Adopting Contract Analytics? It's a Matter of Trust
As part of the Legalweek 2020 Q&A series, Legaltech News speaks with Eric Falkenberry, partner at DLA Piper, on the opportunity for lawyers to become part of development teams, standardization in contract APIs, and more.
January 28, 2020 at 07:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
Contract-centric artificial intelligence and analytics platforms are all the rage these days, but it takes more than throwing technology at a problem to solve it. To truly leverage technology in a new-school transactions practice, it takes one of the most old-school legal disciplines: transparency.
As part of the run-up to Legalweek 2020, Legaltech News is chatting with a number of speakers from this year's sessions to know. Today's Q&A is with Eric Falkenberry, a partner at DLA Piper. His Legaltech session "Moneyballing with a Killer Contract Analytics Department" will take place at 3 p.m. Feb. 5.
Legaltech News: What do you think legal tech looks like in 10 years? What will be the biggest opportunities and challenges?
Eric Falkenberry: Rather than focusing on products which seem likely to appeal to the broadest range of customers, legal tech developers (data scientists and computer engineers) will work more closely with subject matter experts (experienced lawyers) to build and test tools which are tailored to particular legal tasks and produce demonstrable increases in efficiency and quality.
This will create a huge opportunity for lawyers to become integral parts of development teams, with the greatest challenge being whether enough experienced lawyers will choose to take time away from busy practices to provide expertise. With large concentrations of SMEs, law firms which invest in technology are particularly well positioned to take advantage of this evolution.
What are the biggest barriers to legal teams to leverage contract analytics?
One of the biggest barriers to the adoption of analytics is trust in their accuracy. Machines are classifying and aggregating huge amounts of data which form the basis of the analytics, and a lack of understanding regarding the manner in which the machines are performing such tasks leads to skepticism.
Legal tech developers need to be transparent about explaining how the sausage is made and what limitations exist, and legal teams need to take the time to ask questions and understand the technologies analyzing the data so that they can determine which analytics should be relied upon, and to what extent.
Is there standardization in terms of the core KPIs used to assess contract performance industry?
KPI standardization for contract performance was slow to develop before things like machine learning and natural language processing enabled companies to analyze and draw analytics from sufficient amounts of contract data to determine which indicators have the greatest predictive power.
What is the biggest misconception you think still persists about legal technology?
That robots will put most lawyers out of work. Technology will make, and has already made, certain legal jobs obsolete, but it is also creating a number of jobs which focus on legal data, analytics and automation. Lawyers which pivot toward technology will find themselves in demand.
What do you hope attendees take away from your Legalweek session?
I hope attendees will not only learn about the various analytics that can be drawn from contracts and how they can form the basis of actionable intelligence, but will also leave with a better understanding of the particular technologies which produce the analytics, something that is critical to widespread adoption.
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 AllKirkland Fends Off Antitrust Claims for Thomson Reuters Against AI-Backed Start-Up
'The No. 1 Thing' on Larry Cunningham's Mind: Special Litigation Committees
6 minute readKaufman Dolowich Managing Partner Navigates Chancery Best Practices as She Builds Team
6 minute readThe Delaware Supreme Court Turns Its Spotlight on Advance Notice Bylaws
Law Firms Mentioned
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