This is day seven of a new-year tour of the enterprise law landscape. Day one was an overview and focused on the lawyer; day two was Cost Control 2.0, day three was about legal tech going app-centric, day four examined why close counts with clients, day five suggested that thinking all lawyer training involves CLE may be a CLM; and day six looked at the primacy of selling in the brave new legal world, and in doing that we are all solos.

Today we come full circle from where we started, which was positing that all things legal start with one lawyer. And in 2012 and beyond, what matters are results.

When a legal issue arises, here is how the process works:

1. Figure out “The Law.” We call it X.

2. Determine “The Facts.” That’s Y.

3. Someone takes X + Y and gets a business “Result.” That’s Z.

Successful lawyers and law firms will spend most of their quality time focused on getting to Z.

Increasingly X (The Law) is the province of search engines, digests, and FAQs. You don’t even need to be a lawyer to know the law. Heck, we learned in law school that ignorance of it is no excuse. On a standalone basis, it’s not just low value work, it’s trending toward free.

When we talk about Y (The Facts), that is increasingly the province of data. Data mining, databases, and data rooms. Software munches data with almost no incremental cost. Legal software will eat some lawyers and law firms for lunch in the coming years. So unless you are a software company or a bleeding-edge legal process outsourcer, you don’t want to be exclusively there, either.

Which brings us to Z (Results). The more time you spend delivering results, the better the air and the view of the legal landscape. If you deliver the final regulatory approval that triggers closing of a billion-dollar merger, you get to charge more than fixing a CEO’s traffic ticket. (But if it allows her to drive to the closing, it’s value-bill-city).

Over the last few decades, law firms have made billions splashing around in the X and Y ponds. We may not be past that stage of enterprise legal, but we are at least closer to its end. And in-house lawyers who are narrow subject-matter-experts better hope they can draw a line to Z more often.

A good many enterprise legal clients don’t know that they should expect clear results from lawyers, since they still think The Law is mysterious and The Facts are hard to come by. But that will change as they compare notes and realize that much of what they’ve been paying for is not worth much without Results.

Results make the value of legal costs clear, and offer the chance to compare lawyers, firms, and third-party options on other metrics as well. (Sharp-eyed readers may think this sounds similar to day four, which examined why close counts with clients. The difference is that focused on client proximity, and today examines the bottom line particularly.)

I can hear some readers groaning a bit, and I know that this sounds like baseball, hot dogs and apple pie. But when you talk with enterprise legal clients, they remark about and refer lawyers who get great results. And they bemoan lawyers who are all about long memos and longer invoices.

So that’s the State of Legal 2012. It started with a lawyer, and it ends by getting to Z.

I will have one bonus item next Tuesday, and it will attempt to draw some of the 7 stages of the State of Legal 2012 into a bigger picture.

This is day six of a quick tour of the enterprise law landscape. Day one was an overview and focused on the lawyer; day two was Cost Control 2.0, day three was about legal tech going app-centric, day four examined why close counts with clients, and day five suggested that thinking all lawyer training involves CLE may be a CLM.

Today we examine why many lawyers think “selling” is a dirty word and why, in the real enterprise legal world, we are all solos when it comes to selling.

You remember the first time you heard about sales. If it wasn’t before college, you recall the time in your junior or senior year when everyone starting making plans for post-graduation. The wannabe lawyers and doctors knew grad school was required, as did the MBAs. The engineers were sifting through multiple job offers.

And then there were the outgoing types who got through college by force of personality as much as by dint of hard work. The comment then was “he’s going into Sales.” For the early years after college, a mention of his name might produce the response “On, he’s in Sales.” It was not explicitly intended as an insult, but those words just sort of hung there in the smoky haze of the local watering hole.

Flash forward and where is everyone now? Well the doctors have too much business; selling is typically turning the phones on at 9:00 am, and sometimes losing money on each patient. The lawyers are wondering what the hell happened (as are many engineers). The MBAs are either toiling away in the bowels of Finance or Procurement, or, if they are lucky enough to have a senior position, wish they were better at sales.

And then there is that “Sales Guy” from college. He is gainfully employed. He’s worked for a number of companies, and upgraded his base, bonus and stock options each time. He never had to look for a job, as the offers come looking for him.

And you don’t see him much in the summer, as he is at his house on the lake.

One reason we may have gone to law school is precisely because we didn’t want to sell (second only to not tolerating the sight of blood).

How is that working out for us now?

Let’s look at the three major lawyer categories in enterprise legal, and how they are positioned, sales-wise:

1. Lawyers at large firms. The good news: they often have marketing personnel inside the firm. The bad news: they are typically building the firm name, not the names of 500 individual lawyers. When it comes to networking, some of that (maybe) can be outsourced or automated. But when it comes to selling bit-ticket legal services to billion-dollar companies, it takes selling. As in face-to-face meetings, and many of them. Sometimes over months or years. Can you take a lot of rejection, but not take it personally? If so, you have part of what it takes.

