Investing in AI? Strategy Principles Say Go Lightly and Later
From a strategy perspective, there is no rush for law firms to invest in AI, Hugh Simons argues.
May 18, 2018 at 12:24 PM
3 minute read
How strongly and quickly should law firms invest in artificial intelligence and other next generation technologies? Heavily and now, say the technology providers; lightly and later say the principles of strategy.
In strategy, we think of firms' offers to clients having two distinct elements: hygiene and differentiators. Hygiene are those elements that clients simply expect all firms to provide to the required level. Hence, these don't distinguish one potential provider from another. The term comes from how diners view hygiene in a restaurant. In law today, the term encapsulates things like billing systems, knowledge of the law, and smart associates—they're just table stakes.
Differentiators are, well, different. They are the elements of a firm's offer that clients perceive as being different across law firms and where such differences are of value to a client so that they incline a client to choose a particular firm or pay a higher price. As an aside, lawyers sometimes forget about the “and” in the forgoing definition. Having a unique culture, a single-tier partnership, and offices around the globe are all ways in which a firm may be different from others but they're not differentiators because they don't typically resolve the client's issue in a better way and thus are not perceived as of particular value. Differentiators also need to be sustainable. A differentiator that can be replicated by a rival tomorrow isn't much of a differentiator.
From a strategy perspective, the question about AI investment centers on whether or not AI can create sustainable differentiation for a law firm. I don't see how it can. The AI systems will be provided by third-party vendors selling to all firms. Anything special one law firm can offer clients today will be offered by all firms tomorrow. The window for being differentiated, if any, is short.
But what about 'first-mover advantage'? Well, lawyers should understand that when strategists talk of first-mover advantage they're typically being ironic (or worse). More specifically, in a context where the underlying technology is being provided by a third-party, open-to-all provider, there's no such advantage to be had because being first doesn't allow one to build up anything sustainable in the way of distinctiveness.
So, the approach for law firms should be to invest in AI at the same intensity and pace as they would invest in any other hygiene aspect of their offer. It's not nil, and it's not never, but there's little to be gained from leading the pack. Rather, stay with the pack and invest as much, as quickly (or as little, as slowly) as everyone else.
Hugh A. Simons, Ph.D. is formerly a senior partner at The Boston Consulting Group and former chief operating officer at Ropes & Gray. He welcomes readers' reactions at [email protected].
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 AllThe AI Pricing Dilemma: Where Client Value and Firm Profitability Intersect
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Section 1782 Practice Pointers From Recent Decisions
- 2Democratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
- 3Decision of the Day: Split Circuit Panel Bars Enforcement of Ivory Law's 'Display Restriction' on Antique Group Members
- 4Chiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
- 52 Years After Paul Plevin Merger, Quarles & Brady’s Revenue Up More than 13%
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