Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

ĮVADAS

Idea of Law
Rudolf von Jhering - 1872 ; cited in - Vaišvila (2004) his magum opus - Legal Theory.

According to this structure:

- The primary (highest) level of law is the idea of it

- It then transforms into legal rule (norm) (middle level),


Legal Rules
- Which then transforms and guides legal relations (bottom level)

Legal Relationships

Something alike may be seen in the works of nobel laureate


Level Frequency
Williamson, who did a lot in analysing the economics of institutions. He saw the 4-tier layer, where in the
EMBEDDEDNESS: Informal alike constant flow, te economists saw:
institutions, customs, 100 to 1000
traditions, norms, religion everyday transactions at the bottom of all flow,

Which are giving the signals of the need of regulation to the state officials running the market,
INSTITUTIONAL
ENVIRONMENT: formal rules 10 to 100 Which are then constantly testing the rules of the market
of the game
Which, in turn, changes the informal institutions, like customs, traditions, norms, religion, at the top

Then it is comming down, thus guaranteeing the same interexchange among everyday people and the
GOVERNANCE: Play of the
1 to 10 will of God, so to speak.. Through intermediary, once again..
game

According to williamson, top level institutions changes very rarely – every 100 or 1000 years. The rules of
the game a bit more frquent – every 10 or 100 years. Government play – from 1 to 10 and transactions
RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND are at everyday momentum..
Continuous
EMPLOYMENT

Putting the legal and economic theories together we see obvious allignment. And three tier structure of society – Metaphysical level interacts with
the human level through the intermediaries..

The major difference between these theories are, of course, the nobel price given to economists, not lawyers...

But if being serious, the economists see the beginning in the market, not in the Idea or market. That is, they see the beginning in the bottom level,
not the top, thus holding the single transaction as a unit of analysis.. While any legal analysis starts from the idea of law. A constitutional norms, so
to speak..

And this is a major difference.

There are two problems with this model. One is the reactive nature of it. The government has to react to the changes. And if change will change
again untill the signal will come back, the rules will be late. Allways late.

It worked when the life was slow. Now the life is too fast and intermediarries are too slow. Thus without re-invention of regulation, it is meant to
collapse, since rules will allways be late.

In order to explain second problem, I have to set few basic theoretical points.

First of all, taking the economic approach to law, the unit of analysis should be a single transaction.

Transaction, as I interpret it, is the change of ones current status through some action. That is:

- Every transaction starts from the human needs or incentives

- In order to satisfy that needs, people has to act (or in some cases – refrain from action)

- That brings to the changed status.

Some of them are efficien, some of them are not.


And since economic efficiency and legal justice collides in most of the cases, we may say that in some cases the changes are just, in some cases –
unjust..

The imperative rule of regulation, which stems from the idea of free will, is that the law should interfere only in the cases where certain actions
results in inefficiency or injustice..

According to the general theory of regulation [**pigou?], regulators should intervene where market fails, with the task to fix these market failures.

So the real issue here – why some transactions are inefficient or unjust?

These factors may be generalized as:

1. Bounded rationality: human behavior intentionally rational but only limitedly

2. Opportunism: “self-interest seeking with guile” (economic agents use strategic behavior to gain self-interest)

3. Uncertainty of the world

4. Specific assets

These four results in the information assymetry and two consequences: all contracts (transactions) are incomplete, i.e. whatewer you do, there is
allways a risk involved that your actions will be inefficient

And, there are no self- enforcing transactions. i.e. in order to get your rewards, you will have to rely on the courts, police and regulators, the state –
for enforcement,

Kad dar labiau dramatizuoti esamą padėtį tai turėkite minty, kad net 4 iš 10 bylų, išspręstų pirmoje instancijoje yra apeliacijoje pripažįstamos
išspręstomis klaidingai, to pasekoje naikinant arba keičiant sprendimus. Tai yra, pirma instancija 4 iš 10 atvejų klysta.

