Technology is still the key

Tony Angel and David Morley were both at the FA Cup Final. I know this because they discussed last Saturday’s game as they waited to take part in a panel debate being filmed at Legal Week’s offices yesterday afternoon.

The pair were joined by Berwin Leighton Paisner managing partner Neville Eisenberg and IT expert Richard Susskind. They soon moved on from football to share their awe at the extent to which schoolchildren, students and twentysomethings now conduct their social lives online through such collaborative websites as MySpace and Facebook. The discussion became considerably more animated, which is either a reflection of the quality of the football on offer on Saturday or the panel’s credentials as technophiles.

During the debate, which will be screened at the Legal Week Strategic Technology Forum next month, the panel speculated on the impact the rise of collaborative websites will have on the way law firms do business. For example, will clients expect firms on their panels to contribute to know-how wikis, which are constantly updated as the law develops? On a more basic level, while the challenge of actually getting lawyers to appreciate the benefits of technology has receded, firms must now grapple with the increased expectations of their fee earners.

And then there is the threat – or opportunity – posed by the impact technology has on the commoditisation of legal advice.

It is 10 years since Linklaters launched Blue Flag. At the time, there were predictions that it would be the trailblazer for an explosion of products offering automated legal advice. It hasn’t quite worked out that way and Blue Flag remains one of a handful of such products on offer in 2007.

But Morley revealed that Allen & Overy has recently been coming under pressure from major financial institutions to make use of the technology available to deliver more commoditised advice.

He said: “They are beginning to say, 'You are ceding a vast territory to other people… we’d like to have the quality brand assurance that you can provide.'”

It looks like this particular debate could go to penalties.