Swipe Right on Empathy: The Key to Legal Design Success

What was the last good first date you had? There may have been an element of physical interest, but it is highly likely it was a “good” date because it lasted for hours, and the longer you spoke, the more interesting you found the other person, and vice versa. Maybe the conversation didn’t start off strong, but at some point you hit on a topic that you both found interesting. You found common ground and that led to connection. It is also likely that the date was better because it involved a “ping-pong” style of conversation. You asked the right questions. You (actually) listened to the answers. Then you used the information you received to ask better questions and probe a little further. At the end of the date, maybe you kissed, but you both walked away feeling like the other person heard you.

Empathy is like getting to know someone on a first date. You have to ask the right questions, listen to their responses and understand their needs and wants. If you don’t take the time to understand the other person, they’ll never tell their mother about you and it’s unlikely you will get another date. Designing the law is the same way. It is not possible to design something useable that meets the needs of the client or the user unless you take the time to get to know the person you’re designing that ‘thing’ for. Taking the time to understand who the person is and what they want is known as empathy and it’s a core step in design thinking methodology.

Who are you Dating?

Before you can start the process of empathizing, it is important to first understand who you’re “dating”. Figuring out “who” the user is may seem obvious in many circumstances, but this is not always the case. The user can vary depending on the situation the lawyer finds themselves.

For the in-house crowd, the user can be the business, the “client” of the corporation (the person buying or using the corporation’s product) or any number of other users: stakeholders, third parties, the Board of Directors, etc.. In-house counsel can generally figure out who the user is by considering roughly what the problem is. At this stage in-house counsel should not jump to conclusions, but figuring out the subject area or potential problem topic will help guide in-house counsel identify the likely user.

In private practice, the lawyer’s clients are typically the users of the product or service, but not always. Efficiencies in legal practices can impact any number of people, including office staff. Again, it helps to start with understanding the basics of the problem. Is the private practice lawyer trying to solve a client-related issue or an operational efficiency issue? This guides the empathetic focus.

Whether in-house or in private practice, identifying the “user” is the first step of the empathy stage.

Get-to-know Them

Once you’ve figured out who the user is, you have to get –to know that person and figure out what they want.

There are two distinct ways to get –to know your user. Primarily, you have to understand the characteristics and qualities that generally apply to that type of user. Then you have to understand what they want.

There are several techniques designers employ to understand the user. Surveys, data collection, and observation are just three techniques commonly used that can help determine the demographics of the user and other core, common characteristics. Are your ‘dates’ typically wine or beer drinkers? Do they have the same professional background? Do they live in the same jurisdiction? There are many attributes you may be looking for and each one will help you to better empathize with the user and, eventually, design a solution that is right for them.

In a first date scenario, we would simply ask our date what they’re into. We would speak with them and gather information. When combining design with the law, the process is the same, except you’re asking the client (or the user) what they’re into. While it isn’t always true that the user will know the answers to the problems, the simple act of asking the user for their opinions is an important part of empathy.

Astrid Kohlmeier and Meera Klemola, two experts in the field of legal design, discuss the benefits of asking the user for their input: “[y]our clients will feel grateful, heard and more often than not, excited to co-create solutions that will actively assist their business and its operations”[1] Kohlmeier and Klemola advocate for stakeholder input to help identify the challenges faced by the users. Instead of continuing to take on the role of “answer provider”, lawyers can use this opportunity to take a step back from the advisory role and listen to input and feedback. The simple act of listening can lead to better solutions.

There are pitfalls to asking people for their opinion. Sometimes people do not always know what they want. They may have a specific solution in mind without fully understanding the problem or whether their solution is optimal for the situation. They may lack understanding of legal processes, laws, rules or regulations. They may also expect that their solution will be implemented if feedback is sought. Afterall, it would seem a ‘waste of time’ to ask a client for their thoughts and then ignore their feedback completely. While it is true that people might not always know exactly what they want (cue Henry Ford’s “faster horses” quote often used when trying to explain why consumer feedback can fail), [2] asking the user questions helps uncover their deeper needs. Just like a good date, it’s not about agreeing on everything—it’s about understanding what matters most to them.

Setting the Mood

As with dating, create an environment where someone is comfortable sharing information with you; think of it as lighting the candles and selecting the right playlist. Set the mood before beginning the process of empathy.

For example, an environment of ‘psychological safety’ allows your users (clients and staff) to participate in the process of innovating by providing continuous feedback without the fear of being criticized for their ideas. Avoid being defensive or protectionist of the way that things work or have worked in the past and instead create an environment that encourages the sharing of ideas.

A small Australian law firm did just this by creating a collegial environment that allowed for sharing of ideas. They did this by encouraging, “continuous improvement,” in a variety of ways. One of those methods included a weekly ‘circle’ where, “all staff (not only lawyers) were encouraged to notice issues and to raise them…[a]ll staff attended the circles, bringing with them at least one item.”[3] Continuous innovation by staff and lawyers meant continual improvement of processes within the law firm’s office, which translated to higher work satisfaction for staff and better client satisfaction.

The act of asking staff to participate in the design process and execution of better services is a perfect example of setting the right mood to illustrate empathy to the user.

Conclusion – Make a Lasting Impression

Whether it’s a first date or creating your next efficient client process, remember that empathy is your secret weapon to making a lasting impression. And hey, if you wouldn’t bring your vegan date to a rib-fest, don’t design a legal process without understanding what your users truly need. Use empathy instead.[4]

_____________________

[1] Astrid Kohlmeier and Meera Klemola, The Legal Design Book – Doing Law in the 21^st Century (2021: Astrid Kohlmeier & Meera Klemola) at p. 29.

[2] While Henry Ford is often credited with this statement, this article suggests he never said it: Patrick Vlaskovits, “Henry Ford, Innovation, and That “Faster Horse” Quote,” Harvard Business Review (August 29, 2011).

[3] Felicity Bell, “’You don’t often create solutions in the law’: Legal design in a

small Australian law firm,” Legal Design Journal, Issue 1, Volume 1, ISSN 3049-5644 (2024) at p. 7.

[4] Just for clarity, this article uses dating analogies for humour and illustrative purposes to better explain empathy in the legal design methodology. It does not support or recommend that lawyers date their clients or users of their services.