Make the Best of What You've Got: #BringBackBoring in Legal Tech
In his headline speaker slot at this year's Legal Geek North America in New York, Legal Mosaic CEO Mark Cohen declared the event "Woodstock for legal." Having attended the era-defining festival in 1969, Cohen insisted that Legal Geek was revolutionary in its own way.
September 03, 2019 at 12:20 PM
4 minute read
In his headline speaker slot at this year's Legal Geek North America in New York, Legal Mosaic CEO Mark Cohen declared the event "Woodstock for legal." Having attended the era-defining festival in 1969, Cohen insisted that Legal Geek was revolutionary in its own way.
Woodstock was a highwater mark for a counterculture that rejected war through music and love. Within a (much) more narrow scope, Legal Geek represents its own flash point of an emerging community. Finally, people can get together to discuss how technology is changing the legal industry, out in the open.
One main idea that emerged from that discussion was the #BringBackBoring movement. The word "innovation" has lost all meaning, #BringBackBoring proponents argue. The movement is a vanguard against the idea that legal tech is an end-all-be-all.
A number of legal industry thought leaders now recognize that tech success is less about hype-driven ideas that capture headlines and more about what influences people to change their day-to-day habits alongside tech implementation. In other words, the boring stuff.
Firms focus too much energy and resources on new technology rather than positioning their people and processes to successfully implement it. General counsel can get frustrated when their expensive new tech systems are undermined by people who are not prepared to change their working practices and use the new systems.
How can a GC engage staff so that systems are implemented effectively?
First, the tech needs to be the right fit. A key conundrum facing companies' legal departments is where they should invest next in IT. Should they stay in their comfort zones, choosing the well-established and familiar? Fear of venturing beyond current platforms (which involve primarily tracking legal work) forces businesses to play catch-up with their more forward-thinking contemporaries.
On the other hand, forcing progress too quickly and disregarding an organization's staff and culture risks wasted money and time.
Management often holds misplaced confidence in change. Many organizations mistakenly assume that a new technology is self-evidently an improvement on what is already in place, and that staff only need instructions for implementation to take hold. Technology transformations must be treated the same way as major business restructurings: They require clear and consistent communication to stakeholders and participants.
The importance of getting this communications approach right cannot be overstated. The staff who will be affected by the change must be informed, guided and reassured by messages that are appropriately calibrated and from various levels. While inspirational vision statements straight from the C-suite can be helpful, it often falls to middle management to offer practical and directional guidance.
Change communications should never be a via a one-way channel. This downward messaging should be coupled with a process for feedback and listening, enabling staff to voice their concerns and making them feel they are a key part of the process. The business must ensure that the right messaging is repeated and adjusted.
You can expect unforeseen problems, delays and challenges along the way, regardless of how thorough and well-planned the change management project may be. But a key to success is maintaining the necessary agility, flexibility, and attention to staff that will keep the project on course. A two-way communications process is critical to keep both management and staff informed of progress and issues, and to enabling responsiveness to move quickly as the picture changes and new information comes in.
If more and more GCs and businesses adopt communications strategies that are transparent, empathetic, and flexible, tech and meaningful innovation will flourish. #BringBackBoring is essential to that strategy.
Daniel Reed, is CEO of UnitedLex where he focuses on empowering clients to achieve their own unique "art of the possible" in the field of law.
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 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
- 1An Eye on ‘De-Risking’: Chewing on Hot Topics in Litigation Funding With Jeffery Lula of GLS Capital
- 2Arguing Class Actions: With Friends Like These...
- 3How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
- 4Fried Frank Partner Leaves for Paul Hastings to Start Tech Transactions Practice
- 5Stradley Ronon Welcomes Insurance Team From Mintz
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