Legal Artificial Intelligence Vendors On the Rise, Report Says
Options abound for legal departments attempting to integrate more artificial intelligence into their work.
May 14, 2018 at 04:41 PM
3 minute read
Photo: agsandrew/Shutterstock.com
There has been a boom in the number of vendors who sell artificial intelligence products to legal departments—making for a more competitive market and increasing vendor options for in-house counsel, according to a buyer's guide for legal technology published by LawGeex on Monday.
“The In-House Counsel's Legal Tech Buyer's Guide 2018″ shows there has been a 60 percent increase in AI vendors since 2017. Last year, the LawGeex buyer's guide counted 40 vendors creating AI for in-house legal departments; and this year the number has risen to 66.
The rise in vendors appears to have gone up along with the need for AI in the in-house market. According to the guide, 71 percent of law departments indicated that they need an increase in productivity but need it without hiring additional (human) workers.
“Any legal tech that saves an attorney time through increased efficiency is inherently valuable and attorneys—more than almost any profession—know the value of time,” Roberto Facundus, senior vice president of legal and business affairs at Tongal Inc., said in the guide.
Shmuli Goldberg, the vice president of marketing at LawGeex, told Corporate Counsel that more in-house counsel are starting to trust AI technologies.
He said legal departments are continually being asked to do more with less. AI, he said, allows lawyers to do less grunt work and focus on more important tasks. Goldberg said that while there is still some hesitation to use AI, many in-house teams have adopted it with the understanding that it will not replace attorneys, which was a fear when the technology was first introduced.
“It's not going to make decisions on behalf of the legal team,” Goldberg said, comparing AI tools to auto-pilot technology. “No auto-pilot is ever going to replace the pilot.”
Goldberg said that he does not believe that the growing market for AI will make the technology more affordable. However, he did say it means existing vendors in this space will have to step up their game.
“The market will become competitive. It's going to eventually lead to better product and services in the market,” Goldberg said.
AI is being used for nearly everything from drafting legal documents to dealing with intellectual property. There are numerous vendors working on providing solutions around many of these tasks, according to the guide, but there are more AI vendors for e-discovery and legal research than anything else.
The guide recommends that those interested in buying legal technology in general first prioritize what they need in their departments, then establish what they already have. Then, it said, they should define the goals and requirements of what they need from their legal tech, pick the solution and then plan for what can go wrong and for “disappointments along the way.”
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 AllA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Corporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
11 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