Bet ir tai ne klaidų pabaiga. Apeliacinės instancijos teismai klysta beveik 6 kartus iš 10.

Klausimas, aišku, atviras yra kiek klysta kasacija, ar kiek iš neskundžiamų ar neapskustų sprendimų yra klaidingi, bet turint 50% teismo klaidos
tikimybę, būti „teisiu“ nieko nereiškia.. 1,5 ar 2,5 metų loterijos procesas gali sužlugdyti.

L.Mehl, ‚Automation in the Legal World: From the Machine Processing of Legal Information to the Law Machine‘, Mechanisation of Thought
Processes (1958),

B.G.Buchanan, G.Bruce, T.E.Headrick, ‚Some speculation about artificial intelligence and legal reasoning‘, Stanford Law Review (1970)

L.T.McCarty, ‘Reflections on" Taxman: An Experiment in Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning’, Harvard Law Review (1977)

K. Stamper, ‘The LEGOL 1 prototype system and language’, The Computer Journal 20.2 (1977)

Septyniasdešimtaisiais pasirodė ir pirmieji prototipai – Taxman, Legol projektai.

Because of the difficulty in determining the difference between a problem and an opportunity and because there are many negative implications in
using the word "problem", the word probortunity has been created. Probortunity is the merging of the word "problem" and "opportunity".

Someone coined the word "probortunity" to combine the word "problem" with the word "opportunity" as a reminder to look at problems as
possible opportunities.

A probortunity can take any form: challenge, question, mystery, concern, problem, puzzle, difficulty or opportunity.

Probortunity is an all-inclusive word to describe something you want to improve or change for the better.

Problem Solving

Problem solving is the process by which a situation is analyzed and solutions are formed to solve a probortunity (problem/opportunity - see above)
and when steps are taken to remove or reduce the problem. The current problem and situation are analyzed, potential solutions are generated and
a workable solution is determined and put into place. Problem solving is the process of analyzing situations of uncertainty to produce actual
improvements or changes in the situation.

The problem-solving process comprises many different elements that can be used in varying degrees depending on the probortunity to be solved.
Typical elements are:

Problem definition (part of understanding the problem)


Situation analysis (part of understanding the problem)

Idea generation

Analysis of ideas

Decision making

Determining the next steps to be taken to introduce the solution into the workplace

Different problems need different uses of these elements and often in different orders and quantities. The structure of the problem-solving process
can be very different for different probortunities. For example, you may need to have many tries at the problem definition element to help establish
the real challenge if the opportunity is initially vague.

(Note that problem solving is not the same as decision making. Decision making is one process of problem solving and is only concerned in deciding
between different existing ideas. Problem solving includes the actual formation of those ideas. Problem solving can involve varying degrees of the
problem analysis and solution generation elements compared to the decision-making part.)

Pagrindiniai galimybių nustatymo metodai (greta ∞ kitų*):


S - Substitute - components, materials, people
C - Combine - mix, combine with other assemblies or services, integrate
A - Adapt - alter, change function, use part of another element
M - Modify - increase or reduce in scale, change shape, modify attributes (e.g. colour)
P - Put to another use
E - Eliminate - remove elements, simplify, reduce to core functionality
R - Reverse - turn inside out or upside down.

SANTYKIAI SU KLIENTAIS

Prie problemos suvokimo:

Trys „mirtinos“ teisininko nuodėmės

Maintenance – maintaining, supporting or promoting another person’s lawsuit (i.e. stirring up litigation)

Champerty – A specific form of maintenance wherein a lawyer pursues a party’s claim in consideration for receiving part of the judgment

Barratry – The offence of frequently exciting or stirring up groundless lawsuits

The Susskinds see radical change coming and they outline two distinct futures for the professions. One future will see some continue to work in
traditional ways. The other future – the one that will bring fundamental changes – will see increasingly capable machines transform the way
practical expertise is shared amongst members of society. This will displace the work that is currently done in traditional ways by many professions.
For now, these two futures will operate in parallel, but in the longer run – perhaps in two to three decades – the Susskinds see the second one as
dominating and leading to a gradual dismantling of the traditional professions as we know them today.

