June 24, 2024 • 33 mins
Sam Dixon, Chief Innovation Officer of law firm Womblebond Dickinson, discusses the role of AI in the legal profession and the challenges of driving innovation in a traditional industry. He shares his journey from online retail to law and how he became involved in innovation. Dixon explains the different applications of AI in the legal sector, such as document automation and machine learning for document review. He also discusses the buy vs. build argument and the potential impact of AI on pricing and billing in law firms. Dixon emphasizes the importance of developing social intelligence and complex problem-solving skills to remain relevant in the evolving legal landscape.
Takeaways
-
Generative AI is a major focus in the legal profession, with applications in document automation and machine learning for document review.
-
Law firms need to strike a balance between buying and building AI tools, leveraging existing software and integrating different systems.
-
The role of lawyers is evolving, and skills such as social intelligence and complex problem-solving are becoming increasingly important.
-
The pricing and billing models in law firms may need to adapt to incorporate the use of AI tools and technologies.
-
Creating a culture of innovation is crucial in law firms, where traditional mindsets and billable hours can hinder progress.
Sound Bites
-
"Generative AI is able to do a lot of that work without the need for lots and lots of examples."
-
"The key for me is creating that culture of innovation where it is part of the conversation and where people are enabled to suggest ideas and implement ideas."
-
"I don't think lawyers need to be coders. I mean, query in the modern world of low and no code, how much coders need to be coders?"
Chapters
00:00 Introduction to Sam Dixon and Womblebond Dickinson
03:33 Focus on Restructuring in Commercial Law
06:17 Applications of AI in the Legal Profession
08:06 Overcoming Resistance to Innovation in Law Firms
09:56 Two-Tier Approach to Innovation
11:56 Deciding Between Buy and Build in AI Adoption
15:23 Impact of AI on Pricing and Billing in Law Firms
22:04 Exploring the Potential of Data Licensing
24:52 Parallels Between AI in Law and Music
28:09 The Changing Role of Lawyers in the AI Era
30:00 Using Generative AI as a Sounding Board
31:53 Book Recommendation: Superintelligence by Nick Bostrom
Bio
Sam is the Chief Innovation Officer of law firm Womble Bond Dickinson in the UK. He is also a practising lawyer in the firm's restructuring team. His innovation journey started in online retail in the early 2000s and led him to law via a brief detour through the world of DJing.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:08):
Sam Dixon is the chief innovation officerof law firm Womble Bond Dickinson in the
United Kingdom.
He is also a practicing lawyer in thefirm's restructuring team.
His innovation journey started in onlineretail in the early 2000s and has led him
to law via a brief detour through theworld of DJing.
And if you don't know Womble BondDickinson, I'm gonna put my hand up here.
(00:28):
They are a client of mine.
I've spoken to them for a number of timesbefore.
I think they have about a thousand.
lawyers in the US and the UK and theycover lots of different areas of business
as well.
And we're going to be taking a deep diveinto the work that Sam and his team do
around innovation, specifically in thelegal profession.
So Sam, welcome to the SuperCreativityPodcast.
(00:50):
Good afternoon, James.
Thank you for having me.
So share with us just now what's going onin your world, what currently has your
focus at the moment?
Well, I think it would be very difficultto give an answer other than generative
AI, to be honest with you.
It's stormed onto the scene.
We're working our way through the hypecycle, of course.
And it's keeping us all very, very busy,both in terms of what we can do right now
(01:12):
with it, but also what the futuretrajectory is going to be and where we
might end up.
And take, how did you get into this role?
I mentioned that you're obviously apracticing partner, you're a solicitor,
you do DJing as well.
Tell us how this journey into the currentrole happened.
Well, I've always had a bit of an interestin doing things differently and innovation
(01:34):
and in the use of tech.
Going back to, you mentioned the onlineretail at the start of my journey.
And essentially for me, that was workingin an outdoor equipment retailer in a shop
and then ended up taking over their mailorder business, turning that into an
online retail business in the relativelyearly days of online retail and doing
(01:55):
things like using AdWords and a computer.
a different way to how anyone has usedthem before.
So we were targeting essentially a productcomparison approach that no one else was
using at the time.
And fast forward in, sorry, go on James.
I was gonna say the move into the law.
So you didn't come initially from thelegal profession then.
(02:16):
You kind of, you were starting in e-commerce and retail first, and then you
kind of, how did you find your way intothe law?
Well, in some respects, in a relativelyconventional route, in the bit of online
retail, and then I was doing a law degree.
Now, being honest with you, whilst I wasdoing a law degree, I was doing quite a
lot of DJing and event promotion, and Ididn't apply for a training contract two
(02:38):
years ahead of time in the way that peoplenormally do, because frankly, I thought I
was going to be traveling the world DJing.
And as I went into my final year, I had anumber of offers to work in various parts
of the world as a DJ.
But in my final year, we did real legalwork.
And I ended up dealing with a multipleconspiracy to murder case, so some
(02:59):
gangland stuff.
And it was fascinating.
And at the same time, the firm I'mcurrently with, which at the time was
called Dickinson Dees, prior to a numberof mergers, they approached the university
I was at and said, do you have anyone whomight be interested in starting a training
contract in a few months' time?
So I went in and had a chat.
(03:20):
And one of the icebreaker questions was,do you know?
tell us something interesting about yourweek last week.
So I explained that I'd DJed for an artistcalled Chesney Hawkes.
It turned out the head of graduaterecruitment was a massive Chesney Hawkes
fan, and the rest, as they say, ishistory.
So you went into, obviously, you startedinitially in the kind of legal side around
(03:43):
criminal law.
But my understanding is that one BondDickinson is known really for commercial
law, and it's that kind of world.
And then you specifically, you focused onthe restructuring side of things.
So how did you get into that particularpart of commercial law?
Absolutely, well as you say it's acommercial law firm so the criminal side
of things was just part of my universityexperience.
(04:04):
As soon as I joined what's now UmubonDickinson it was commercial law from the
start and I started off as a trainee likeall lawyers do and I rotated around a few
different seats and being honest I didn'tknow an awful lot about restructuring.
I didn't know what to expect but as I wasgoing into my final seat it was in the
(04:24):
height of the recession.
And there weren't necessarily theopportunities in other areas that I would
have perhaps liked to have done.
And so someone gave me the chance to goand work in the restructuring team.
And it turns out it was a really good fitfor me.
So I qualified into restructuring andinsolvency and spent a number of years
learning the ropes and really enjoying therestructuring sector, helping to try and
(04:46):
save businesses and that kind of thing.
But over time, I saw there were a numberof things that we were doing in
restructuring, which
I think it's probably fair to describe asa bit boring at times.
