marketing and edits the agency’s online publications. Carmen also helps organize Delight, the agency’s annual experience design conference. In her prior agency experience, Carmen built an award‐ winning content marketing practice and developed content and social marketing strategies for global clients such as Adobe, Google and Xerox. A marketing industry influencer, she has presented at SXSW and other events, as well as MarketingProfs University and Online Marketing Institute. Most recently she was recognized by Search Engine Journal as one of “50 Awesome Women in Marketing to Follow,” which you do on Twitter, LinkedIn and SlideShare: @carmenhill.
Josh King Avvo, Inc. Seattle, Washington
Josh King is the Chief Legal Officer for Avvo, Inc. He is responsible for Avvo's legal, government relations, and customer service functions. He is also a frequent writer and speaker on interactive media and professional ethics issues. Prior to joining Avvo in 2007, Josh spent over a decade in the wireless industry, in a mix of legal and non‐legal roles including Vice President, Corporate Development at AT&T Wireless and General Counsel for Cellular One of San Francisco. Josh started his legal career as a litigator in the San Francisco Bay Area. Josh earned a J.D. from the University of California Hastings College of the Law and a bachelor's degree from the University of Oregon.
Pat Nester State Bar of Texas Austin, Texas
After graduating from the University of Texas School of Law in 1975 and practicing for several years, Pat began his CLE career in 1978 as a legal editor for the Professional Development Program of the State Bar. In 1980, he migrated to the seminar side of CLE and became director of Professional Development in 1986, succeeding Gene Cavin, one of the founders of ACLEA. Pat served as president of ACLEA in 1994‐95 and as executive planning chair for the ACLEA‐ALI‐ABA CLE Summit in 2009. In addition to his CLE work for the State Bar, Pat serves as executive director of the Texas Bar College, an honorary society of lawyers created by the Texas Supreme Court for those who commit to at least twice the minimum CLE hours required. He also serves as executive director of the Texas Supreme Court Historical Society.
Plenary: Leaders' Visions for 2025
Submitted by Lynn Chard, Director, ICLE Research & Analysis prepared by Mary I. Hiniker; June 2016 Copyright: ICLE, Ann Arbor, MI
Trends in the Legal Profession, Technology, Communication and Marketing, Education and Publishing
Introduction
This paper is a resource for ACLEA members to use as you each explore your own future vision for your organization. It‘s a curated collection of links, with brief descriptions, to useful sources and examples of key trends likely to impact CLE organizations. While it includes brief analyses of possible implications of these trends, its main purpose is to save time with environmental trend research for CLE. Read it in its entirety for a high level overview or plunge into the substance by clicking on the links for an in-depth look at areas of interest.
ICLE will use this to prepare for our annual SWOT analysis with our staff and our governing board; we plan to update it annually now that we‘ve gotten the base in place. We were fortunate to have Mary I Hiniker, an experienced CLE professional, willing to take on this project and bring her law background and 30+ years of CLE publishing and information service experience to the task.
Trends in the Legal Profession
General Resources 1. State Bar of Michigan: demographic information and lawyer income surveys; 21st Century Practice Report and further initiatives 2. ABA articles on the Future of the Legal Profession and lawyer demographics and law schools. See detailed info on Law Schools 3. Georgetown Law School Center for the Study of the Legal Profession 4. General searches and articles on competing businesses 5. Lawyer demographics o Fewer lawyers in the pipeline: law student enrollment is down 22% nationally since 2011. All MI law schools reduced enrollment last 5 years; Cooley drastically; ABA law school stats o MI Bar membership stable. Gradual increase in women members. Small increase in minorities. About 35% of members are in solo or small firm private practice. 46% are 55 or older; Source: MI Bar Demographics.
1 Internet Inroads into Legal Business Technology can save money by automating labor-intensive processes and can also reach a very large group of customers with a ―good enough‖ product. Because of this, tech-based services are encroaching on traditional legal work. A number of these tech-based services have been in business long enough to grow their content and refine their business models. Examples: o LegalZoom. In business 15 years. You can buy automated documents with enhancements (review, updating). Not rock-bottom cheap. See estate plan pricing. Also offer ―Business Advantage Pro‖ – monthly fee for consultations with a lawyer. o Nolo. Info and automated documents reviewed by legal staff. Includes lawyer ads. o Rocket Lawyer (backed by Google Ventures): Make one free document; sign up for a monthly subscription with access to lawyers ($35-$49/month). The ABA backed off a joint venture with Rocket Lawyer after complaints from lawyers. o Automated dispute resolution. Modria.com automates customer dispute resolution for e- commerce sites (geared to the business client). PeopleClaim is geared to the consumer (includes a registry for publicizing your unresolved dispute to encourage settlement). o At the high end, technology has automated parts of e-discovery and contract review. See ―Let‘s Automate All the Lawyers?‖ (WSJ 3-25-15). o At the low end of routine legal process, a free artificial intelligence lawyer chatbot successfully appealed 160,000 parking tickets across London and New York. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/28/chatbot-ai-lawyer-donotpay-parking- tickets-london-new-york
Law Firm Business Trends Global accounting firms can own law firms overseas, affecting large US law firms. In the US, business clients are bringing more work in-house and reducing litigation spending. Large firms cut expenses but resist change in the way they measure success. Source: Georgetown/Thomson Reuters 2015 Report on the State of the Legal Market. A few very large firms are doing very well.
Regulatory Changes Unauthorized practice lawsuits are ineffective. There is pressure to allow multidisciplinary practice (MDP, ownership sharing or fee-splitting with non-lawyers) so that clients have ―one-stop shopping‖; also pressure to allow unbundled legal services to allow clients to purchase limited slices of a transaction.
Most states currently don‘t permit either. Washington State does, and also licenses non-lawyers to perform aspects of legal services. Internationally, MDP is permitted. A growing number of states permit lawyers to handle a limited piece of a legal transaction (unbundled legal services). ABA and the State Bar of Michigan are studying these issues. Resources: o The Michigan State Bar 21st Century Task Force is making recommendations. o ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services – provided summaries and are asking for comments on unregulated providers and alternative business structures
Growth Areas for Practice Security/IT/privacy (worldwide, US, Michigan)
2 Legal issues in shift to use of biometric ids and other privacy issues Autonomous vehicles and related legal issues Protecting business information Personalized medicine/issues related to electronic healthcare information Influence of China Immigration issues Employment issues in the ―gig‖ economy (classification cases?) Litigation is declining because of cost and time to court
Key trends to watch: shrinking and aging lawyer population; how will the small-firm business model adapt (and be allowed to adapt) to new competition; what are the key skills of the successful small-firm lawyer (tech-savvy, mobile, low-overhead, expertise in boutique areas; ways to provide full service)?