Ar konkurencija tarp teisininkų didėja? Kokios šio reiškinio pasekmės?

Teisės verslas

„Naujos kartos advokatai“

Teisės verslas. Pripažįstama, kad advokatas yra atlygintinių teisinių paslaugų teikėjas, privalantis siekti, kad jo paslaugos būtų perkamos – nes tik
tokiu būdu advokatas gali susikurti sąlygas veiklai vykdyti, apsirūpinti materialiai pats ir aprūpinti savo šeimą. Tai yra, teisinių paslaugų vadybos
būtinybė yra aiškiai suvokiama kiekvieno advokato veiklos realybė.

Atitinkamai, sėkmingai advokato veiklai nebeužtenka būti geru teisės žinovu.

Tam dažnai reikia išmanyti vadybos ir ekonomikos sritis. Dažnai didesnės advokatų kontoros samdo marketingo, pardavimų ar kitą ne teisinį
personalą tam, kad sistemingai rasti ir išlaikyti klientus, apskaičiuoti užmokestį už paslaugas ir jį gauti. Verslo organizacijomis virtusioms advokatų
kontoroms vadovaujantys advokatai dažnai yra daugiau teisės verslininkai, nei verslo teisininkai.

Tomas Bagdanskis, Teisinių paslaugų marketingas. Klientų elgsena pasirenkant advokatą ir advokato vertę kuriantys veiksniai

Pati profesija nebegarantuoja pajamų, todėl advokatai pradeda vis plačiau taikyti verslo dėsniu ir metodikas savo veikloje. Mark M. Maria (2003)
pataria: pirmiausia apie save mąstyk kaip apie verslininką, o po to – kaip apie profesionalą.

Pažymėtina, kad reikia atskirti pranašumus nuo standartų. Visi teisininkai turi gerai išmanyti įstatymus. Standartinėmis savybėmis klientų nesuviliosi.
Klientai ateina ne dėl savybių, bet dėl jiems suteikiamos naudos. Rinką sudaro ne paslaugos, o pirkėjai

Advokatai susiduria su vis didėjančia konkurencija. Jie privalo tapti agresyvesni ir aktyvesni, kad patenkintų klientų poreikius. Klientai šiuo metu kaip
„išėję apsipirkti“ asmenys, kurie tikrina advokatų paslaugų kainą, kokybę, kiekvieną advokato paslaugos ir pristatymo detalę. Norint padidinti
advokatų kontoros teikiamų paslaugų vertę, būtina analizuoti advokatų kontoros klientus, konkurentus, darbuotojus, vidinę (darbuotojų kvalifikacija,
informacinių technologijų būklė, gebėjimas rūpintis klientais, administravimas, gebėjimas parduoti ir pan.) ir išorinę (ekonominė situacija, valstybės
mokesčiai, ir pan.) aplinką. Profesinės veiklos sėkmė priklauso nuo tarpusavio santykių su klientais ir profesionalų reputacijos bendruomenėje.

Advokatų kontoros privalėtų turėti rinkodaros veiksmų planą, kuris apimtų bendrą (angl. corporate) strategiją. Ši strategija atsakytų į klausimą,
kokias paslaugas turi teikti kontora, kam paslaugas turi teikti kontora, kokius kriterijus ir kokybės standartus turi atitikti teikiamos paslaugos ir kaip
tokių paslaugų teikimas turi būti administruojamas. Išanalizavus advokatų kontorą iš vidaus, jos klientus, vietą rinkoje ir konkurentus, būtina
identifikuoti ir nustatyti kontoros tikslus bei numatyti veiksmus tiems tikslams pasiekti per pasirinktą laikotarpį.

