How Fenwick Labs' Growth Is a Microcosm of Legal Tech's Evolution
The evolution of Fenwick's tech incubators underscores how the legal tech future is one where platforms are literally given a voice, and law firms are as much innovators as end-users.
December 20, 2018 at 01:00 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
Like a growing number of law firms around the country, Fenwick & West isn't just looking to buy legal technology. If it sees a client or attorney need that can be solved by a technology not yet available, it creates its own proprietary platform or integrates among current technologies to create hybrid solutions. At the heart of this effort is the law firm's tech incubator, Fenwick Labs. With a staff of 10—eight of whom are application developers—the team is helping Fenwick push the bounds of legal innovation.
But while Fenwick Labs is unique to the firm, how it has evolved is part of a larger story. In fact, Fenwick Labs' experience is a microcosm of both the broader changes in the legal technology market over the past few years and the current trends defining its future.
Today's Fenwick Labs is not the same one that initially launched in 2008. When Mark Gerow, the firm's current director of application development and business process and leader of Fenwick Labs, started at Fenwick in 2005, he recalled that “cutting edge” technology meant client extranets.
A decade ago, Fenwick Labs focused on primarily developing these extranets. But these days, the lab's attention is elsewhere. “I would say the transition has been from creating and supporting platforms to present data to creating active process-based platforms that support our attorneys and our clients in the legal process,” Gerow said.
If that all sounds familiar, it should. Legal process and workflow improvement has been the core driver of recent legal technology development and adoption over the past few years. And there is a good reason why: The market is demanding it.
Many legal departments are facing stagnant or shrinking budgets and have looked to workflow and process automation tools as a way to elicit savings, as well as enable them to onboard more work themselves.
And while legal departments have tightened their spending, they are also demanding more out of their law firms, putting even more pressure on firms to streamline their operations as well. It's a symptom of a modern economy where companies are bigger, change is happening faster, and there is less time to deliberate before making a decision.
“The demands on our lawyers are incredible,” said Camille Reynolds, senior director of knowledge and innovation delivery at Fenwick.
“Our former chair liked to tell the story where 15, 20 years ago, you would get a phone call from a client and it would be a $1 million question and you'd have a week to answer it,” she said. “Now they get a call and it might be a $20 million question that might impact their business in a much bigger way and you have five minutes to answer it.”
To reach a new level of efficiency required by today's clients, Fenwick, like a host of other law firms, is turning to artificial intelligence (AI). In early 2017, the firm drew up plans to create an AI-powered knowledge management platform to give its attorneys quick access to the actionable information they needed to better serve clients.
The AI assistant platform, deemed “Fenni,” was launched firmwide in the third quarter of 2018. But it differs from other knowledge systems in one key way: It runs on the smart speaker platform Google Home, essentially allowing attorneys to ask and receive information via voice.
Gerow explained that Fenni, which pulls answers from a host of firm databases, including its financial, CRM and HR systems, “is getting used across the board [to ask about] everything from billing rates to client procedures to where can I find my paycheck.”
While using smart speaker-powered voice assistants for legal tech purposes is relatively novel, it is not entirely groundbreaking. Over the past two years, a growing amount of legal tech developers have been pushing the bounds of this new tech frontier.
Workflow automation provider ThinkSmart and knowledge management solution provider Onna, for example, integrated knowledge repository systems with smart speaker Amazon Echo in 2017. The same year also saw Thomson Reuters release an Amazon Echo application called The Workspace Assistant, which allows for time entry via voice. Startup Tell Tali also launched around the same time as a competing voice-powered time entry automation platform.
Most, if not all, of the first legal tech voice platforms integrated with Amazon Echo because it was the most advanced smart speaker on the market. But others, such as Google Home and Microsoft Cortana, have evolved to the point where they too are potential engines for the legal tech development, as evidenced by Fenwick's own development.
That Fenwick is one of the players pushing the bounds of legal tech should not entirely come as a surprise. While such innovation was once solely the purview of legal tech companies, a growing number of law firms have stepped off the sidelines to become full-fledged legal tech developers in recent years.
In April 2018, for example, Reed Smith launched its own subsidiary technology group, GravityStack, through which it creates and licenses technology products and offers managed services to clients. Other firms are developing technology internally to better meet their client needs, such as Perkins Coie and Robins Kaplan, which recently developed patent management platforms. What's more, firms such as Dentons and the U.K.-based TLT and Slaughter and May are investing directly in legal tech companies, aiming to steer their development and share in their success.
So while some firms can boast they were ahead of the curve, it's getting harder to say they are the only game in town. And there's good reason for that. Firms see their proprietary technology as a key differentiator, something that separates them from other firms and gives them a unique competitive edge.
“I do think there is a difference in firms who have the bench, who could build if they chose to do so versus firms who have no options but to go to the market and buy what everyone else has to buy,” Gerow said.
Legal tech, therefore, is becoming an integral part of law firm business. And now more than ever, law firms have a say in how it evolves.
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 AllTrump and Latin America: Lawyers Brace for US's Hardline Approach to Region
BCLP Exploring Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
Anticipating a New Era of 'Extreme Vetting,' Big Law Immigration Attys Prep for Demand Surge
6 minute readDemocratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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