Challenges in Implementing AI Include Staffing and Knowing What to Use It for
Over the last year, legal departments have rushed to implement artificial intelligence and machine learning technology, but that implementation has become challenging as the amount of data, how will it be used, and who will operate it comes into question.
April 05, 2019 at 03:51 PM
3 minute read
Legal departments are working to implement artificial intelligence and machine learning technology, however its implementation has challenges such as managing large amounts of data, getting someone to operate it, and even knowing what to use it for, experts say.
Shabbi Khan, partner at Foley & Lardner in Boston, said a lot of companies are paying high dollar to have data scientists do very specific jobs when it comes to creating and using artificial intelligence and machine learning. He said the type of pay that larger companies are paying to data scientists dissuades them from creating their own companies and “stifles innovation.”
“It's hard to find enough talent for a given vertical who are equipped to handle these machine learning types of environments,” Khan said.
Khan said one of the reasons in-house legal departments, in large, are not creating their own artificial intelligence programs is because it is expensive to do so. He explained an in-house company would need to hire their own data scientist to create and maintain the artificial intelligence or machine learning.
“As a company your argument is that 'we might save costs,' but you have to spend $100,000 to find out if you'll save anything. It is not a low-cost implementation,” Khan said. “Is it worth hiring someone to get there? Secondly, why not just leverage outside counsel to do that?”
Khan said an advantage to law firms using artificial technology and machine learning is they have access to data outside of the corporation. There is also the issue of handling that data.
“The amount of data needed for AI is substantially larger than what we're able to handle today,” said David Chan, senior patent counsel at Western Digital Corp., in a report on artificial intelligence published by Foley & Lardner earlier this week. “Think of automated vehicles, all the cars and all the technology necessary to support them. To make it work, every intersection will become a data hub. We're not ready for that.”
Bobbi Basile, managing director of HBR Consulting's legal transformation and innovation practice, however, said if companies bring artificial intelligence and machine learning into their legal departments they will have access to information from every department in the company. Rather, law firms only have the data made available to them by the firm.
Basile explained while firms have led the charge on artificial intelligence and machine learning technology in the past, legal departments have made its implementation a priority in the last year.
“Generally speaking, corporations have a harder time bringing in technology at a rapid pace just because of the budgeting process,” Basile said.
She explained, however, legal departments need to first understand what they want to use the technology for.
“A lot of organizations want to sprint before they crawl,” Basile said. “Organizations need to first determine what business problem they want to solve or which service they want to enhance.”
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 AllHow Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
Aggressive FTC May Force Merging Companies to Bolster Legal Defenses
4 minute readBest Legal Departments: How Blackstone's Legal and Compliance Team Got the All-Clear to Grow Business
CEOs Want Data-Based Risk Management; GCs Lack the Tech to Do So.
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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