aštri advokatų konkurencija rinkos ekonomikos sąlygomis išugdė taip vadinamus „naujos kartos advokatus“, pasižyminčius išskirtiniu agresyvumu
(net ir kolegų atžvilgiu), meistrišku manipuliavimu teisinėmis priemonėmis, ir pan. Šie advokatai veikia laikantis principo „mano kliento tikslas yra
man aukščiausia vertybė“. Tai yra, „naujos kartos advokatai“ vis labiau tampa priklausomi nuo kliento, kartais negalintys (nenorintys) atsispirti
kliento pageidavimams Giedrė Lastauskienė. Advokato profesija: prieštaringas jos pobūdis ir kontrolė Jurisprudencija. 2013, 20(4): 1473–1491.

Julija Kiršienė, Advokato nepriklausomumas teisinių paslaugų rinkos komercializacijos kontekste: reliktas ar būtinybė?

Pavyzdžiui, prancūzų ir amerikietiškos sampratos teisininko nepriklausomumo požiūriu labiausiai išsiskiria nepriklausomumo nuo kliento atžvilgiu.
JAV teisininkų asociacija tradiciškai palaiko itin uolaus advokato kaip kliento atstovo vaidmenį, mažiau reikšmės teikiant advokato kaip teisingumo
sistemos tarnautojo funkcijai, todėl šis požiūris yra kritikuojamas už pernelyg išreikštą rungtyniškumą ir komercinę teisinės praktikos kultūrą.
Prancūzų avocats nėra kliento atstovas ir neprivalo laikytis kliento nurodymų, nors ši tradicija pastaruoju metu taip pat yra labai veikiama
konkurencijos teisinių paslaugų rinkoje.

<...>

Todėl tradiciniu prancūzų advokato požiūriu, JAV advokatūra yra komercializacijos ir perdėto uolumo tarnaujant klientui spektaklis. Kita vertus,
prancūzas šiame spektaklyje mato savo profesijos galimą ateitį.

<...>

Lietuvos advokatų etikos kodekso principinės nuostatos yra artimos kontinentinės teisės tradicijai, tačiau požiūris į advokato vaidmenį atrodo vis
dėlto artimesnis JAV. Anot Lastauskienės, advokatas, teikiantis paslaugas klientui, privalo padaryti viską, kad kiek įmanoma būtų apginti kliento
interesai, ir tik šis rezultatas yra jo santykio su klientu kokybės matas, todėl „konkrečioje situacijoje, siekdamas tokio rezultato, advokatas gali
skatinti savo klientą ar kitus asmenis sakyti netiesą (arba nutylėti tiesą); gali teikti ne visus įrodymus, kuriais disponuoja, nes kai kurie įrodymai yra
nepalankūs jo klientui; gali vilkinti procesą ar inicijuoti naujus procesus“ Terry, L. S. Introduction to the European Community’s Legal Ethics Code-
Part I: An Analysis of the CCBE Code of Conduct. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics. 1993, p. 46, 48

Barcelo, J. J., supra note 2, p. 49.

Barceló, J. J., supra note 2, p. 276

Advokato veiklai įgaunant vis daugiau versliškumo požymių, kliento interesų prioriteto principas įgyvendinamas ne visada siekiant teisinių, bet
kartais neteisinių ar net antiteisinių rezultatų. Orientacija į pelno, o ne teisingumo siekį, be abejo, gali lemti ir žalingas pasekmes. Giedrė
Lastauskienė. Advokato profesija: prieštaringas jos pobūdis ir kontrolė Jurisprudencija. 2013, 20(4): 1473–1491.

