More Than a 'Magical Automation Answer': Former Microsoft AGC on Her Move to LawGeex
Lucy Bassli wants the legal industry to understand that innovation doesn't just happen with the click of a button. And she's joining a contract review provider to get this message across.
February 20, 2018 at 11:00 AM
5 minute read
As the former assistant general counsel of legal operations and contracting at Microsoft, Lucy Bassli knows change doesn't come easy. It doesn't happen with some cutting-edge technology, or novel tool. Instead, it occurs as much change does, through building upon small steps and realigning how a legal office works and thinks.
Since she has left Microsoft, Bassli, whose accomplishments included overhauling Microsoft's contract processes, has strove to promote this lesson in midst of a frenzy of excitement over legal technology. She launched her own law firm and consultancy InnoLegal Services, for example, and helps prepare courses at Suffolk University Law School's “Legal Innovation & Technology” online certificate program.
But now Bassli is looking to help ground legal's enthusiasm for technology through a legal technology company itself, as the new chief legal strategist at contract review solution provider LawGeex. Legaltech News caught up with Bassli to discuss the reasons behind her recent move, what she hopes to accomplish, and what she thinks works and doesn't work in modern legal technology.
Legaltech News: You once noted that “innovation does not equal automation,” but instead encompasses things like resource allocation and creating new processes. Why did you opt to join a legal tech company focused on automating contract processes?
Lucy Bassli: Innovation is not just about automation. But of course, automation does create great opportunities. And as long as everyone is approaching innovation from a holistic perspective and understanding there isn't just a magical automation answer, but that they need to take the time to understand all of their processes and other resources, then that is the best case for success for truly innovating.
But tech plays a very important role in innovation.
There are a lot of technology solutions out in the market today, and it was important to me to work with one that I felt I can really stand behind, and that fits into my holistic view of innovation. And LawGeex stood out as a player that is actually working within the contract review process.
What do you hope to accomplish as chief legal strategist at LawGeex?
I hope to be able to inspire a lot of companies who LawGeex plans to engage and is already engaging with to think of holistic solutions and think about the best way to implement the technology within the totality of their resources, both human and technological.
How will you continue on at InnoLegal Services given your new role at LawGeex?
My role with LawGeex is not a full-time role; I am going to be spitting my time. I hope to have a pretty even split with the time I can spend with LawGeex and the time I can spend with my direct clients.
What is the biggest culture change moving from in-house to a legal technology company?
I think the biggest culture change is of course the speed and probably the flexibility, and those are both exciting for me. They are part of what I'm looking forward to. There is now a lot of fluidity and flexibility in decision-making and an amazing of sense of urgency.
What do you believe most legal tech platforms today get wrong?
I think the biggest concern that I have for a lot of legal tech platforms is the lack of the understanding of the legal domain and the legal experience—the subject matter expertise that comes with practicing law and living in the day-to-day life of an attorney whose job a lot of these legal technologies are trying to enhance, enable or impact in a positive way.
Another big failure I have seen is selling technology to a company that just wasn't ready. A good technology provider will either spend the time helping their client get ready, direct them to someone to who can help them, or frankly just say it's not the right time to implement such technology.
What do they get right?
What they are getting right is the timing. There is an interest and thirst right now in legal to be innovative, so legal tech companies are certainly hitting the market at the right time, and this is the time when there is enough interest but also ripe opportunity to differentiate.
Given legal's reputation for being a slow-moving field, how much time will widespread innovation take?
I think that those of us that are in in my position or my situation, we are all kind of buckled in for a longer journey. I didn't think this would be a fast thing.
I think what we will start seeing are changes that are made at the macro level within firms and within legal departments that will start forming a bit of a broader movement. I don't imagine a big approach that somehow five years from now there will be a magical transformation. I think it will be very grassroots, with great examples of this happening, and others following those examples. That's the goal: You have to show the wins, and each one takes time.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250