I admire the report just issued by Fronterion Top Ten Trends for Legal Outsourcing in 2012. The full version is at www.fronterion.com/tenfor2012. As I thought about trying to write a counterpart for law department management, another part of my mind objected. The objections carried the day.
-
Trend-spotting has an air of astrology. When you generalize grandly, you leave all kinds of interpretative flexibility. “Law departments will seek increasing flexibility and inward-outwardness.”
-
When you pronounce ex cathedra – “Law departments will exhibit more managerial agility” – you sacrifice the grounded grit of specificity. You smooth and polish reality to such a high shine it blinds.
-
You must assume a time frame during which the predictions will bear out, and you are certain to overstate short-term changes and understate fundamental changes (See my post of Feb. 21, 2011: technology’s effects mis-interpreted.).
-
The trends say more about the seer (reverse of Rees) than about reality. All kinds of cognitive biases run amok.
-
What you decide to label as a “trend” has all kinds of epistemological challenges (See my post of Jan. 2, 2009: trends in management of law departments with 7 references.).
-
Connotations permeate the order and wording of the trends.
Apart from their accuracy, your trends rely on rickety words and are laden with intended or unintended meanings. -
All trends imply less of the opposite or the status quo, but that flip side is rarely adequately discussed. Progressive improvement is the only order of the day.
-
The trend spotter ought to disclose biases (like trying to sell consulting services), assumptions, framework. For example, U.S. law departments of an approximate size, leaning toward large departments.
-
Hopes, especially those nurtured by ideology, do not trends make. A trend should be based on actual instances likely to spread, not a platform or agenda.
-
Ten is an arbitrary number, expected in a Letterman culture, and that goal can force a predictor to fabricate a weak reason or two.