Tech Spend Rising in Corporate Legal—But Understanding Is Still Low
The 2020 Wolters Kluwer Future Ready Lawyer Survey indicates that corporate legal departments are looking to gain more independence from outside counsel, but selling technology internally is still an uphill battle thanks to continuing organizational issues.
June 10, 2020 at 02:22 PM
4 minute read
Corporate legal practitioners may find themselves continuing to gravitate toward technology that can lessen their reliance upon outside counsel. However, those initiatives could be hampered by the general lack of understanding surrounding both technology and ongoing innovation efforts inside departments.
Released last week, the 2020 Wolters Kluwer Future Ready Lawyer Survey collected responses from 700 legal professionals working in the U.S. and Europe, with 51% indicating that they expected their corporate legal departments to increase spending on technology over the next three years. Dean Sonderegger, senior vice president and general manager of Wolters Kluwer Legal and Regulatory US, believes that some of that spend will continue to go to "hygiene activities" like matter management or tools designed to track, negotiate or draft contracts.
"I think that that's a lot of where you have traditionally started to see the increase of technology spend in corporate legal," Sonderegger said.
However, it's possible that some of that attention is beginning to be shifted toward technology that can reduce a department's need for outside counsel. Intellectual property docketing software, for example, would allow in-house attorneys to maintain trademarks, copyrights and patent registrations themselves without engaging the services of a law firm.
But like it or not, legal departments may never be able to cut outside counsel entirely from the equation. Instead, they may settle for a better understanding of the work that is being performed on their behalf. According to the survey, 80% of respondents identified greater collaboration and transparency between firms and clients as one of the top changes legal departments expect within the next three years.
What that transparency ultimately looks like may still be up for debate. Sonderegger thinks that there is an ongoing disconnect between firms and corporate legal departments, with the latter hoping that their outside counsel becomes more focused on providing efficient services than the billable hour.
He used the COVID-19 pandemic as an example, which has seen many firms proactively step forward—sometimes with tech-based delivery models—with applicable legal guidance. "I think law firms have done this for years but it's not really as pervasive as corporate legal would like to see it," Sonderegger said.
Meanwhile, corporate legal's own innovation efforts could be met with a lack of enthusiasm by employees or other stakeholders. Organizational issues such as a lack of strategy or a lack of change management were identified by 53% of respondents as the top reason why new tech is resisted in departments, followed by a lack of technology knowledge or skills at 32% and financial issues at 15%.
Lack of tech knowledge could be a particularly arduous hurdle to overcome. For example, while 67% of respondents indicated that big data and predictive analytics would have a significant impact on their department, only 25% indicated that they understood the concept very well. A similar response was garnered with regard to artificial intelligence, where 58% of respondents felt it would have an impact, but only 23% claimed to understand the technology.
In order to continue moving the process of technological innovation forward, Sonderegger believes law departments need a leader in position who understands both technology and legal work. Instead of trying to help employees wrap their minds around the entirety of a complex technology like AI, those leaders may be better served by focusing their message around the end result such tools will have on the efficiency of processes like contracts.
"Those are the types of things that are tangible use cases where a good leader can come in and say, 'This is how we move the dial here,'" Sonderegger said.
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 AllLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readTrump Mulls Big Changes to Banking Regulation, Unsettling the Industry
Newly Public Biotech Startup Hires Life Sciences Veteran as GC
Step 1 for Successful Negotiators: Believe in Yourself
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