3 Trends in Technology
General Resources 1. Gartner Strategic Predictions for 2016 and Beyond (free after signup).1 2. Forrester provides technology reports and consulting for business and IT leaders. Their reports cost several hundred dollars. 3. Wall Street Journal daily CIO Alerts; also The Information (low-cost e-newsletter by former tech WSJ reporter; newsy about startups and the what is coming from the Silicon Valley tech industry) 4. Brian Solis predictions for 2016-18. 5. Harvard Business Review: ―What Is Disruptive Innovation?‖ 6. For legal tech: Law Technology Today (check authorship since many articles are by vendors)
Note that millennials are now the largest age group in the US (slightly larger than Baby Boomers).
Mobile, Connected Devices Mobile devices allow one-to-one connections that are transforming many industries. Users have easy access to hundreds of apps to create a personalized digital environment. It is a ―pick and choose‖ digital world where services like cable TV and bundled channels will likely disappear. More devices are both ―smart‖ and connected. Intelligence is being built into a wide variety of products (the ―Internet of Things‖ or IoT). Each of these smart devices generates data, providing information to businesses and raising consumer expectations for a very personalized experience. They also increase the risk of security problems and misuse of data. Impact on lawyers and CLE organizations: o The savvy lawyer will use these devices and products to increase efficiency and form stronger ties with clients. o Customers will have less patience for services that are slow, don‘t adapt well to new devices, or require a learning curve. o New CLE resources need to be simple, accessible, and bite-sized. This requires substantive technology and design expertise.
―In the post-mobile world the focus shifts to the mobile user who is surrounded by a mesh of devices extending well beyond traditional mobile devices,‖ Gartner Vice President David Cearley.
“Big Data” and Analytics Smart devices generate data about preferences, interests, and buying patterns. This allows more personalized, targeted customer communications. These connected devices also communicate data to each other and to humans (for example, a wearable device to the internet to a doctor back to the patient). Data is harnessed in real-time, which allows the creation of new services. For example, Uber uses real-time analytics to let you know where your driver is and when she will arrive.
1 Gartner also offers reports that can be purchased for several hundred dollars.
4 Major tech companies offer analytics tools. See ―Google Goes After Microsoft, Tableau and Others with a Free Analytics Tool‖ (Computerworld 5-26-16).
Automated Functions ―Using it‖ becomes increasingly easy. Google has introduced a one-handed keyboard. Banking apps let you do transactions without entering account info. There is intense competition among ―intelligent agents‖ like Amazon Echo. Routine tasks are being automated—self-driving functions are added to cars, users can monitor their homes remotely, access entertainment, etc. Business functions will increasingly be automated. Many business documents will be generated automatically (securities filings, financial documents, standard legal forms). Personalized ads are generated in large quantities. Some of these ―robo‖ functions will run without human control or intervention. Watch for this in banking and financial transactions. Impact on lawyers: more competition from automated legal services; ability to cut costs and integrate technically with clients (and business and litigation clients will expect it); need to understand technology to advise business clients
Mobile Payment Systems Grow; Passwords Decline Payment is becoming easier and cheaper for customers (and they will expect it). New companies are offering mobile-based payment. Standards are being developed. Digital currencies are in their infancy. Banks are responding by investing in these ―fintech‖ companies. Other investors are buying in. MIT is offering a certificate program in fintech technology and investing. More social media apps will include purchasing. Facebook is adding a payment function to Messenger; Snapchat allows cash transfers. (Partly a response to concerns about lower sharing by social media users of personal content.) New forms of security. ―Biometrics‖ will replace passwords. (Wells Fargo is experimenting with eyeprints.) This raises legal and privacy issues. See ―Biometric Devices Raise Challenges for CIOs,‖ WSJ 5-24-16. For lawyers and CLE organizations: clients will expect easier payment methods, especially if unbundled services are allowed. Lawyers, CLE‘s, and Bar Associations will be increasingly challenged to comply with bank/credit card rules and meet customer expectations.
Cloud Services Use of cloud services is expanding, as IT spending overall declines. Some industries use a hybrid cloud, keeping the most sensitive information on their own servers. Traditional tech companies are challenged by the cloud, but many (e.g. Microsoft) are adapting. How fast the cloud is adopted varies by industry, according a survey from the Economist. Financial and retail industries are adapting quickly; manufacturing is slower because it requires adapting programs built into machines. Education is in the middle. Impact on lawyers: o Lawyers are using cloud-based technology for running their practices, but need to know how to pick a vendor and comply with the rules of professional responsibility. Lawyers also need
5 to understand this technology to advise business clients. Large entities like Thomson Reuters offer web-based practice management software. o Good source on legal cloud technology: Legal Cloud Computing Association.
Security and Privacy More data derived from smart products means more chances for that data to be used in ways the user did not anticipate. Unexpected results from programmed ―smart‖ devices if they don‘t function or connect as expected. Global tech development involves third-party contractors and more opportunities for theft and misuse of information (e.g., recently an overseas subcontractor stole a lot of healthcare data). Facebook and others are developing the ability to derive a great deal of information from photos users post.
Artificial Intelligence Artificial intelligence has been a research field for many years, but is now being adopted commercially to power some of the above developments. For the status, see this summary (Fortune, 3-22-16).
Augmented and Virtual Reality (VR) Virtual reality has been most developed in entertainment and high-end (often military) simulation training. However, it is becoming more mainstream (Wall Street Journal and NY Times offer virtual reality segments; Facebook wants to use virtual reality to enhance social interactions). See Facebook 10-year plan.) Augmented reality overlays human perception with an additional layer of virtual information. This is being used in medicine, and has potential in education. For an example, see this TED talk. While VR has application in sophisticated gaming and training (see ―Second Life‖ in Wikipedia), augmented reality probably will have the most application in education and medicine.
Inability of Law and Regulation to Keep Up with Technology Developing policy positions takes time, and law lags behind policy. As the pace of technology change increases, this lag will become even greater.
