Our legal profession is no stranger to attacks of ethics and efficiency. Be it justified or not, most legal practitioners have borne the brunt of generalised critique. Be that as it may, the majority of practitioners appear conscious of their general ethical obligations.

In saying that, a general theme prevalent in our field is that of tradition. Practitioners appear to pride themselves in historical practices of hierarchy, file management and task completion.

Overview

There are certain obligations implied by the Legal Practitioner’s Code of Conduct which dictate that legal practitioners need to conduct their matters in a way that promotes efficacy. It does not appear to be a far stretch to assume that these obligations entail that a legal practitioner needs to be rather adaptive in respect of finding ‘new’ ways to perform ‘old’ tasks and to utilise available resources and mechanisms to do so.

Furthermore, current legal trends seem to be pushing the profession in directions and into areas of practice that we did not previously find ourselves. This apparent push towards innovation appears to be inadvertently, re-emphasizing the role of practitioners in safeguarding efficacy in our field.

Competition, although not necessarily a new factor affecting practitioner’s behaviour; seems to be a particularly potent contributor to innovation. With new law firms opening every day, practitioners find themselves having to find new ways to differentiate themselves from the significant number of legal service providers on offer and also, to maintain or obtain a certain competitive edge.

Technological developments also appear to have “forced” a certain sort of reform in the field. Some benefits of these developments have manifested certain specific benefits in the legal field. For example, online file managements systems, legal template generators and the recent development of an online case management system at court, have gone a long way in contributing to the general efficacy of legal practitioners.

Be that as it may, not all practitioners have been quick on the uptake. As with most change, there has been a certain amount of resistance to the technological movement. Such resistance is to be expected in a profession so rooted in tradition. Many practitioners are, in fact, comfortable with the status which prevailed before the aforementioned pushes towards change. This appears to stem from a situation of being familiar with the workings of an industry and a fear of those workings, changing to an extent where you no longer believe in your ability to thrive in the industry. This is not necessarily the position of all practitioners resistant to change. Some practitioners are firm in the belief that you do not need to fix something that is not broken. In other words, because they do not necessarily see anything glaringly incorrect with the status quo, they feel no need to alter it.

However, with due consideration to the above, it must be said that change appears to be rather inevitable. Globalisation has also significantly affected the need for change in the legal field. Considering the vast array of legal needs and the varying clientele that come with them, it goes to say that a legal practitioner would need to be adaptable in his/ her ability to properly and efficiently cater to those needs.

Furthermore, changing economic circumstances may all but, obligate innovation in order for a law firm to continue to exist in a particular ecosystem.

Conclusion

For innovators, change is a state of existence. For legal practitioners who are innovators, change and reform are the required medicines needed to cure possible restrictions on efficiency and service delivery.

For those uncomfortable with change, the process may not necessarily be a pleasant one. However, it does appear to be necessary for the profession to progress and align itself with the new realities it is faced with on a daily basis.

Contact an attorney at SchoemanLaw Inc for innovative legal solutions.

Written by Raeesa Ebrahim Atkinson, SchoemanLaw