Attention Legal Industry Decision-Makers: Before You Spend on Legal Tech, Read This
Monica Zent lists six steps that can limit the odds of overspending or buying the wrong technology for legal departments and law firms.
July 23, 2018 at 12:54 PM
3 minute read
Shutterstock.com. survey
- Identify where your needs exist. The first order of business is to conduct a needs assessment. The purpose of this is to uncover where you have the greatest need for a potential technology solution. For instance, are there glaring deficits in productivity in your firm or department that need addressing? Such shortfalls can be relative—maybe you seem to be doing fine, but not when compared to your peers.
- Look at what can be automated. There are tools out there like robotic process automation that can mimic the work of a clerk. A cost-benefit analysis might reveal that an investment in robotic process automation might be worthwhile. But sometimes the solutions are simpler than that. Recently I met a general counsel from a legal department who admitted to me that remarkably they were still manually signing contracts. When I mentioned why not add e-signatures, he quickly put it on his to-do list.
- Think about your culture. Some legal departments or law firms are very focused on in-person meetings, some are more phone-based. Still others communicate primarily via email or text. These days your technological preferences define your culture. When buying tech then, consider how your office is communicating. If it is via phone, then try moving to videoconferencing. If it's via text then perhaps a chat solution is best. Tech that plugs in well with your existing culture will prove easier to adopt internally.
- Look for quick wins. Sometimes it's difficult to calculate the return on investment on new technologies, but then sometimes it isn't. E-billing, for instance, might prompt an immediate change in time spent and ease of use that will result in a quick win. Similarly, adopting a collaboration platform can illustrate the benefits of offering a more seamless way to pool expertise than email, resulting in valuable time savings.
- Look at your area of expertise. All legal functions, whether within a legal department or firm, have special business needs. Some are more focused on litigation while others are dedicated to intellectual property protection or enforcement and so on. Before considering buying new technology, look at where you are already expending a lot of focus and resources. That may be one area that can be covered with a relevant technology solution. For instance, if your department or firm is focused heavily in litigation then updating your e-discovery solutions could make a lot of sense.
- Avoid tech for tech's sake. The latest new and shiny tech offering can be enticing but it's best to avoid buying tech purely for technology's sake. Going through this process above ensures that true needs, culture and workflow patterns are thoughtfully considered before allocating funds. As I've often said in talks that I give on this topic, start with people, process and technology, in that order.
Monica Zent is an experienced entrepreneur, investor, businesswoman and trusted legal adviser to leading global brands, over a period that spans decades. Her most recent venture is founder & CEO of Foxwordy Inc., the digital collaboration platform for the legal industry. She is also founder of ZentLaw, one of the nation's top alternative law firms. Zent is an investor in real estate and startups, and dedicates her time and talent to various charitable causes. She is a diversity and inclusion advocate, inspiring all people to pursue their dreams. When she's not running companies, Zent runs distance as an endurance athlete. Follow her on Twitter @MonicaZent
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
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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