Axiom chief urges more and faster change in legal market

Harris: failure is the sibling of innovation

The speed and scale of change in the legal market – despite innovations such as alternative business structures – do not match its size, the founder of pioneering business Axiom has claimed.

Mark Harris suggested that this was in part down to lawyers’ reluctance to fail.

“We have a pretty unhealthy relationship with failure,” he said in his keynote speech to last week’s FT Innovative Lawyers Awards in London, where he was given a special achievement award.

“Our risk aversion is understandable given our jobs – we’re all focused on getting everything we do right. That’s perfectly good for the practice of law but that’s totally inappropriate for the business of law. Failure is the sibling of innovation and we must innovate.

“And while we don’t need to fail, we need to be OK and willing to fail some of the time.”

Axiom launched in 1999, providing seconded lawyers to in-house departments. It has more recently expanded into outsourcing of complex legal processes – such as commercial contracts, derivatives agreements and compliance activities – and managing complex contracts projects and disclosure in litigation.

Citing examples of innovation in the market, including ABSs, he nonetheless argued that “the speed and scale of trying new things does not match the scale of industry or the urgency of the need”.

He said: “We need to start asking harder questions and we need some new and inventive answers. Let’s not allow lawyers to be separated from the business of law, if for no other reason than it is the business of law that makes being a lawyer today as opposed to any other time in history utterly fascinating.”

Mr Harris insisted that transformation of the legal industry will be better for lawyers and clients.

“The principles of transformation will align the most impactful, most interesting and most challenging work with the most talented people in the profession. The work that will be left for the best lawyers will be far more interesting and the way in which we do it will be far more rewarding,” he said.

He said that for the last decade, “our industry has worshipped at the altar of bigger. But to what end?” He cited studies showing the stress big firm lawyers are under, while most general counsel are still frustrated with the inefficiency of their external law firms.

“Bigger is not better. Better is better,” he said. While lawyers could choose whether to believe in transformation, “the change itself is not a choice. It’s inevitable. It’s happening.

“So far we spend a lot of time admiring the problems facing our industry. But the solutions will not wait for us forever… Change is hard… but coming out the other end is worth the pain and it’s going to happen anyway, so we best just get on with it.”

Mr Harris said lawyers need to ask themselves harder questions. “Can we fundamentally rethink the aim of what it is we do? As a group of people, we’re the best in the world at giving great advice, but we are barely mediocre when it comes to delivering value.”

He explained: “We’re often brought in to help general counsel to rethink their contracting operation, which is typically the largest single category of inside spend. The GC asks, ‘how can we be more efficient without sacrificing quality?’ – which is a great question. Saving 30-40% in operational expenses is a worthy goal. That’s not losing. But it’s not as powerful as winning.

“The real value to an improved contracts operation is impacting revenue and margin. And there are lots of ways to do that. If we can shorten a company’s contracting cycle by 10 days, that’s two weeks of additional revenue that year. That’s a 4% bump in the top line. If that were applied to 50% of turnover, that’s a 2% uptick and that pays for the entire law department 10 times over.

“So can we change the frame of what we do from keeping our clients out of trouble to helping them win?”

    Readers Comments

  • Andrew Lund says:

    Has he not heard of Hacking Ashton?
    Granted ABS status Feb 2013 and bust 6 months later.Not sure what their former clients think about that particular “sibling of innovation”. I guess that in Mark Harris’ world they would just be collateral damage.

  • Andrew – an ABS is only a structure. Simply because a legal services provider chooses to adopt it is not actually an indication of innovation. Most of the licences granted have gone to traditional firms who continue to operate in the same way as pre-licence. Mark’s comments go well beyond mere structures and rightly raise the more fundamental issues that the market faces.

    The fact that you have chosen a single example as a suggestion of the failure of the new market is symptomatic of what Mark is saying about lawyers and the fear of failure. You don’t innovate without taking risk. This is the only market where that doesn’t seem to be understood and accepted – let alone celebrated!

  • Ed Poll says:

    The future of the legal profession is exciting, both from the perspective of lawyers wanting to focus on practicing law and for the clients who can expect more service at a lower cost. In 1995, when I obtained the trademark, The Business of Law(r), no one put business and law in the same sentence. Today, both lawyers and clients appreciate that law is a commercial enterprise and must be operated as such, for the benefit of all stakeholders.

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Reshaping workplace culture in law firms

The legal industry is at a critical point as concerns about “toxic law firm culture” reach an all-time high. The profession often prioritises performance at the cost of their wellbeing.

Will solicitors finally be fans of transparency now?

Since the introduction of the SRA’s transparency rules in December 2018, I have been an advocate for law firms going further then the regulatory essentials.

A two-point plan to halve the size of the SRA

I have joked for many years that you could halve the size (and therefore cost) of the Solicitors Regulation Authority overnight by banning both client account and sole practitioners.

Loading animation