James form -filling, doing the sameprecedence again and again that he didn't
necessarily feel was the best way of doingit.
(05:07):
There must have been a better way.
And that got me to start looking atdocument automation.
Originally using things which withhindsight look like quite archaic
technology now and borderline kind ofcoding.
Whereas,
things have evolved and it's got easierand easier to do.
But that first time that I saw a suite ofdocuments that are automated, where in the
(05:30):
past it would have taken hours to produceit, to then be able to just go out to
answer a few questions and it's going totell me what documents I need.
And it's going to produce them all for mewith all the associated paperwork.
This is just amazing.
And it was that that really was thetrigger point for me gradually over time
becoming more and more involved in ourinnovation.
(05:51):
efforts across the firm.
I know with a lot of law firms I've workedwith in the past, they initially got very
excited about RPA, robotic processautomation, taking some of those
agreements, automating things to a certainextent.
We've now moved from just doing that intoobviously artificial intelligence and
machine learning as well.
(06:11):
When you've seen these technologies startto be applied in the work of law firms,
where do you typically see it?
Is it in document?
Is it being document management side?
Is it looking at risk in relation tocontracts?
Is it helping lawyers draft agreements orsomething else?
So I think it depends on the particulartechnology.
(06:34):
But if you're talking about that documentautomation side of things, that's the
production of documents very clearly.
When you look at machine learning though,that's usually around something like a
document review.
So that might be a due diligence exercise.
It might be someone wanting to understandtheir range of contracts, whether it
complies with their policies in aparticular area.
(06:54):
They might be trying to understand thelease portfolio and wanting to extract
various bits of information across thatportfolio because,
they've inherited it from someone else, itperhaps doesn't have the level of detail
and structure that they need.
And that original transition machinelearning tools worked to a degree to
(07:15):
deliver that task.
And there has been some success on thatfront.
I think where it gets really interestingis that generative AI is able to do a lot
of that work without the need for lots andlots of examples.
and the proactive work to train theparticular machine learning tool to look
(07:38):
for particular points of interest.
Now your work obviously around innovation,a lot of law firms struggle around
innovation because it's traditionally thelegal industry is one that's focused on
billable hours, your six minute incrementsor however long it is.
And so everyone obviously partnersassociates very focused on those billable
hours and to be able to take a step backand think actually, is there a better way
(08:02):
of doing this or a smarter way, a moreproductive way of doing it?
It's often very difficult when people justfocus on those billable hours.
How did you...
to change the mindset within a firm,especially with those colleagues of yours
who maybe said, we've been doing this foryears, why do we have to change it?
I think you chose a great word at thestart of that, James, which is
(08:23):
traditional.
And law is a very traditional sector.
People have a very traditional mindset.
What we've tried to do to get people tothink a bit more differently and to try
out some of this new stuff is, first ofall, just to get it on their radar.
Because if they don't know about it, thenthey haven't even got the option of trying
(08:45):
to do things differently.
So we do things like our InternationalInnovation Week, where we work with our
colleagues in the US and where you'vespoken before, to just tell people stories
about innovation, give them thatinspiration.
It's about making them want to getinvolved.
And are you going to get absolutelyeveryone to take a more innovative
(09:07):
approach?
No, you're not.
With the best will in the world, that'snever going to happen.
But you don't know exactly who isreceptive to it and who isn't.
So the key for me is creating that cultureof innovation where it is part of the
conversation and where people are enabledto suggest ideas and implement ideas.
(09:29):
So, sorry James.
No, I was just going to say, so take usthrough like an example of that.
Let's say you're a partner in therestructuring part of the business and
you've been doing something for a whileand it works, it's fine.
But you're thinking, listen, maybe I wantto try using some of these AI tools and
thinking about things in a more innovativeway.
(09:50):
What does that process look like?
Is it lead often led by the partner?
Is it led from the innovation lab withinit?
Is it led by an associate?
Is it project managers?
How does it start to come together?
So we take a two tier approach toinnovation, James.
And what I'm talking about there is ourstarting point and the first tier of that
(10:13):
two tier approach is what we call our self-service toolkit.
So we've been focusing on trying to sortof leverage that experience across the
whole business.
So rather than having a team of peoplecentrally who are the ones who innovate,
the others.
We try to stay away from that and empowereveryone to do differently what they know
(10:37):
best, what they're dealing with day in,day out.
So the self -service toolkit is a seriesof pieces of software with training
materials made available in a way whichminimizes the need for central approval,
be that cost approval or whatever else sothat people can pick things up.
take ideas forward with the appropriateapprovals from within their own teams so
(11:01):
that ideas aren't being duplicated and sothat time isn't being wasted when it
should be applied on something else.
But really empowering everyone to be ableto take that forward.
We do recognize though that some of whatpeople want to do might be a bit more
ambitious.
And it might require a little bit ofcoding skill.
(11:23):
It might require some admin.
access rights from an IT perspective,which with the best rule in the world,
we're not going to expect our lawyers tohave.
In my view, I don't think lawyers need tobe coders.
I mean, query in the modern world of lowand no code, how much coders need to be
coders?
But lawyers for me certainly don't need tobe.
(11:44):
And therefore, we have the second tier,which is the complex automations.
And that's where you're looking atpotentially an end -to -end process.
with a lot of heavy automation in thereand probably integrations between multiple
different systems.
So let's say on that then, let's sayyou're having all folks from different
(12:05):
parts of the business say, we've got thisproblem, we think we could use, we would
like to use AI to help us on this problem.
Someone else sees an opportunity.
How do you then kind of sort and sift allthat, decide actually this is where we're
going to focus on?
Is there strategic kind of pillars thatyou're focused around?
Will you only do projects where you thinkit could benefit across the whole firm
(12:26):
rather than a particular department in thefirm?
How do you decide?
Well, I think it depends on what supportis needed, James.
I mean, the idea of the self -servicetoolkit is we don't need to decide.
The individual teams, for example,restructuring can say, right, well, we've
got a sale agreement here, which we thinkwill benefit from being automated.
(12:47):
There's a self -service tool available tolet us do that.
And we, as a restructuring team, canassess whether or not we want to use our
own team resource in order to progressthat.
So that's one side of it, obviously on thecomplex automation side.
There is a need for prioritization.
And that's done on a business case basis,as you probably expect.
(13:11):
And so we listen to what teams want.
And sometimes teams don't necessarily knowwhat they want.
This is as much about a conversation as itis about anything else.
And I'm currently touring all of our UKoffices just talking to people.
floorwalking, having conversations around,right, well, what are your pain points?
What are you trying to achieve?
(13:33):
What is the most boring thing you'redoing, the most frustrating thing you're
doing?
And where have you got to work around?
Because that's always a great example ofan innovation opportunity is where
someone's currently trying to work aroundexisting systems and processes.
So we have those conversations.
We then review the business cases and wework out where the best ROI is, frankly.
(13:54):
And sometimes,
That's where there is really wellstructured workflows that are high volume
and it makes a lot of sense to put a lotof structure around that.
But other times there might be thingswhich could benefit a very broad part of
the firm.
And actually someone in one particularteam has come up with an idea which is of
(14:16):
much, much broader application.
And then it's not around that really wellstructured work necessarily.
It might be.
around a particular aspect of a task orjust something that everyone's doing.
Like for example, reviewing agreements inWord.
There are aspects of that.
One of the tools that we've put in theself -service toolkit recently, which has
(14:39):
been really, really popular, is, it soundslike the simplest thing in the world, but
essentially it's a sidebar in Word thatscans your Word document and it allows
you, rather than...
jumping around the document back todefinition tables and clause 12 .5 that's
referenced down here, it allows you tojust double click on the work, the defined
(15:00):
term, or double click on the relevantclause, and it pops up alongside you.
So you don't have that constant contextswitching and loss of focus.
And it turns out that is something that isapplicable to a really large part of the
work that we do.
And it's saved an awful lot of time and tobe frank, has probably improved
consistency as well because...
(15:21):
even the best lawyers in the world gettired and sometimes miss things.
So how do you decide, and this is thething I'm starting to see with some firms
where they're saying they've been using alot of off the shelf products from
different providers.
Some that focus very much on the legalindustry, others that are just more broad
like the chat, GPTs of this world, forexample.
(15:44):
And then there's those firms that say,actually, we are going to employ our own
data scientists.
We're going to build our own models.
We're going to do that work as well, whichis obviously more expensive and sometimes
is not in the...
the usual field that a law firms would do.
Have you made that, have you startedcoming up against that?
Have you started thinking about thatdecision about, okay, when are we going to
(16:04):
have to maybe think about starting tobuild our own things that will have
basically be WombleBone Dickinson creativeproducts?
The buy v build argument is somethingthat's been going on in the legal sector
for a long, long time.
And I'm largely still of the mindset thatfirms that specialize in developing
(16:25):
software, be that for legal tech orotherwise, are probably going to win and
probably going to produce something betterthan we can.
It's the old adage of keeping the mainthing the main thing, isn't it?
What we do is provide legal services.
We don't develop software.
Where we really have the advantage is inusing that software, in integrating
(16:49):
different pieces of software togetherusing APIs where that might not have been
done previously.
And that's where the edge is.
However, I do think there's a bit of ablurring of the line now between buy and
build, because how you're using some ofthese tools increasingly starts to look
like building rather than buying.
(17:11):
So.
I mean, you reference people buildingtheir own models.
Personally, I think the idea of someonebuilding their own large language model as
a law firm is bonkers.
The scale that is required and the broadcapability that existing models have, it
just doesn't make sense to me for someoneto build their own model.
(17:33):
But you can go and use Microsoft AzureStudio, OpenAI Studio, to develop your
own.
GenAI powered chatbots.
And that's something that we have done.
Now is that buy, is that build?
We've created the system messages, we'veplayed around with the p -values, the k
-values, the temperature, we've put thedata set into it.
(17:58):
I don't know whether it's buy or build inthat situation where we bought in a tool
and then we've used it to build a GenAIchatbot.
And frankly, I guess it doesn't reallymatter which side of the line that falls
in.
And we've started relatively simple andthere's an ambition to build out from
there.
So what we've built so far, we're callingiWomble.
(18:20):
And iWomble currently looks over our 70something policies and procedures and
answers plain English questions aboutthem.
In line with our AI policy, people stillneed to verify the answers.
They can't completely rely on what'sprovided, but we've found, passed over a
relatively small data set, what we've
(18:42):
built, bought, is really quite accurate.
And people are finding it far, far easierto get to the right answers, especially
when some questions are answered acrossmultiple policies.
And it brings them all together, givesthem an answer like if I asked you the
question and you knew all of our policies,the kind of answer that you would give
together with citations so that people cango and check them.
(19:04):
And then that saved a lot of time.
And due course, we'll build that out on amodular basis to look at all sorts of
other areas of the business as well.
If I was a client, one question is goingto be coming up in my head just now.
Okay, when I get my bill and I havepartner X, 20 hours, a junior associate X
amount of hours, paralegal X amount ofhours, where does the AI, where does AI
(19:29):
Womble AI, AI Womble live in that?
Are you going to bill that as a separatekind of product service within it, or are
you just seeing this as something thatjust helps augment the...
the folks that actually already work inyour firm.
I think it's still quite fluid at themoment, to be honest with you, James.
I think the whole sector is trying to workout how generative AI is going to impact
(19:52):
pricing.
For me, currently, it's a question oflooking at things on a case -by -case
basis.
We are still, I believe, at a relativelyearly stage in gen AI being applied to
law.
So there are a number of major vendors whoare building gen AI solutions onto
existing products.
And the roadmap for those is sort of
(20:14):
during the course of this year.
So a lot of the legal specific benefit isstill to be realized.
When you look at something like iWamble,for example, those questions around
policies and procedures, clients arebenefiting there because some of those
policy questions will be around how aparticular process works.
And we're making sure that people get tothe right answer quickly.
(20:37):
Now, some of that probably wasn't timethat was.
was ever charged to clients in the firstplace because it's our own internal
policies.
Some of it, depending on the nature, mightwell be.
So there's some savings and efficienciesthere which would just be passed on.
The more general potential for this arounddocument review and things like that will
(21:00):
be discussed on a case -by -case basis.
So it might be that clients are given theoption, for example.
It might be, look, we've got this newtool.
We can do it this way, and we can agree afixed price of x.
Or if you prefer, we can do it a differentway.
And it'll be charged based on time, butthose rates might reflect, for example,
(21:24):
the overhead cost of the AI.
So there's different ways of looking atit.
Whether we'll get to a place where there'sa technology charge.
that sits on files alongside time, forexample.
That might be one route that the industrygoes.
But I know that when other industries havetried that, there's been some pushback
there.
So I think that could be challenging.
(21:45):
One thing that could well happen, James,and as I say, this is all really fluid at
the moment, it might well be that as withother overheads, essentially, chargeout
rates are adjusted.
to reflect the fact that work is beingdone more efficiently, but there's a big
investment cost in these tools in thefirst place.
So it could be that it's offset that way,but time will tell.
(22:08):
Yeah, I was I was thinking we had one ofour other guests we've had on the the
season is Sir David, Professor Sir DavidAllman, who was the formerly head of GCHQ.
