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
- 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.
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 AllAI Disclosures Under the Spotlight: SEC Expectations for Year-End Filings
5 minute readA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Trending Stories
- 1Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise, Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
- 2Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
- 3Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri LLC Announces Addition of New Office in Eatontown, NJ, and Named Partner
- 4Friday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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