Kaip teisingai pastebi Advokatų tarybos pirmininkas I. Vėgėlė:

Gausėjant advokatų, konkurencija dar didės. O tai reiškia ne tik paslaugų kainos mažėjimą, bet pavojų gauti neobjektyvią informaciją. Įsivaizduokite
šeimą, kuri daug metų bendrauja su tuo pačiu advokatu, galinčiu sąžiningai įvertinti, ar verta bylinėtis teisme. Jei taip nebus, o tai gali nutikti
atsiradus advokatų, kuriems trūksta pajamų, nukentės visi. Žmonės be reikalo gaiš laiką teismuose ir už tai mokės, advokatai įgis prastą reputaciją ir
sulauks priekaištų, teismai bus papildomai apkrauti nereikalingu darbu, o už visa tai mokės valstybė. Teisinė sistema mūsų šaliai taps paprasčiausiai
per brangi. Daugiau skaitykite: http://lzinios.lt/lzinios/Lietuvoje/i-vegele-pokyciu-reikia-ne-tik-advokaturai-/180377

IDĖJA

In other words, the Lean Startup is a new way of looking at the development of innovative new products that emphasizes fast iteration and
customer insight, a huge vision, and great ambition, all at the same time.

Build-Measure-Learn feedback

loop. Through this process of steering, we can learn when and if it’s time to make a sharp turn called a pivot or whether we should persevere along
our current path.

Throughout the process of driving, you always have a clear idea of where you’re going. If you’re commuting to work, you don’t give up because
there’s a detour in the road or you made a wrong turn. You remain thoroughly focused on getting to your destination

Startups also have a true north, a destination in mind: creating a thriving and world-changing business. I call that a startup’s vision. To achieve that
vision, startups employ a strategy, which includes a business model, a product road map, a point of view about partners and competitors, and ideas
about who the customer will be. The product is the end result of this strategy
First of all, taking the economic approach to law, the unit of analysis should be a single transaction.

Transaction, as I interpret it, is the change of ones current status through some action. That is:

- Every transaction starts from the human needs or incentives

- In order to satisfy that needs, people has to act (or in some cases – refrain from action)

- That brings to the changed status.

Some of them are efficien, some of them are not.

And since economic efficiency and legal justice collides in most of the cases, we may say that in some cases the changes are just, in some cases –
unjust..

The imperative rule of regulation, which stems from the idea of free will, is that the law should interfere only in the cases where certain actions
results in inefficiency or injustice..

According to the general theory of regulation [**pigou?], regulators should intervene where market fails, with the task to fix these market failures.

So the real issue here – why some transactions are inefficient or unjust?

TEISĖS VERSLININKO SANTYKIS SU PERSONALU

Transaction costs.

These factors may be generalized as:

1. Bounded rationality: human behavior intentionally rational but only limitedly

2. Opportunism: “self-interest seeking with guile” (economic agents use strategic behavior to gain self-interest)

3. Uncertainty of the world

4. Specific assets

These four results in the information assymetry and two consequences: all contracts (transactions) are incomplete, i.e. whatewer you do, there is
allways a risk involved that your actions will be inefficient

And, there are no self- enforcing transactions. i.e. in order to get your rewards, you will have to rely on the courts, police and regulators, the state –
for enforcement.

“Diminishing returns to management”

1. Decreasing returns to “entrepreneur” (management): rising costs to organizing transactions within firm

2. As transactions organized internally, misallocation of resources raises costs

3. Rising “supply price” of factors of production

Galbūt dėl jaunatviško amžiaus ar pareikštos teorijos radikalumo Coase mintys nebuvo adaptuotos iki pat 1960 m., kuomet tas pats Coase pateikė
antrąjį savo straipsnį „The Problem of Social Cost“, po kurio prasidėjo empirine sėkmės istorija (~1000 tyrimų) pavadintas sandorių kaštų
ekonomikos periodas.

Tačiau Coase pateiktą supratimą išvystė kitas Nobelio premijos laureatas (2009), Oliver E. Williamson, tyręs aplinkybes, įtakojančias sandorių kaštus
ir efektyviausius jų valdymo būdus.

Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (1975)

The Economic Institutions of Capitalism (1985)

Develops Coase’s insight that firm boundaries can be explained by efficiency considerations

Focuses on role of firm boundaries in providing incentives, rather than coordination problems.

