Opinions are pretty much the stock and trade of lawyers, but when it comes to technology, there's a good chance developers aren't receiving the kind of feedback that helps products evolve or improve.

And even when that input is provided, there's no guarantee that it will be particularly insightful. Mike Boland, Clark Hill's e-discovery director, says attorneys can be vague about what they are looking for from a tech solution. "[They'll say], 'I feel like this tool should be easier to use.' And it's like, OK, well what would make it easier?"

The conversation doesn't even always get that far. After all, law firm attorneys can be reluctant to engage in conversations that don't result in billable hours, or to afford tech providers access that could jeopardize client secrets. Unencumbered by those restraints, their corporate legal counterparts may have freer rein to develop a closer relationship with tech providers—but probably not close enough.

The irregularity and hastiness with which feedback continues to be provided has left product developers hungry for insights into the legal mind. Some players in the field are discovering that the most expedient solution is to bring lawyers into their tech companies, infusing their design endeavors with a blend of legal acumen and technical know-how that may ultimately prove critical to the next generation of legal tools.

More Than Words Can Say

It's difficult to imagine that people who can stare down a judge and a jury of their peers are suddenly at loss for words when placed in front of their friendly neighborhood tech developer. But Andrew Whelan, vice president and law firm segment leader for CT Corp. at Wolters Kluwer, does not think that a sudden bout of shyness is behind the miscommunication problem here. "I think attorneys are actually very good at describing the problem they have and how they would like to solve it," he says.

So are things just getting lost in translation? Camden Hillas, associate general counsel for the process management and workflow automation company Nintex, thinks it's possible. After all, legalese and tech-speak are two entirely different dialects, and that vocabulary gap can make for a steep learning curve.

For example, Hillas has been in the position of having to explain how Nintex's cloud-based technology works during negotiations with a potential client's legal counsel. "That's not a realm that lawyers have a ton of experience with," she says. "They may have anecdotal experience, but they don't necessarily know what that means for their requirements as a company or a firm."

While lawyers may not know a gigabyte from a gigawatt, engineers at legal tech companies, who come in daily contact with legal terminology in one form or another, are typically able to scale the language barrier.

Whelan thinks that, like anyone who regularly spends time in a foreign land, these developers are likely to pick up enough terminology to get by in conversation.

But while they may be familiar with legal terms, Whelan says context is important, especially understanding where the solution they are building fits into the larger business of law as a whole. That kind of information can be difficult to glean from a single piece of feedback.

"If you don't understand the end goal, it's very hard to know if the way you solve [a problem] with technology is actually helpful," Whelan says. "You might create more problems."

Clark Hill's Boland refers to that concept as a "skillset barrier." He notes that while vendors typically have project managers who will oversee much of the work being done with a firm, that immersion only runs so deep. "They don't have that added component of being part of the firm, having that client's best interest at heart and being ingrained with the case team," Boland says. "You get a lot of punching tickets, if that makes sense."

Flies on the Wall

Tech developers looking to get a better sense of the big picture unfolding at law firms may have their work cut out for them. While the most beneficial solution from a product development standpoint would see engineers standing over a lawyer's shoulder as they went about their daily business, Whelan notes this is not a popular approach with law firms due to client confidentiality concerns.

So how can one best win over the trust of a world-weary attorney? It helps to be one.

Tech companies that operate as law firm subsidiaries have a significant advantage when it comes to product iteration and development, simply because they have ready access to an entire office full of potential consumers.

Tomu Johnson, CEO of Parson Behle & Latimer's tech subsidiary Parsons Behle Lab, says it's easy for him to get into a room and watch an attorney engage with a product, whereas an outsider might struggle. He also has the benefit of being able to approach the process as just another lawyer commiserating over inefficiencies, rather than as a developer probing for insights. "I can switch that hat instantly," Johnson says,

Fortunately for tech developers without a legal degree, the corporate setting can be slightly more forgiving than the average law firm. Matt Kivlin, senior director of core solutions, product management for Wolters Kluwer ELM Solutions, says corporate legal teams are generally very open to being observed by tech companies.

Association of Corporate Counsel vice president and chief legal officer Susanna McDonald says the organization likes to view its relationships with outside providers as partnerships. In the past, she's invited the ACC's desktop support provider into the office to observe firsthand how her team functions.

"I talk about a partnership so that they understand that their engagement with me is just as much about how I do my overall business. It's not just about that one machine they are working with," McDonald says.

Thrown for a Feedback Loop

Of course, legal tech engineers can only spend so many of their working hours standing next to the water cooler at a law firm or legal department. But since feedback remains a critical part of technology's evolutionary process, is it happening as often as it needs to be?

Clark Hill is in the process of sending out a survey to the 300 attorneys who have made use of its e-discovery services, and in the near future it will be initiating a program that solicits feedback from the applicable personnel every time a case is closed.

Boland says he hasn't noticed similar efforts from the vendors the firm uses. He attributes some of that to the fast-paced nature of the legal business, where, once a case is closed, everyone almost immediately moves on to the next project.

For his part, Whelan says that Wolters Kluwer conducts what he calls "contextual interviews" with customers. Questions are often focused around understanding the larger business problem that a law firm or legal department is trying to address, how a given solution will ultimately help an attorney's client, and if the process of getting there can be made easier.

However, persuading busy attorneys to engage substantively with a feedback process can be a challenge since the dividends aren't immediately evident to a firm or legal department's bottom line.

Johnson, of Parsons Behle Lab, says law firm attorneys who experience an issue with a product are likely to toss it into the hands of an assistant. Getting lawyers to sit down for an in-depth product review meeting is easier said than done.

"If they're going to spend an hour doing something, it's going to be to billed rather than spending time helping somebody else out with their product. There's not enough economic incentive for them to lose the billable hour," Johnson says.

Whelan makes a similar observation, but notes corporate legal departments might have more time to either participate in advisory boards or engage in the kinds of intensive discussions required to generate substantive feedback.

Hillas, for example, says she tries to communicate with her solutions providers "on a fairly regular basis," even if the solutions in question originated somewhere within the company. "I do think it's important I give that feedback and create more of this loop that creates solutions that really address what the legal community is looking for," Hillas says.

Tech developers who do succeed in obtaining feedback from a lawyer would do well to take it seriously or risk losing a source—or worse, a customer.

McDonald says the ACC pays attention to how vendors implement feedback. "It's incredibly important and definitely makes a difference come [contract] renewal."

Lawyer in the House

One sure-fire way for tech companies to bring lawyers and their insights to the table more regularly is to put them on the payroll.

"I think it's one of the reasons we see attorneys either getting hired [by] or starting legal tech companies, because they have some of the insights already in their head and no other attorney is slowing down to help anybody else see the problem," Whelan says.

Johnson foresees a future where tech companies make it a regular practice to have at least one lawyer on hand to not only provide valuable insights, but also unlock some previously closed doors. "That attorney will have connections to attorneys throughout the nation," Johnson says. "Because attorneys like talking to people from their tribe."

Meanwhile, Hillas herself has already fulfilled an unofficial but similar function in her role at Nintex, providing an immediate source of feedback for any products geared toward the legal industry. As an example, she points to a contract lifecycle management tool that the company was developing. "I was able to get in and say, 'Well, that will be important,' or 'that's not going to really address our issue,' or 'lawyers don't really think about that as a particularly relevant piece of what we do,'" Hillas says.

But communication is a two-way street, and while tech providers may be getting a better handle on lawyers, attorneys may still have a lot to learn about tech providers. Boland, from Clark Hill, believes that while the crop of young lawyers making their way up the ranks may be more fluent in new technologies, he's not counting on them improving the feedback loop without the right channels in place first.

Boland believes that firms need to institute a standard practice for collecting feedback from lawyers each time a case is closed. But it's a measure that has yet to catch on within the legal community.

"It's been thought of, but I don't see it being implemented widely," he says.

Email: [email protected]