5 Ways to Create More Client Value in Transactional Legal Services
The COVID-19 pandemic forced droves of change-resistant lawyers to embrace mobile technology as necessary to provide continuity of service—a sort of involuntary re-engineering of fundamental tasks. Many lawyers discovered an unexpected benefit—their clients were happier with the streamlined, technology-powered service they received.
July 08, 2020 at 09:10 AM
5 minute read
The COVID-19 pandemic forced droves of change-resistant lawyers to embrace mobile technology as necessary to provide continuity of service—a sort of involuntary re-engineering of fundamental tasks. Many lawyers discovered an unexpected benefit—their clients were happier with the streamlined, technology-powered service they received. There is a lesson here for all lawyers, but especially for those of us on the transactional side.
Notwithstanding the recent widespread, rapid success in remote lawyering, we are barely scratching the surface by running video calls and marking up invoices on our tablets, initiating electronic signature packets from our laptops, or using cellphone apps for real-time notetaking and collaboration with our teams. While commendable, fostering a continuous improvement environment in law firms must involve something more than adopting "low-hanging fruit" technological solutions just because the office is temporarily closed. It has to involve a commitment to exploring and using better processes, including leveraging innovative legal technology, to do better for clients.
The legal services industry is under pressure to adopt delivery models that are practical and proportionally sophisticated, lean, responsive, swift, consistent, collaborative and agile. Such models foster a more client-focused approach to services because they shorten the path to delivering value. Process thinking nurtures that approach because it adds structure to the often-subjective exercise of defining client value. Unfortunately, traditional models have not facilitated process thinking, including the adoption of technology.
Before we re-engineer how we practice law, however, some clarifications are in order. For the cynical practitioner, the trends are not entirely driven by generic pressure to provide a better product faster and for less cost. For the fearful type, they do not mean that sophisticated business clients expect a commoditized process for everything. The reality is more nuanced: outdated delivery models will sooner than later struggle to be competitive for all but arguably the largest law firms because they do not encourage a continuous improvement environment which enables delivery of greater value where it is plainly and immediately possible to do so.
So how do we as deal lawyers embrace process thinking and its favorite general, innovative technology, to create more value?
- Practicality and Proportionality. Legal project management (LPM) tactics deployed at the outset of a transaction to engage in deal scoping and budgeting, to identify key business drivers and deliverables, to clarify tasks and timelines, to establish desired communication protocols, and to collect data in advance to streamline deal milestones and the closing process, frame a better overall deal experience. Pre-formatted, cloud-based spreadsheets and document forms, or a more sophisticated project management software solution, can mediate such tactics.
- Lean. Cloud-based deal management platforms enhance transactional efficiency and transparency, and reduce waste, through real-time closing checklist collaboration, centralized version exchange and tracking, and improved signature collection and closing processes, and by greatly truncating the closing binder process.
- Responsiveness, Speed and Consistency. Artificial Intelligence (AI), including machine-based document automation solutions, reduces time-intensive due diligence tasks as well as document review, creation, formatting and proofing time, not to mention improving overall turnaround time. Data shows that such usage also increases work product quality by having the capacity to reduce errors at unparalleled rates.
- Collaboration. Collaboration applications streamline internal deal team and/or attorney-client communication in a way that traditional communication methods cannot do alone. Automating and linking deal data, notes, documents and tasks across multiple devices reduces redundancy and errors in workflow and product, reduces lawyer deal stress and client anxiety, and improves delegation and optimization based on skillset and experience.
- Agility. Integration of knowledge management software organizes and centralizes the way deal information is collected, stored, and accessed by an entire team to advance future deals more efficiently and build upon returning client preferences, as well as to pivot and tailor services quickly for new clients with similar matters and issues in different industries. It also enhances deal lawyer mentoring and training by making knowledge and tips among a team readily accessible, which ultimately serves clients' best interests.
For a vetted list of targeted technologies that seek to improve processes, see the ABA's Directory of Technologies from its Technology in M&A Subcommittee, as a starting point.
I respectfully suggest that achieving better client value in the future will require at least a meaningful level of attention as to how we provide legal services or, perhaps better stated, can do so. Even our most creative counseling is not immune to the benefits of process thinking. Yes, our ingenuity and diligent end products will always matter, and tremendously so. Deal lawyers may want to take note, though, that it seems we have officially entered an era where our processes themselves cannot be ignored in order to deliver the greatest value to our clients.
Scott "SJ" R. Jablonski is a partner at Berger Singerman in Fort Lauderdale.
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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1What Does Ohio Supreme Court's Opioid Decision Mean for Public Nuisance Claims?
- 2Bucking Industry Trend, Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Class of Partners in Firm History
- 3US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
- 4‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
- 53 Incidents Lead to Charges Against the Alexander Brothers; Cousin Remains at Large
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