Consolidation in Legal Tech: How the 'New Normal' Benefits Companies and Customers
Through consolidation, one expert writes that customers receive better, more comprehensive services while companies can control costs and enabling their own geographic expansion.
December 14, 2017 at 11:00 AM
14 minute read
It is an undeniable fact: After years of specialization and disruption in the legal technology market, the pendulum is swinging back toward consolidation of businesses and services. More and more legal technology companies are joining forces to combine their products and services into broader, more integrated software packages. From e-discovery and secure cloud storage vendors to document management and legal research businesses, companies are melding their unique knowledge and skill sets—and their customer bases—to the benefit of themselves and their clients.
Just this year, legal research leader LexisNexis acquired Ravel Law, using the legal analytics startup's artificial intelligence technology to beef up its search capabilities and outcome predictions. E-discovery vendor Advanced Discovery acquired compliance and security specialist Altep, enhancing its risk assessment and incident response expertise. In addition, iManage expanded its document and email management offerings by acquiring RAVN Systems, an artificial intelligence developer.
This trend toward consolidation is no fad; expect to see more mergers and acquisitions as technology grows more complex and more specialized. However, many law firms and lawyers seem to worry about what will accompany these changes. How much will the products and services that they rely on change? How difficult will it be to get help from customer support while the service provider is undergoing a rebranding or internal staffing shift? Will their vendor be part of a merger?
The good news is that the new normal of consolidated services represents a great development for both legal technology companies and their clients. The three key reasons driving the move toward consolidation also represent the three key benefits offered to those merged companies' customers.
First, consolidation allows for improved and expanded services, growing the reach of legal technology companies and allowing them to leverage new technologies while providing a more useful and user-friendly integrated suite of software solutions. Consolidation also allows both companies and their clients to better manage their resources while saving time and streamlining communications. Finally, mergers allow smaller, discrete companies to expand their geographic range, covering more customers and aiding in global collaborations.
Improved and Expanded Services
The primary reason for the uptick in legal technology mergers is technology itself. Today, artificial intelligence applications, including natural language processing and machine learning, are increasingly capable. However, to work well, these systems must be precisely built and trained. Sophisticated technology like artificial intelligence and the disruptive nature of technological innovation itself have driven increased specialization.
With that specialization, many useful and novel approaches may be scattered across many companies, each solving a discrete problem. Thomson Reuters reported that between 2012 and 2016, global patent filings for new legal services technology increased by 484 percent. Consolidation permits these diverse businesses to leverage fully new technologies by bringing their work together. As with LexisNexis and Ravel Law, combining one company's existing service platform with another's artificial intelligence capabilities allows both to grow.
Not only do mergers and consolidations enhance the synergies between multiple technologies, but companies must also seek collaboration between legal service providers and nontechnical groups to build fully usable products. As Mark A. Cohen noted in his Forbes article, “Global Legal Tech Is Transforming Service Delivery,” effective technology must be built on an interdisciplinary effort. That should incorporate “an understanding of practice issues (what's important); business of law (operations designed to deliver services optimally); technology (how best to build it); and users (how to make tech user-friendly to provider/consumer and compat[ible] with existing tools).”
More importantly, these marriages of convenience benefit customers tremendously. Clients can obtain better wraparound services when multiple products are intentionally integrated. When companies merge, they can work together to ensure that their apps correctly talk to each other, minimizing or eliminating errors. This allows a seamless cooperation between different capabilities and a comprehensive platform that can address a complex and multifaceted process such as document creation.
These consolidated systems work better—together, and, more importantly, using a single integrated system reduces the time that lawyers and staff must spend climbing a learning curve. An interrelated suite of connected user-friendly software services allows clients to learn how the system works once and then apply that same understanding to every other component of the consolidated system. This minimizes disruption and both simplifies and expedites customer support and communications by bringing multiple teams under one roof.
