The
traditional
law
firm.
Downtown
offices.
Nice
conference
rooms.
Receptionists,
admin
assistants.
Partners
with
large
corner
offices.
Plenty
of
associates
slaving
away
billing
2,000+
hours
per
year
in
hopes
of
grabbing
the
brass
partnership
ring.
It
reeks
of
tradition.
Contrast
that
with
new
age
firms.
AI
does
the
work
of
associates.
Lawyers
are
remote.
Firms
may
even
be
loose
confederations
of
individuals.
And
the
business
model
is
not
based
on
the
billable
hour.
Sounds
cool.
But
can
the
new
age
model
be
sustained?
New
Age
Law
Firms
One
model
of
the
new
age
is
the
AI
first
firm.
These
firms
consist
of
lawyers,
mostly
more
senior,
who
leverage
AI
to
do
most
of
the
work
that
all
those
associates
in
traditional
firms
used
to
do
and
bill
for.
The
theory
is
that
the
value
and
reduced
costs
by
engaging
AI
can
be
passed
along
to
clients.
Clients
who,
in
turn,
flock
to
the
firm,
and
the
firm’s
revenue
and
profit
is
either
maintained
or
even
improved
than
that
of
traditional
firms.
Having
inexperienced
lawyers
in
these
firms
is
frankly
a
drag
on
that
idea
since
they
offer
less
value
and
require
more
supervision.
Another
model
is
the
remote-only
firm.
The
lawyers
in
these
firms
are
all
geographically
remote
from
one
another.
If
they
have
offices,
they
are
small.
Real
estate
costs
are
low
and
because
the
lawyers
can
work
from
anywhere,
the
firm
can
grab
the
best
talent
irrespective
of
where
that
talent
is
located.
Typically,
these
firms
are
tech
driven
and,
like
the
AI
first
firms,
lean
heavily
into
AI.
They
have
few
associates
since
training
and
supervision
is
difficult
given
the
remote
working
environment.
Or
even
more
extreme:
there
is
no
firm
at
all,
just
a
sort
of
loose
network
of
lawyers
who
come
together
to
work
on
a
matter
and
then
move
on
to
the
next
one
while
all
the
while
leveraging
AI.
In
the
words
of
Gertrude
Stein:
there
is
no
there
there.
No
fixed
overhead,
no
infrastructure,
just
collective
expertise
assembled
on
demand.
All
of
these
models,
which
I
call
new
age
law
firms,
disrupt
the
traditional
leverage
model
by
utilizing
technology
and
remote
work
environments.
They
are
no
longer
trapped
by
the
billable
hour
mentality
of
traditional
law
firms,
and
they
can
bill
based
on
things
like
value
and
expertise.
They
hope
to
offset
any
loss
of
revenue
by
moving
away
from
the
billable
hour
and
increased
work,
subscriptions,
and
reduced
costs.
Again,
it
sounds
good.
Particularly
for
clients
who
can
get
better
results
by
having
senior
people
more
intimately
involved
in
their
matters,
benefit
from
their
expertise,
get
lower
legal
bills,
and
welcome
greater
predictability
brought
about
by
the
alternative
billing
methods.
If
all
this
works,
the
traditional
law
firm
model
sounds
like
it
may
be
in
trouble.
Maybe
not
at
the
top
end
where
Am
Law
50
firms
will
always
handle
bet-the-company
matters
and
cost
is
not
a
factor.
But
that’s
less
true
for
smaller
and
midsize
firms.
While
the
theory
that
the
innovative
firms
can
draw
more
and
more
business
in
the
short
run
may
be
valid,
what
about
the
long
term?
The
Traditional
Firm
Pipeline
The
traditional
law
firms
do
have
something
the
new
age
firms
don’t
have
and
which
they
need.
The
traditional
model
assumes
that
associates
will
be
brought
in
from
law
school
largely
untrained
in
the
practicalities
of
the
practice,
the
how
and
the
why
of
being
a
lawyer.
Things
like
strategy
and
vision,
how
to
keep
clients
happy,
how
to
find
solutions
to
problems,
how
to
be
profitable,
how
to
market,
and
how
to
keep
the
lights
on.
In
short,
not
only
the
practice
of
law
but
how
to
run
a
firm.
As
associates
progress
in
the
traditional
law
firm,
they
gradually
learn
and
develop,
take
on
more
responsibility,
become
partners,
bring
in
business,
and
become
firm
leaders.
It’s
that
opportunity
to
become
an
experienced
lawyer
that
the
traditional
firm
has
historically
offered.
The
new
age
firms,
on
the
other
hand,
are
composed
of
primarily
experienced
lawyers,
mainly
poached
from
the
traditional
law
firms.
They
come
fully
formed
and
ready
to
go.