Coase Teorema: darant nulinių sandorio kaštų prielaidą, šalys tarpusavio mainuose visuomet pasieks efektyviausią rezultatą nepriklausomai nuo
teisinio nuosavybės reglamentavimo. Tokiu būdu, pasak Coase, turėtų išnykti visi išoriniai veiksniai ir kitos frikcijos
Tačiau: 1) kol sandorio šalys veiks riboto racionalumo, asimetriškos informacijos sąlygomis, 2) Kol bus bent vienas nesąžiningas rinkos dalyvis, tol
nuosavybė nebus tobula - ją reikės reguliuoti, saugoti ir ginti;

utopinio pasaulio be teisės (ir teisininkų) vaizdinį, buvo: „tyrinėkite pasaulį su teigiama sandorių kaštų reikšme“

A transaction is “the transfer of goods or services from one subject to another”.

It is the most fundamental unit of analysis in economic (organization) theory.

The ultimate participants in transaction are individual human beings, and their interests and behaviour are of fundamental importance for
understanding organizations.

They are the indivisible decision makers and actors who create and manage the organizations, and it is upon their welfare (need, wants and goals)
that any ethical and/or economic judgement has to be formulated

The highest-level organization is the Economy as a whole.


This perspective emphasizes that:
a) the economic system is a human creation;
b) many of the problems faced by smaller, more formal organizations do exist at the economy-wide level as well;
c) also the overall performance of an economic system should be evaluated vs its alternatives

it has overcome market imperfections without recourse to regulatory bodies prone to capture by entrenched firms

“Young firms like Uber and Airbnb claim thousands of customers, operate in hundreds of cities worldwide, and are valued at tens of billions of
dollars.”

The sharing economy creates value in at least five ways:

By giving people an opportunity to use others’ cars, kitchens, apartments, and other property, it allows underutilized assets or “dead capital” to be
put to more productive use.

By bringing together multiple buyers and sellers, it makes both the supply and demand sides of its markets more competitive and allows greater
specialization.

By lowering the cost of finding willing traders, haggling over terms, and monitoring performance, it cuts transaction costs and expands the scope of
trade.

By aggregating the reviews of past consumers and producers and putting them at the fingertips of new market participants, it can significantly
diminish the problem of asymmetric information between producers and consumers.

By offering an “end-run” around regulators who are captured by existing producers, it allows suppliers to create value for customers long
underserved by those incumbents that have become inefficient and unresponsive because of their regulatory protections.

These factors can improve consumer welfare by offering new innovations, more choices, more service differentiation, better prices, and higher-
quality services. Despite this, the sharing economy and its regulation have become highly charged policy topics, especially at the local level

Fueling this debate, many municipal governments are attempting to impose older regulatory regimes on these new services without much thought
about whether they are still necessary to protect consumer welfare.8 However, by expanding the range of options and information available to
consumers, the sharing economy removes the need for regulation in many cases. In fact, continued application of outmoded regulatory regimes
may actually harm consumers

spot innovation v. culture of innovation’

Dalykiniai ryšiai

‘spot innovation’. These are innovations that occur in response to a particular client request, regulatory change, or internal

business challenge – not the result of a strategic and coordinated effort to drive growth and profitability through innovation.

Besimokanti organizacija!

We define a culture of innovation as the collective practices, mindsets, policies, and norms that enable an organisation to make innovation part of
business as usual. In this type of culture, innovation is a core, constant activity of the organisation – as opposed to something that is done in
addition to the ‘real’ work of the firm firm is inherently better able to identify new opportunities as they emerge.