2. Lawyers at smaller firms or solos. The bad news: you are likely the marketing department. The good news: your name may be the brand mark. Your challenge is how to define and describe a niche that can put you on equal footing with large firm lawyers. Our friend Joe B. above is not going to cut it.

3. In-house lawyers. Ah, you’re in luck, right? One reason you went inside was to do away with timesheets and endless marketing efforts. You have a captive client, you don’t need to sell. Really? If you’re not selling the fact that the legal department is advancing business objectives, then you are falling behind. If you’re not selling yourself as about 5x better than outside counsel in cost, speed, and outcomes, then you may be falling out.

Clients buy the lawyer, and justify the purchase with the firm. On the in-house front, internal clients should use “legal” because they want to, not just because they have to.

There is so much room for improvement in the selling of legal services. For those who are so inclined, take heart. If you do anything somewhat regularly, you are going to be better than the other 99%, who typically do nothing ever.

I want to close this essay by recounting recent personal experience. There is a well known lawyer in town who started in a very large firm, and then left to build his own, which is quite successful. I saw him twice in the last few months. Over the holidays, I saw him at a nearby Starbucks, early on a Saturday morning. He was talking to a current or future client, as far as I could tell over the din of the espresso machine.

That’s not the best part. I saw him a few months earlier, at a local restaurant. Again, one-on-one with someone, talking business as I walked in, and talking about civic matters when I went back out to my car to retrieve a legal pad. Now why was I there? I was at a luncheon sponsored by the State Bar of Michigan. The agenda: legal marketing. The attendees? A bunch of lawyers. As I sat there listening to a speaker talking about how to stalk potential clients through Linked In, I couldn’t help but think about the name partner just outside. He has been “linked in” to marketing and selling for years. (Yes, he’s on Linked In; I just checked. I’d wager $100 that he doesn’t know his password.)

Does this all come easy to him? Maybe. But he is consistently out there, talking one-on-one to people who hire lawyers. Sounds somewhat like Legal Sales 101.

Neither of these episodes may involve some exotic social media infused, SEO-enhanced, lead-gen strategy, utilizing cloud-based CRM.

Works for him, though. And did I mention that the once and future client at Starbucks bought the coffee? What a concept!

This is day five of a quick tour of the enterprise law landscape. Day one was an overview and focused on the lawyer; day two was Cost Control 2.0, day three was about legal tech going app-centric, and day four examined why close counts with clients.

Today we examine why a CLE (continuing legal education) mindset about training can operate as a CLM (career-limiting move). More to the point: does the notion that lawyer training has to be mostly about the law and exclusively for credit hold many lawyers back from improving skills as well as knowledge?

First, let me say I understand that many states have mandatory CLE requirements (here’s a map courtesy of the ABA). This was intended to have the public interest in mind. Fair enough. It is clear, though, that most of CLE offerings tend to be focused on lawyers in private practice, designed in the day of the generalist solo who is increasingly a rare breed. Further, in many states it is all about just taking courses and logging hours, not even testing knowledge gained. Finally, there are the well-intended CLE gatekeepers, who are deputized by the state bars to approve certain courses (for a fee) and sometimes offer them outright (for an additional fee).

My prediction for 2012 and beyond is this: lawyers who counsel the enterprise need courses that teach more than just “the law.” As we saw yesterday, if you want to get closer to clients (and stay there) you need to be more than a fount of legal knowledge. You need business process skills and techniques to master interpersonal dynamics.

Let’s be clear about one thing: the status quo isn’t the fault of CLE regulators or purveyors. It’s us lawyers, too. Note earlier I defined CLM as career-limiting move. But the “M” can stand for mindset, too. It’s the notion that lawyers dispense the law, like a juridical pharmacist. Some people (often outside counsel) I have met take this mindset to the Nth degree, and, when pushed by a client to explain an overly-legal answer, respond:

“That’s a business decision.”

Going forward, answers like that won’t get you invited back to the party.

The best enterprise lawyers package legal concepts with a layer of business reality and put an economic bow (with a strong ROI) on top.

Legal education for this market will start to serve this need, CLE credits be damned. It will have to be delivered expertly, crisply, and on-demand. It will move beyond “the law” and provide tools for “the lawyering.”

And it will happen sooner than some may think.

This is day four of a quick tour of the enterprise law landscape; I promise State of Legal 2012 will end this week. But it may take three more days to do it. Day one was an overview and focused on the lawyer; day two was Cost Control 2.0, and day three was about legal tech going app-centric.

Today we look at what separates good lawyers from great ones. Increasingly, its how close you can get to clients, and what you do when you get there.

One of the main lessons you learn when you practice in-house is how much you do that is “legal” as opposed to dispensing “the law.” This is particularly so as General Counsel, when you are called upon to take on a senior management role. It’s definitely the case if you are GC in a company that views the law department as a strategic asset and not an occupying force.

