Tech gives lawyers “opportunity to develop” emotional intelligence


Randle: Lawyers will be able to supercharge their very human attributes

Advanced technology gives lawyers “a wonderful opportunity to develop EQ” or emotional intelligence, the head of national firm Shoosmiths’ non-legal services division has said.

Tony Randle, a commercial lawyer, said the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in contract review was already delivering “revolutionary and disruptive” change for commercial lawyers and the next 10 years would see “increasingly disruptive” technology.

“In the future there will be a place for lawyers and technology, not lawyers or technology.

“Lawyers will be able to supercharge their very human attributes in terms of engaging with and understanding clients much more deeply, and empathising with them.

“It will leave clients with a much better experience of lawyers and the law.”

Speaking at a Westminster Legal Policy Forum seminar on legal tech last week, Mr Randle, partner and head of Shoosmiths8 Connected Services, said technology would provide lawyers with a “wonderful opportunity” to develop their EQ, as opposed to IQ.

Another important set of skills that lawyers of the future would need was in change management, he went on, because they would face an environment where change would be “the norm”.

“There have been many dystopian predictions about how much legal work will be replaced by machines.

“Machines won’t replace lawyers. Lawyers who understand technology will replace those who don’t.”

Mr Randle said AI was already sufficiently advanced to replace “a good proportion” of the thought processes relied on by the older generation of commercial lawyers.

However, there was no need for lawyers to become “technology experts” or to be trained as coders.

Instead, they should know enough about technology to understand where it could solve problems for their clients.

“They need to able to see the potential of technology. More lawyers need this understanding to have great new ideas on how to meet client need.”

Mr Randle said the connection between law and technology was “vital to the profession” but there was still a “massive disconnect”, with the two sides speaking “different languages”.

He added: “Technology has the ability to make lawyers’ lives less stressful. They should not fear technology. It creates far more scope for them to have a lower stress and more rewarding professional life.”

Dr Anna Elmirzayeva, senior tutor and national lead for legal technology and innovation in professional development at the University of Law, said the university took a “holistic approach” to the issue, with “people skills” such as emotional intelligence and creative thinking coming first.

Future lawyers needed to understand “functionalities” rather than specific tools, because they may well not be using the tools they studied at university.

“Students and future lawyers need to understand that the profession can no longer dictate to clients how they are going to receive a service.

“A lot of the push is coming from clients. Appreciating how clients want the service delivered is essential.”

She added: “You need high EQ.”




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.

Blog


Bulk litigation – not always working in consumers interests

For consumers to get the benefit, bulk litigation needs to be done well, and we are increasingly concerned that there are significant problems in some areas of this market.


ABSs, cost and audits – fixing regulation after Axiom Ince

A feature of law firm collapses and frauds has sometimes been the over-concentration of power in outdated and overburdened systems of control.


The new sexual harassment law: first among equals?

If there is a case for enhancing compensation for sexual harassment cases, then surely there is an equally strong case for enhancing compensation for other forms of harassment?


Loading animation