Barristers: Greater collaboration on technology needed
The structure of the Bar impedes the adoption of technology and innovation, but barristers need to do so to drive “a better and more efficient service for clients”, a Bar Standards Board (BSB) report has argued.
It said the BSB has a key role in driving greater collaboration and standardisation, such as through technology innovation hubs.
The qualitative study, Technology and Innovation at the Bar, produced by Spinnaker Research & Consulting, said that “as the legal landscape continues to evolve”, it was essential for barristers to overcome current barriers to stay competitive.
“Embracing technology and seeking efficiencies where appropriate is a way that barristers can drive a better and more efficient service for clients.”
There was more that legal regulators and professional bodies could do to help barristers, “especially as we recognise that technology does not have to be disruptive or innovative to be impactful”.
The report, based on 41 interviews with barristers, stakeholders and others, went on: “They can help to demystify technology for the profession, to raise awareness of the providers and the benefits, to create a more dynamic environment for innovation, and facilitate collaboration between technology providers, law firms, clients and barristers.
“A proactive stance on technology adoption can not only enhance individual practice, improve client outcomes and mitigate risk, but also elevate the Bar as a whole, ensuring it remains confident, viable, relevant and competitive whilst undergoing digital transformation.”
The research found that the ad hoc and varied adoption of technology and innovation at the Bar was not an issue of barristers who participated lacking capability or confidence, or being impeded by regulatory barriers, “but is largely due to structural market characteristics”.
The model of self-employment within chambers made it “challenging” to centralise technology and make collective efficiency gains, while “cultural differences, varied practice area needs, highly individual and autonomous workflows and collective decision-making make it difficult to standardise processes.”
Chambers have limited funding and IT expertise (often outsourced) when compared with law firms and prioritised compliance eg cyber-security ahead of innovation.
One barrister told researchers: “We still run ourselves like a golf club frankly like an unincorporated association with a committee, with people on the committee taking on little projects…
“What it means is that these sorts of big strategic questions that we need to answer [relating to technology] tend to get put on the back burner because everyone’s busy and everyone’s got their day job to do.”
Another said: “The people who have to make the decisions lack the knowledge and insight to be able to make those decisions, because they’re barristers.”
Barristers were time-pressured with their caseloads and lacked capacity to think strategically about technology and innovation, Spinnaker said, “which is not viewed as client-led/billable activity”, while there was “limited external pressure” to change from clients, solicitors, the judiciary and the courts.
These market characteristics also meant limited investment and disruption opportunities for technology vendors.
As a result, Spinnaker found that barristers and chambers appreciated the practical benefits of technology and innovation but needed to be assured of “reliability, compliance, effectiveness, ease of use and low risks of implementation”.
There was “growing recognition of opportunities” to streamline various aspects of barristers’ workflows.
“Tasks like time and billing, client onboarding, completing compliance questionnaires from law firms, evidence review, and creating chronologies are areas where barristers acknowledged that technology could significantly enhance efficiency.”
The research found “cautious adoption and usage” of artificial intelligence (AI) to prepare documents, transcriptions and note-taking, as well as Lexis+ AI for legal research.
The BSB, it said, has “a unique and impactful role to play” to set the standards for best practice and to overcome the systemic barriers to effective technology adoption.
The regulator needed to help drive greater collaboration and standardisation: “Adoption of technology by barristers is in isolated pockets rather than through a coordinated, profession-wide approach which limits the potential benefits.
“There is no clear framework for scaling individual successes into systematised practices and cross-collaboration is limited.”
The BSB could also have “more dynamic and informal conversations” with technology providers.
“Technology innovation hubs are one example where barristers can collaborate with technologists to develop and test new tools.
“Similarly, tech incubators and/or regulatory sandboxes have been established in other jurisdictions such as Singapore and the Paris Bar Association, with productive results and can also help technology vendors to comply with regulatory standards if needed.”
The BSB also had a role to play in educating and informing barristers, and looking at strategies to integrate technology training into professional development pathways.
BSB director general Mark Neale said: “Technology is developing quickly, and we need to help the profession to adapt to the risks and opportunities that this brings.
“We have discussed the findings of this report with the Bar Council. Both organisations recognise the need to work together to understand developments in technology at the Bar and to support the safe adoption of new technology.”
The BSB and Bar Council have agreed to form a joint working group to share information about technology at the Bar and to consider where they could work together.
Leave a Comment