When you are this close to clients, there is no excuse in not having an impact. In particular, you are in an optimum position to advance the corporate agenda, and control costs and risks in the process.

This wasn’t always the case. Let’s look at the alternatives.

The first is the historical role of outside counsel. You are called in when something happens, and you work at it with the meter running until it is done or someone yells “STOP!”

This was good work if you could get it. You were, however, playing a role in a three act play, but typically called in just before the intermission.

Contrast that with this. It’s what in-house counsel do day-in, day-out:

When you do this, you have to be close to clients. You are really working with them, not for them. You are free to solve a problem quickly and cheaply, indeed you are expected to.

The ability to create the best facts as you dispense legal advice is one key difference in the nature of the outside vs. inside practice. It’s why there are fewer memos and more meetings.

In 2012 and beyond, the better outside counsel want to get closer. If they do it effectively and efficiently, they just might be asked back. If inside counsel do not have consistent access to people they need to practice at a high level, they need to change the culture, upgrade their skills, or perhaps change jobs.

Clients like someone who jumps in and works alongside them. You get the picture.

It’s day three of the state of the legal union. Someone asked me yesterday how long this will run and I replied that there are only 362 days left (yes, 2012 is a leap year).

Today we turn to legal technology focused on the enterprise (legal departments and law firms). Never before has technology been needed more. And maybe never before has some if it been too bloated, too costly and too late (on the install) for what customers really need.

Last year, I asked who will pay for developing the next phase of legal technology. I suggested that historically it was clients paying for it, if law firms were buying it. Not anymore.

In 2012, the price challenge will still be there. But I think there are new challenges. Because it’s increasingly an app app world…

More and more users of technology are spending quality time with iPhones and iPads. True, much of this is for personal use or entertainment. Yet at least ten things define the app experience for the user:

1. It does a specific thing. Well.

2. It does (1.) for a low price. Sometimes free.

3. You can find feedback and ratings from other users before you buy.

4. You can compare pricing with other similar apps, too.

5. It can be purchased quickly.

6. It installs itself.

7. It (almost) updates itself. For free.

8. You don’t have to read a manual to learn how to use it.

9. There are no long-term commitments beyond the initial purchase.

10. Getting something done can almost seem like a game.

At first blush, it may seem absurd to compare mobile apps to enterprise-class software. But what Apple is doing is training the current generation in something very different. And it is making the next generation look at software much differently. Like not at all.

For those still selling software, you have to understand that some companies would budget for software in year 1, get the approval and start scoping out options in year 2, and then purchase and install in year 3. No one can do that anymore, since their customers and competition are moving too fast.

I could tick through items above, but there are some obvious lessons for developers and buyers of legal tech solutions:

1. Most “software” will move to the cloud, and be sold as a service.

2. It can be explained in about 30 minutes, and a demo takes the balance of an hour.

3. It will be priced monthly, with discounts for semi-annual payments.

4. You can start using it within an hour of payment.

5. You can cancel at any time and get a refund of the service balance.

6. The ROI will be obvious in months 2 or 3, and will be at least 10-20x the cost. If not, see (5.), above. If you hit 100x on the ROI, you get rich.

7. Intuitive design means little or no training needed. Web videos explain all in the application’s online members area.

8. 365/24/7 response to outages, and live domestic-based support during business hours.

9. No service agreements required beyond the “software” itself.

10. No charge for updates. They happen in the cloud.

11. Easy to get data in, clear way to get data out.

12. Robust privacy and security, beyond the usual platitudes (key defense contractors got hacked, remember?)

I think I’ll stop there.

The bottom line for major legal software developers selling high-end, feature-rich, shrink-wrapped offerings into the legal market: prices may be going down and sales could be harder to come by. The good news is that incumbents have the resources to roll solutions out faster than new market entrants. The (likely) bad news is that many won’t because Finance will not look kindly on someone who comes forward and recommends transitioning to a new model.

Some people will go back to the drawing board; others will leave and start their own companies.

The conclusions on sales and pricing are really more of a hunch, based on anecdotal “research.” I will point out that late last year Oracle missed its earnings guidance. Oracle never misses. According to Reuters:

The fourth quarter is the crucial period of the year for many technology companies because corporations tend to spend most heavily on information technology during that time in what is known as a year-end “budget flush.”

So I’m thinking if Oracle is seeing weakness, they won’t be alone.

Change, though, breeds opportunity for new solutions from old companies and different solutions from new companies. Or law firms.

Which brings us to the next stop on the State of Legal 2012 express. Since it is leap year, I will take a day off from this series tomorrow and finish it up next week.

Update 6 Jan 12: The news broke today that the LexisNexis unit of Reed Elsevier has sold its Applied Discovery unity to a private equity firm (via @ronfriedmann). A bullish sign or a reality of the app-centric age? We’ll have to wait to find out. But know this: private equity doesn’t typically buy a company at the top of the market.