LegalTech 2006: Vendors Showcase Innovations
When Deputy General Counsel of Microsoft Kevin Harrang took the stage at LegalTech in New York, a silence overcame the audience - a silence that was intermittently disturbed by the bleeps and dings of BlackBerries, Treos and cell phones. These interruptions were fitting, considering that Harrang's keynote speech at the...
February 03, 2006 at 09:10 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
When Deputy General Counsel of Microsoft Kevin Harrang took the stage at LegalTech in New York, a silence overcame the audience – a silence that was intermittently disturbed by the bleeps and dings of BlackBerries, Treos and cell phones.
These interruptions were fitting, considering that Harrang's keynote speech at the annual legal technology conference was about the evolution of technology in the legal profession. Twenty-five years ago, at LegalTech's inaugural conference, Harrang could expect complete silence during his speech. But in the 21st century, business and law are so tied to wireless and digital technologies that in any room full of lawyers, you are bound to hear the beeping of a BlackBerry – or a dozen.
This set the tone for the three-day event, one that brought together pocket-protector-wearing software engineers and lawyers looking for the magic application that will discover, retain, destroy and manage all at the push of a button and at minimal cost.
Hundreds of vendors hawked their services and software to the thousands of attendees. Sometimes it was difficult to distinguish one from the next. After seeing nearly 50 booths that service e-discovery alone, one begins to wonder how different each company's services and products really are. And the truth is, they're not that different from one another. What one company calls a “revolutionary feature,” such as context-driven searches, another company claims to have perfected three years ago. When one company claims to have serviced the largest single e-discovery conversion task, another company boasts an equally self-congratulatory statistic. For a lawyer in search of the best tool for his or her company, weeding through the winners and losers posed a difficult task.
But there are some fascinating advances in store for the corporate legal field. As vendors increasingly partner with each other, the state of e-discovery, which is currently splintered into a number of processes each requiring its own program, will hopefully become more cohesive. Eventually, there may be a one-stop service that can handle all of a company's e-discovery needs, saving time and sparing confusion.
Other advances on display at LegalTech included matter-management software that parallels wikis in structure and usage, voice recognition software that can transcribe as you speak (though this technology still lacks enough reliability to be useful for audio e-discovery requests) and software that melds e-billing and case management into one program that also benchmarks the output of your outside counsel.
Aside from the three floors of booths, there were dozens of lectures. Though most were geared toward the law firm partner, many were pertinent to the corporate counsel, including forums on e-discovery practices and vendor shopping.
But the dominant topic of conversation on the exhibit floor was the proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which go into effect in December. Many described it as the Sarbanes-Oxley of the legal-tech subfield. The new rules codify a lot of current e-discovery practices while also demanding more accountability. Although counsel laud the arrival of some clarity in this convoluted age of e-discovery, many bemoan the new rules because of their complexity and the burden it puts on them throughout the course of litigation.
LegalTech was a grand exhibition of solutions. Vendors talked up their products as if they could end legal-technology woes once and for all. But behind the optimism, behind the sales pitches, there was trepidation. It's too early to tell how the changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will affect the legal landscape. But if the past is any determinant of the future, technology most likely will continue to advance to keep up with the ever-evolving legal field.
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 AllNLRB Blisters Skilled Care Home Chain That Terminated Nursing Assistant Who Complained About Wages
6 minute readClass Certification, Cash-Sweep Cases Among Securities Litigation Trends to Watch in 2025
6 minute readJetBlue Airways Will Pay $2M to Settle DOT Charges of Chronically Delayed Flights
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