Other Issues Like a lot of rapid tech change, there may be bumps in the road. Will the smart devices talk to each other effectively? How will privacy, security, and ease of access balance out? How will European and foreign regulation affect development? Are we heading for a tech startup ―bubble‖? How will the increasing commercialization of the Internet and social media play out? Will we leave the era of ―devices‖ behind? And who will get left behind in all this change?
6 Trends in Communication and Marketing
General Resources 1. Technology sources (see previous section) 2. Brian Solis articles 3. Watch what Facebook does (WSJ articles, etc.). FB has billions of users and is always adding functions to stay relevant. See Facebook‘s 10-year plan (summarized in MIT Technology Review) 4. Web marketing for small law firms: Modern Firm marketing posts
Communication is Digital, Social, Mobile and Increasingly in Real Time Customers connect easily and in real time: message apps are adding functions that make it easy to talk to a business. See Brian Solis blog, ―Facebook Borrows Key Features from Snapchat to Help Brands and Customers Connect.‖ Live-streaming video apps allow more real-time sharing (Facebook Live, Periscope for Twitter, etc.) Internal communications in the workplace become more ―social‖ using social-media-like apps (e.g., ―Facebook at Work‖; Slack.com (messaging app for teams, used by NASA).
Buying Gets Easier (social and mobile) Message apps add buying functions so you never have to leave the app. Facebook is testing ―tap and buy‖ video ads to show advertisers that FB can generate sales, not just brand awareness (The Information e-newsletter, 5-26-16). See technology trends on new forms of payment (previous section).
It’s a Visual World Increased expectation to use the right media option –don‘t assume that text is the default, but don‘t use new media just for show. Video is right for demos. Streaming video for communicating cool live events. Virtual reality or augmented reality for entertainment or serious simulated learning environments.
Customer is Empowered Customer reviews and ―shares‖ are powerful. Trust in a brand erodes quickly. Opportunities also arise quickly, and dubious sources of information gain loyal followers. Traditional information providers are increasingly challenged and try to respond with more varied and frequent content. This may not work.
Customers expect increasingly personalized experiences with a “business persona” they trust. The customer asks: o Do you engage my interest? (Tell me a story, show me a picture, make me smile?) o Do you know my preferences? Save me time? o Do you share my values? (are you environmentally or socially conscious, share other values)
7 o Do you care about my privacy? Are you secure? (Or are you too close to ―big brother‖?)
Businesses Need an Integrated System for Customer Engagement Customer engagement encompasses all aspects of the customer‘s interaction with a business, which should be seamless across platforms (including the friendly, helpful, real person when the customer wants to communicate with one). Online, the business needs a good website, with search engine optimization and possibly pay-per- click advertising. It needs to offer interesting free content (e-newsletters, tips, or breaking news, but only if useful to the customer) and collect customer information. Most importantly, the business must be ready to respond to the customer on his/her timetable. See SAP customer engagement survey (signup required; business case studies).
More Reliance on Analytics The business must understand not only what the customer does but why. Develop a brand identity— what is the core value you are providing? See Harvard Business Review (2014), ―The Ultimate Marketing Machine‖. E.g., a paint company changed their approach after realizing that, for customers, paint primarily affected how they feel. The company decided they were selling ―tins of optimism‖ and developed the slogan ―Let‘s Color!‖ For law firms, Thomson and Westlaw offer analytics programs geared to large litigation cases or intensive research (large-firm oriented). For small law firms, they claim to offer business development analytics. See Thomson‘s small law firm business development product. Website analytics like Google Analytics can analyze website traffic and effectiveness.
Expect More Regulation Privacy and antitrust concerns, as well as consumer protection and lawyer regulation, will continue to generate regulations. The global reach of the Internet will place restrictions on technology companies.
What does this mean for CLE organizations and their customers? What key benefit does your CLE provide to its customers? Is it ―confidence‖? Is it CLE credits? Is it help practicing law? Be sure to integrate current communication trends into both marketing and customer experience. Be sure that response time and format are what customers want, and that the system is integrated. Make it easy to buy. For lawyers, smart analysis of their business niche and the best way to reach clients, using technology, will help solos and small firms succeed. The Modern Firm‘s customers are examples of this successful approach.
8 Trends in Education
General Resources 1. BCG Report on Higher Education (2014) 2. Stanford d.school crash course on design thinking 3. Cathy Moore blogs 4. Chronicle of Higher Education has some good articles 5. Watch Udacity‘s offerings and how they develop
What do Professionals Need? Demonstrated competencies that employers or clients care about Lifelong learning to update and add skills Readiness to change jobs regularly or accept more contract assignments Ability to compete globally for professional jobs Meaningful credentials
Educators are figuring out what new models work. There are a lot of big players that will drive innovation in both the business of education and how it is delivered. Here are some of those players—
1. Businesses Businesses need enterprise training and information management. Challenges include managing and updating information, training a diverse and geographically dispersed staff, providing training that works on mobile devices (especially in a ―bring your own device‖ workplace), encouraging communication and collaboration, and measuring effectiveness. Example: see Inkling‘s enterprise product. Businesses also have incentives to provide cost-effective and memorable training. See Microlearning-based training.
2. Universities and colleges – Although not always leading innovation, these institutions are key players in education and have a lot at stake. Because of that, they will adopt some new educational methods, especially for their own students. Some will innovate more dramatically. They are affected by: Reduction in state and research funding; falling endowments for private colleges Pressure to demonstrate value (e.g., the Obama administration‘s College Scorecard) Pressure to teach to students‘ expectations and stay current technologically Globalization Need to reach alumni and donors: continuing education outreach helps See BCG Report on Higher Education (2014). Possibly useful: Chronicle of Higher Education 2026 the Decade Ahead.
3. Non-traditional online educators – offer skill-building or education online for a low fee; sometimes leading to a certificate but not a degree.
9 Udacity: offers free and low-cost online courses and ―nanodegrees,‖ developed with big-name tech companies. Started with MOOCs but troubled by lack of completion and added paid benefits. Coursera: Distributes online courses created by sponsoring institutions. Can lead to a certificate (specialization). Skill-building online training for a low fee: Lynda.com; Udemy: ―Our mission is to help anyone learn anything.‖ 50 million signups. Volunteer teachers who set the prices for their courses (low cost). Skillshare. $8/month; less curated than Lynda.com. See NY Times, ―Anyone Can Be a Teacher at Skillshare.‖
4. Professional associations – Education and certification will continue to be important member benefits as these organizations struggle to deliver value. For a well-developed example, see SHRM.
