Emerging Tech: How Robotic Process Automation Fits into Law Firm Operations
RPA isn't just a way of cutting costs, but also a largely untapped avenue for law firm growth.
October 18, 2018 at 07:00 AM
8 minute read
In today's world, technological advancement is proceeding at a whirlwind pace. Every day, there's a new AI-powered solution on the market that promises to change the way law firms do business. While some of these products are ultimately nothing more than empty hype, many of these new technologies can make a real difference when it comes to helping law firms do more with less.
One of the latest advancements to offer real benefits for law firm efficiency and spending is robotic process automation, or RPA. While the name may sound daunting to some, RPA is nothing to fear. In fact, it's something that law firms should be embracing. By automating routine processes, law firms can achieve the seemingly impossible goal of performing more billable work without hiring more people. RPA isn't just a way of cutting costs, but also a largely untapped avenue for law firm growth.
What Is RPA?
Robotic process automation is the use of technology to enable computer software commonly called robots or bots to perform routine tasks by accessing existing applications to capture and interpret data, manipulate it, use it to process a transaction and report the results to other digital systems. RPA isn't simply about automating processes, but rather about creating virtual workers that can perform highly repetitive, time-consuming, rule-based tasks.
Many business functions, particularly on the administrative side, are routine tasks that don't require specialized skills or high-level analysis. Nonetheless, employees are paid large sums of money to spend their days doing little more than clicking a mouse to accomplish them. This is not a good use of either time or resources. By implementing RPA, law firms can allow bots to take over the performance of these operational tasks, freeing up employees to handle higher-value work and boosting firms' overall efficiency.
Law Firm Use Cases
The purpose of RPA is to help law firms create efficiencies and do more work with fewer people. Every firm regularly performs many necessary but routine tasks that are accomplished simply by following a set of prescribed rules. These kinds of tasks are excellent candidates for RPA.
Consider invoicing, for example. It's a necessary part of business at every firm, but the process is incredibly routine. At most firms, the invoicing process involves having a person (who is likely paid a decent salary) access the system each day, find the current bills, PDF them and send them to the proper recipients. As the volume of invoices increases, firms usually hire additional staff to help process them.
Invoicing is the perfect example of a structured task that a bot can handle just as well as a human. In the case of invoicing, the bot is nothing more than a computer program that runs in the middle of the night, following the same set of steps a human would take to generate bills. The significant difference is that, when RPA is applied, the bills are ready in the morning for the responsible employee to review and send out, without requiring any employee labor in their preparation. Automating the process cuts out half the manual work and frees up hours of invaluable time that employees can instead devote to high-value work.
The same is true for other routine, structured commodity tasks that are defined by a set of rules. Think of these as the low-hanging fruit of the law firm. Similar examples include new client or matter intake, as well as employee onboarding and offboarding. Each of these tasks involves a predefined set of steps that must be accomplished in a routine matter. Bots can easily be assigned these tasks while law firm staff focus on more important tasks.
RPA's usefulness isn't limited to administrative operations. It can also be applied to more case-oriented work like basic legal research. Today, a good portion of legal research consists of a paralegal performing keyword searches in a designated database, collecting the results, converting them to PDF and delivering them to the overseeing attorney. That exact process can easily be automated and handled by a bot. The bot can simply be programmed to look for designated terms in the middle of the night, collect the relevant results, organize them as PDFs into a folder and deliver them to the assigned associate before he or she arrives in the morning. Using RPA frees paralegals up to instead focus on more high-value billable work.
The preceding examples are by no means exhaustive. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of tasks that law firms perform daily that could greatly benefit from automation.
Common Barriers to Entry
Despite the widespread potential use of RPA, many firms are failing to take advantage of it. This is primarily due to two of the largest barriers to entry for RPA at law firms: cost and not knowing what to automate.
Implementing RPA is an expensive proposition for law firms that attempt to do it on their own. Fortunately, they don't have to. There are expert vendors in the marketplace who are now offering automation as a service. By outsourcing to a vendor with expertise in RPA, law firms can obtain the desired automation without excessive upfront spending on software and licensing. With automation as a service, law firms simply pay a monthly fee based on the number of bots used. That number can be adjusted up or down as needs change. The as-a-service model offers a much easier entry to the world of RPA, as opposed to spending thousands or even millions of dollars to build the necessary infrastructure it would take to implement RPA without help.
The second common factor that keeps many law firms from pursuing RPA is the fact that they simply don't know which processes to automate to best boost efficiency. Some firms opt to spend money to interview their staff in an attempt to map out a potential automation strategy, but these efforts ultimately don't generate useful information. Instead, firms should be relying on an automation vendor that offers automated process discovery.
Automated process discovery is a sophisticated technological approach to determining what to automate. The vendor will install software that watches firm employees while they work and then creates a map showing what processes can be automated and what the corresponding savings will be. Automated process discovery is invaluable, because RPA is only useful if the right processes are being automated in a way that leads to increased efficiencies and real-world benefits.
Why RPA Makes Sound Business Sense for Law Firms
RPA is well suited for any organization that provides any type of routine services. In the last five years, many service-oriented industries have changed the way they do business and adopted automation. Law firms, as they have historically been with most new technologies, have been more hesitant to commit.
Continuing to pay staff to perform routine tasks that could easily be automated is no longer a good use of either time or money. Many law firm systems employed today don't have automation capabilities built in. Instead, law firms will need to augment their current systems with an RPA framework that allows them to perform commodity and structured tasks in an automated fashion.
Most law firm staff are currently spending 30 percent or more of their time doing commodity work. By automating that commodity work, firms can see that 30 percent of effort devoted instead to high-value work. RPA offers the possibility of having law firm staff achieve a 100 percent rate of performing value work. This leads to increased efficiency and lower costs without having to cut staff. RPA allows firms to get more capacity out of the employees they already have by removing the operational side of firm business from their workloads.
At a time when law firms are under increasing pressure to reduce costs while boosting efficiency, RPA is a game-changer. Performing more billable work without hiring additional staff used to seem like an impossibility. With automation as a service, that impossibility is now a reality.
Arup Das is CEO of Alphaserve Technologies. He is an expert in institutional level technology governance and operational risk management standards that are prevalent in hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital funds and global law firms. Mr. Das holds an MBA from Cornell University and sits on its Board of Entrepreneurship; he also has a Masters degree in Computer Engineering from the State University of New York at Stony Brook and a Masters in Analytics from Villanova University where he is an advisor for their Center of Business Intelligence. Mr. Das is also a Board Member of Youth Inc.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Doug Emhoff, Husband of Former VP Harris, Lands at Willkie
- 2LexisNexis Announces Public Availability of Personalized AI Assistant Protégé
- 3Some Thoughts on What It Takes to Connect With Millennial Jurors
- 4Artificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
- 5The New Global M&A Kings All Have Something in Common
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