The traits listed as characteristic of “design thinkers” are similar to, but not identical to, our in-class list encompassing typical traits of entrepreneurs. For example, author Tim Brown describes design thinkers as “collaborative,” a trait that may not come to mind when referring to a traditional entrepreneur. (Brown 87).

It’s interesting to read Brown’s description of the design process: “a system of spaces rather than a pre-defined series of orderly steps. The spaces demarcate different sorts of related activities that together form the continuum of innovation.” (Brown 88). The three stages of design thinking—inspiration, ideation, and implementation—can most likely be applied to many fields and industries. (Brown 89).

Even in the traditional legal market, for example, seemingly mundane services like Electronic Bluebook presumably went through this process, where lawyers saw a need, sought to fix it in a palatable, accessible, and understandable way, and then worked to implement it in a way that perhaps benefitted students or was made available for firm purchase. Certainly, this example is less exciting or large-scale as the creation of “coasting” bikes—which sold an idea, as well as a product, to a large number of people—as well as Aravind eye camps—which became “a systemic solution to a complex social and medical problem”—but it nonetheless shows how the design thinking process can be applicable to a range of projects and industries. (Brown 90-91). These are also all examples of what Tom Kelley describes as “being left-handed.” (Kelley 33).

Each of the aforementioned projects had to finagle around legal complexities before it could get off the ground. Still, law and innovation can often go hand in hand; patents, for example, offer protection over innovative ideas. Perhaps the law also helps further social innovation, through, for example, the benefits afforded to non-profits.

There might exist an unpopular argument that the law should not try to further innovation. Tom Kelley argues that customer feedback should not be the driving force behind business operations. He states: “Customers mean well—and they’re trying to be helpful—but it’s not their job to be visionaries.” (Kelley 27). Similarly, perhaps the law should not be too flexible. If it were ever-changing, it might actually do more harm than good, as it would no longer serve the benefits of predictability and notice. Perhaps there is a happy medium. The law should change to respond to systemic changes and reflect paradigm shifts in social norms, as well as be tweaked slightly to sharpen and perfect an existing law. The legal profession itself does not have to be internally, actively looking to make change—but, just as innovators believe “it’s critical to watch people in motion to fully understand a problem,” the legal profession should watch for trends in client needs (is there a repeat problem?) as well as trends in the law itself. (Kelley 49). The profession should, as Kelley puts it, “keep a good eye” for the “what’s” and “how’s” and “why’s” that come before them, and then make change accordingly. (Kelley 33).