KOMANDOS FORMAVIMO DIRBTUVĖS

These factors may be generalized as:

* Bounded rationality: human behavior intentionally rational but only limitedly


* Opportunism: “self-interest seeking with guile” (economic agents use strategic behavior to gain self-interest)
* Uncertainty of the world
* Specific assets
These four results in the information assymetry and two consequences: all contracts (transactions) are incomplete, i.e. whatewer you do, there is
allways a risk involved that your actions will be inefficient

And, there are no self- enforcing transactions. i.e. in order to get your rewards, you will have to rely on the courts, police and regulators, the state –
for enforcement,

it has overcome market imperfections without recourse to regulatory bodies prone to capture by entrenched firms

“Young firms like Uber and Airbnb claim thousands of customers, operate in hundreds of cities worldwide, and are valued at tens of billions of
dollars.”

The sharing economy creates value in at least five ways:

By giving people an opportunity to use others’ cars, kitchens, apartments, and other property, it allows underutilized assets or “dead capital” to be
put to more productive use.

By bringing together multiple buyers and sellers, it makes both the supply and demand sides of its markets more competitive and allows greater
specialization.

By lowering the cost of finding willing traders, haggling over terms, and monitoring performance, it cuts transaction costs and expands the scope of
trade.

By aggregating the reviews of past consumers and producers and putting them at the fingertips of new market participants, it can significantly
diminish the problem of asymmetric information between producers and consumers.

By offering an “end-run” around regulators who are captured by existing producers, it allows suppliers to create value for customers long
underserved by those incumbents that have become inefficient and unresponsive because of their regulatory protections.

These factors can improve consumer welfare by offering new innovations, more choices, more service differentiation, better prices, and higher-
quality services. Despite this, the sharing economy and its regulation have become highly charged policy topics, especially at the local level

Fueling this debate, many municipal governments are attempting to impose older regulatory regimes on these new services without much thought
about whether they are still necessary to protect consumer welfare.8 However, by expanding the range of options and information available to
consumers, the sharing economy removes the need for regulation in many cases. In fact, continued application of outmoded regulatory regimes
may actually harm consumers

PROCESAI

Įvykio ar reiškinio eiga, vyksmas


There are a number of signs that our pioneering investment is helping us to build an ‘efficiency culture’:
n Individual lawyers subscribe to the overall philosophy (‘I should be more efficient’)
n Lawyers apply the techniques of Continuous Improvement to their day-to-day tasks
n Teams collaborate to ensure individual client matters are managed efficiently
n Groups come together to address process improvements around types of matters, seeking immediate and sustainable improvements across a
whole category of work
Starting with recognisableprocesses

Some processes are easily identified andunderstood; some are repeated many hundreds of times.

Understanding law as a process

Almost any task that has a beginning, a middle and an end can be construed as a process, including the practice of law.

FINANSAI

Factual time – factual work time executing clients requests and administering overall activities

Billable time - reasonable and ethical part of factual time executing clients requests;

Unbillable time – part of factual time that cannot be included in the bill of client:

• Unreasonable or unethical part of factual time executing clients requests

• Administrative tasks

• Pro Bono

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Success In The Business of Law Requires Extreme Efficiency and Real-Time Management
Measurable Insights Into Business Performance
uWhat Is Measurable?
uWhat Is An Insight?
uBusiness Intelligence provides information to act upon.
uBusiness Intelligence does not ensure actions are taken.
uActionable Information will only make a difference when acted upon.
uBusiness Intelligence is a Starting Point for Extreme Efficiency and Real-Time Management.

PART2

Balso atpazinimo sistema Fiksuoja kalbanciojo balsa ir pavercia ji tekstiniu variantu Naudojama teisineje sistemoje: protokolu pildyme,
tiek teismo, tiek apklausu, naudojama advokatu rasant procesinius dokumentus. Kam advokatam to? Pasalinti fizini darba rasant ranka,
kad butu galima pilnai sutelkti mintis i procesinio dokumento kokybe papildomai saugant asmens rega (nes intensyvus rasymas ir
tikrinimas kenkia) Kaip isvengti zargono? Skirtingu tarmiu problemos? Programa automatiskai vercia vienus zodzius kitais (auto correct)
Keliu zmoniu kalbejimas vienu metu. Gan daznas variantas teismuose, galbut butu reikalinga push to talk funkcija