In the December Futures Issue of the ABA’s Law Practice Today, Chad wrote an article on change resistance in the legal profession. In “If You Are Going to Resist Change, You Better Have a Good Reason,” Chad raises the burden of proof for innovation in legal:
To tackle this, we need to shift the burden of proof on innovation in the legal profession. It seems like proponents of change have to meet a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. If opponents want to strike down a concept, they are not tasked with the equivalent burden of coming forward with evidence as to why that innovation is harmful to the public.
What we really need is effectively an affirmative defense for those opposing innovation. If you think non-lawyer ownership is evil and that bringing investors into the law firm world is harmful to the consumer, then present the evidence supporting your claim. If you are going to take an anti-Avvo or LegalZoom approach in the ethics opinions in your state, then you also need to show the data that somehow non-lawyer owned legal service providers are harming the public.
What do you think? Is Chad right?
Share your thoughts