SHOULD lawyers be technology pioneers? When they hear, say, about the great promise of wikis and blogs, or of the likely impact of e-learning and automated document assembly, should legal practitioners reach enthusiastically for their cheque books or more reflectively for a stiff, single malt? Broadly, when new technologies loom, a law firm can embrace one of three strategies. The first is to resist. Whether grounded in fear, ignorance, conservatism or insight, the purpose of resistance is to delay investment, often in expectation that the technology has been overhyped. Alternatively, many senior partners hope that they can hold out until retirement before the latest systems engulf them. Either way, Ned Ludd would have been proud. The second strategy is to prepare. This may be a grudging preparation — for the fateful day when clients or competitors leave the firm with no option but to invest. Or it may be part of a master plan, according to which the firm is like a finely tuned track athlete, poised at the final bend to pass and surge away from the pacemakers. The third strategy is, indeed, to pioneer, to lead the way, and in so doing to try to achieve first-mover advantage.

Successful pioneering in IT is not temporary pacemaking. It is about striving to keep ahead of the pack and reaping substantial rewards as a result. In the world of IT, however, there is much debate about its benefits. The whimsical sceptics often say that you can recognise the pioneers by the arrows in their backs. The pioneers, it is jested, work at the bleeding edge rather than the leading edge.

Flippancies aside, a more profound challenge to pioneers was recently laid down by Markides and Geroski, of London Business School. They argue in their book, Fast Second (josseybass.com), that pioneering thinkers of radically new business ideas do not necessarily excel in commercially exploiting them. The idea of online bookselling came from an Ohio-based bookseller, not from Amazon. What about law? It is not yet clear whether it pays for lawyers to innovate in IT. Did great benefits accrue to firms that led the way, for instance, in advanced financial systems, document management systems or in human resource systems? Was the investment in the early bespoke systems worth it or might it have been better to wait for off-the-shelf solutions?

The systems just noted, no matter how trailblazing, were for internal use within law firms. In contrast, competitive advantage will be achieved by firms when the technologies in question touch the lives of their clients — by providing new ways of working together or in packaging legal advice as online or integrated offerings. If technology can help to deliver cheaper or better service, many clients will sign up. That said, client-facing pioneering is not sufficient to sustain advantage. The trick here is not just to deploy the first workable system but to make it impossible or unattractive for competitors to imitate, and inconvenient or undesirable for clients to switch allegiance. This is a lesson for firms thinking about online communities for clients — internet-based, collaborative facilities that focus on particular specialities. These sites will be rich resources, full of source materials and commentary, of gossip and analysis; and will encourage active participation, through wikis, blogs, chat rooms, and more. Once clients are drawn into these communities and contribute themselves, it will be hard to entice them away. Here, therefore, is where firms should pioneer.

The author lectures and consults internationally. He is IT adviser to the Lord Chief Justice and Honorary Professor at Gresham College. He can be contacted at www.susskind.com

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure