'Lawyers are inclined to dress up automation as innovation' - Top 20 Legal IT Innovators 2016: Richard Susskind
Legal Week Intelligence, in association with Fulcrum GT, recently published the first edition of its Top 20 Legal IT Innovators report, which profiles…
December 07, 2016 at 06:56 AM
4 minute read
Legal Week Intelligence, in association with Fulcrum GT, recently published the first edition of its Top 20 Legal IT Innovators report, which profiles the law firm leaders, in-house lawyers and tech pioneers driving change in the legal profession.
Click here to download the report from Legal Week Law (free registration required).
Richard Susskind is a pivotal figure in legal technology. An acclaimed strategist and thinker, a distinguished academic (he holds professorships at Oxford and UCL among others), and author of nine influential books, Susskind has been an IT adviser to the Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales for nearly 20 years. In 2000, he received an OBE for his services to IT in the law and to the Administration of Justice, and since 2011, he has been president of the Society for Computers and Law.
"I've really tried to influence thinking across the legal profession," he says. "I like to think I have influenced a generation of lawyers in their thinking about the profound impact of technology on law." After writing his Oxford doctorate on law and AI in the mid-1980s, he developed with Phillip Capper (now a White & Case partner), the world's first commercially available AI system in law (The Latent Damage System) in 1988.
Susskind's global reach is significant: his work has been translated into 12 languages and he has lectured in more than 40 countries. At a practical level, his influence has been equally widespread as an adviser to several of the world's leading law firms on issues relating to future strategy and their use of technology. He describes the relationships with these firms, such as Allen & Overy, as "longstanding, not occasional projects".
More than anything Susskind sees himself as a catalyst. "Fundamentally, my interest is: can computers solve legal problems?" he explains. "That's partly a technical question and partly a philosophical question." But his ideas and his thinking are entirely pragmatic.
My running theme is for the 2020s: it's not going to be a decade of unemployment but it will be a decade of redeployment; we've got to learn to work differently
"Law firms can think they are innovative because they are automating in an innovative way because no one has ever automated in that way before," he says. "But my more technical meaning of innovation is really bringing about change in the underlying process. As in so many sectors, lawyers are inclined to dress up their automation as innovation. They want to suggest that the use of technology to streamline the old ways of working is perhaps more adventurous than it really is."
As a legal disruptor, Susskind questions the way in which law firms see themselves as businesses and how they offer services to clients.
"I want to challenge lawyers to understand the potential technology and use it," he says, "not simply to preserve 20th century legal practice, but to redefine the way the legal professionals can help their clients. By legal professionals, I don't just mean traditional lawyers, I mean people who are legal technologists and legal process analysts and legal knowledge engineers. My running theme is for the 2020s: it's not going to be a decade of unemployment but it will be a decade of redeployment; we've got to learn to work differently."
Challenging the status quo – the established ways of thinking and doing things – makes some lawyers feel uncomfortable, particularly when part of what he advocates is "taking the cost out of legal service". Looking ahead, Susskind believes the "more for less" challenge will be critical: "It's going to define and underpin the way that we evolve our legal services. Technology is one of the key ways of allowing us to do the same or a better job than in the past but for a lower cost – that's the key."
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 AllHow to Build an Arbitration Practice: An Interview with 37-Year HSF Veteran Paula Hodges
Scratching the Entrepreneurial Itch: Linklaters' AI Head On Becoming a Partner and GenAI Hallucinations
'Relationships are Everything': Clifford Chance's Melissa Fogarty Talks Getting on Big Deals and Rising to the Top
7 minute readThe 'Returnity' Crisis: Is the Legal Profession Failing Women Lawyers Returning From Maternity Leave?
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
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