5. K-12 educators – Not directly relevant to lawyers, but there‘s a big market and lots of investment (Microsoft and Chromebooks are fighting for dominance in classrooms), so this may incubate software and educational methods. Public education is challenged by competition from charters. Khan Academy is still going strong.
Trends in How Education is Delivered
Business of Education Education providers are experimenting to find effective ways to deliver education digitally, effectively, and cost-effectively to a Millennial-dominated workforce and even younger student body. Free MOOCs (massive, open, online courses) are losing favor because only 10% of signups complete them. Free online education tends to offer extra benefits, which require a fee. Those benefits may be personal guidance, certificates, or creation of a valuable project or portfolio. Free courses may be the hook (one more way in which ―information‖ is defined as free). Even with a paid layer of benefits, there is so much high-quality, low-cost content available online that users expect a low price. Because much of this education is voluntary, the provider needs to demonstrate value (with metrics) and the teacher must be an excellent communicator.
Educational Methods and Trends Instructional design is critical, and involves understanding the user‘s needs (empathy). ―Blended learning‖ is more effective than purely online education. This incorporates in-person or personalized training as well as online delivery. Education must work on mobile devices and meet expectations of Millennials: mobile, bite- sized, and interactive. See ―4 Key Trends to Watch for in MLearning Technologies‖ (from Inkling). Storytelling and game functions. No matter what the level or subject matter, the learner must be engaged. See ―The TEDification of the Large Lecture,‖ Chronicle of Higher Education.
10 For effective learning, there should be opportunities for practice and feedback.
How Does this Affect Lawyers and CLE organizations? The challenge is to provide engaging education that meets the practical needs of customers, the convenience and ease of access required by a new generation, is affordable to provide, and is acceptable enough to existing experts. For lawyers, the challenges are to maintain competence and demonstrate expertise in the face of competition from non-lawyer providers and global competition. Although lawyers are licensed by states, which provides some current protection, those regulations will loosen and competition will increase.
Other Resources Tagoras.com. This organization focuses on learning systems for associations. They probably advise associations who are getting started; some of their advice may be useful.
11 Trends in Publishing
General Resources 1. Simba Information‘s reports on global professional publishing trends (very expensive); news articles on Simba projections. 2. The University of Michigan Library ―research guide‖ on Open Access. 3. Thomson Reuters practice resources for small law firms (as an example of the global publishers). 4. Watch how the resources provided by LinkedIn and Lynda.com develop.
General Trends Affecting Publishing Beyond search. ―Solutions come to me without my having to ask.‖ That‘s an exaggeration, but it is a vision for where things are headed. Currently, there is a focus on smarter search. Voice recognition is getting very good. Intelligence is being built into products and objects. Google just put an artificial intelligence expert in charge of search.2 Thomson Reuters is collaborating with IBM Watson to add intelligence to its products. Democracy of publishing. The Internet and social media allow sharing of very good information, including professional resources (see LinkedIn below). E-books encourage independent publishers and self-publishing. The power of copyright is weakening. Piracy is easier and enforcement is expensive. Phones and tablets replace e-readers. Content needs to work well on a phone. See Wall Street Journal ―The Rise of Phone Reading‖ (8-14-15). Publishers who remain tied to their traditional formats and business models (i.e., it‘s a book, a magazine, or a newspaper) will not succeed. Information is the hook to sell services. Associations are publishers and offer content as well as education as an important member benefit.
Professional Publishing Trends in legal publishing overlap with those affecting scientific publishing. See ―2015 Will Be a Year of Change in Professional Publishing, says Simba Report‖ [Research Information, Feb 2015.] The Open Access movement: calls for open access to scientific articles; also free primary law and related resources. Free information poses challenges for big global publishers, but they adapt by adding software and analytics. Both Thomson and Reed Elsevier say their strategy is "solutions" or "combine content & data with analytics & technology in global platforms." This isn't very different from the challenges they have faced since the Internet developed, but the open access movement has "upped the ante" for what they have to provide. In scientific publishing, publishers may be trying to form a closer relationship with researchers. Reed Elsevier recently bought the Social Science Media Network, an online community where social
2 From Time Magazine, 2-3-16: “[New head of Google search is} John Giannandrea, an artificial intelligence expert. Giannandrea … came to Google through the acquisition of his startup, Metaweb Technologies, a database of objects in the world which formed the basis of Knowledge Graph. He’s also worked on projects like RankBrain, which incorporates machine-learning techniques into Google’s search results.”
12 scientists discuss and share articles. See ―Elsevier‘s Purchase of Social Sciences Hub May Signal a Strategy Shift,‖ Chronicle of Higher Education. Note this comment: ―Some observers have pointed out that Elsevier may have good reason to shift away from just selling journals, since piracy is on the rise through sites like Sci-Hub. ‗The positioning is well thought out: lock up revenues to the legacy publishing business, move into areas where piracy is not much of an issue, create deeper relationships with researchers, and become more essential to researchers even as libraries become less so.‘ [Joe Esposito, publishing consultant]‖
LinkedIn, which owns Lynda.com, is allowing posting of content by members, some of which is quite good. Microsoft recently purchased LinkedIn.
Legal Publishing Commercial legal publishing will continue to be dominated by a few large global conglomerates: Thomson Reuters (owns West), Reed Elsevier (owns LexisNexis), and Wolters Kluwer. Bloomberg BNA is growing.
Taking Thomson Reuters as an example: Their tagline is ―the answer company‖. Growth is primarily through acquisitions. Thomson acquired the ―Practical Law Company‖ in 2013, and Pangea3, which provides contract research done overseas. In 2014, TR‘s revenue from ―Legal‖ was 46% from ―Solutions Businesses‖ (up 7%); 16% from ―US Print‖ (down 7%); and 38% from ―US Online Legal Information‖ (down 1%). The largest driver of ―solutions‖ is ―legal managed services‖ (i.e., contract research). From TR‘s 2015 ―Fact Book‖. From TR 2015 Annual Report: ―In 2016, Legal plans to continue to invest in solutions to integrate content with capabilities to help lawyers improve delivery of legal services, better manage their legal work and increase their profitability. In January 2016, Legal launched Practice Point, which integrates the research capabilities of Westlaw and the know-how of Practical Law. Customer retention in our core legal research business, Westlaw, also remains a priority for the Legal business. Finally, Legal will continue to focus on migrating more of its print customers to digital platforms.‖
TR products for small law firms Westlaw subscription for Michigan: MI cases and statutes are $156/month for solos. Other plans add federal cases and statutes. ―Practical Law‖ includes toolkits, checklists, updated materials from attorney editors. Practice aids like ―Drafting Assistant‖ (checks document for use of defined terms, proofreads, etc.)
