Law Firms Recognize Automation's Importance, but They're Still Not Leveraging It
A survey of 300 global law firms found while automation is regarded as key to enhancing client services, it's still an elusive goal for many in legal.
September 25, 2018 at 10:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
While many of today's law firms believe that automation is vital for evaluating, attracting and serving clients, only a small number of them are actually leveraging such automation in-house, according to a survey of 300 global law firms by software technology company Intapp Inc.
Over 60 percent of surveyed firms said that automation around pricing and contact management was important to their efforts to win new clients and grow existing relationships, though only slightly under half leveraged automation for pricing, while only a third leveraged it for contact management.
Among those automating contact management and pricing, only about 40 percent said it reduced hours spent on those tasks. The majority of firms either saw no change, or did not know if there was a change in time spent.
Dan Tacone, president at Intapp, explained that automation around contact management usually takes the form of knowledge management databases that can automatically be updated with current and potential client information to keep attorneys informed. Likewise, automation around pricing refers to similar repositories that automatically collects pricing data, either externally from public databases or internally from the firm, to help attorneys determine how best to price certain matters.
To help with evaluating and onboarding new businesses, almost 70 percent of surveyed firms said automation around conflict clearance was vital, though only less than 45 percent implemented such automation in-house. Around a quarter of those automating conflicts clearance said it reduced time spent on the task, but a majority still saw no change or did not know what the impact was.
Likewise, while around two-thirds of surveyed firms also said that e-billing and time management were important to help meet client demands for transparency, only about 40 percent used e-billing, and 35 percent used management solutions. Under half said e-billing and time management were time-savers.
Tacone explained that though they find automation important, many firms aren't bringing it in-house because it takes time to change their old spending and work habits. “They haven't invested in technology as a strategic advantage before” and aren't used to thinking of using technology for client services, he said.
What's more, law firms that want to invest differently than in the past can find bringing automation in-house a difficult endeavor. “It's more than just the money. It's about making it successful, so firms have to look around and decide if they have the people, culture and strength to implement and lead change management,” he added.
Tacone also noted that law firms that already automate their client services do not see broad time-saving benefits because they are likely not deploying such automation on a broad enough scale. He used time management automation as an example: “Having a time management system where a lawyer keeps track of the time then once a month enters time into the system —there is bound to be something lost. The real gain is to use automation to capture that time right when the work is done.”
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 AllDechert 'Spark Tank' Competition Encourages Firmwide Innovation Focus
Akerman Opens Charlotte Office With Focus on Renewable Energy, Data Center Practices
4 minute readDLA Piper Sued by 2 Houston Companies, Alleging a 'Fake Lawyer' Represented Them in Argentina
3 minute readTrending Stories
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