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
© 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 AllBig Law Walks a Tightrope But Herbert Smith Freehills Refuses to Lose Its Footing
8 minute readLuxembourg Hot, Beijing Not: In Today’s Cutthroat Market, Regions Need a Business Case
4 minute readTrending 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