Seven questions to make sure you're not missing the point on legal tech
This article sets out seven key questions to ask yourself when considering adopting new legal technology
January 21, 2019 at 07:35 AM
4 minute read
Technology is by no means a panacea for all problems facing private practice and in-house lawyers today. Rather, it is part of the puzzle. In a crowded and noisy technology space, lawyers need to adopt a 'smart thinking' approach to ensure they solve the right problems with the right tech solutions.
To help navigate this conundrum, this article sets out seven key questions to ask yourself when considering adopting new legal technology.
1: What is the problem I'm solving?
It is crucial to confirm the exact problem statement. It might seem obvious, but you would be surprised how many people fail at this step. The key here lies in specificity and spending time to properly reflect on the problem. For example, do you want to 'improve your contracts process' or would you be actually better focusing on something more precise, like: 'How can we get signatures quicker?'
2: What are the right elements for the solution?
It's an old one, but a good one. You need to give due consideration to the following trio of elements: people, process and technology. You need a sophisticated understanding of how these three elements work in concert, constantly overlapping and relying on each other. Understanding which of these elements require attention is really just the beginning – there are multiple other considerations, especially in large organisations, including culture, incentivisation, buy-in, budgets and much more.
3: Do I really need a new piece of technology?
Part of this question invites you to consider your existing systems – can this be leveraged better or 'enough' to solve the problem effectively? Often the gains presented by new technology can be just as easily replicated by better use of existing systems and processes.
4: Am I prepared to redesign workflows and processes?
More often than not, implementing a new solution in a law firm or in-house team will involve a change to existing processes. You will need to be able to manage this change effectively. Be realistic about what's possible here. Change is hard, and not just for lawyers. Give yourself the space to invest your time here.
5: Can I pilot a solution?
Rolling out a brand new solution across your entire organisation is unlikely to be the best way forward. In order to bring the most effective (and least disruptive) solution into your business, piloting a solution and getting feedback early on will allow you to bring a more polished solution to bear. Many of you will be familiar with the idea of agile working and releasing a minimum viable product, or MVP. Many of those principles apply here. Your goal should be to accelerate rollout time, while sustaining active user involvement and feedback.
6: Do I have a content strategy?
While technology can help with processes, it is not a silver bullet that works in isolation. It often requires a careful audit of your current content. This is particularly relevant if your problem relates to the practice of substantive law. This part of the framework should draw your mind to the fact technology will do lots of things, but it won't magically create subject matter expert content or help you leverage the value of your legal content.
7: What's my data strategy?
The world is increasingly looking to harness data to create insights that inform our decision-making. This is even more true in the business world. Part of this challenge is to identify what data you need to capture, before you think about interrogating and visualising it. A helpful way of thinking about this is to ask: 'How will having this data potentially change the decisions I make?'
Conclusion
Following this framework will help you to structure your thinking about introducing new solutions in your organisation, and that's the key point. We should be thinking about solutions, not just technology. As an industry, if we commit to better sharing these approaches, we can move onto the more exciting part – collaborating on them.
Ron Friedmann and Nigel Rea are the authors of LOD's Cutting Through The **IT report.
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 AllDeepSeek’s AI Power Move: Will Lawyers Be the Next to Adapt or Perish?
6 minute readNow That the Trump Era Has Begun, Change Is Coming. For Big Law, Change Is Already Here
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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