Jeff Carr

I favor #DeliveredValue & customer-focused P3 Legal Services (Processified|Platformized|Productized). I’m a vocal critic of #LawLand #CLM #LegalTech #LawyerExceptionalism—if your approach or tool is truly different, set up a free meeting to prove me wrong. calendly.com/carrnext/60min

@lawheroezV2 To be clear, DV=E3, meaning legal services that are Effective (achieves customer’s objective); Efficient (at or below agreed cost); and Experience (customer truly satisfied with all aspects of provider’s services)

@lawheroezV2 What’s more important is value to customers of legal service, not value to Legaltech users. Absent customer #DeliveredValue, Legaltech is a hammer in search of a nail.

We are entering a new chapter for Legaltech where capabilities like AI contract review/redlining are being commoditized and there is an opportunity for new, frontier Legaltech capabilities to shine and break ahead. The floor of the Legaltech value stack is rising but so is the ceiling. What constitutes “value” for legal users is being redefined.

@lawheroezV2 It’s far more about what customers for legal services actually need than what legal users want—#DeliveredValue— effective, efficient services at a small fraction of today’s platforms, while also creating a fantastic customer experience — it’s about the customers, not the lawyers

Legaltech currently feels like building the same, generic, cloned product at scale (free, cheaper, open etc) is the goal rather than building something truly innovative, valuable, and different. Most products are exactly the same with very little differentiation. I have yet to see a product that is doing something truly new and different. The bar is high and will get higher as AI tools make it easier and faster to build things. Fresh, new, contrarian ideas will become more and much more valuable for a short while until they are then quickly copied and cloned. The ability to create real moats that are different and defensible is significantly going up the stack whilst the lower levels are being cloned and commoditized. Very challenging and at the same time very exciting. Need to go back to the basics when looking at user problems and what legal users want.

So true—but even more so is #LawLand’s collective narcissistic myopia on AI for the lawyer/lawfirm as opposed to applied AI for customer driven #DeliveredValue—but maybe, just maybe, we’re saying the same thing—it IS about people—the customers we serve, and changing our #LawLander behavior

So much focus in legal AI is on the tech when in fact the hardest part isn’t the tech, it’s the people. Getting lawyers and legal teams to use it. The tech, the agents, the data,the governance, the security, all that will be resolved. It’s the adoption that’s the hardest. It always has been when it comes to adopting new tech. Tech is easy. People are hard.

When did it become ok to replace the perfectly acceptable “color” with the affected & pretentious “colorway”? My new principle is to never order from a company describing men’s clothing offerings in “colorways”

Compelling insightful, as we expect from Jordan! But what does this this mean for pricing? The accountability premium chargeable by an institutional provider law firm does not, or at least should not, reflect the activity to generate the output. In this case, what’s the #NewLaw business model for the firm? I for one, continue to believe that the model must reflect some form of Delivered Value — and in my world as a buyer that meant Effectiveness (were my customer goals related to outcomes/results met?), Efficiency (at or below the mutually agreed budget/cost) and Experience (as a customer, did my experience with the provider meet or exceed expectations?). In other words, DV=E3. open.substack.com/pub/jordanfurl…

Absolute drivel—lawyers should deliver value: provide service that achieves the customer’s objective (Effectiveness); at or below the agreed budget/price (Efficiency); while creating a fantastic customer experience (Experience). Customers then encourage and reward legal service provides that exceed customer expectations. It’s all about serving the customer, not the lawyer & a compensation model aligning expectations & rewarding performance. That’s #DeliveredValue, that’s DV=E3

Flat-Fee Pricing for Legal Services: Why You Should Add 20% and Not Feel Bad About It, Brooke Lively #ScalingLaw @CathCap #LawFirmProfits #LawFirmOps #Pricing attorneyatwork.com/flat-fee-prici…

Price is not necessarily proxy for quality or results. If one needs to tell time accurately, buy an Apple Watch, or even a low priced quartz. If one needs to impress others, buy the Rolex, which of course may well be “worth it” to the buyer. Legal service customers need #DeliveredValue, or E3 (Effectiveness + Efficiency + Experince) — oh, & that last E is customer’s experience with the lawyer, not the lawyer’s experience

@CarrNext My Dad would say, “No one is making them pay it.” They’re paying because they think it’s worth it. Is a Rolex worth 15k? 35k?

$3500/hour? Truly outrageous. But I suppose “luxury good” pricing & conspicuous consumption applies. The reality is that rates across the spectrum will rise, further lifting the barrier to legal services when most customers are priced out to begin with. This is #LawLand hubris at its worst, but the blame lies with the corporate buyers from the same obliviot tribe. It’s supposed to be about the customer, not the lawyer. Blame also with the #BigLaw firms in same ridiculous arms race to irrelevancy through stratospheric associate salaries and billing rates. When the “enterprise” is a hotel for lawyers who bill by the hour, you’ve got to have stars—because it mistakes lawyers for the customer. When focused on real customers, you create & focus on teams that deliver E3 value (Effective—Efficient—Experience) wsj.com/business/lawye…

@toddforlife #LawLand = Big rock, steep hill, dark cave . . .

@CarrNext This post strikes at the heart of why "innovation" in the legal sector often feels like it's moving through molasses.

Very Cool! — open.substack.com/pub/vaill/p/th…

“Innovation” in #LawLand is a big rock, up a steep hill, in a dark cave . . .

When the “enterprise” is a hotel for lawyers who bill by the hour, you’ve got to have stars—because it mistakes lawyers for the customer. When focused on real customers, you create & focus on teams that deliver E3 value (Effective—Efficient-Experience)

@BLaw And nothing really changes—except of course now 3 sets of intermediaries gorging at the trough—class action plaintiff lawyers, big firm defense lawyers & realtors—all at the expense of customers as the intermediary “tax” remains firmly in place

Real Estate Settlement Appeals Probed for Fairness, Scope news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/huge…

@ArtificialLawya Comet, I mean AI, end game for today’s law firms . . .

Awesome. Now do one for law firms. #legaltech

@dklineii Absolutely true—however, once fierce debate results in a decision, there must only one voice, one position—no back room undercutting or guerrilla undermining. A good approach is 80% consensus/100% compliance. While toxic compliance is dangerous, toxic follow up is far worse

Counterintuitive leadership truth: Your team needs more conflict. Not personal attacks. Meaningful disagreement about ideas, strategies, and approaches. If they always agrees, you have toxic compliance. Source dissent. Reward contrarians. Wise decisions require fierce debate.

@dragonflyraces @LambZFTG @ElevateNic Longer . . . After all, lawyers do get paid for activity, by the word, if you will

@LambZFTG @ElevateNic @CarrNext Feels like we have talking about this for 15 years.

Well, well, well. Cc: ⁦@ElevateNic⁩ ⁦@CarrNext⁩

@JessBirken The best legal problem is the one you never have. As opposed to “going to court” & engaging in gladiatorial jest, counseling & structuring behavior & transactions to prevent disputes is the highest and best use of our profession—but that’s inconsistent with prevailing biz model

If you don't go to court, then what do you do as a lawyer? 🧐 Here is what we ~really~ do... birkenlaw.com/blog/what-lawy…