The Next Normal: Innovation in Law

Professor Richard Susskind started his book by saying that, “Legal institutions and lawyers are at a crossroads, I claim, and will change more radically in less than two decades than they have over the last two centuries. If you are a young lawyer, this revolution will happen on your watch.” He continued by saying, “Unless retirement is imminent, what I say here will directly affect older lawyers too.” This has never been more true than it is today. 

There is no doubt that the Coronavirus pandemic has widely impacted businesses across the world in all sectors and dramatically changed our work practices. Most of the economic sectors and business activities are allowed to resume operations as the country is entering a recovery phase, working from home has become the “new normal” for many businesses given that on-site operations had to be ceased during the movement restrictions. We expect this new trend will continue post-COVID-19 situation. The legal practice is no exception as it is not listed as an essential service under the law. To ensure continued legal service delivery, lawyers and law firms have been pushed to rapidly adapt to the new normal and also develop innovative solutions to serve their clients more effectively under these radically changed circumstances.

BE PREPARED TO EMBRACE THE “NEW NORMAL” OR RISK BEING LEFT OUT

As the current pandemic has certainly accelerated the pace of technological adoption in the legal industry, it is foreseeable that this trend will only accelerate further and most likely lead to lasting changes in how we practice law even after the pandemic subsides. Significantly, this has signaled a greater need for continuous upskilling of the modern lawyers wishing to remain competitive in a post-coronavirus world. It is also time for law firms to reconsider their own technology needs and capabilities and seriously start looking into investing in technological solutions in light of the changing environment. Bear in mind that client demands and expectations are only growing in tandem with the changing business world, especially during this crisis period as some may be demanding innovation and cost-savings from their legal service providers. With much competition ahead in the legal market, it is imperative that law firms need to be prepared to be on the cutting-edge of technology and innovative solutions and be able to offer more competitive services if they want to land new business and retain existing clients.

The restrictions in place as a result of the pandemic have also placed an increased focus on alternative forms of execution of documents, such as signing a contract via electronic signature, as a practical means for completing transactions in a timely manner since in-person meetings are discouraged or prohibited under the social distancing rules. Despite the fact that most commercial transactions today can be closed electronically as they are granted legal effect and are enforceable under the existing legal framework (except for certain types of transactions which cannot be executed in electronic form as additional formal requirements may be required such as notarization or attestation), in practice, most parties still largely prefer the traditional mode of signing on a printed form of contract and are slow to adapt to the usage of electronic signatures. However, with the new social distancing norms in place, we will likely see a tremendous increase in the adoption of e-signatures where such signing methods will soon be accepted as the “new normal” moving forward.

Some litigation practitioners have also raised a number of legitimate critical issues that can arise from online court trials. Firstly, taking evidence remotely may give rise to the question of whether the judge can really observe the demeanor of the accused persons and witnesses to determine the veracity of evidence and the credibility of the person giving evidence, adding that witnesses testifying in the standard court setting would generally tend to feel more bound to speak the truth than testifying from the comfort of their homes. Secondly, there may be the risk of improper coaching or assistance to witnesses during the virtual trial where lawyers could be present in the same room as the witness and suggest answers to the witness while he/she is testifying. Thirdly, it is more cumbersome to conduct a witness examination where witnesses need translators or sign language interpreters. Last but not least, one valid problem with virtual hearing is that not all parties involved in the proceedings have equal or adequate access to the available technological facilities. Remote hearings may not be workable for criminal trials if, for example, prisons are not equipped with the necessary infrastructure to support virtual trials such as access to a stable internet connection and an appropriate room for the accused person to present in court digitally. Hence one should ready for the new norms rather than sticking with the old ones.