The quiet revolution – poll of 2,000 lawyers reveals law firms are waking up to power of technology
Legal Week's Best Technology Report highlights challenges of improving processes amid evidence that real change is afoot
November 22, 2015 at 07:08 PM
11 minute read
Spare a thought for law firm IT directors. They can see much further into the future than most lawyers; they endure sleepless nights worrying about the storage and security of big data; and they are typically fascinated by the potential of artificial intelligence to disrupt the traditional law firm business model.
But the broader challenge for many firms is less strategic and more immediate: getting their lawyers to adopt current technological changes and fully integrate new technologies into the daily processes of their working lives.
When examining the findings of the eleventh annual Legal Week Best Technology Report, which draws on the responses of 2,159 fee-earners, support staff and partners at international and UK law firms, a quiet revolution appears to be taking place.
The survey, which asks respondents to rate the technology at their disposal, covers hardware, software, security, mobile working, support and the impact of technology on workloads and client service.
Not only are lawyers more satisfied with the diverse range of technology they use, but they are also becoming – incrementally – more adept at using it.
As Richard Susskind (pictured), an acclaimed strategist in how IT is changing the work of lawyers, confirms: "In terms of their basic systems – word processing, accounting systems, e-mail – law firms are very well run indeed."
In terms of their basic systems – word processing, accounting systems, e-mail – law firms are very well run indeed
Where he sees room for improvement is in "their use of technology and their delivery of service to clients".
But the survey does provide some evidence that law firms are starting to respond to this criticism, with satisfaction extending beyond the basic elements of drafting, communicating and billing to include business intelligence information, client extranets and communication tools, such as Lync – a benefit both to the firm and in the efficiencies delivered to their clients.
Meanwhile, perennial concerns about adequate training and effective security continue to linger, requiring better education and eternal vigilance.
At a practical level, respondents are pretty comfortable with technology: for example, 90% have access to an iPad for personal use.
Hardware satisfaction ratings are robust. Every category, bar one, scores a dissatisfaction rating of less than 6%; the sole exception being that unloved workhorse, the printer, at 14%. IT support for remote working related to all devices also causes some concern with 7% expressing dissatisfaction.
The diverse processes and systems employed by law firms are generally highly rated, although several cause some dissatisfaction. Most notable of these are: business intelligence information (10%), know-how systems (11%), intranet (12%) and overall application speed (11%).
On the broader satisfaction questions relating to IT departments, most aspects score very highly with only service desk availability outside normal hours (9%) and the extent to which technology is 'regularly updated and improved to meet business needs' (11%) providing more pronounced dissatisfaction levels; although it is worth pointing out that even for these measures dissatisfaction is relatively low and counterbalanced by high levels of satisfaction.
Lengthy processes
So far, so good. But to what extent are law firms simply making the existing way of doing things more efficient, as opposed to using technology to reshape their internal processes to boost efficiency and improve client service?
Process optimisation – embracing equipment, operation and control – is an integral management tool in any business. IT consultant Neil Cameron believes the legal profession is yet to embrace this concept.
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 AllInternational Arbitration: Key Developments of 2024 and Emerging Trends for 2025
4 minute readThe Quiet Revolution: Private Equity’s Calculated Push Into Law Firms
5 minute read'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Many LA County Law Firms Remain Open, Mobilize to Support Affected Employees Amid Historic Firestorm
- 2Stevens & Lee Names New Delaware Shareholder
- 3U.S. Supreme Court Denies Trump Effort to Halt Sentencing
- 4From CLO to President: Kevin Boon Takes the Helm at Mysten Labs
- 5How Law Schools Fared on California's July 2024 Bar Exam
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