For the big legal publishers, the size of their businesses, global reach, and emphasis on resources for large firms/businesses and complex, regulated areas of law practice, make it hard for them to complete locally.
For a readable Canadian commentary on the large legal publishers, see ―The Future of Legal Publishing,‖ (SLAW, Canada‘s Online Legal Newspaper, 2015).
13 ACLEA Annual Meeting | August 2, 2016 | Seattle A Brief History of the Future: Marketing Like a Human in an Age of Bits & Bots Carmen Hill, Director of Marketing, Connective DX There is no way to really cover the “future of marketing” in a 20-minute talk, only to scratch the surface and whet the appetite. The one thing I can say for sure is that anything I tell you today will change by tomorrow. So the best way to understand what’s happening now and to anticipate where marketing is going over the next 10 years is to keep your ear to the ground on a daily or weekly basis.
Here’s a fairly comprehensive list of the resources that I tapped to prepare my presentation, along with some of my must-read sources for content, writing, marketing and technology. Where to find me: Twitter: @carmenhill
LinkedIn: LinkedIn.com/in/carmenhillpdx
SlideShare: Slideshare.net/carmenhill ConnectiveDX.com/thinking Delight.us
Presentation References
Future of Marketing Back to the Future: Marketing in 2025 The Future of Advertising: What Will 2025 Look Like Predictions: Legal Marketing in 2016 CRM Technology in Minority Report movie Minority Report-style advertising billboards to target consumers
Generational Influences What Is Generation Z and What Does It Want?
Debunking the 4 Myths of Generation Z
Millennials Make 73% of Purchasing Decisions
Old Lady Lawyer: The Battle of the Ages
Technology Trends An Uber for Lawyers? Here’s Why It Makes Sense
5 New Marketing Trends Brought to Us Via Wearables Wearable Technology Is the New Marketing Battleground 5 Content Marketing Trends Driven by Wearable Technology 4 Ways Wearable Tech Could Change Your Marketing Strategy The Internet of Things is the Future of Advertising How the Internet of Things Is Changing Online Marketing Samsung’s next wearable could be a smart contact lens called Gear Blink What is Augmented Reality and Will It Impact Marketing? Connected Car Study 2015: Racing ahead with autonomous cars and digital innovation (PwC)
Connected cars hold key to future highway What Do Driverless Cars Mean for Personal Injury Lawyers? The Internet of Things is going to be a legal nightmare When the Trial Lawyers Come for the Robot Cars
Articles & Blog Posts Legal Water Cooler Blog: Bates v. State Bar of Arizona 6 Ideas for Your Law Firm’s Content Marketing Strategy Study: People select a lawyer the same way today as in 1915 Personal Injury Lawyers Set Their Sights on Snapchat Recap of “The Future of Legal Marketing” – NYLMA CMO Panel Infographic: The Online Habits of Solicitors The History of the Late-Night TV Lawyer Commercial LinkedIn + Microsoft: A win for the social media eco-system Lawyers Set Their Sights on Snapchat 6 Predictions for Law Firm Marketing in 2015 Marketing Magic for Lawyers The Surprising New Adopter of Content Marketing: Law Firms
General Marketing Resources
Legal Marketing Guides & Best Practices 30 Essential Law Firm Marketing Methods The Surprising New Adopter of Content Marketing: Law Firms An Essential Guide for Lawyers in Social Media A Lawyer’s Guide to Social Media Marketing Lawyer Etiquette for LinkedIn Introductions
Law Firm Business & Marketing Blogs Business of Law Blog: Law Firm Marketing
Marketing Strategy & the Law
Larry Bodine Blog Above the Law – Legal Marketing Real Lawyers Have Blogs FindLaw Law Firm Business Blog
General Marketing Websites & Blogs Content Marketing Institute MarketingProfs Hubspot Blogs Moz Copyblogger Marketing Land CMO.com Contently Orbit Media Convince & Convert
Duct Tape Marketing
Marketing Podcasts (iTunes & Stitcher) PNR: This Old Marketing Podcast Sophisticated Marketer’s Podcast The Marketing Companion Podcast
Books Content Inc., Joe Pulizzi Everybody Writes, Ann Handley Content Rules, Ann Handley and C.C. Chapman The New Rules of Marketing & PR, David Meerman Scott Start with Why, Simon Sinek
Hashtags #LegalMarketing #LMAMKTG #CMWorld
Just for Fun Texas Law Hawk commercials Marketoonist
The Cargo Cult of Lawyer Advertising Regulation
Josh King General Counsel & VP, Business Development, Avvo
Socalled “cargo cults” emerged in the Pacific following World War II. Islanders, attempting to bring back the material abundance they had enjoyed during the war, would replicate the circumstances associated with those outcomes: crude runways were carved from the jungle, airplanes were built from logs and palm fronds, and groups would march in military formation. For those wholly unfamiliar with the modern world, these outward manifestations seemed to be the cause the magic summoner of the goods and material that flowed through the islands during the war.
But of course, they weren’t. The supply officers, runways, ground crews and the like were all merely parts of a much larger logistical operation. Symbolically recreating the trappings of the supply chain was not going to magically make it restart.
In a similar fashion, many attorney regulators and members of the bar interpret legal marketing regulations in a fashion unmoored from the harms such rules were originally designed to address. Like the cargo cults of the Pacific, these regulations have the trappings of a coherent structure, but lack rationality at the core.
Bars Still Haven’t Gotten Over Bates.
The legal profession has long restricted the ability of lawyers to market themselves. These restrictions have run the gamut from significant limitations on general advertising to outright prohibitions on many forms of inperson business solicitation. Driving this regulation has been two broad themes: protecting the image of the profession and preventing undue influence by those trained in the art of persuasion when it comes to making a choice of counsel.
The rules relating to legal advertising can be traced back to bar etiquette in 1800’s England. The “esquires” of that day saw themselves as part of a public calling, rather than members of a crassly commercial profession. And despite the aggressively mercantile nature of the new world, this attitude informed regulation of the American bar well into the twentieth century.
