The Promise and Reality of Legal Tech
The news is filled with stories highlighting the promise of new technologies—machine learning, AI, blockchain—for the practice of law. Unfortunately, legal department experience with technology has not continually matched the headline aspiration.
April 12, 2018 at 11:55 AM
6 minute read
The news is filled with stories highlighting the promise of new technologies—machine learning, AI, blockchain—for the practice of law. Unfortunately, legal department experience with technology has not continually matched the headline aspiration. In fact, less than half of legal department users think current technology, such as matter management, contract management, e-billing, etc., has provided a less impressive “somewhat high” increase in efficiency, reduction in costs or increase in quality.
If a revolution in business is coming, it hasn't reached most legal departments.
So, why do legal departments continue to experience this gap between perceived potential and actual experience?
The Promise
In the last decade, the options for legal departments outside law firms have moved from pure labor arbitrage plays with offshore LPOs offering savings on labor for highly routine, rules-based work, to technology enabled process improvement systems with software that categorizes information, routes matters or performs low-level factual analysis or discovery.
Fortunately, processing power has advanced far enough to enable automated problem solving in the form of advanced analytics and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Recent studies tout the potential automation of 25 to 50 percent of legal department work, while some academic studies suggest a realistic technology adoption rate of new legal technology would reduce hours worked by lawyers by at least 2.5 percent annually, or, approximately one extra week annually for every lawyer on the team.
Now that this technological change is being matched with increased commercial investment, there is real reason for optimism about the utility of legal tech. For example:
- Over the last five years, approximately $1.3 billion of VC investment has flown into legal.
- Grand View Research, Inc. forecasts that the global legal process outsourcing (LPO) market is expected to reach USD 27.19 billion by 2024.
- Law firms are setting up accelerators (MDR Labs), investment arms (Next Law Labs), work spaces (Fuse), etc., to drive advances.
AI and data analytics will enable technology to take on more rules and judgment-based activities (ex: due diligence, contract drafting, regulatory compliance), helping legal departments become more efficient and focus time on higher-value work. At least for those in-house teams that are ready.
Where We Are Today
Despite the growing promise of legal tech, legal department investment remains low. On average, only 2 percent of legal department budgets go to technology investments (although corporate IT likely accounts for some additional investments). Some of the most commonly used legal department technology systems include:
- E-billing systems (57 percent of legal departments)
- Document management (54 percent)
- Subsdiary and entity management (48 percent)
- IP management (44 percent)
- Contract management (43 percent)
- Matter management (34 percent)
Moreover, only 8 percent of legal departments currently use AI and even then for very specific applications. Interestingly, and despite the many touted benefits, a majority of legal department don't have plans to use AI in the next three years.
The low investment is likely a function of previous disappointment and general skepticism. While results vary by technology type, less the half of legal department respondents thought their e-billing, matter management, contract and management systems met their cost reduction and quality improvement goals. So even technologies that support specific legal department needs don't always meet expectations.
Legal departments point to too many challenges with technology use such as difficulty evaluating technology products, data quality, access concerns and poor employee adoption. Without addressing these challenges, legal departments sacrifice an opportunity to use emerging new technology.
Bridging the Gap
The companies who are most satisfied with their current technologies prioritize process fit and user adoption during implementation. That means involving end users throughout the technology selection and implementation process by listening to their ideas, understanding the true technology use case, and incorporating their feedback. These tactics will make them more invested in the project and more likely to actually use the technology.
A few practical steps Legal departments can follow:
- Start with Use Cases—Legal technologies need to have a clear use. Review workflows to determine where legal investment would most benefit the department. You can start by creating an inventory of all collaborative legal systems in use and speak with representatives across practices (like litigation, compliance, or IP) and geographies to understand their current technology capabilities and needs. This established buy-in from end users and surfaced both critical needs and shortcomings and will inform department decisions when buying new technology systems or features.
- Launch a Test Trial—Legal departments should be more willing to launch test trials of new technologies. Taking a test-and-learn approach can help the department understand the capabilities of software and services while learning how they underlying software functions.
- Delegate Process Standardization Where Necessary—Use of software likely requires some process standardization. This requirement often puts the breaks on projects, however, legal departments can use the vendors to manage standardizing and integrating legal workflows while the legal department focuses on evaluation.
Law firms can also be a positive source of experience. As your law firms often have more incentives to invest in new technologies, legal departments should use their relationships to identify promising opportunities for in-house improvement. Asking your law firms the following four questions can help you stay abreast of change:
- In what technologies are you investing?
- How has the technology improved your efficiency?
- How does technology Impact the quality of work performed?
- What data analytic and information security capabilities are required?
- What should my legal department learn from your technology investments?
Conclusion
In fits and starts, the technologies available to improve legal department effectiveness and provide more real-time compliance oversight are improving. What's missing is a firm sense of how legal departments should proceed forward. Legal departments must become better technology consumers with the ability to identify needs, quickly evaluate new technologies and remap workflows around end-user need. The legal departments that master these skills will be best positioned to take advantage of the legal tech revolution.
Abbott Martin is a legal research leader at Gartner, a research and advisory company headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
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 AllAntitrust in Trump 2.0: Expect Gap Filling from State Attorneys General
6 minute readAI Disclosures Under the Spotlight: SEC Expectations for Year-End Filings
5 minute readWhat to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute readBest Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Pro Hac Vice in Georgia: Rule Change for Nonresident Attorneys
- 2The Benefits of E-Filing for Affordable, Effortless and Equal Access to Justice
- 3AI and Social Media Fakes: Are You Protecting Your Brand?
- 4A Primer on Using Third-Party Depositions To Prove Your Case at Trial
- 5‘Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission’: Another Consequence of 'Hobby Lobby'?
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