I’ve read a lot about #Newlaw since I first came across the term in tweets and blogs by Eric Chin and George Beaton back in late 2013. In all that time, a leading theme of #Newlaw, as opposed to traditional law (or #Oldlaw as my friend John Chisholm likes to call it), is its progressiveness. Here, one of the more progressive Australian-based #Newlaw entities I read about is the old Advent Balance, including this wonderful 2014 post by another good friend – John Grimley.
For those of you who may not be aware, Advent Balance in Australia recently became Lawyers on Demand – and as far as pedigree in #Newlaw goes you’re not going to get much better provenance.
Given all this, can you imagine my surprise when I read the following headline in Lawyers Weekly earlier this month – ‘NewLaw firm implements ‘innovative’ time capture software‘ – to discover the ‘NewLaw’ firm being hailed in this article was none other than Lawyers on Demand!
Leaving aside what “‘innovative’ time capture software” actually means, who would have thought we would see the day when a Newlaw firm like LoD was happy to go to the press with a comment like this:
We now have our team using modern technology to capture time
Really? More importantly, why?
After all, everything I’ve read about the Lawyers on Demand/Advent Balance/Newlaw business model would have put “modern technology to capture time” as bottom on the business critical list.
And yet, not only is the legal press shouting this; but LoD are assisting and supporting in this effort.
Then I got to thinking, who has a vested interest in Newlaw becoming time-based billing…?