Note: This post has been archived as a draft for long time. I decided to publish it now, just as a comment on an interesting subject.
I read the post “How DARE he” published by Merrilyn Astin Tarlton on her blog “Blank Sheet of paper and a box of crayons“. She writes about the conclusions about law firm innovation presented by Erik Manking (see “Looking for Law Firm Innovation“). If innovation is difficult in United States law firms, it is also difficult in Brazil. For example, in Brazil we have an ethical system that do not allow lawyers to make their firms to have a commercial look. It’s even prohibited the use of the character “&” in the firm name.
At the end of her post, Tarlton makes an interesting question: “Is it possible to ‘think differently’ in a law firm?”. But, what should be understood by “thinking differently” or by “innovation”? That’s a good subject for discussion.
The lawyer and the law firm need, e.g., to give satisfaction to clients, handle time well, realize the people’s rights and above all make law practice based on the Constitution. Those aims exist for centuries. When I read about innovation (or differently thought) in law firms I immediately thought about its limitations, because of the historical and comprehensive body of law practice subjects. Therefore, “innovation” and “thinking differently” should be related to new means of handling old things. Law practice (and also court practice) needs different ways to handle the same questions.