Until the late 1970’s, most states prohibited lawyers from advertising. This wasn’t simply out of tradition or a gentleman’s agreement not to seek publicity – the rules of professional conduct outandout barred attorneys from engaging in virtually any form of commercial publicity. No latenight TV ads, no billboards, no yellow pages pieces, no radio spots. Nothing.
1 That all changed with the 1977 U.S Supreme Court case of Bates v. Arizona.1 Bates, besides being emblematic of the right of attorneys to advertise, also had two other features common to the clash between attorneys seeking to advertise and regulators seeking to keep them from doing so.
The first was that the plaintiffs ran a consumerfacing practice that marketed lowerend legal products to a broad consumer market. Such a business, regardless of industry, relies on volume to stay open – and getting volume requires advertising. At scale, such businesses can deliver tremendous consumer value by keeping prices transparent, predictable and low. Lowend products and services aren’t right for everyone, but they suffice for a great many. But again: those who provide them can’t afford to do so absent the scale offered by mass marketing.
The second factor? The complaint against the plaintiffs wasn’t filed by unhappy consumers, who had somehow been bilked by the attorneys and their legal clinic. It was brought by the bar itself. This wasn’t unusual. Complaints about attorney advertising are almost never brought by consumers, but by competing attorneys or the regulators themselves.
In striking down Arizona’s ban on attorney advertising, the court in Bates noted:
“The choice between the dangers of suppressing information and the dangers arising from its free flow was seen as precisely the choice that the First Amendment makes for us.”2
This is a critical point to keep in mind. Advertising may be loud and undignified. It is almost always incomplete and manipulative at some level. It is as far from a sober and thorough examination of the issues as a communications medium could be. But, when faced with the choice between choking off all advertising or running the risk endemic in full and unbridled speech, the First Amendment makes clear that the choice is on the side of more speech. Or as Harry Blackmun put it, in writing the majority opinion in Bates:
“Advertising does not provide a complete foundation on which to select an attorney. But it seems peculiar to deny the consumer, on the ground that the information is incomplete, at least some of the relevant information needed to reach an informed decision.” 3
But as we’ll see, many bar regulators still regard speech as something in need of careful constraint.
1 Bates, et al v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). 2 Bates, 433 U.S. at 365 (internal quotes removed). 3 Bates, 433 U.S. at 374. 2 The Bar’s Ability to Regulate Attorney Advertising is Limited.
Bates first established that attorneys have a first amendment right to advertise. In the next few years, the Supreme Court heard several other cases that fleshed out the contours of what’s known as the “commercial speech” doctrine. Under this doctrine, regulation of “commercial speech” speech that has the primary purpose of proposing a commercial transaction must meet “intermediate scrutiny” for compliance with the first amendment. This means that the bar doesn’t have free rein to regulate even outandout attorney advertising. Any attempt to limit otherwisetruthful advertising must be justified by the state, which carries the burden to show that the regulation is in service of a substantial state interest, directly advances that government interest, and is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest (often described as the “Central Hudson” test, for the 1980 Supreme Court case in which it was first laid out). Bottom line: the regulation of advertising must be based on solid evidence that such regulation is both necessary and narrowly tailored.
Resources: Central Hudson v. New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980); Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (1983); Sorrell v. IMS Health, 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011)
Cargo Cult 1: OverRegulation of Advertising. Despite the Supreme Court’s admonition that the commercial speech doctrine limits state efforts to regulate even straightforward advertising and no less than 9 Supreme Court cases involving attorney advertising since Bates numerous state regulators act as if they have nearly unfettered discretion to regulate attorney speech. Nowhere is this more appalling than the numerous ethics opinions issued over the years by state bars that fail to acknowledge that interpretations of state advertising rules are inherently limited by the first amendment.
Resources: See, e.g., South Carolina Ethics Advisory Opinion 0910.
Cargo Cult 2: PerformanceBased Advertising. Although Bates found that attorneys had a first amendment right to advertise, most state rules of professional conduct and the ABA Model Rules continue to this day to state that attorneys cannot pay any other person to recommend their services. They’ve simply added a (begrudingfeeling) caveat providing an exception for the "reasonable costs" of advertising.
But advertising is changing. The internet has enabled an entirely new level of accountability when it comes to advertising. Instead of paying a fixed price based on expected reach (as attorneys and law firms have traditionally done when buying magazine advertisements, TV/radio spots, or Yellow Pages ads), advertisers can now pay for their marketing by the impression, by the click, by the inquiry, or even by the action (a completed transaction). As with much else in this area, lawyers and lawyerregulators have been slow to embrace performancebased advertising. Objections have ranged from such charges not being "reasonable" to these schemes constituting prohibited referral services or "runners and cappers." The ABA, at least, is starting to come around and recognize that rigid restriction on forms of advertising are little more
3 than “cargo cultism.” Paying for advertising on a perclick or perlead basis is simply another, more efficient form of advertising compensation, and that there is no basis for restricting it (keeping in mind that the bars have the burden of showing that any such restrictions would be constitutional under the Central Hudson test described above).
Resources: ABA Model Rule 7.2 comment [5] (stating that attorneys may pay for leads, but must otherwise follow rules, and such methods cannot involve feesplitting or be set up in a way that interferes with the attorney’s exercise of independent professional judgment. Also, “a lawyer must not pay a lead generator that states, implies, or creates a reasonable impression that it is recommending the lawyer, is making the referral without payment from the lawyer, or has analyzed a person’s legal problems when determining which lawyer should receive the referral”).
Cargo Cult #3: “Lawyer Referral Services.”
While attorneys can easily navigate these restrictions in offering online services on their own websites, doing so through third party sites the sort of third party sites capable of really driving consumer demand may be more problematic under current interpretations of some state advertising regulations.
The primary issue has to do with the fact that many state bar rules restrict the ability of lawyers to participate in “lawyer referral services.” What’s a “lawyer referral service?” The best definition is a service that analyzes a consumer’s legal needs, matches that consumer with a participating attorney, and charges the attorney for the referral. The potential for harm in such a program is that consumers may be led to believe they are being matched with an attorney handpicked to best address their legal needs, when in fact they are being directed to the attorney who is paying the most, or who has purchased exclusivity within a given geography and practice area.
