Reality Check: It's Not About Adopting AI, It's About Solving Problems
A Legalweek panel highlighted how companies that expect to wipe out all inefficiencies or challenges with AI are sadly mistaken.
February 06, 2020 at 12:36 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
Conversations regarding AI-backed legal tech still need a reality check in terms of expectations and pricing, according to a panel held Wednesday at Legalweek 2020 in New York .
During the "Memo to LegalTech Founders: Powerpoints Don't Create AI—Data Scientists Do!" session, panelist and Littler Mendelson chief data analytics officer Aaron Crews noted that c-suite's lofty ideas regarding AI and vendors' usage of the buzzword leads to unreachable expectations.
"At the vendor level there's a lot of market speak about AI and in the c-suite there's conversations that AI will make the company go faster," he said. But he added that those tasked with implementing such technology and meeting the c-suite's goals are left with the reality that a single AI-powered tool can't solve large, encompassing challenges.
"I think there is a reality around adoption that is coming quickly. You'll see a shift to: Here's a very specific pain point and we have a very specific solution," Crews said.
Evaluating a single challenge and determining a tech solution's downstream ROI and cost will lead to faster tech adoption, Crews argued.
For his part, Liberty Mutual Insurance director of innovation Jeff Marple said utilizing a certain quota of tech tools isn't his legal department's goal. Instead, his legal department is looking to use technology to cut spend and resolve other challenges.
To be sure, Clark Hill CIO Joan Holman said she hasn't heard a specific demand for tech from corporate clients per se. Rather, clients want to minimize spend and improve strategies, which leads to tech usage by the firm, she explained.
As law firms turn to tech tools to help deliver the services clients demand, Blickstein Group principal Brad Blickstein noted that greater efficiency from AI could lead to a dip in the billable hour. Simply, "If your tool does an hour's worth of work for two minutes you can't just bill for two minutes," he said.
Instead, law firms need to figure out how to commercialize their assistance, through subscriptions, price per unit or by other measures, Blickstein explained.
"The real value is for firms to identify tools that solve problems for their clients, implement those tools to help clients and roll out those tools," he said.
TE legal operations business performance senior manager James Michalowicz noted alternative legal service providers are already accustomed to pricing by document, contract, witness preparation, depositions and other services provided. He said it's a pricing model more law firms should become familiar with.
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 All'The Court Will Take Action': Judge Upbraids Combative Rudy Giuliani During Outburst at Hearing
Trump’s DOE Pick Could Spell Trouble for Title IX Enforcement, Higher Ed Funding
4 minute readConsumer Cleared to Proceed With Claims Against CVS 'Non-Drowsy' Medication, Judge Says
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 2GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 3Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
- 4Warner Bros. Accused of Misleading Investors on NBA Talks
- 5FTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
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