Better Resource and Time Management
Everyone stands to save time and effort when companies combine their resources. Legal technology companies may be attracted to a merger by the prospect of growing their staff, their physical resources, and their attendant technical capabilities. In addition, mergers create significant time savings: by combining two companies' expertise to create a single elegant solution that improved product can make it to market faster than either company could have accomplished alone.
Also, clients save just as much time and effort as the companies themselves do. Working with a single vendor that can provide enhanced services is faster, easier, and less expensive than communicating with multiple diverse vendors that can each only provide a piece of the overall puzzle. Not only can customers' total costs be lower, but the predictability of those costs is also dramatically improved by working with a single consolidated vendor.
Clients also save time by using a consolidated technology service. As noted above, a uniform integrated platform minimizes the time that is spent learning how the system works or how to optimize results. In addition, setup time and downtime due to disruption or service replacement should reduce at the same time that vendor communications are streamlined.
Wider Geographic Range
Another consistent theme to the trend of legal technology company mergers is increasing geographic diversity. For example, shortly after Advanced Discovery acquired Altep, it merged with Millnet, a London-based e-discovery firm, expanding its reach from the U.S. to Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Other mergers have created a cross-coastal presence for companies that previously were in a small local market. While communications technology and the global economy are breaking down walls between countries and regions, there are still important cultural and legal differences that affect how systems can and should work; a one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely to apply everywhere
This geographic expansion applies as much for legal technology customers as it does to the companies themselves. Having a multinational legal service provider allows law firms and corporate counsel to work with confidence all over the world, enhancing their capacity to create global collaborations. For clients navigating an increasingly interconnected market, knowing that their legal technology service providers have worldwide presence and expertise is critical to maintaining best practices—wherever they find themselves called to practice.
Consolidation Is Here to Stay
Legal technology companies are likely to continue rearranging themselves, merging and rebranding as they find new and innovative ways to work together. Fortunately, this is almost always a good thing for customers, who are likely to receive better, more comprehensive services while controlling costs and enabling their own geographic expansion.
Avaneesh Marwaha is the president and CEO of Microsystems. As president, Marwaha is responsible for leading Microsystems as it continues to grow in market impact and influence. In his prior roles, Marwaha served as chief operating officer of Nexonia and Keno Kozie. During his tenure, he was instrumental in each business's expansion to becoming multinational companies. Earlier in his career, he was a practicing attorney, general counsel and entrepreneur.
It is an undeniable fact: After years of specialization and disruption in the legal technology market, the pendulum is swinging back toward consolidation of businesses and services. More and more legal technology companies are joining forces to combine their products and services into broader, more integrated software packages. From e-discovery and secure cloud storage vendors to document management and legal research businesses, companies are melding their unique knowledge and skill sets—and their customer bases—to the benefit of themselves and their clients.
Just this year, legal research leader
This trend toward consolidation is no fad; expect to see more mergers and acquisitions as technology grows more complex and more specialized. However, many law firms and lawyers seem to worry about what will accompany these changes. How much will the products and services that they rely on change? How difficult will it be to get help from customer support while the service provider is undergoing a rebranding or internal staffing shift? Will their vendor be part of a merger?
The good news is that the new normal of consolidated services represents a great development for both legal technology companies and their clients. The three key reasons driving the move toward consolidation also represent the three key benefits offered to those merged companies' customers.
First, consolidation allows for improved and expanded services, growing the reach of legal technology companies and allowing them to leverage new technologies while providing a more useful and user-friendly integrated suite of software solutions. Consolidation also allows both companies and their clients to better manage their resources while saving time and streamlining communications. Finally, mergers allow smaller, discrete companies to expand their geographic range, covering more customers and aiding in global collaborations.
Improved and Expanded Services
The primary reason for the uptick in legal technology mergers is technology itself. Today, artificial intelligence applications, including natural language processing and machine learning, are increasingly capable. However, to work well, these systems must be precisely built and trained. Sophisticated technology like artificial intelligence and the disruptive nature of technological innovation itself have driven increased specialization.
