Corporate Legal Departments Slow to Adopt Artificial Intelligence Contract Analysis Tools
Many large legal departments have yet to embrace artificial intelligence to manage contracts and are instead manually sifting through vast amounts of data, an onerous process that likely explains why only 56% of general counsel offices analyze contract performance, according to a new study.
February 12, 2020 at 03:47 PM
3 minute read
While artificial intelligence is creeping into the facets of many industries, a surprising number of corporate legal departments have yet to embrace AI as a tool to analyze and manage contract data, according to a study released on Wednesday.
Of the 50 large and primarily U.S.-based corporate legal departments in the survey, 62% said they still use Excel, SharePoint or email to manually sift through contract data, an onerous process that likely explains why only 56% of general counsel offices analyze contract performance.
"I think what's happening is the market is saying, 'Wow, there are a lot of players in the game, a lot of different options and such, but what is it that I can trust?'" said Charles Dimov, vice president of marketing at ContractPodAi. The London-based AI contract management firm carried out the study.
"The industry is still in that nascent space," Dimov added. "I believe that it's maturing a little bit. We're kind of on the edge of that nascent space. But clearly from looking at these results, it means that we've got a fair bit of assuring [companies to use AI] to do."
The firms in the survey manage thousands of contracts and are from a wide array of industries, including government, food and beverage, energy, transportation and retail. They participated in phone interviews during September and October 2019.
Nearly 50% of the companies said they planned to adopt AI-based contract risk mitigation technology within the next year. But 64% expected that it would take their company at least a year to implement an AI-based contract management system. Dimov suggested that the process should take only several months.
"That one was a bit of a surprise to us," he said. "If you're looking to customize everything, I think that's where you start getting into a little bit of a trap. If every line has to be customized and everything has to be custom-coded, then it becomes a much longer implementation cycle."
Dimov recommended that companies consider several different AI firms and seek out software that is a good fit right out of the box and needs only minimal tweaks.
Effective AI software can automate contract risk and mitigation management by, for instance, seeking out deviations and questionable clauses in contracts, allowing in-house lawyers to focus on those issues before they become a serious problem.
"But at the end of the day, it's still the people who are setting up the software" that are accountable for compliance issues, Dimov said. "Just because you have a new piece of software doesn't mean accountability is gone."
Read More:
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 AllHealth Care Giants Sue FTC, Allege Lina Khan Using Loaded Process to Vilify Pharmacy Benefit Managers
3 minute readPorsche's Venture Capital Arm Adds General Counsel From Clifford Chance
How a 200,000-Worker Global Enterprise Took Down the Silos and Made ESG Its Mission
4 minute readCorporate Counsel's 2024 Award Winners Performed Legal Wizardry, Gave a Hand Up to Others
Trending 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