Neota Partners With Legal Consultants for AI-Based Billing Tool
Neota Logic and legal pricing consultants Burcher Jennings and Validatum teamed up to launch Virtual Pricing Director, a collaboration years in the making.
October 18, 2018 at 10:30 AM
3 minute read
Artificial intelligence company Neota Logic and legal pricing consultants Burcher Jennings and Validatum have teamed up to launch Virtual Pricing Director, an AI-powered billing tool that assesses law firm's potential legal work to provide a suggested client fee. The software is scheduled to be released in January or February 2019.
Virtual Pricing Director will include templates where users select the practice areas, tasks, rates and clauses for a matter. From there, the tool generates a matter's budget based on the previous templates selected and provides a breakdown of expected spending. Lastly, it calculates a client price with an explanation of how the number was determined.
The software also offers “sense checks,” which Rick Seabrook, Neota Europe managing director, explained allows lawyers to inspect the software's proposal and price breakdown and decide if it is in line with the client's budget.
In addition, the Virtual Pricing Director generates live updates on how each of the billed phases are tracking relative to the law firm's budget.
A press release issued by Validatum announcing the new product said the program was needed to help law firms adjust to clients demands for more competitive pricing.
Validatum managing director and Burcher Jennings chairman Richard Burcher said the Virtual Pricing Director stands out from the competition because other pricing consultancies offer “little more than jazzed up spreadsheets.” He added that the software will provide more transparency for lawyers' clients.
“We take the view that lawyers need to be able to use this kit themselves, and it's built for your average partner,” he explained.
Burcher said this was their first collaboration with Neota, although he'd sought to combine technology with his billing consultancy for years. He added that since the Oct. 8 announcement of the AI-powered billing software, they have fielded inquiries from Canadian, U.S. and international law firms.
However, Big Law isn't the only demographic the Virtual Pricing Director is targeting. “We are by no means confining it to Big Law. There a lot of mid tier and smaller tier firms struggling with this and no one is catering to their needs,” Burcher explained.
Those midsize and boutique firms were one of the factors for the differing pricing tiers offered for the Virtual Pricing Director. The Virtual Pricing Director will be priced, partially, by the range of modules a firm chooses to purchase. Modules are practice areas such as real estate, employment and banking, which should cater to the needs of Big Law and smaller firms. The amount of the monthly subscription also depends on the law firm's head count and if the firm buys the full or lite version software.
“The underline rationale for that matrix is to be proportionate to the big firms and the smaller firms,” Burcher explained.
|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
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
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