Bettina Warburg, a blockchain researcher and entrepreneur, on the Day 2 keynote at Legalweek 2020. Photo: Carley Meiners/ALM.

Missed our Day 1 insights? Check out yesterday's post here.

Rhys Dipshan: Today, I got to do something I always look forward to at Legalweek: take my time walking through the vendor hall. I always try and make sure I have enough unscheduled time to spontaneously connect with companies of all shapes and sizes. And for good reason. Too often, I focus solely on Big Law segment and those well-known companies that cater to them. But there are other market segments out there with their own unique dynamics.

Just talking to some of the companies I'm less acquainted with in the exhibit hall, I realized that for those catering to the mid-market law firms, price point, customer service, and client relationships are often the biggest ways to differentiate from each other. Of course, this is true for companies catering to all market segments, including Big Law. But it takes on an added importance for those eyeing mid-market clients. The question is, will this allow enough wiggle room for today's and tomorrow's legal tech companies in an increasingly crowded marketplace?

Victoria Hudgins: The law industry may get a bad rep for being slow adopters of technology, but can you blame them? As noted by blockchain researcher Bettina Warburg during yesterday's plenary session, blockchain has a future in law, with some conditions.

Warburg noted blockchain can be leveraged for legal work, but if personally identifiable information (PII) data of EU citizens is collected, it would fall under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)'s scope. To remain GDPR compliant, blockchain pruning is the answer, Warburg said.

The remark reminded me that lawyers have to cross some legal threshold before utilizing technology, which could hinder their adoption of some tech. From defensibility to liability, attorneys can't lightly operate document automation, blockchain or other products in their practice.

Frank Ready: My favorite quote from Day 2 of Legalweek? "Business intelligence assumes that there is intelligence." That gem came out of the "Reimagining IT as a Business Asset" panel— and I'm happy to report that there is, in fact, valuable intelligence lurking inside firms, which have been gradually embracing data driven insights as part of their ongoing quest for efficiency.

Those efforts typically start in the IT department since that's where most of the requisite expertise calls home. But it's by no means easy. Data sets may be in rough shape or in some cases missing critical pieces. One tip? Start by connecting your IT staff with the finance department, where the related data tends to be in pretty good shape due to attorneys generally being sticklers about getting paid.

But even if some of the strictly logistical hurdles get taken out of the way, data-driven insights can still receive a less than enthusiastic response from attorneys or law firm leadership. Just remember this magic phrase: "If I can say, 'Well our clients want us to do this,' that's a pretty good way to get started," said Kermit Wallace, chief information officer at Day Pitney.

Zach Warren: Often, technology is framed as a competitive advantage for attracting lateral talent, or perhaps a way to improve simple quality of life for Millennial (and younger) attorneys breaking into the profession. But in the "Fortifying the IP War Chest with Patent Automation Tools" panel I moderated today got me thinking about a different question: Without technology, can today's firms and legal departments even attract any new talent at all?

Steve Gong, head of patent operation, technology and tactics at Google, made the case that there simply aren't enough patent lawyers out there. Technical knowledge is a perquisite to working in patent law, after all, and a lot of potential lawyers with technical savvy can often find more lucrative careers in engineering. The ones who do go into patent law, meanwhile, are left drafting and analyzing patent applications in a way that is straight out of the 1970's. For them, automation isn't just a value add, it's a must have—without it, they're not able to retain talent that signed up for something greater than wrote work.

I thought it was a prescient comment, and one that's applicable to a wider legal community. A lot of the conversation around automation says that it's becoming table stakes, but more from a business development standpoint that's driven by clients. In the future, though, it could very well be a matter of survival—the expectations of attorneys of the future will be that what can be easily automated, should be. And the firms and legal departments that are left behind won't just be losing efficiency, but potential brain power that could make things better.