That’s
all
well
and
good
and,
for
that
matter,
fair.
But
the
new
age
firms,
by
and
large,
aren’t
thinking
young
lawyer
development.
The
Future
for
New
Age
Firms
Fast
forward
into
the
future.
The
new
age
firms
don’t
have
associates
to
move
up
the
ladder.
If
traditional
firms
start
to
flounder
or
no
longer
offer
the
kind
of
training
associates
have
historically
received,
who
will
replace
the
experienced
lawyers
in
the
new
age
firms
as
they
age
out?
How
will
they
be
able
to
offer
the
same
expertise
and
talent
if
that
talent
is
not
being
developed
as
elsewhere?
Of
course,
there
will
always
be
traditional
firms
where
associates
learn
to
be
good
lawyers.
But
traditional
firms
will
be
forced,
sooner
or
later,
to
do
some
of
the
things
the
new
age
firms
are
doing
to
stay
competitive.
That
means
greater
use
of
AI
to
do
the
tasks
younger
lawyers
used
to
do.
And
inevitably
it
means
fewer
opportunities
for
young
lawyers
to
grow.
As
a
result,
there
won’t
be
as
many
of
those
experienced
lawyers
around
for
the
new
age
firms
to
grab
up.
What
experienced
lawyers
there
are
will
cost
exponentially
more.
It’s
simply
supply
and
demand.
And
if
the
pipeline
closes,
the
cost
advantage
of
the
new
age
firms
and,
for
that
matter,
to
clients,
could
wither.
One
other
thing;
I’m
not
big
on
“firm
culture”
since
most
firms
within
certain
size
parameters
that
bill
by
the
hour
have
similar
cultures.
But
there
is
an
advantage
to
working
at
a
firm
and
come
up
through
the
ranks.
You
know
the
clients,
you
know
the
people,
and
you
know
the
traditions.
And
when
it
comes
to
management,
knowing
how
people
react,
knowing
their
strengths
and
weaknesses
through
experience,
is
valuable.
But
by
definition,
new
age
firms
have
little
of
that
to
fall
back
on.
Bottom
line,
for
the
new
age
firms
to
succeed
long
term,
they
are
going
to
need
the
talent
to
do
the
work
and
the
managerial
skills
to
run
the
firm.
There
Is
an
Alternative
So,
it’s
fair
to
ask
whether
the
new
age
firms
can
survive
in
the
future
if
they
continue
on
the
same
course.
And
if
clients
are
licking
their
chops
at
this
opportunity
for
lower
and
more
predictable
fees,
they
best
think
twice
as
well.
If
young
lawyers
aren’t
adequately
groomed
for
the
future,
client
service
will
ultimately
suffer,
and
the
cost
of
expertise
will
skyrocket.
There
are
solutions,
however.
It
starts
with
the
recognition
of
the
potential
and
looming
problem.
From
there,
new
age
firms
will
need
to
somehow
invest
in
training
younger
lawyers
and
thinking
seriously
about
succession.
Succession
not
just
in
terms
of
leadership
but
in
terms
of
experience
and
expertise
in
their
practice.
To
do
this,
they
need
to
invest
in
law
schools
and
offer
training
programs
much
like
some
of
the
vendors
are
already
doing.
It
means
investing
in
hiring
younger
lawyers
and
bringing
them
along
like
the
traditional
firms
have
historically
done
even
if
it
negatively
impacts
profit.
It
means
a
commitment
to
more
formal
training
such
as
robust
mentorships
and
simulated
training.
And
it
means
doing
things
like
educating
clients
about
the
need
to
invest
in
the
development
of
younger
lawyers
knowing
there
will
be
a
cost
but
looking
to
the
future
for
the
return.
The
profession
is
not
known
for
this
kind
of
thinking
but
perhaps
new
age
firms,
less
bound
by
tradition,
can
lead
the
way
here
just
as
they
are
with
things
like
work
processes
and
business
models.
For
the
long
term,
new
age
firms
will
need
to
groom
younger
lawyers
and
future
firm
leaders.
The
firms
that
do
so
in
the
future
will
thrive.
Those
that
don’t?
They
may
become
extinct.
It’s
a
different
world.
Thinking
that
there
will
always
be
a
pipeline
of
experienced
lawyers
there
for
the
asking
or
failing
to
plan
for
the
line
to
run
dry
is
also
a
recipe
for
extinction.
Traditional
firms
are
notorious
for
not
looking
down
the
road.
New
age
firms
say
they
think
differently.
That
they
are
on
the
cutting
edge
of
the
future
of
law.
Maybe
so.
But
if
they
want
a
future,
they
also
need
to
invest
in
it,
not
stick
their
heads
in
the
sand
like
their
traditional
brethren
at
whom
they
scoff.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.