In a chaotic world, you can't sit back waiting for the next bombshell to drop. You need to anticipate, analyze, and address critical new developments — before they affect your firm and its clients.
Jordan, normally I find myself nodding in agreement with your posts, as they are (sometimes) provocative but always informative. This time, though, I disagree with your position on Situation Rooms. First and foremost, though: I fully support lawyers getting involved with the intelligence process, as many I have worked with - brilliant as they can be - typically don't possess this skill set. Not an insult, just "is." The idea that a Situation Room should be mostly comprised of lawyers and a SME or two, with researchers and/or AI there "if the volume is too high" is surprising and a disappointing take. Teams like mine (competitive intelligence + analytics) exist for a reason, and should have a representative attending as a dispassionate observer of ongoing trends that could affect the firm. In fact, entire books have been written about this very kind of work in the CI field, with one of the best being "Early Warning: Using Competitive Intelligence to Anticipate Market Shifts, Control Risk, and Create Powerful Strategies" by Ben Gilad. I highly recommend it, even if you're not in the field. Thanks for continuing to write about timely and engaging topics!
Lynne, thanks very much for your on-point comment! I readily concede your observations that lawyers rarely come factory-equipped with CI skills or inclinations, and that firms need to do a much better job of diversifying their in-house teams with people who aren't lawyers in general -- not just (although in particular) in a function like the Situation Room, where you really need multiple diverse and outside perspectives to see all the (non-legal) angles. I think you're entirely correct to identify these two weaknesses in a lawyer-majority Situation Room.
Notwithstanding your good points, though, I think I would still recommend these intel teams be comprised at least half of lawyers, for a couple of reasons.
One is almost entirely practical: The unhappy reality of law firm culture is that lawyers' opinions and recommendations are taken more seriously than those of people who aren't lawyers. I hate that that's the case, and I've been urging firms to change that for ages, but the reality stubbornly remains. My worry is that a Situation Room populated mostly by people who aren't lawyers, no matter how excellent their insights and recommendations, won't command the attention and respect of the leadership team, wrong as that would be. Ideally, a diversified team of professionals (some legal, some not) consistently rendering excellent advice would actually be a big step towards eliminating that absurd cultural bias.
And the other reason is developmental: While it's true that lawyers often don't have these skills and talents, I really believe they're going to *need* them. The days of billing clients for expertise-based effort are coming to a rapid end; to survive as a profession, lawyers are going to have to get much better at advisory roles, and that means developing the vision, discipline, and holistic awareness that, as you point out, CI professionals already possess. Many lawyers tend to be far too blasé about "advising" -- they think it means using their lawyerly cleverness to simply give their opinion. As you know, truly effective advice arises from real intelligence finely developed from fact-based analysis and contextual application. Lawyers need to take "advising" more seriously, and this is where they could start.
Again, I accept your analysis and critique of a lawyer-focused Situation Room; my hope, though, is that, if such entities ever do get off the ground, they would be the long-overdue thin edge of the wedge by which skills, talents, and experiences beyond the narrowly legal -- and the people who possess those characteristics -- finally start to be taken more seriously in legal workplaces.
Longtime follower, first time poster. Not to pile on, but I feel like I would be remiss if I failed to point out that your original post makes it clear that there ARE non-lawyers that you believe lawyers will listen to (technologists, journalists, government affairs professionals, etc.) and that A - they are NOT information professionals and B - they need to be brought in from outside the firm. This position belies your lamentations in your response to Lynne about the sad state of affairs vis a vis the lawyer/non-lawyer culture. Instead, you end up perpetuating that culture, which I know is not your intention. Our firms are rife with leadership who think hiring outside consultants is the only way to solve complex problems, while ignoring the wealth of institutional knowledge and extensive skillsets of their own non-lawyer personnel.
Love your line of thinking here Jordon. And with your other posts, many of them more generally pertinent to those of us involved in transformational change with clients in other sectors, domains and disciplines. Would love to connect. R. Keith Jones, Victoria, BC.
