Is the Cloud Cheaper? For Law Firms, It's Difficult to Say
Cloud computing may be less costly than using on-premises technology in some cases, but law firms are struggling to offset the costs of ongoing cloud usage—or to even place a number on those savings.
October 01, 2019 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
Cloud service providers still haven't made the legal industry a true believer in the cloud's cost-efficiencies just yet, according to the results of the 2019 LTN Law Firm Tech Survey.
While lawyers are beginning to embrace the cloud, 58% of firms polled in the survey, which gauges top U.S. law firms' technology opinions and usage, said their biggest cloud challenge is the cloud's cost savings not being great enough.
Miles & Stockbridge IT chief information officer Kenneth Adams said his firm has used the cloud for roughly five years, and praised the cloud's efficiency and cost-effectiveness, but he still hasn't seen similar cost savings from a cloud-based email platform yet. "We still have an in-house email [system] because the cost isn't worth it going to Office 365 for email. It's so cost-prohibitive," he said.
To be sure, different cloud platforms will elicit different levels of savings. Law firms and legal tech consultants said determining which legal tech platform is most cost-effective to move to the cloud includes evaluating how frequently the platform will be used and if the provider's pricing model is appropriate to their usage.
Volpe and Koenig shareholder Robert Leonard said his firm examined and decided to migrate its document management and docketing system to the cloud, but not other on-premises technology because those platforms provided features and pricing that made it worth it.
"It's sort of like a capital expenditure analysis," he explained. "Moving to the cloud, it's a subscription, monthly or yearly payment model per user versus if you build your own server or maintain your own server yourself, then you have a large upfront cost. But then you have in some instances less subscription-based cost. It's not 100% cut-and-dried."
HBR Consulting technology executive Matt Coatney said law firms that constantly use an on-premises software usually decide not to switch to a cloud-based alternative because then they're faced with a per-data usage pricing model. Instead, more firms are most likely to leverage the cloud for backup storage because it doesn't incur computational costs, he said.
However, legal technology consultant and Dennis Kennedy Advisory Services president Dennis Kennedy argued law firms aren't accurately measuring the direct and indirect expenses of the cloud.
"What I found is that people don't consider all the costs or they don't factor in the inconveniences and problems," Kennedy said. "They either don't give it a cost or they don't look at the savings they get in the whole context."
He added, "If you don't assess a cost or value on peoples' time, employee time and convenience, I think that skews your calculations. And also, one of the big benefits of cloud tools is to capture data and analyze data, and I don't think legacy software allows you the same opportunity to look at data for efficiencies and patterns."
As cloud computing platforms multiply, cloud service providers, including Microsoft, are actively pushing clients such as law firms to their cloud-based products. However, Coatney and Leonard both acknowledged law firms will wait to see how other firms adapt before following.
"Software companies are definitely moving to cloud-based solutions but we are not necessarily early adopters, we don't want to be the guinea pig with our clients' data and risking our ability to provide services," Leonard said. "We go for the tried and true, so no, we don't feel pressured to adopt software that only exists on the cloud."
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 AllContract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readJudge Rejects Meta’s Plea to Send FTC Antitrust Suit to Trash Heap
How Dana Rao Built a 'Yes' Culture at Adobe and Why He Walked Away
Keker Secures Defense Win for EDA Software Company Real Intent in Synopsys Copyright Infringement Case
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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