How to Maximize Your In-House Legal Technology Investments
Technology investments are best positioned for success when the right organizational structure is in place and partnerships are solidified—if not in practice yet, then certainly through future-state design.
August 10, 2022 at 12:56 PM
6 minute read
While in-house legal departments vary widely in size and depth across industries, one characteristic they all share is the need to align closely with the business as a trusted partner. With 52% of legal departments having increased their use of legal technology in the past year alone, it is particularly important to align with business objectives when it comes to the procurement and implementation of technology solutions. The actual value of these investments is realized when systems benefit not only the legal department, but also the business as a whole.
Consequently, technology investments in legal departments should not be viewed in isolation, but as capabilities that enable seamless workflows across the organization. Modern methodologies incorporate organizational assessments and design from the start, for this very purpose. Technology investments are best positioned for success when the right organizational structure is in place and partnerships are solidified—if not in practice yet, then certainly through future-state design. Furthermore, an effective organizational design provides an assessment centered around the people and business processes they support. A trusted partnership between the business and legal department lays the foundation for optimal performance for both the employees and the company. Any technology solution will be limited in its potential if, for example, the legal department is viewed as the cost center of "no," left to operate at a bare minimum. Technology alone may not be the issue—it rarely ever is. Working through organizational problems or concerns is essential, these cannot be ignored or left for after implementation. If you want to maximize the return on any technology investments, you have to put in the work.
This content has been archived.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 AllAre Firms and In-House Teams Courting Technological Debt With Ambitious Purchases?
6 minute readIn-House Legal Network The L Suite Acquires Legal E-Learning Platform Luminate+
From Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readSurvey Finds Majority of Legal Professionals Still Intimidated by AI Despite Need to Streamline Mounting Caseloads
Trending Stories
- 1CLOs Face Mounting Pressure as Risks Mushroom and Job Duties Expand
- 2X Faces Intense Scrutiny as EU Investigation Races to Conclusion & Looming Court Battle
- 3'Nation is in Trouble': NY Lawmakers Advance Bill to Set Parameters for Shielding Juror IDs in Criminal Matters
- 4Margolis Edelstein Broadens Leadership With New Co-Managing Partner
- 5Menendez Asks US Judge for Bond Pending Appeal of Criminal Conviction
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