Jordan, normally I find myself nodding in agreement with your posts, as they are (sometimes) provocative but always informative. This time, though, I disagree with your position on Situation Rooms. First and foremost, though: I fully support lawyers getting involved with the intelligence process, as many I have worked with - brilliant as they can be - typically don't possess this skill set. Not an insult, just "is." The idea that a Situation Room should be mostly comprised of lawyers and a SME or two, with researchers and/or AI there "if the volume is too high" is surprising and a disappointing take. Teams like mine (competitive intelligence + analytics) exist for a reason, and should have a representative attending as a dispassionate observer of ongoing trends that could affect the firm. In fact, entire books have been written about this very kind of work in the CI field, with one of the best being "Early Warning: Using Competitive Intelligence to Anticipate Market Shifts, Control Risk, and Create Powerful Strategies" by Ben Gilad. I highly recommend it, even if you're not in the field. Thanks for continuing to write about timely and engaging topics!
Lynne, thanks very much for your on-point comment! I readily concede your observations that lawyers rarely come factory-equipped with CI skills or inclinations, and that firms need to do a much better job of diversifying their in-house teams with people who aren't lawyers in general -- not just (although in particular) in a function like the Situation Room, where you really need multiple diverse and outside perspectives to see all the (non-legal) angles. I think you're entirely correct to identify these two weaknesses in a lawyer-majority Situation Room.
Notwithstanding your good points, though, I think I would still recommend these intel teams be comprised at least half of lawyers, for a couple of reasons.
One is almost entirely practical: The unhappy reality of law firm culture is that lawyers' opinions and recommendations are taken more seriously than those of people who aren't lawyers. I hate that that's the case, and I've been urging firms to change that for ages, but the reality stubbornly remains. My worry is that a Situation Room populated mostly by people who aren't lawyers, no matter how excellent their insights and recommendations, won't command the attention and respect of the leadership team, wrong as that would be. Ideally, a diversified team of professionals (some legal, some not) consistently rendering excellent advice would actually be a big step towards eliminating that absurd cultural bias.
And the other reason is developmental: While it's true that lawyers often don't have these skills and talents, I really believe they're going to *need* them. The days of billing clients for expertise-based effort are coming to a rapid end; to survive as a profession, lawyers are going to have to get much better at advisory roles, and that means developing the vision, discipline, and holistic awareness that, as you point out, CI professionals already possess. Many lawyers tend to be far too blasé about "advising" -- they think it means using their lawyerly cleverness to simply give their opinion. As you know, truly effective advice arises from real intelligence finely developed from fact-based analysis and contextual application. Lawyers need to take "advising" more seriously, and this is where they could start.
Again, I accept your analysis and critique of a lawyer-focused Situation Room; my hope, though, is that, if such entities ever do get off the ground, they would be the long-overdue thin edge of the wedge by which skills, talents, and experiences beyond the narrowly legal -- and the people who possess those characteristics -- finally start to be taken more seriously in legal workplaces.
Hi Jordan -
Longtime follower, first time poster. Not to pile on, but I feel like I would be remiss if I failed to point out that your original post makes it clear that there ARE non-lawyers that you believe lawyers will listen to (technologists, journalists, government affairs professionals, etc.) and that A - they are NOT information professionals and B - they need to be brought in from outside the firm. This position belies your lamentations in your response to Lynne about the sad state of affairs vis a vis the lawyer/non-lawyer culture. Instead, you end up perpetuating that culture, which I know is not your intention. Our firms are rife with leadership who think hiring outside consultants is the only way to solve complex problems, while ignoring the wealth of institutional knowledge and extensive skillsets of their own non-lawyer personnel.
Love your line of thinking here Jordon. And with your other posts, many of them more generally pertinent to those of us involved in transformational change with clients in other sectors, domains and disciplines. Would love to connect. R. Keith Jones, Victoria, BC.