With that specialization, many useful and novel approaches may be scattered across many companies, each solving a discrete problem. Thomson Reuters reported that between 2012 and 2016, global patent filings for new legal services technology increased by 484 percent. Consolidation permits these diverse businesses to leverage fully new technologies by bringing their work together. As with
Not only do mergers and consolidations enhance the synergies between multiple technologies, but companies must also seek collaboration between legal service providers and nontechnical groups to build fully usable products. As Mark A. Cohen noted in his Forbes article, “Global Legal Tech Is Transforming Service Delivery,” effective technology must be built on an interdisciplinary effort. That should incorporate “an understanding of practice issues (what's important); business of law (operations designed to deliver services optimally); technology (how best to build it); and users (how to make tech user-friendly to provider/consumer and compat[ible] with existing tools).”
More importantly, these marriages of convenience benefit customers tremendously. Clients can obtain better wraparound services when multiple products are intentionally integrated. When companies merge, they can work together to ensure that their apps correctly talk to each other, minimizing or eliminating errors. This allows a seamless cooperation between different capabilities and a comprehensive platform that can address a complex and multifaceted process such as document creation.
These consolidated systems work better—together, and, more importantly, using a single integrated system reduces the time that lawyers and staff must spend climbing a learning curve. An interrelated suite of connected user-friendly software services allows clients to learn how the system works once and then apply that same understanding to every other component of the consolidated system. This minimizes disruption and both simplifies and expedites customer support and communications by bringing multiple teams under one roof.
Better Resource and Time Management
Everyone stands to save time and effort when companies combine their resources. Legal technology companies may be attracted to a merger by the prospect of growing their staff, their physical resources, and their attendant technical capabilities. In addition, mergers create significant time savings: by combining two companies' expertise to create a single elegant solution that improved product can make it to market faster than either company could have accomplished alone.
Also, clients save just as much time and effort as the companies themselves do. Working with a single vendor that can provide enhanced services is faster, easier, and less expensive than communicating with multiple diverse vendors that can each only provide a piece of the overall puzzle. Not only can customers' total costs be lower, but the predictability of those costs is also dramatically improved by working with a single consolidated vendor.
Clients also save time by using a consolidated technology service. As noted above, a uniform integrated platform minimizes the time that is spent learning how the system works or how to optimize results. In addition, setup time and downtime due to disruption or service replacement should reduce at the same time that vendor communications are streamlined.
Wider Geographic Range
Another consistent theme to the trend of legal technology company mergers is increasing geographic diversity. For example, shortly after Advanced Discovery acquired Altep, it merged with Millnet, a London-based e-discovery firm, expanding its reach from the U.S. to Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Other mergers have created a cross-coastal presence for companies that previously were in a small local market. While communications technology and the global economy are breaking down walls between countries and regions, there are still important cultural and legal differences that affect how systems can and should work; a one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely to apply everywhere
This geographic expansion applies as much for legal technology customers as it does to the companies themselves. Having a multinational legal service provider allows law firms and corporate counsel to work with confidence all over the world, enhancing their capacity to create global collaborations. For clients navigating an increasingly interconnected market, knowing that their legal technology service providers have worldwide presence and expertise is critical to maintaining best practices—wherever they find themselves called to practice.
Consolidation Is Here to Stay
Legal technology companies are likely to continue rearranging themselves, merging and rebranding as they find new and innovative ways to work together. Fortunately, this is almost always a good thing for customers, who are likely to receive better, more comprehensive services while controlling costs and enabling their own geographic expansion.
Avaneesh Marwaha is the president and CEO of Microsystems. As president, Marwaha is responsible for leading Microsystems as it continues to grow in market impact and influence. In his prior roles, Marwaha served as chief operating officer of Nexonia and Keno Kozie. During his tenure, he was instrumental in each business's expansion to becoming multinational companies. Earlier in his career, he was a practicing attorney, general counsel and entrepreneur.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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