From Emails to AI: Blank Rome's Outgoing CIO on Legal's Tech Evolution
Larry Liss, who will be moving to Alphaserve after 20 years at Blank Rome, has played a hand in technology's development from the early days of punch cards to today's modern legal tech platforms.
March 12, 2018 at 01:30 PM
4 minute read
Larry Liss.
While some at law firms have seen the evolution of legal technology throughout the decades, only few have had the chance to actually play a hand in its development.
Larry Liss, who recently stepped down after two decades as Blank Rome's chief information officer, has been instrumental in bringing legal tech from emails to AI. Now managing director and legal industry adviser at managed IT organization Alphaserve, Liss knows that while legal's technology challenges are not unique to its industry or time, the advancements defining its future are nothing if not novel.
Legaltech News caught up with Liss to discuss his 50 years working in technology, his views on what will define future innovation, and working with technology at Blank Rome.
How did you start your career in technology in the 1960s?
I started with IBM when I was still in school at Drexel University. I was a programmer on IBM mainframes, and the first few projects I had involved implementing the first computer banking systems in Philadelphia.
IBM had this come out in 1964 with their System 360, which was the first general purpose mainframe they offered as a banking system. Basically, whenever customers came into a branch to make a deposit or withdrawal, the bank could now key it in through a terminal where as previously they used some sort of machine with punch cards.
What did the early developments of legal technology look like?
Word processing, then document management and email—they were the main things that people used and really are still the main things they use. But now we have hundreds of systems of various types that apply to specific types of practices and administrative functions.
What's the most frustrating aspects of working with lawyers?
Well it's frustrating only in the sense that their priority is the billable hour, so when you need their time to get trained on new system or to be involved in the testing of new systems it's very difficult. On the other hand, they are very bright people, and I've found them to be remarkably appreciative of what we did and do.
Time, however, is going to be an important issue when we talk about artificial intelligence (AI), because the implementation of those system requires some dedicated attorney time.
What do you think will the most impactful technology for legal in the future?
I believe it's the whole AI area. It's just really just beginning to get a foothold in the legal industry, and it has so many different possibilities in helping firms be more productive and be able to compete better—it's by far the most import thing.
I think when IBM Watson first came to light, that's when people's eyes started to open up. I remember early in my career people talking about this kind of thing conceptually, but there were really no practical applications available then in the legal industry.
What truths have stayed the same about technology over the past five decades?
The thing that is more important than anything is the need to get the people utilizing the technology trained, and that's probably as big a challenge as we've had. But the truth is that you can put in all wonderful technology you can think of, but if you can't get people properly trained to use it it's a waste of money.
That's something we have had to focus on over the years, and that hasn't changed. Going back to my first part of my career, training has always been critical to the implementation of new technology.
What's the most memorable moment from your time at Blank Rome?
So when I first came to Blank Rome, 20 years ago, my boss at the time handed me a memorandum that was written by one of the partners who was displeased because the firm had just converted from an older email system to what then was GroupWise, and they lost some functionality.
So he handed me this memorandum which had 10 or 12 issues on it and he said, 'OK you need to work on these.' And over time we became very good friends and partners in implementing technology in the firm.
And it took me pretty much most of those 20 years to address all the points in this memo, and I told him. 'Listen once I get this done, I am retiring.' Which, coincidentally, I did.
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
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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