Why You're Reading This Online

Sometimes there's no substitute for being there.

This couuld be the introduction to a column about why technology, Web 2.0, and collaboration at a distance all add up to precisely zero threat to places like New York and London--making them, in fact, more important than ever--but I have a different road in mind. The road I want to go down today is about interpretation and nuance coming out of shared experiences, and how widely they may vary.

Our text for today is the National Law Journal's article "Survival Tips for Law Firms," covering a presentation on "The Law Firm of the Future -- Who Will Be the New Winners and Losers?" that I gave at DRI's annual convention in New Orleans last week. Here's the line from the article that got my attention (emphasis mine):

The law firms that survive during these trying economic times are the ones that are willing to discount rates, said panelists, which included Bruce MacEwen, a New York-based law firm consultant; Sheryl Willert of Williams Kastner in Seattle; Patricia Diaz Dennis, senior vice president and assistant general counsel of AT&T; and Raymond Williams of DLA Piper's Philadelphia office.

That's actually not what I said. But what do I know? I was only there.

With all deference and utmost respect to the reporter, understanding the demands of delivering from remote locations on deadline, the fascinating aspect of this story to me is how perceptions of the "same" event experienced by different people end up producing such different impressions.

So what did I talk about at the DRI annual meeting?

• The client/law firm disconnect
  • Two-thirds of law firms give themselves an A on client service, but fewer than 1 client in 5 does
  • 85% of clients rank us poorly based on our understanding of their needs
  • But 85% of them say they explain what they need very clearly
  • 60% of clients are unwilling to share investments in knowledge and training
  • But over 80% want to "share" cost over-runs
• The billable hour conundrum
  • Now that we can itemize to the dime what we did, by whom, when, and where, we think we're bulletproof on fees
  • But this is only an invitation to clients to micro-scrutinize what we actually did, and to tell us that we did it (a) unnecessarily; (b) with the wrong people; or (c) inefficiently
  • Wouldn't it be better, after all, if we could just get back to "For professional services rendered: $XX,000"?
  • As for "professsional services rendered," do you think it's a pipe dream? Go back 30 years (or less, where client trust prevailed) and it was commonplace. I'd like to think it would become commonplace again during the remainder of my career.
• The requirement to make your clients look good
  • Impeccable lawyering is, and has been for a long time, table stakes. Any serious AmLaw 100 or 200 firm can do your deal or defend your litigation with, in all likelihood, utter competence.
  • But true client service goes beyond that. An associate GC at Goldman Sachs calls legal advice "level 1" service, but you want to get to is "level 2." "Level 2" is "that you make me look good; you don't just return my emails, you figure out what I need to be totally prepared for this internal meeting I have coming up, and you advise me on that. Because that's where you distinguish yourself."

Back to the beginning: How could it be that it was reported that I recommended, in a soundbite, discounting rates--which I firmly disavow as a strategic model, and which I never have and never will advise--as opposed to all the thngs enumerated above that I actually thought I did say?

Actually, I can't answer that question. As I said, reporters in remote locations under deadline file stories. That's their job and I commend them for it. In my experience, they are almost without exception responsible, accessible, and committed to their craft.

My answer is on a slightly different level: They no longer have the last word. The famous "Mainstream Media" have lost their monopoly.

Look at the news that was reported in the space of a single week:

• The Christian Science Monitor will no longer publish in print, but only online.
• The Newark Star-Ledger, on track to lose $40-million this year, is laying off 40% of its newsroom staff.
• Time Inc. is laying off 600 people.
• The long decline in newspaper circulation appears to be accelerating, with drops occurring "nearly across the board."

Should we then be wringing our hands at the (inevitable, no matter how much they may protest) impairment of editorial coverage? I for one counsel optimism. How is that possible? Look around. There have never in history been more media outlets than there are now.

Other publications, including, I would fervently hope, "Adam Smith, Esq.," cover important issues with substance and depth in ways that conventional distribution models cannot always match. Imagine, if you will (yes, I've tried this thought experiment myself) bringing a business plan to a venture capitalist proposing, 5 years ago, to launch something resembling "Adam Smith, Esq.," but to do it as a monthly print publication. You would be escorted to the door before you could open your laptop. Why? Because it would be perfectly obvious that assembling a global audience of people interested in something as arcane (yes, I can say that) as "the economics of law firms" would be a fool's errand.

But, to launch the same publication online would be, and has been, entirely feasible:

• It permits you to "publish" multiple times per month, essentially at will, as topics develop;
• Everything is archived, and available through a click, in perpetuity;
• The combined power of word of mouth and my best friend, "Forward," will help grow circulation;
• The marginal cost of an additional copy is zero;
• It's available on demand across a variety of platforms from desktops to smart phones;
• And by now you get the idea: One would be a fool to launch any new publication other than online.

Don't for a moment think I'm Holier than Thou: Online publications can err as egregiously or more so than mainstream media--certainly if they're unreflective and sensational (I don't need to name names). But we have enough experience now with the media, onlne and off, to know who we believe and who we suspect of bias, who we know writes to unyielding daily deadlines and who publishes to the clock of a different drummer, who has column-inches to fill and who doesn't.

Herewith the first and last discussion you will ever read in these pages about the conventional publishing model.

Thank you for reading "Adam Smith, Esq."