How AI is Enabling Law Firms to Adapt to Value-Based Pricing
Artificial intelligence allows for the legal industry to adapt to an increasingly competitive marketplace in ways that benefit both law firms and corporate legal departments.
January 10, 2018 at 08:00 AM
5 minute read
The legal industry has a storied history of resistance to technological change. Everyday business necessities such as the telephone, computer, electronic document management systems and email were all originally met with skepticism by law's top decision makers. Their excuses against adaptation were always the same: The costs were too high, the system as it currently existed didn't need improvement, and that new innovations could create potentially harmful security issues for their clients.
Therefore, it is no surprise that the legal industry has been more hesitant than others—such as retail, manufacturing, finance—to embrace artificial intelligence (AI) when improving business efficiencies such as e-discovery, e-billing and business modeling platforms.
But a recent significant power shift in the relationship between law firms and their clients has prompted lawyers to re-evaluate this overly cautious approach. Clients are demanding answers that the current systems in place are not capable of providing.
Reasons for Resistance to Artificial Intelligence
There are three main reasons why the legal industry has resisted the adaptation of new technologies, specifically AI: industry mindset, existing business models, and fear.
First, from my own experience at Harvard, I've come to realize that there has been a certain fixed mindset bestowed upon lawyers beginning in their early days of law school. A formal legal education teaches a rigid, linear and logical way of thinking, often creating an unwavering sense of conviction in one's professional beliefs. This is supported by research by Dr. Carol Dweck of Stanford University, who believes this fixed mindset has been a major barrier blocking the legal industries' willingness to embrace growing and evolving needs in the industry.
Second, the fact that the industry has built itself around billable hours has hurt the adoption of AI and technology. Hourly fees have been the traditional billing unit of legal services; therefore, there has been a huge built-in wall of defiance from the profession against data-driven accountability. Why would a time-based billing industry want to adopt and embrace technologies, such as AI, that yield efficiencies, when the business makes money on being inefficient? And this makes sense – because even in other service industries, such as banking and consulting, there's value-based pricing.
Third, there is a legitimate fear in the legal community about AI replacing lawyers. Natural language processing (NLP) software such as ROSS Intelligence has proven to be effective at scanning legal databases and pulling documents that will be relevant to a certain matter. Additionally, companies like LawGeex have used NLP to scan contracts to determine if it is legally sound and suggest clauses that should be added or amended. These types of programs are the cause of fear: both systems could technically take over that role from humans. But, these technologies will only make a law firm more efficient, thus allowing the firm to stay competitive, win more business, and ultimately create more jobs.
Why Now is the Time for AI in Legal
Law firms and corporate law offices are just now realizing the importance of AI's ability to analyze big data to recognize patterns, improve business functions, and understand new pricing models. This is a direct result of a growing need born out of the evolving relationship between law firms and clients. General counsels have started to demand that law firms draw back the curtain on their opaque, traditional billable hour fee structure, demanding alternative fee arrangements instead. However, law firms lack the historical precedent to determine how much to charge and how to efficiently staff within the new world of value-based pricing. Additionally, corporate legal departments are not able to truly understand what is fair compensation for their legal matters.
What both are now starting to realize is that analyzing big data using AI is the best way to reach an agreement. A deep dive into the patterns recognized through the analysis of past billing statements and case results, using AI platforms like Bodhala, can be mined for easy-to-use, actionable insights to improve business functionality and efficiencies.
Furthermore, artificial intelligence arms law firms of all sizes with the evidence necessary to compete for available business, not only based on name recognition and reputation, but also on performance. The insights produced can determine key differentiators and selling points to guide the new business sales cycle.
Overall, artificial intelligence allows for the legal industry to adapt to an increasingly competitive marketplace. Law firms can become more efficient, stay competitive, win business, and create more jobs, while the corporate legal departments can cut their legal spend, maximize value and improve internal processes.
Raj Goyle is the co-founder and co-CEO of Bodhala, a leading legal technology company based in New York City focused on data analytics and legal procurement. Co-founded with a fellow Harvard Law graduate, Bodhala is the first platform that unlocks the power of big data and machine learning to equip law departments and firms with the evidence required to efficiently make critical business decisions.
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
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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