Legal Departments Need to Be Wary of the Hype Around Cloud Computing
Technology evaluations show mixed results.
September 19, 2010 at 08:00 PM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Many Corporate IT and legal departments are afflicted with a new condition: clouditis. Clouditis is an irrational exuberance with all technologies related to cloud computing. There's quite a bit of clouditis going around, and legal and IT groups need to be careful that it does not drive bad business decisions.
Cloud computing, one of the few corporate IT trends to earn “cool” status in many years, has been getting significant attention lately. At its simplest level, cloud computing refers to having your data or applications hosted outside your data center (that nebulous someplace else is the “cloud”). These data and applications are then accessed via the internet. Proponents of cloud computing argue that this model provides better service levels, scalability, lower costs and better sharing of information. Cloud computing typically trades lower up-front capital expenditures for larger, ongoing operational expenses. Many newer legal applications from e-mail archiving to litigation management systems are cloud based. And if you have not already noticed, a lot of IT folks are gaga over cloud computing.
Cloud computing is actually a throwback. Starting in the 1960s many organizations accessed their computer applications from shared, remotely managed computer systems in a model called time-sharing. In the 1970s most companies moved to purchasing their own large “mainframe” computers and housing these systems within their own data centers. In the late 1980s these mainframes began to give way to a more distributed computing model called client server, where applications ran both on servers and desktops. Then at the beginning of this century companies started moving away from client server to hosting applications on large, centralized servers accessed with light weight (or thin) clients, typically browsers. Now in the latest technology wave is to move these large servers out of the data center into the cloud, in a model somewhat similar to time-sharing. The future is moving back to the past.
We have helped a number of organizations evaluate technology products for the legal department. Often these evaluations include cloud or cloud-oriented products. Often the first concern raised over cloud computing is data security. While security does need to be addressed, it often gets trumped by a bigger consideration, product maturity. Most on-premise litigation management and archiving tools are second or third generation products, whereas nearly all cloud-based tools are first generation, often with more limited functionality. While the cloud products will evolve in functionality over the next three years, companies need to ask themselves if this limited functionality will suffice in the near term. The other important area to validate is total cost of ownership for all users over say, a three-year period.
What have we found in our product evaluations? Sometimes total cost of ownership of a cloud-based e-mail archiving product, for example, is cheaper. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes cloud-based litigation management systems provide the right level of functionality, sometimes not. Sometimes cloud products are easier to deploy and manage, and other times not. We see tremendous variance.
In own company, Contoural, for example, some of our internal corporate applications are cloud-based. In other areas where we need strict segregation of customer information we avoid the cloud. We take it on an application-by-application basis.
Adopting cloud computing because it brings better business benefits is good. Adopting cloud computing just because it is cloud computing – without understanding whether it brings real business benefit – is not necessarily good. When and if any legal-oriented technologies – including cloud based offerings – are the right choice depends on a number of factors, including size, complexity, litigation profile, compliance requirements, employee culture, etc. The lesson here is that legal departments need to speak up and take an active role in the selection of legal-oriented technology. These decisions need to be driven by business needs and benefits. Legal and IT should articulate their business and functional requirements, and then match these against the proposed products. Keep your decisions well-grounded, and don't let technology euphoria get you lost in the clouds.
Read Mark Diamond's previous column. Read Mark Diamond's next column.
Many Corporate IT and legal departments are afflicted with a new condition: clouditis. Clouditis is an irrational exuberance with all technologies related to cloud computing. There's quite a bit of clouditis going around, and legal and IT groups need to be careful that it does not drive bad business decisions.
Cloud computing, one of the few corporate IT trends to earn “cool” status in many years, has been getting significant attention lately. At its simplest level, cloud computing refers to having your data or applications hosted outside your data center (that nebulous someplace else is the “cloud”). These data and applications are then accessed via the internet. Proponents of cloud computing argue that this model provides better service levels, scalability, lower costs and better sharing of information. Cloud computing typically trades lower up-front capital expenditures for larger, ongoing operational expenses. Many newer legal applications from e-mail archiving to litigation management systems are cloud based. And if you have not already noticed, a lot of IT folks are gaga over cloud computing.
Cloud computing is actually a throwback. Starting in the 1960s many organizations accessed their computer applications from shared, remotely managed computer systems in a model called time-sharing. In the 1970s most companies moved to purchasing their own large “mainframe” computers and housing these systems within their own data centers. In the late 1980s these mainframes began to give way to a more distributed computing model called client server, where applications ran both on servers and desktops. Then at the beginning of this century companies started moving away from client server to hosting applications on large, centralized servers accessed with light weight (or thin) clients, typically browsers. Now in the latest technology wave is to move these large servers out of the data center into the cloud, in a model somewhat similar to time-sharing. The future is moving back to the past.
We have helped a number of organizations evaluate technology products for the legal department. Often these evaluations include cloud or cloud-oriented products. Often the first concern raised over cloud computing is data security. While security does need to be addressed, it often gets trumped by a bigger consideration, product maturity. Most on-premise litigation management and archiving tools are second or third generation products, whereas nearly all cloud-based tools are first generation, often with more limited functionality. While the cloud products will evolve in functionality over the next three years, companies need to ask themselves if this limited functionality will suffice in the near term. The other important area to validate is total cost of ownership for all users over say, a three-year period.
What have we found in our product evaluations? Sometimes total cost of ownership of a cloud-based e-mail archiving product, for example, is cheaper. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes cloud-based litigation management systems provide the right level of functionality, sometimes not. Sometimes cloud products are easier to deploy and manage, and other times not. We see tremendous variance.
In own company, Contoural, for example, some of our internal corporate applications are cloud-based. In other areas where we need strict segregation of customer information we avoid the cloud. We take it on an application-by-application basis.
Adopting cloud computing because it brings better business benefits is good. Adopting cloud computing just because it is cloud computing – without understanding whether it brings real business benefit – is not necessarily good. When and if any legal-oriented technologies – including cloud based offerings – are the right choice depends on a number of factors, including size, complexity, litigation profile, compliance requirements, employee culture, etc. The lesson here is that legal departments need to speak up and take an active role in the selection of legal-oriented technology. These decisions need to be driven by business needs and benefits. Legal and IT should articulate their business and functional requirements, and then match these against the proposed products. Keep your decisions well-grounded, and don't let technology euphoria get you lost in the clouds.
Read Mark Diamond's previous column. Read Mark Diamond's next column.
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
© 2025 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 AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
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