And so what with all the intelligenceservices, one stat he shared was of the
public of publicly indexed information isout there, I when you're on Google or
Yahoo, wherever, that is only 0 .3 % ofinformation exists, because most
(22:34):
information exists on intranets or
dark web or places that the general publicdo not have access to as well.
And one thing I was wondering there was,were some of these larger clients that you
might have where you say, listen, we canmaybe do a, almost a quick pro -crop
because AI, we need data to train it on.
And if there's some way that we canobviously, it needs to data security and
(22:56):
all the things and anonymize and all thethings you would normally have, but
there's almost a bit of a competitiveadvantage there because some of your
clients who have large data sets,
large amounts of information going backmany, many years, that's amazing
information to train an AI on.
It is, and I'm sure over time we will seemore and more licensing style deals to get
(23:20):
access to content that isn't indexed, likethe Financial Times announced last week or
the week before.
I think for a law firm, it's really,really challenging because you've got that
duty of confidentiality, you've got allthe information security requirements,
you've got all the data protectionrequirements, and...
(23:41):
Again, I guess it goes back to keeping themain thing, the main thing.
To what extent do we want to bedistracting from what we do best by having
conversations with clients aroundpotentially acquiring their data for a
different purpose to how we normally useit, which is essentially what we will be
(24:01):
talking about.
And I don't know.
Call me traditional James, call me someonewho's been trained as a lawyer, but it
just makes me inherently nervous and Iwonder if actually the way that that will
progress is for the really big players toapproach some of the big multinationals
and do licensing deals with them in thesame way as they have done with the FT
(24:24):
rather than trying to partner with lawfirms who leverage it.
Yeah, it's almost a little bit like thewithin the UK with the NHS data that's
been anonymized.
So and just different companies that haveaccess to that so that they can run models
and do, you know, use AI assay models andthings to kind of test but individuals
information is not necessarily known bythat AI.
(24:46):
I'm interested, you know, with your yourother side of view, which is the DJ, which
we've come to just now.
I mean, the world of music is being
changed so fast just now because of AI,especially generative AI.
I was playing with something for an eventI'm doing in London later this week, a
tool called Suno AI.
I don't know whether you've been playingwith it at all where you can just write in
(25:10):
some ideas for some lyrics, give it thekind of theme that you, the kind of style
of music you want to do, and it will doyou a track.
And it sends this real sounding audio,real sounding vocals, real sounding
everything.
And it's great.
It's good for getting a first idea.
And some of them are quite funny as well.
Are there any things that you've seenwithin the music space and your background
(25:30):
as a DJ where you're kind of thinking,actually, I'm starting to see this now
within the legal profession, perhaps interms of how the job is changing or how
we're going to have to take a certainapproach or a certain position in terms of
how we work with AI?
Well, I think there are going to beparallels across lots and lots of
(25:51):
different sectors.
And I think if you look at how DJing hasevolved over time, I started in the CDJ
era.
So just after vinyl, the early days of CDsbeing the medium of choice, simply because
you could carry more of them.
But you were still actually mixing.
You were still exercising a degree ofskill over time.
(26:16):
And I suspect there's lots of modern DJswho would be screaming the, their radios
right now, but over time, technology andearlier forms of AI have increasingly been
able to say, right, well, this is thismany beats per minute.
That's that many beats per minute.
and what we can do is marry that up and wecan line up.
So when you, when you drop the one trackover the other, actually you're slightly
(26:37):
off in your timing and therefore I'm goingto adjust it for you and make it play.
So what that's done over time is level theplaying field a bit.
and allow people to, more people to accessthat particular profession and to perform
at a standard that they weren't previouslyable to perform.
(26:57):
And I suspect that generative AI mighthave a similar levelling approach for
certain bits of legal work going forwards.
And the key will then be, well, whatskills are the ones that really add the
value?
when you get to that place.
(27:17):
And for me, when you look at what's goingto be left as AI advances, and who knows
when we'll get to the end game on that.
But it's going to be things like thesocial intelligence and that complex
problem solving in a complicated set ofcircumstances.
And that's where I think lawyers need tobe really focused on developing those
(27:41):
skills and making sure they remainrelevant.
And the other thing is you've got toaccept
that the world will change and you can'tfight against that.
It's better to be part of that change andto embrace it and to accept that the
skills that you needed before aredifferent to the skills that are needed
now.
(28:01):
I mean, handwriting is a lot less relevantin the role of the modern lawyer than it
used to be, James.
I think many lawyers would argue withthat.
So it's just another step in theevolution.
guess also, you got a front row seat ofthis in terms of all those young trainees
are coming in young and older trainees,you know, people are going to university
later in life.
(28:21):
But some of the younger trainees who havecome up being that first generation who
have been using chat GPT for in theirexams, for example, in different ways,
they're now coming into your firm saying,Hey, I was able to use this when I was at
university studying for my law degree, whycan I not have access to these same tools
in a firm?
So you're kind of you're coming.
(28:42):
You're going to be coming up against thatas well.
Quickfire questions as we start to finishup here as well.
Is there a quote or a line or statementthat you kind of live by that you often
kind of is kind of your, is your kind ofcompass in life in some way?
(29:06):
I'm not sure that there's any onestatement to be honest with you James.
I mean, I was once mocked roundly and Isuspect I'm about to be again, but I will
do it because it's the answer to thequestion, I guess.
I was once stopped and interviewed bysomeone from Radio Lancashire and asked
(29:27):
exactly the same question, essentially.
And as a 16 -year -old, I said, keep itsmooth.
That was my response.
And I guess as cringe -worthy as that wasand as much abuse as I received from...
friends at the time for saying that.
I think there is a certain truth in juststaying calm and objectively assessing
(29:56):
problems in order to properly work outwhat an innovative solution to that
problem is, which is my attempt at a neatsegue into your next question.
And then, so on that, we've been talkingabout just having a sense of perspective
on things and assessing in that way aswell.
Are there any tools that you use or appsthat you use you find are very useful in
(30:20):
the kind of work that you do?
We've mentioned obviously the Chat GPT anddifferent Microsoft tools and things.
Are there any that you particularly think,I don't think I can live without this now?
Well, I think it's probably more use casefor one of the tools we've touched on
rather than anything else.
And that is generative AI for me hasbecome a really useful sounding board.
(30:42):
It's essentially a coach for me.
So I might draft a new idea, a new elementof our strategy, and then say to it,
right, act as our managing partner andask.
what questions would you ask about thisdocumentation?
Critique this for me.
And I use that on an iterative basis totry and anticipate some of the things that
(31:07):
people might ask and some of the challengethat might be put back against a
particular idea.
I use a very similar thing I call virtualmasterminds where I'll put in an idea for
a project or a business plan that we have,and then I'll give it six people that I
respect who have very differentperspectives on business and things.
