From supply chain disruptions in the real economy to your AI and knowledge supply chains; plus, lawyers getting spied on, Trump's legal spend, and SCOTUS may overturn major regulatory precedent.
Sean, good work as always. One entry in your section on knowledge supply chains caught my eye:
<<Do I have a critical dependency on an organization that may be exposed to its own political, economic or legal risks - for instance, by virtue of being in a challenging geography or representing controversial clients?>>
That opens up the intriguing line of thought regarding the extent to which a company's outside law firm itself constitutes a risk to the company. I can think of a few examples:
- Most obviously, the firm is relatively lackadaisical in its cyber-security, and either confidential client data is stolen or malware infiltrates the company through an outside lawyer's email account.
- The firm is unexpectedly consumed in a merger or collapses altogether, causing great disruption to the continuity of client business and confusion about the status of critical files.
- Relatedly, the firm conducts so much client business that it becomes "too big to fail" from the company's perspective and the company finds itself considering the equivalent of a bailout package.
- As you note, the firm is embroiled in controversy because of a client it represents (Trump and Israel are obvious current examples, but more will emerge) and the client suffers collateral reputational damage.
- To your point about geography: Is the firm HQ'ed in a coastal city where climate-change risks are much higher? Look at what happened in LA this past week, or what SuperStorm Sandy did to New York.
I'm pretty sure that no large law firms, when scanning the horizon for risks to their biggest clients, ever turn the binoculars on themselves. But maybe they should start.
Thanks Jordan for the high praise and the thoughtful additions. Each of these elements constitutes risk that is often overlooked. More traditional additions could include, for instance, whether key partners are unhappy at the firm and likely to move laterally, causing disruption and also whether the firm's reputation is tracking positively or negatively to indicate whether it is likely to be able to attract top talent in the future.
The key point, as you note, is to make have some awareness of one's own dependency on their "shadow work force."
Sean, good work as always. One entry in your section on knowledge supply chains caught my eye:
<<Do I have a critical dependency on an organization that may be exposed to its own political, economic or legal risks - for instance, by virtue of being in a challenging geography or representing controversial clients?>>
That opens up the intriguing line of thought regarding the extent to which a company's outside law firm itself constitutes a risk to the company. I can think of a few examples:
- Most obviously, the firm is relatively lackadaisical in its cyber-security, and either confidential client data is stolen or malware infiltrates the company through an outside lawyer's email account.
- The firm is unexpectedly consumed in a merger or collapses altogether, causing great disruption to the continuity of client business and confusion about the status of critical files.
- Relatedly, the firm conducts so much client business that it becomes "too big to fail" from the company's perspective and the company finds itself considering the equivalent of a bailout package.
- As you note, the firm is embroiled in controversy because of a client it represents (Trump and Israel are obvious current examples, but more will emerge) and the client suffers collateral reputational damage.
- To your point about geography: Is the firm HQ'ed in a coastal city where climate-change risks are much higher? Look at what happened in LA this past week, or what SuperStorm Sandy did to New York.
I'm pretty sure that no large law firms, when scanning the horizon for risks to their biggest clients, ever turn the binoculars on themselves. But maybe they should start.
Thanks Jordan for the high praise and the thoughtful additions. Each of these elements constitutes risk that is often overlooked. More traditional additions could include, for instance, whether key partners are unhappy at the firm and likely to move laterally, causing disruption and also whether the firm's reputation is tracking positively or negatively to indicate whether it is likely to be able to attract top talent in the future.
The key point, as you note, is to make have some awareness of one's own dependency on their "shadow work force."