Legal Mosaic Essays on Legal Delivery

<strong>Legal</strong> <strong>Mosaic</strong>: <strong>Essays</strong> on <strong>Legal</strong> Delivery
For lawyers, the disruption is, perhaps oxymoronically, more gradual.
The traditional law firm model, though under assault, is still dominant.
But that is changing as evidenced by the array of technology companies,
diversified legal service providers, “new model” law firms, consultancies,
and the BigFour who have entered the global legal market.
A piece of evidence making the case for “gradual disruption” is the
frenzy of merger activity engaged in by the traditional model firms.
No dominant disruptor has yet emerged, but the cumulative success
of new competitors — coupled with the thinned ranks of incumbent
firms — suggests that there is growing market appetite for alternatives
to the traditional law firm model. And as the traditional law firm model
becomes increasingly disaggregated — a process already well underway
— the opportunity for a market integrator to come in and claim an
Uber-like market share is enhanced.
But what about regulatory hurdles? Uber has generated so much consumer
demand for its services that the regulatory and legal obstacles
it confronts — shared by other industry disruptors including Airbnb
(hospitality) and ZipCar (automobile) — are not dead ends but temporary
detours.
Lawyers might take solace in their self-regulated environment, breathing
a sigh of relief and convincing themselves that “It can’t happen
here.” But entrepreneurs backing disruptive model companies — including
those already in or entering the legal vertical — view regulatory
and legal obstacles as costs of doing business, not show stoppers.
“It is not the threat of Uber per se, of course, that looms over lawyers
but, rather, the “collaborative economy” that Uber personifies.
Uber has been in the news a great deal lately, and it has been a bumpy
ride for the company. Uber experienced much-publicized setbacks
from Paris to California.
19