And I'll say, okay, find all the flaws onthis.
(31:29):
And it's fascinating because you get tosee from different perspectives and then
we kind of do the human bit, which we kindof triangulate all of that and say, okay,
that's fine.
Now that I know how Elon would approach itor how Warren Buffett would approach it.
now I need to think like, okay, how wouldSam Dixon approach it?
What would we do?
What about books?
Are there any books that you can recommendto our listeners, maybe around AI or the
(31:54):
future in some way?
Well, Superintelligence by Nick Bostrom,I'm sure you're familiar with it, James,
is a fascinating read about AI and about,well, I would guess the potential doomsday
scenarios that we might all face.
But in approaching those doomsdayscenarios, you do get a reasonably good
(32:15):
feel for the progression of AI over timeand a good grounding in what AI is.
And if people want to connect with you tolearn more about Womble Bond Dickinson,
more about the firm, what's the best placefor them to go and do that?
Well, you can find me on LinkedIn or on X,I am at Innovation in Law.
(32:38):
Sam Dixon, Chief Innovation Officer of Lawfirm 1 with Womble Bond Dickinson Thank
you so much for being a guest on theSuperCreativity Podcast.
Sam Dixon is the chief innovation officerof law firm Womble Bond Dickinson in the
United Kingdom.
He is also a practicing lawyer in thefirm's restructuring team.
His innovation journey started in onlineretail in the early 2000s and has led him
to law via a brief detour through theworld of DJing.
And if you don't know Womble BondDickinson, I'm gonna put my hand up here.
(00:28):
They are a client of mine.
I've spoken to them for a number of timesbefore.
I think they have about a thousand.
lawyers in the US and the UK and theycover lots of different areas of business
as well.
And we're going to be taking a deep diveinto the work that Sam and his team do
around innovation, specifically in thelegal profession.
So Sam, welcome to the SuperCreativityPodcast.
(00:50):
Good afternoon, James.
Thank you for having me.
So share with us just now what's going onin your world, what currently has your
focus at the moment?
Well, I think it would be very difficultto give an answer other than generative
AI, to be honest with you.
It's stormed onto the scene.
We're working our way through the hypecycle, of course.
And it's keeping us all very, very busy,both in terms of what we can do right now
(01:12):
with it, but also what the futuretrajectory is going to be and where we
might end up.
And take, how did you get into this role?
I mentioned that you're obviously apracticing partner, you're a solicitor,
you do DJing as well.
Tell us how this journey into the currentrole happened.
Well, I've always had a bit of an interestin doing things differently and innovation
(01:34):
and in the use of tech.
Going back to, you mentioned the onlineretail at the start of my journey.
And essentially for me, that was workingin an outdoor equipment retailer in a shop
and then ended up taking over their mailorder business, turning that into an
online retail business in the relativelyearly days of online retail and doing
(01:55):
things like using AdWords and a computer.
a different way to how anyone has usedthem before.
So we were targeting essentially a productcomparison approach that no one else was
using at the time.
And fast forward in, sorry, go on James.
I was gonna say the move into the law.
So you didn't come initially from thelegal profession then.
(02:16):
You kind of, you were starting in e-commerce and retail first, and then you
kind of, how did you find your way intothe law?
Well, in some respects, in a relativelyconventional route, in the bit of online
retail, and then I was doing a law degree.
Now, being honest with you, whilst I wasdoing a law degree, I was doing quite a
lot of DJing and event promotion, and Ididn't apply for a training contract two
(02:38):
years ahead of time in the way that peoplenormally do, because frankly, I thought I
was going to be traveling the world DJing.
And as I went into my final year, I had anumber of offers to work in various parts
of the world as a DJ.
But in my final year, we did real legalwork.
And I ended up dealing with a multipleconspiracy to murder case, so some
(02:59):
gangland stuff.
And it was fascinating.
And at the same time, the firm I'mcurrently with, which at the time was
called Dickinson Dees, prior to a numberof mergers, they approached the university
I was at and said, do you have anyone whomight be interested in starting a training
contract in a few months' time?
So I went in and had a chat.
(03:20):
And one of the icebreaker questions was,do you know?
tell us something interesting about yourweek last week.
So I explained that I'd DJed for an artistcalled Chesney Hawkes.
It turned out the head of graduaterecruitment was a massive Chesney Hawkes
fan, and the rest, as they say, ishistory.
So you went into, obviously, you startedinitially in the kind of legal side around
(03:43):
criminal law.
But my understanding is that one BondDickinson is known really for commercial
law, and it's that kind of world.
And then you specifically, you focused onthe restructuring side of things.
So how did you get into that particularpart of commercial law?
Absolutely, well as you say it's acommercial law firm so the criminal side
of things was just part of my universityexperience.
(04:04):
As soon as I joined what's now UmubonDickinson it was commercial law from the
start and I started off as a trainee likeall lawyers do and I rotated around a few
different seats and being honest I didn'tknow an awful lot about restructuring.
I didn't know what to expect but as I wasgoing into my final seat it was in the
(04:24):
height of the recession.
And there weren't necessarily theopportunities in other areas that I would
have perhaps liked to have done.
And so someone gave me the chance to goand work in the restructuring team.
And it turns out it was a really good fitfor me.
So I qualified into restructuring andinsolvency and spent a number of years
learning the ropes and really enjoying therestructuring sector, helping to try and
(04:46):
save businesses and that kind of thing.
But over time, I saw there were a numberof things that we were doing in
restructuring, which
I think it's probably fair to describe asa bit boring at times.
James form -filling, doing the sameprecedence again and again that he didn't
necessarily feel was the best way of doingit.
(05:07):
There must have been a better way.
And that got me to start looking atdocument automation.
Originally using things which withhindsight look like quite archaic
technology now and borderline kind ofcoding.
Whereas,
things have evolved and it's got easierand easier to do.
But that first time that I saw a suite ofdocuments that are automated, where in the
(05:30):
past it would have taken hours to produceit, to then be able to just go out to
answer a few questions and it's going totell me what documents I need.
And it's going to produce them all for mewith all the associated paperwork.
This is just amazing.
And it was that that really was thetrigger point for me gradually over time
becoming more and more involved in ourinnovation.
(05:51):
efforts across the firm.
I know with a lot of law firms I've workedwith in the past, they initially got very
excited about RPA, robotic processautomation, taking some of those
agreements, automating things to a certainextent.
We've now moved from just doing that intoobviously artificial intelligence and
machine learning as well.
(06:11):
When you've seen these technologies startto be applied in the work of law firms,
where do you typically see it?
Is it in document?
Is it being document management side?
Is it looking at risk in relation tocontracts?
Is it helping lawyers draft agreements orsomething else?
