The firm of the future

April 22, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The structure of law firms is pretty uniform across Indiana and the country. Look at one law firm in the state and compare it to a similarly sized one in Ohio or Illinois, and chances are, they are set up and run in a nearly identical fashion. Law firms, especially the larger ones, are kind of stuck in their ways when it come to billing, partnership tracks, and law firm structure. In fact, you could probably even compare a firm from 2009 to one from 1959 or even 1909 and see many similarities.

But a competition in Bloomington over this past weekend attempted to shake up the law firm structure and provide a model for what law firms should look like in order to survive the current economy and beyond.

The inaugural competition, FutureFirm 1.0, was made up of teams of law firm partners, associates, clients, business leaders, in-house counsel, and law students from around the country. The goal: create the law firm of the future, one that will thrive 20 years into the future. The prize: $9,000 for the winners, with other prize money split among the other groups.

The winning group designed a law firm that focused on workplace culture, targeted small and mid-sized businesses as clients, emphasized a more collaborative and equitable working environment, used an alternative fee billing plan for clients, and focused on making attorneys as efficient and cost-effective as possible.

It sounds good, but how easy would it be to implement it in a real, working firm? This is just a competition with a fictional firm, and law firms have been doing what they’ve been doing for years because that’s how it’s always been done.

Is this competition on the right track for designing the law firm of the future? Aren’t some firms already implementing these ideas? What changes would you make to the current firm structure to make it thrive now and into the future?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT