Page 7 - Final QVM 27 PDF_Neat
P. 7
Private Draft QVM - Quality, Value, and Metrics
profession, which relies mainly on subjective standards.8 There are no global standards that are
consistently applied to define the quality of corporate- and business-related legal services. I would
assert this is a deficiency.
Before any system or program can be implemented, the quality standards in legal services must be
clearly defined and understood. In addition to taking into account the differences in the services, this
requires evaluating quality standards from four different perspectives in professional services:
institutional, the individual professional or firm, new models, and the business or institutional client.
Ideally, their standards should intersect.
The first perspective is of institutions that have an interest in defining standards for their
members. For example, the International Standards Organization has issued eight
management principles (i.e., the ISO 9000) to foster quality management.9 Accounting
associations have established quality control standards that are independent of other
professions. They are the International Standard on Quality Control10 and the International
Standard on Auditing.11 Adherence to these standards is supported by clients. Conversely,
bar associations have created “practice management programs,” or PMPs, as a way to assist
attorneys in bridging the gap between what was not covered during their legal education
and the business side of practicing law.12 The Law Society of England and Wales offers the
Lexcel13 program for a level of quality certification.
The second perspective on quality standards and principles is found in day-to-day
interactions among lawyers and clients. Before the engagement letter in which the firm is
hired, the firm will meet with clients and outline the process that will transpire during their
representation. Internal procedures may also be defined with the business client to avoid
misunderstandings. There is a continuous monitoring of outcomes.
The third is the perspective of those creating new models for legal services. This perspective
has been acknowledged by the ABA Commission on the Future of the Legal Services as
presenting new challenges. The recommended approach is the traditional one: regulations.14
A number of authors have questioned whether in fact these new services can be practically
regulated as a result of their size and global scope.15 A positive approach based on
measurable quality would be preferential.
8 Mark A. Cohen, Law Should Have Baseball’s Metrics, FORBES, Sept. 26, 2016,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markcohen1/2016/09/26/law-should-have-baseballs-metrics/#1878d7306fe7.
9 ISO QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES, http://www.iso.org/iso/pub100080.pdf.
10 INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON QUALITY CONTROL, http://www.ifac.org/system/files/downloads/a007-2010-iaasb-handbook-
isqc-1.pdf.
11 THE CLARIFIED STANDARDS, https://www.iaasb.org/clarity-center/clarified-standards.
12 WIKIPEDIA, LEGAL MATTER MANAGEMENT, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_matter_management.
13 See LAW SOCIETY OF ENGLAND AND WALES, CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR BC,
https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?cid=2637&t=Chapter-2-%E2%80%93-Standards-of-the-Legal-
Profession; see also ABA MODEL RULES OF PROFESSION CONDUCT, PREAMBLE AND SCOPE,
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_c
onduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_preamble_scope.html.
14 ABA COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF LEGAL SERVICES, Recommendation 11: “Outcomes derived from any established or new models for the
delivery of legal services must be measured to evaluate effectiveness in fulfilling regulatory objectives.”
http://abafuturesreport.com/2016-fls-report-recommendations.pdf; see also ABA COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF LEGAL
SERVICES,
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/office_president/final_unregulated_lsp_entities_issu
es_paper.pdf (March 2016) (several as of yet unapproved positions are also discussed in the Final Unregulated LSP Entities Issues
Paper).
15 Laurel Terry, Putting the Legal Profession’s Monopoly on the Practice of Law in a Global Context, 82 FORDHAM L. REV 6,
http://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/pdfs/Vol_82/No_6/Terry_May.pdf, also citing Benjamin H. Barton, The Lawyer’s
Monopoly – What Goes and What Stays, 82 FORDHAM L. REV. 3067 (2014); see also John S. Dzienkowski, The Future of Big Law: Alternative
6
profession, which relies mainly on subjective standards.8 There are no global standards that are
consistently applied to define the quality of corporate- and business-related legal services. I would
assert this is a deficiency.
Before any system or program can be implemented, the quality standards in legal services must be
clearly defined and understood. In addition to taking into account the differences in the services, this
requires evaluating quality standards from four different perspectives in professional services:
institutional, the individual professional or firm, new models, and the business or institutional client.
Ideally, their standards should intersect.
The first perspective is of institutions that have an interest in defining standards for their
members. For example, the International Standards Organization has issued eight
management principles (i.e., the ISO 9000) to foster quality management.9 Accounting
associations have established quality control standards that are independent of other
professions. They are the International Standard on Quality Control10 and the International
Standard on Auditing.11 Adherence to these standards is supported by clients. Conversely,
bar associations have created “practice management programs,” or PMPs, as a way to assist
attorneys in bridging the gap between what was not covered during their legal education
and the business side of practicing law.12 The Law Society of England and Wales offers the
Lexcel13 program for a level of quality certification.
The second perspective on quality standards and principles is found in day-to-day
interactions among lawyers and clients. Before the engagement letter in which the firm is
hired, the firm will meet with clients and outline the process that will transpire during their
representation. Internal procedures may also be defined with the business client to avoid
misunderstandings. There is a continuous monitoring of outcomes.
The third is the perspective of those creating new models for legal services. This perspective
has been acknowledged by the ABA Commission on the Future of the Legal Services as
presenting new challenges. The recommended approach is the traditional one: regulations.14
A number of authors have questioned whether in fact these new services can be practically
regulated as a result of their size and global scope.15 A positive approach based on
measurable quality would be preferential.
8 Mark A. Cohen, Law Should Have Baseball’s Metrics, FORBES, Sept. 26, 2016,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markcohen1/2016/09/26/law-should-have-baseballs-metrics/#1878d7306fe7.
9 ISO QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES, http://www.iso.org/iso/pub100080.pdf.
10 INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON QUALITY CONTROL, http://www.ifac.org/system/files/downloads/a007-2010-iaasb-handbook-
isqc-1.pdf.
11 THE CLARIFIED STANDARDS, https://www.iaasb.org/clarity-center/clarified-standards.
12 WIKIPEDIA, LEGAL MATTER MANAGEMENT, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_matter_management.
13 See LAW SOCIETY OF ENGLAND AND WALES, CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR BC,
https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?cid=2637&t=Chapter-2-%E2%80%93-Standards-of-the-Legal-
Profession; see also ABA MODEL RULES OF PROFESSION CONDUCT, PREAMBLE AND SCOPE,
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_c
onduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_preamble_scope.html.
14 ABA COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF LEGAL SERVICES, Recommendation 11: “Outcomes derived from any established or new models for the
delivery of legal services must be measured to evaluate effectiveness in fulfilling regulatory objectives.”
http://abafuturesreport.com/2016-fls-report-recommendations.pdf; see also ABA COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF LEGAL
SERVICES,
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/office_president/final_unregulated_lsp_entities_issu
es_paper.pdf (March 2016) (several as of yet unapproved positions are also discussed in the Final Unregulated LSP Entities Issues
Paper).
15 Laurel Terry, Putting the Legal Profession’s Monopoly on the Practice of Law in a Global Context, 82 FORDHAM L. REV 6,
http://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/pdfs/Vol_82/No_6/Terry_May.pdf, also citing Benjamin H. Barton, The Lawyer’s
Monopoly – What Goes and What Stays, 82 FORDHAM L. REV. 3067 (2014); see also John S. Dzienkowski, The Future of Big Law: Alternative
6