So I think it depends on the particulartechnology.
(06:34):
But if you're talking about that documentautomation side of things, that's the
production of documents very clearly.
When you look at machine learning though,that's usually around something like a
document review.
So that might be a due diligence exercise.
It might be someone wanting to understandtheir range of contracts, whether it
complies with their policies in aparticular area.
(06:54):
They might be trying to understand thelease portfolio and wanting to extract
various bits of information across thatportfolio because,
they've inherited it from someone else, itperhaps doesn't have the level of detail
and structure that they need.
And that original transition machinelearning tools worked to a degree to
(07:15):
deliver that task.
And there has been some success on thatfront.
I think where it gets really interestingis that generative AI is able to do a lot
of that work without the need for lots andlots of examples.
and the proactive work to train theparticular machine learning tool to look
(07:38):
for particular points of interest.
Now your work obviously around innovation,a lot of law firms struggle around
innovation because it's traditionally thelegal industry is one that's focused on
billable hours, your six minute incrementsor however long it is.
And so everyone obviously partnersassociates very focused on those billable
hours and to be able to take a step backand think actually, is there a better way
(08:02):
of doing this or a smarter way, a moreproductive way of doing it?
It's often very difficult when people justfocus on those billable hours.
How did you...
to change the mindset within a firm,especially with those colleagues of yours
who maybe said, we've been doing this foryears, why do we have to change it?
I think you chose a great word at thestart of that, James, which is
(08:23):
traditional.
And law is a very traditional sector.
People have a very traditional mindset.
What we've tried to do to get people tothink a bit more differently and to try
out some of this new stuff is, first ofall, just to get it on their radar.
Because if they don't know about it, thenthey haven't even got the option of trying
(08:45):
to do things differently.
So we do things like our InternationalInnovation Week, where we work with our
colleagues in the US and where you'vespoken before, to just tell people stories
about innovation, give them thatinspiration.
It's about making them want to getinvolved.
And are you going to get absolutelyeveryone to take a more innovative
(09:07):
approach?
No, you're not.
With the best will in the world, that'snever going to happen.
But you don't know exactly who isreceptive to it and who isn't.
So the key for me is creating that cultureof innovation where it is part of the
conversation and where people are enabledto suggest ideas and implement ideas.
(09:29):
So, sorry James.
No, I was just going to say, so take usthrough like an example of that.
Let's say you're a partner in therestructuring part of the business and
you've been doing something for a whileand it works, it's fine.
But you're thinking, listen, maybe I wantto try using some of these AI tools and
thinking about things in a more innovativeway.
(09:50):
What does that process look like?
Is it lead often led by the partner?
Is it led from the innovation lab withinit?
Is it led by an associate?
Is it project managers?
How does it start to come together?
So we take a two tier approach toinnovation, James.
And what I'm talking about there is ourstarting point and the first tier of that
(10:13):
two tier approach is what we call our self-service toolkit.
So we've been focusing on trying to sortof leverage that experience across the
whole business.
So rather than having a team of peoplecentrally who are the ones who innovate,
the others.
We try to stay away from that and empowereveryone to do differently what they know
(10:37):
best, what they're dealing with day in,day out.
So the self -service toolkit is a seriesof pieces of software with training
materials made available in a way whichminimizes the need for central approval,
be that cost approval or whatever else sothat people can pick things up.
take ideas forward with the appropriateapprovals from within their own teams so
(11:01):
that ideas aren't being duplicated and sothat time isn't being wasted when it
should be applied on something else.
But really empowering everyone to be ableto take that forward.
We do recognize though that some of whatpeople want to do might be a bit more
ambitious.
And it might require a little bit ofcoding skill.
(11:23):
It might require some admin.
access rights from an IT perspective,which with the best rule in the world,
we're not going to expect our lawyers tohave.
In my view, I don't think lawyers need tobe coders.
I mean, query in the modern world of lowand no code, how much coders need to be
coders?
But lawyers for me certainly don't need tobe.
(11:44):
And therefore, we have the second tier,which is the complex automations.
And that's where you're looking atpotentially an end -to -end process.
with a lot of heavy automation in thereand probably integrations between multiple
different systems.
So let's say on that then, let's sayyou're having all folks from different
(12:05):
parts of the business say, we've got thisproblem, we think we could use, we would
like to use AI to help us on this problem.
Someone else sees an opportunity.
How do you then kind of sort and sift allthat, decide actually this is where we're
going to focus on?
Is there strategic kind of pillars thatyou're focused around?
Will you only do projects where you thinkit could benefit across the whole firm
(12:26):
rather than a particular department in thefirm?
How do you decide?
Well, I think it depends on what supportis needed, James.
I mean, the idea of the self -servicetoolkit is we don't need to decide.
The individual teams, for example,restructuring can say, right, well, we've
got a sale agreement here, which we thinkwill benefit from being automated.
(12:47):
There's a self -service tool available tolet us do that.
And we, as a restructuring team, canassess whether or not we want to use our
own team resource in order to progressthat.
So that's one side of it, obviously on thecomplex automation side.
There is a need for prioritization.
And that's done on a business case basis,as you probably expect.
(13:11):
And so we listen to what teams want.
And sometimes teams don't necessarily knowwhat they want.
This is as much about a conversation as itis about anything else.
And I'm currently touring all of our UKoffices just talking to people.
floorwalking, having conversations around,right, well, what are your pain points?
What are you trying to achieve?
(13:33):
What is the most boring thing you'redoing, the most frustrating thing you're
doing?
And where have you got to work around?
Because that's always a great example ofan innovation opportunity is where
someone's currently trying to work aroundexisting systems and processes.
So we have those conversations.
We then review the business cases and wework out where the best ROI is, frankly.
(13:54):
And sometimes,
That's where there is really wellstructured workflows that are high volume
and it makes a lot of sense to put a lotof structure around that.
But other times there might be thingswhich could benefit a very broad part of
the firm.
And actually someone in one particularteam has come up with an idea which is of
(14:16):
much, much broader application.
And then it's not around that really wellstructured work necessarily.
It might be.
around a particular aspect of a task orjust something that everyone's doing.
Like for example, reviewing agreements inWord.
There are aspects of that.
One of the tools that we've put in theself -service toolkit recently, which has
(14:39):
been really, really popular, is, it soundslike the simplest thing in the world, but
essentially it's a sidebar in Word thatscans your Word document and it allows
you, rather than...
jumping around the document back todefinition tables and clause 12 .5 that's
referenced down here, it allows you tojust double click on the work, the defined
(15:00):
term, or double click on the relevantclause, and it pops up alongside you.
So you don't have that constant contextswitching and loss of focus.
And it turns out that is something that isapplicable to a really large part of the
work that we do.
