TAPE # and time code

Audio

B29

Gordon MacLeod

06:00:57:11

06:01:22:22

[We would like you to introduce yourself and just give us a little history.]

I’m Gordon MacLeod. I’m a retired attorney. I practiced in Buffalo for 42 years and for the last 3 years, I have spending all of my time doing things that were formally my hobbies. I have been designing toys and games and writing articles for various publications.

06:01:23:11

06:01:43:28

[When did you start coming to CPSI?]

About 1956. I went to school with Alex Osborne’s son. He introduced me to his father. I had an idea that his father might be interested in and he was and he paid for some patent applications and suggested that since that was my interest I might join the institute and I have been coming ever since.

06:01:44:14

06:02:26:25

[What did you take from the creative process back into your practice as an attorney?] 

Well, I think it’s more of an open-mindedness that many attorneys don’t have. For example, if a client comes to you and asks if something can be done legally. If you simply say no, that’s not a good idea, but if you say, we can’t do it that way but what do you want to accomplish and let’s think of ways you can accomplish that. I think it just broadening the idea of trying to find various ways of doing things and also I think an important thing is problem definition. To make sure you have exactly what the problem is before you start trying to solve it, and these are all things taught here at the institute.

06:02:27:18

06:03:24:18

[Let’s go back to problem definition, as an attorney when a client first walks in the door, how do you define the problem?]

Well, let me give you one example…we represented a bank and somebody from the bank came up and said, we had an account that has A, B and C’s name on it, B and C are having an argument, what kind of a court order can we get to have C to be forced to sign the withdrawal slip. So we redefined the problem as, why do we want to have the court order, the problem is how do we get this account released, we figured out a way to get the parties that they should agree, it was in their best interest. And we solved it that way. I think it’s just saying what would you like to accomplish and then the client says how he would like to accomplish it, and tell him whether that is the best way to do it or figure other ways to do it.

06:03:26:02

06:04:04:24

[What other aspects of the creative process had you taken into your practice as an attorney?]

I think really its just simply a basic attitude of not being close-minded. I think one of the problems with lawyers is that they put a great emphasis on judgment which is very important, but on the other hand, its also, just as in advertising if you come up with 50 ideas its better then 10, in law if there only 6 ways to do it, and you come up with 6, its better the coming up with only one or two. It’s just the general idea of coming up with various, multiple ideas. Rather then going one particular route.

06:04:12:11

06:05:01:12

[Complete the following sentence; problem solving is important for an attorney to do because…]

Problem solving is really what an attorney does for a living. Creative problem solving is the sign of a good attorney, so I think its basically the essence of it. The better ways you can figure out, and the more varied techniques you can use to solve problems, the better attorney you’re going to be. Wills was my specialty for example and I think of one of the important aspects of a good will, a trust agreement is thinking of every conceivable possibility that could happen in covering it, and not leaving anything open to chance, and I think this is the type of creative thinking that is important in life.

06:05:02:19

06:05:38:01

[Have you sent other attorneys here to CPSI or do you suggest that attorneys attend such a conference?]

When I first met Alex Osborn, he suggested that I try to develop a course on Creative Problem Solving for lawyers which I did and we gave that at the University of Buffalo and many of the lawyers who took that course have said it was really important to them, we modified it to some extent for lawyers, but it was basically the Creative Problem Solving Process and I think many of them have attended the institute.

06:05:08:28

06:06:15:16

[In the firm that you were affiliated with, did you use teams a lot…?]

In a large case, it was normally the thing to do to have 2 or 3 lawyers on a case,. There was a lot of interaction, exchange of ideas on to solve the problems and what do to but I think mostly it was, people have the idea that Creative Problem Solving is necessarily a group effort, but I think the principals can be applied just as well for thinking on your own, which is what I think most lawyers do.

06:06:16:20

06:06:45:13

[Law is thought of as being a relatively restricted profession…there’s not a whole lot of leeway in how you do things?]

Well, that’s true and I think, most lawyers, that’s why you have probably fewer lawyers than any other profession attending the institute, because they put a great emphasis on judgment and not on creativity, but I think that it is important to the practice of law to be creative.

06:06:46:00

06:07:44:05

[Complete this sentence…lawyers should engage in the creative process because…]

Lawyers should attend CPSI or engage in the creative process because as I said the more ideas that you come up with for solving a particular legal problem, more likely that you are to get the one that satisfies the client, least expensive and the most effective.

Lawyers have a tendency to, I think, “pooh-poohing” the idea of coming up with wild ideas, they don’t realize that the problem solving process does not eliminate judgment, it simply postpones it until you have a chance to let the imagination do its work. There is no minimization of judgment which is what lawyers kind of pride themselves in, on being good at judgment.

06:07:44:05

06:08:16:14

[How would you suggest that law schools incorporate the creative process?]

I think it would probably be a good idea to have a creative problem solving course in the first or second year of law school and that’s what many of the students who were in my course at the law school suggested it should be made part of the law school curriculum. It was never followed up because the dean changed and people lost interest, but the course itself seemed to go over quite well.

06:29:00:01

06:09:02:03

[Take #2]

Law schools ought to consider doing a creative problem solving course because too many lawyers restrict themselves to doing things the same ways that they have always done them, precedent is important, was it ever done this way, what do our forms say, we can’t change our forms because they have been done this way for generations, and I think lawyers need to look at things in new ways and need to come up different ways of doing things, that are going to make their work with their client more effective.

06:09:26:28

06:10:38:15

[How did you deal with your client using the creative process to get to the fundamental issues that they wanted in their wills?]

Many clients feel that the tax situation is the most important aspect of wills, they want to save taxes, nobody wants to pay the state taxes, so we start out by saying what would you like to do, if you had no consideration of taxes were, what would you like to do, and then we’ll find out the best ways to do it with the minimum of taxes and I think interestingly enough, the complexity of the tax code is caused by creativity of lawyers. Congress passes a statute, lawyers think of all kinds of ways to get around it, they have to amend the statute, to think of more ways to get around it and pretty soon it becomes extremely complicated - so I think that is one bad effect of creativity. Maybe, some lawyers have too much creativity and cause the statutes to become too complicated.

06:10:50:15

06:11:52:26

[Could you talk to us a little bit about acceptance finding?]

Yes, I think that, first of all, coming up with lots of wild ideas is fun, the idea finding process is a lot of fun, narrowing them down, developing criteria, for seeing whether they are good ideas is hard work, getting them accepted is even harder work and I think at the institute recently, there’s been much more emphasis than there used to be on not only coming up with ideas, but narrowing them down to ones that are most feasible, and also figuring out the best ways to get those ideas accepted by the people who have to accept them if we are going to put them into practice. I think that judgment, the criteria, finding out what are the ideas that are likely to work, those aspects are just as important as the idea-finding, the creative part of it. Which as I said is more fun, but it has to be nailed down. Especially from a lawyers point of view.