Such prohibitions predate Bates, and they sit uneasily in an environment where attorneys have an unquestioned right to advertise their services, and where technology has moved payment for advertising further and further toward actual performance. However, as long as legal services offered via third parties are transparent and feature an element of consumer choice, the referral restrictions should not be an issue.
Resources: State Bar of Arizona Ethics Opinion 1102 (2011); New Jersey Committee on Attorney Advertising Opinion 43 (2011) (finding that the service in question was misleading, but not due to its payperlead nature. Also contains a comprehensive discussion of both performancebased pricing and what differentiates prohibited lawyer referrals services from permissible advertising).
Cargo Cult #4: Economic Motive Does Not Equal Commercial Speech.
A lot of the writing and communication that lawyers do such as blog posts and articles for legal
4 publications may be commercially motivated, but are considered “commercial speech” subject to the attorney advertising sections of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Why? Because speech that involves mixed editorial and commercial purposes can only be “commercial speech” if 1) it is contained in an advertising format; 2) it involves references to a specific product; and 3) the speaker has an underlying economic motive. Elements 1 and 3 at a minimum must be met, and obviously, most blogs wouldn’t come close to meeting this test. What’s more, even if all three tests are met, a communication still won’t be deemed commercial speech if the editorial and commercial content are “inextricably intertwined.” Articles and blog posts exploring various developments in an area of law or thoughts on the practice of law cannot run afoul of this test.
Resources: Dex Media v. City of Seattle, 696 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2012); Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of NC, Inc., 487 U.S. 781 (1988)
Cargo Cult #5: FeeSplitting. A number of states have examined whether attorneys can ethically participate in services like Groupon, which keeps a percentage of a consumer transaction as their marketing fee. And about half of the states to do so have acted in true “cargo cult” fashion, finding such transactions to constituting impermissible feesplitting with a nonlawyer. However, the ABA and a number of states (including New York) took a different approach, focusing on the rationale for feesplitting prohibitions rather than merely the mechanics of the transaction.
As these states noted, there’s nothing inherently problematic with a lawyer splitting fees with a nonlawyer. Lawyers obviously spend a portion of the fees they earn on salaries, overhead, and yes, marketing. And bars have long since concluded that even the actual split of a particular fee with a nonlawyer in the form of the processing fees paid credit card companies does not violate the rule.
Why? Because the ethical concern isn’t the fact that a third party ends up with some portion of the fee, but rather that some types of feesplitting arrangements carry the risk of interference with an attorney’s exercise of independent professional judgment. For example, if a doctor who refers a personal injury case is entitled to a third of the attorney’s fee, and that doctor runs into money trouble and starts asking the attorney about whether that case might be settled quickly, this pressures the attorney’s independence. There’s no such risk when it comes to credit card companies, or indeed, to marketing services like Groupon. The fact of the fee split is incidental; it’s simply a more efficient way for the attorney to pay the costs of service or marketing.
Resources: Alabama State Bar Ethics Opinion 201201; Arizona Ethics Opinion 1301; Indiana State Bar Legal Ethics Committee Opinion No. 1 2012; Maryland Ethics Opinion 201207 (no link available); , Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 1203; New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 897 (2011); North Carolina State Bar 2011 Formal Ethics Opinion 10; Pennsylvania Ethics Opinion 2011027 (no link available); South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion 1105; ABA Ethics Opinion 465 (2013).
5
Leaders’ Visions for 2025 What Really Makes CLE Work
By
Pat Nester Deputy Director State Bar of Texas
Prepared for the ACLEA 52nd Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington July 30-August 2, 2016
Leaders’ Visions for 2025—What Really Makes CLE Work By Pat Nester CLE is going through a great transition that renders many promising futures that once were thought possible, now impossible. At the same time, the forces at work are opening new opportunities. The traditional live CLE program at which lawyers gather together in one location to hear expert speakers give lectures about changes in the law and practice will, going forward, be but one of many animals in a CLE zoo. As we speak, exotic new species of programs and publications are being born that defy our complete understanding and that may turn out to be better or worse than what came before. The parents of the new menagerie are the now dominant trends hammering every institution: tightening economics and exploding technology. The economics of lawyering at every level is being pushed in the direction of other service providers: greater service to customers at lower cost. If lawyers in their usual organizations won’t do it, other businesses will jump in to help the would-be client, with prices lower than traditional legal fees. LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer are prime examples of businesses providing legal documents and services—including consultations with licensed lawyers—that address common legal issues affecting individual consumers and small businesses. At the tall-building end of the practice, highly automated boutiques and law firm departments are evolving that can deliver business clients specific outcomes more cheaply than the A-to-Z representation, including the inevitable squadron of associates, that was once considered the gold standard—partly because of all the gold it cost. The upshot of all this for CLE providers is increased uncertainty. How do we educate a profession in serious economic and technological transition? Those of us who run our shops like a business are watching some revenue streams decline (live courses) and others surge (webcasts, online archived programs). Whether the surges will outweigh the declines is still to be decided. The general environment for information useful to lawyers is also being transformed, mostly outside the orbit of traditional CLE providers. There are free discussion boards, state bar and ABA section list-serves, individual lawyer websites with educational content, YouTube videos, excellent legal blogs, private Facebook pages, interesting legal Tweeters to follow, and a host of other tools, including the raw Google search, to plug into the latest information in one’s area of practice. Specifically legal search technology has become ubiquitous, with most state bars now providing their lawyers Casemaker or Fastcase, which allow the user to find the usually free information, often targeted at lawyers in specific areas of practice. This has created new experience for CLE providers. Updates on the law are now possible through quick searches. CLE programs devoted to updates had now better have some added value, And ten years ago, some of the useful arcana of law practice was still hidden behind the high prices of legal publishers (and the thoroughly reasonable prices of CLE providers). Not today. So, what do CLE providers, especially CLE providers in 2025, offer that goes beyond what one can, in a few minutes, find on the cool new device you got for Mother’s/Father’s day? Darn good question. I have learned the answer to this hard question from going to litigation seminars for 30 years. Trial lawyers know that everything comes down to what kind of conceptual and emotional “frame” is laid over the facts for the jury to consider. The right frame of reference leads to acquittal/liability/recovery. The wrong frame leads to victory by princes of darkness or gluttons of overreach. In our role as CLE providers, just who would be responding to any frame that we lay over the situation? The jurors in our case consist of a powerful but limited list of human beings: our bosses, our volunteer speakers and authors, our customers, and our colleagues—each vitally important but in very different ways. Some of us old-timers in the CLE chow line have contended for years that CLE is exquisitely dependent on key relationships. I want to propose, no matter what else is going on, that CLE actually is first and should primarily be a set of relationships, the curation and management of which is all there is. This should be somewhat controversial. ACLEA speakers bring various frames to offer—business practices, adult education, technology, marketing, big- data, design, communication, etc.—all of which can expose interesting facets of the CLE phenomenon and can sometimes suggest improvements. They focus on the mechanics of what we do. Studying the disciplines underlying these frames of reference is definitely a worthwhile thing to do. But when you think about it, the point of all of them is to help you make your case to a critical audience with whom you have some level of relationship. If your bosses, volunteers, customers, and colleagues are aligned with you because of the relationships you have built with them, the glitches and anomalies that might arise in all those other frames of reference will seem (1) minor, (2) unavoidable perturbations to which no fault can attach, or (3) friendly messages from the universe about the need for all of us to change course in some mutually agreeable direction. If, on the other hand, the relationship has soured for some reason, even the most picayune matter can assume monstrous dimensions. You might object that I am stating the obvious. Good relationships are helpful, yes. But where does that take us? How many of us when looking at our monthly expense and revenue statement regard what we see not “on the merits” but primarily as an issue of relationship with our bosses who will also be reviewing that statement? How many of us see the slightly over-the-top exuberance of our newest hire as a relational opportunity that can improve an entire subsystem of staff relationships, rather than just an occasion to impose a pre-set standard on her behavior. How many of us look at the hit rate from a course brochure as an indicator of our relationship with our customers that can be improved in the ways that humans improve relationships with one another? What we should be looking at in every case is our tie to the eternal other, by which the very meaning of the present situation is always shaped and sometimes completely defined. Fortunately, an enormous body of thought has been developed to help us. It can be divided roughly into thoughts about emotional intelligence on the one hand and thoughts about appropriate motivation on the other. Obviously there is overlap. The emotional intelligence that allows us to understand and, at some level, to feel the emotional reaction of others may be we humans’ most valuable asset. It allows collective action of all kinds, from the sparking of the American Revolution to the staging of your new course on drone law. As we know, however, emotional resonance can also be perverted into a destructive force. And that is why a positive sense of direction is needed, a vision of a shared good outcome communicated to and adopted by whatever band of comrades is presently marching with us. We call this leadership. As CLE professionals, we are accepting both obligations—understanding the feelings of those with whom we relate and, after processing these often competing urgings in the present situation, proposing and modeling the best direction in which to travel. My argument here is that this—and importantly only this—is our job. If we succeed at this job, all the uncertainties implicit in the present CLE situation resolve themselves. We will have allied ourselves with an evolving sense of shared value made necessary by changing facts. Because of the carefully built relationships with our bosses, our volunteers, our customers, and our colleagues, they will respond in constructive ways to the changing circumstances. So, what sort of behaviors does this relationship building entail? I revert here to an old form of advice-giving that such notables as David Letterman and the Moses of Exodus used in spreading the word—the list of ten important things. Remember, your target groups are bosses, volunteers, customers, and colleagues. Each observation below can be applied to each of these groups.
1. Since relationships require showing true human concern, your job is not to sit in an office doing only “technical" things, (the relational equivalent of doing nothing). Even if you are a 100 percent introvert, you have to think of and act on ways to communicate and demonstrate human concern.
2. Look for opportunities to define “what’s going on”—say by taking the notes that describe the meeting or event. If your positive vision about the necessary direction gets the first foothold, then building a consensus is much easier.
3. Focus on small signs of attachment—cards, messages, gifts that are sent in a personal way. Listening carefully to what’s really important to other people gives you a clue about what they might appreciate.
4. Good relationships take time: start early, push hard, and never give up.
5. Friends don't let friends drive stupid. Educating your partners about the facts and the alternatives is a gift that they will appreciate even when the facts are distressing. Since education is our business, we know lots of ways to go about it. The duty to help educate our friends imposes on us the perennial task of gathering and organizing the knowledge to be transmitted—the facts and the alternatives.
6. Do "after action" reports on encounters with significant others. The goals should be (1) to analyze and, as needed, clean up any relational messes and (2) to be more relationally potent next time. Certainly every course you do should be followed by an analysis by the staff who planned and executed it, which then becomes required reading for next year's planning team.
7. Show up. Woody Allen underestimated the success rate. He said that 80 percent of success is just showing up. But being there in person with a smile and shined shoes speaks to deep relational connections that underlie human experience. By contrast, not being there can be subtly corrosive.
8. Relationships with customers en masse are often discussed under the heading of "branding." What emotional reaction do we want to trigger in our customers and how do we want to achieve it? I especially like Michigan ICLE's targeting of "trust."
9. Food. Apparently it has been conclusively proved that combining any activity with food greatly enhances everyone's satisfaction. With the exception of some army food I once ate, my 38 years in the CLE world and my waistline attest to the truth of this observation.
10. Celebrate. If what we are doing in CLE is important—and for those of us who care about the biggest picture, CLE at its best actually drives social justice and prosperity forward in unique ways—then it is important to openly acknowledge success when it occurs. Incentives, awards, staff and volunteer retreats, receptions and other events that give us a chance to reflect on what we are up to and to celebrate those who distinguish themselves in the effort are not just pleasant diversions. They are essential ceremonies, the sharing of memories and mementos that activate the best potentials of emotional intelligence and leadership. They inspire future action.
Laying the frame of relationship over the problems that we see in CLE cuts to the heart of our possible progress, because it will be human beings who have had some kind of relationship with us who will judge and define our success. If we have paid sufficient care to educating and working with our bosses, customers, colleagues, and volunteers, they will understand the dynamics confronting them and us. More importantly, a good relationship with them will motivate them to help think through the next best steps for themselves and for CLE. If it turns out that live courses at resort locations and instantly accessible six-minute video modules about every element of law practice is the future of CLE in 2025, then we want to—we must—work toward that result collectively. Importantly, we will want to change our MCLE rules to fit the relational demands of the new environment. The ABA is presently leading an effort to re- define mandatory CLE in the form of a new model rule. It is likely to be much more accommodating of new methods. ACLEA will continue to be the think tank of the new CLE, but building the relationships with our local constituencies will be our responsibility.