And it's saved an awful lot of time and tobe frank, has probably improved
consistency as well because...
(15:21):
even the best lawyers in the world gettired and sometimes miss things.
So how do you decide, and this is thething I'm starting to see with some firms
where they're saying they've been using alot of off the shelf products from
different providers.
Some that focus very much on the legalindustry, others that are just more broad
like the chat, GPTs of this world, forexample.
(15:44):
And then there's those firms that say,actually, we are going to employ our own
data scientists.
We're going to build our own models.
We're going to do that work as well, whichis obviously more expensive and sometimes
is not in the...
the usual field that a law firms would do.
Have you made that, have you startedcoming up against that?
Have you started thinking about thatdecision about, okay, when are we going to
(16:04):
have to maybe think about starting tobuild our own things that will have
basically be WombleBone Dickinson creativeproducts?
The buy v build argument is somethingthat's been going on in the legal sector
for a long, long time.
And I'm largely still of the mindset thatfirms that specialize in developing
(16:25):
software, be that for legal tech orotherwise, are probably going to win and
probably going to produce something betterthan we can.
It's the old adage of keeping the mainthing the main thing, isn't it?
What we do is provide legal services.
We don't develop software.
Where we really have the advantage is inusing that software, in integrating
(16:49):
different pieces of software togetherusing APIs where that might not have been
done previously.
And that's where the edge is.
However, I do think there's a bit of ablurring of the line now between buy and
build, because how you're using some ofthese tools increasingly starts to look
like building rather than buying.
(17:11):
So.
I mean, you reference people buildingtheir own models.
Personally, I think the idea of someonebuilding their own large language model as
a law firm is bonkers.
The scale that is required and the broadcapability that existing models have, it
just doesn't make sense to me for someoneto build their own model.
(17:33):
But you can go and use Microsoft AzureStudio, OpenAI Studio, to develop your
own.
GenAI powered chatbots.
And that's something that we have done.
Now is that buy, is that build?
We've created the system messages, we'veplayed around with the p -values, the k
-values, the temperature, we've put thedata set into it.
(17:58):
I don't know whether it's buy or build inthat situation where we bought in a tool
and then we've used it to build a GenAIchatbot.
And frankly, I guess it doesn't reallymatter which side of the line that falls
in.
And we've started relatively simple andthere's an ambition to build out from
there.
So what we've built so far, we're callingiWomble.
(18:20):
And iWomble currently looks over our 70something policies and procedures and
answers plain English questions aboutthem.
In line with our AI policy, people stillneed to verify the answers.
They can't completely rely on what'sprovided, but we've found, passed over a
relatively small data set, what we've
(18:42):
built, bought, is really quite accurate.
And people are finding it far, far easierto get to the right answers, especially
when some questions are answered acrossmultiple policies.
And it brings them all together, givesthem an answer like if I asked you the
question and you knew all of our policies,the kind of answer that you would give
together with citations so that people cango and check them.
(19:04):
And then that saved a lot of time.
And due course, we'll build that out on amodular basis to look at all sorts of
other areas of the business as well.
If I was a client, one question is goingto be coming up in my head just now.
Okay, when I get my bill and I havepartner X, 20 hours, a junior associate X
amount of hours, paralegal X amount ofhours, where does the AI, where does AI
(19:29):
Womble AI, AI Womble live in that?
Are you going to bill that as a separatekind of product service within it, or are
you just seeing this as something thatjust helps augment the...
the folks that actually already work inyour firm.
I think it's still quite fluid at themoment, to be honest with you, James.
I think the whole sector is trying to workout how generative AI is going to impact
(19:52):
pricing.
For me, currently, it's a question oflooking at things on a case -by -case
basis.
We are still, I believe, at a relativelyearly stage in gen AI being applied to
law.
So there are a number of major vendors whoare building gen AI solutions onto
existing products.
And the roadmap for those is sort of
(20:14):
during the course of this year.
So a lot of the legal specific benefit isstill to be realized.
When you look at something like iWamble,for example, those questions around
policies and procedures, clients arebenefiting there because some of those
policy questions will be around how aparticular process works.
And we're making sure that people get tothe right answer quickly.
(20:37):
Now, some of that probably wasn't timethat was.
was ever charged to clients in the firstplace because it's our own internal
policies.
Some of it, depending on the nature, mightwell be.
So there's some savings and efficienciesthere which would just be passed on.
The more general potential for this arounddocument review and things like that will
(21:00):
be discussed on a case -by -case basis.
So it might be that clients are given theoption, for example.
It might be, look, we've got this newtool.
We can do it this way, and we can agree afixed price of x.
Or if you prefer, we can do it a differentway.
And it'll be charged based on time, butthose rates might reflect, for example,
(21:24):
the overhead cost of the AI.
So there's different ways of looking atit.
Whether we'll get to a place where there'sa technology charge.
that sits on files alongside time, forexample.
That might be one route that the industrygoes.
But I know that when other industries havetried that, there's been some pushback
there.
So I think that could be challenging.
(21:45):
One thing that could well happen, James,and as I say, this is all really fluid at
the moment, it might well be that as withother overheads, essentially, chargeout
rates are adjusted.
to reflect the fact that work is beingdone more efficiently, but there's a big
investment cost in these tools in thefirst place.
So it could be that it's offset that way,but time will tell.
(22:08):
Yeah, I was I was thinking we had one ofour other guests we've had on the the
season is Sir David, Professor Sir DavidAllman, who was the formerly head of GCHQ.
And so what with all the intelligenceservices, one stat he shared was of the
public of publicly indexed information isout there, I when you're on Google or
Yahoo, wherever, that is only 0 .3 % ofinformation exists, because most
(22:34):
information exists on intranets or
dark web or places that the general publicdo not have access to as well.
And one thing I was wondering there was,were some of these larger clients that you
might have where you say, listen, we canmaybe do a, almost a quick pro -crop
because AI, we need data to train it on.
And if there's some way that we canobviously, it needs to data security and
(22:56):
all the things and anonymize and all thethings you would normally have, but
there's almost a bit of a competitiveadvantage there because some of your
clients who have large data sets,
large amounts of information going backmany, many years, that's amazing
information to train an AI on.
It is, and I'm sure over time we will seemore and more licensing style deals to get
(23:20):
access to content that isn't indexed, likethe Financial Times announced last week or
the week before.
I think for a law firm, it's really,really challenging because you've got that
duty of confidentiality, you've got allthe information security requirements,
you've got all the data protectionrequirements, and...
(23:41):
Again, I guess it goes back to keeping themain thing, the main thing.
To what extent do we want to bedistracting from what we do best by having
conversations with clients aroundpotentially acquiring their data for a
different purpose to how we normally useit, which is essentially what we will be
(24:01):
talking about.
And I don't know.
Call me traditional James, call me someonewho's been trained as a lawyer, but it
just makes me inherently nervous and Iwonder if actually the way that that will
progress is for the really big players toapproach some of the big multinationals
and do licensing deals with them in thesame way as they have done with the FT
(24:24):
rather than trying to partner with lawfirms who leverage it.
Yeah, it's almost a little bit like thewithin the UK with the NHS data that's
been anonymized.
So and just different companies that haveaccess to that so that they can run models
and do, you know, use AI assay models andthings to kind of test but individuals
information is not necessarily known bythat AI.
(24:46):
I'm interested, you know, with your yourother side of view, which is the DJ, which
we've come to just now.
I mean, the world of music is being
changed so fast just now because of AI,especially generative AI.
I was playing with something for an eventI'm doing in London later this week, a
tool called Suno AI.
I don't know whether you've been playingwith it at all where you can just write in
(25:10):
some ideas for some lyrics, give it thekind of theme that you, the kind of style
of music you want to do, and it will doyou a track.
And it sends this real sounding audio,real sounding vocals, real sounding
everything.
And it's great.
It's good for getting a first idea.
And some of them are quite funny as well.
Are there any things that you've seenwithin the music space and your background
(25:30):
as a DJ where you're kind of thinking,actually, I'm starting to see this now
within the legal profession, perhaps interms of how the job is changing or how
we're going to have to take a certainapproach or a certain position in terms of
how we work with AI?
Well, I think there are going to beparallels across lots and lots of
(25:51):
different sectors.
And I think if you look at how DJing hasevolved over time, I started in the CDJ
era.
So just after vinyl, the early days of CDsbeing the medium of choice, simply because
you could carry more of them.
But you were still actually mixing.
You were still exercising a degree ofskill over time.
(26:16):
And I suspect there's lots of modern DJswho would be screaming the, their radios
right now, but over time, technology andearlier forms of AI have increasingly been
able to say, right, well, this is thismany beats per minute.
That's that many beats per minute.
and what we can do is marry that up and wecan line up.
So when you, when you drop the one trackover the other, actually you're slightly
(26:37):
off in your timing and therefore I'm goingto adjust it for you and make it play.
So what that's done over time is level theplaying field a bit.
and allow people to, more people to accessthat particular profession and to perform
at a standard that they weren't previouslyable to perform.
(26:57):
And I suspect that generative AI mighthave a similar levelling approach for
certain bits of legal work going forwards.
And the key will then be, well, whatskills are the ones that really add the
value?
when you get to that place.
(27:17):
And for me, when you look at what's goingto be left as AI advances, and who knows
when we'll get to the end game on that.
But it's going to be things like thesocial intelligence and that complex
problem solving in a complicated set ofcircumstances.
And that's where I think lawyers need tobe really focused on developing those
(27:41):
skills and making sure they remainrelevant.
And the other thing is you've got toaccept
that the world will change and you can'tfight against that.
It's better to be part of that change andto embrace it and to accept that the
skills that you needed before aredifferent to the skills that are needed
now.
(28:01):
I mean, handwriting is a lot less relevantin the role of the modern lawyer than it
used to be, James.
I think many lawyers would argue withthat.
So it's just another step in theevolution.
guess also, you got a front row seat ofthis in terms of all those young trainees
are coming in young and older trainees,you know, people are going to university
later in life.
(28:21):
But some of the younger trainees who havecome up being that first generation who
have been using chat GPT for in theirexams, for example, in different ways,
they're now coming into your firm saying,Hey, I was able to use this when I was at
university studying for my law degree, whycan I not have access to these same tools
in a firm?
So you're kind of you're coming.
(28:42):
You're going to be coming up against thatas well.
Quickfire questions as we start to finishup here as well.
Is there a quote or a line or statementthat you kind of live by that you often
kind of is kind of your, is your kind ofcompass in life in some way?
(29:06):
I'm not sure that there's any onestatement to be honest with you James.
I mean, I was once mocked roundly and Isuspect I'm about to be again, but I will
do it because it's the answer to thequestion, I guess.
I was once stopped and interviewed bysomeone from Radio Lancashire and asked
(29:27):
exactly the same question, essentially.
And as a 16 -year -old, I said, keep itsmooth.
That was my response.
And I guess as cringe -worthy as that wasand as much abuse as I received from...
friends at the time for saying that.
I think there is a certain truth in juststaying calm and objectively assessing
(29:56):
problems in order to properly work outwhat an innovative solution to that
problem is, which is my attempt at a neatsegue into your next question.
And then, so on that, we've been talkingabout just having a sense of perspective
on things and assessing in that way aswell.
Are there any tools that you use or appsthat you use you find are very useful in
(30:20):
the kind of work that you do?
We've mentioned obviously the Chat GPT anddifferent Microsoft tools and things.
Are there any that you particularly think,I don't think I can live without this now?
Well, I think it's probably more use casefor one of the tools we've touched on
rather than anything else.
And that is generative AI for me hasbecome a really useful sounding board.
(30:42):
It's essentially a coach for me.
So I might draft a new idea, a new elementof our strategy, and then say to it,
right, act as our managing partner andask.
what questions would you ask about thisdocumentation?
Critique this for me.
And I use that on an iterative basis totry and anticipate some of the things that
(31:07):
people might ask and some of the challengethat might be put back against a
particular idea.
I use a very similar thing I call virtualmasterminds where I'll put in an idea for
a project or a business plan that we have,and then I'll give it six people that I
respect who have very differentperspectives on business and things.
And I'll say, okay, find all the flaws onthis.
(31:29):
And it's fascinating because you get tosee from different perspectives and then
we kind of do the human bit, which we kindof triangulate all of that and say, okay,
that's fine.
Now that I know how Elon would approach itor how Warren Buffett would approach it.
now I need to think like, okay, how wouldSam Dixon approach it?
What would we do?
What about books?
Are there any books that you can recommendto our listeners, maybe around AI or the
(31:54):
future in some way?
Well, Superintelligence by Nick Bostrom,I'm sure you're familiar with it, James,
is a fascinating read about AI and about,well, I would guess the potential doomsday
scenarios that we might all face.
But in approaching those doomsdayscenarios, you do get a reasonably good
(32:15):
feel for the progression of AI over timeand a good grounding in what AI is.
And if people want to connect with you tolearn more about Womble Bond Dickinson,
more about the firm, what's the best placefor them to go and do that?
Well, you can find me on LinkedIn or on X,I am at Innovation in Law.
(32:38):
Sam Dixon, Chief Innovation Officer of Lawfirm 1 with Womble Bond Dickinson Thank
you so much for being a guest on theSuperCreativity Podcast.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!