Paralegals Report Automation Replacing Some Tasks, But Technology 'Essential'
In the survey from Ari Kaplan Advisors and Level 2 Legal Solutions, paralegals revealed how outside vendors can have a good relationship with law firms.
October 31, 2018 at 09:15 AM
4 minute read
In a new survey, paralegals said some of their work had been replaced by technology, though many are being called on to help with e-discovery and guiding outside vendor use.
Sixty-three percent of respondents in the survey from Ari Kaplan Advisors and Level 2 Legal Solutions reported technology had replaced former manual tasks, and an identical percentage said they could not perform their work without technology. Nearly all, 94 percent, described their reliance on technology as essential.
Respondents remarked the switch to a paperless office, document management and general automation were common technology transformations at their firm. Paralegals also said technology usage resulted in a higher level of efficiency and responsiveness.
The most popular software tools for paralegals were noted as Microsoft Excel and Relativity. Other popular programs included Workday, Outlook, Skype for Business, OneNote and Quickview.
Regarding the results, Ari Kaplan of Ari Kaplan Advisors noted that “it was interesting to see that most of the responses acknowledged that they could perform tasks without tech, but it would be costly.”
Not all work for paralegals is being automated though. Sixty-three percent of paralegals said they had e-discovery responsibilities, with their most common challenges being the lack of familiarity with e-discovery by the attorneys with whom they work for, the navigation between various professionals who manage e-discovery, new hires' level of experience and the need to embrace technology.
Paralegals noted that many law firms hire paralegals and other professionals to manage e-discovery and navigating between the two poised a challenge.
“Since the people uploading documents are not working on the case or are not paralegals, there is some confusion about why we need things done a certain way, sometimes you need to educate the internal staff working on e-discovery to create greater efficiency,” explained an unnamed paralegal in the survey.
Nearly all paralegal respondents (94 percent) said their law firm uses outside providers in addition to internal support. While only 23 percent of surveyed paralegals said they had primary responsibility for selecting outside providers, 40 percent said they had input in the firm's process of selecting outside providers. However, nearly half (49 percent) reported they were the primary contact for some of their firm's outside providers.
Paralegals cited quality as the most influential factor for an outside provider, followed by trust and price, bandwidth and responsiveness were tied for the third-most influential factor.
Vendors who disclosed their mistakes, sent accurate bills on time, provided prompt responses and suggested ways to improve workflows were key ways to stand out—for all the good reasons—according to the survey.
Kaplan explained paralegals had influence over the software bought because they have familiarity and in-depth understanding of different software tools and techniques. Joey Seeber, CEO of Level 2 Legal Solutions, added that the survey confirmed what he'd experienced during his 10 years in the e-discovery business: Lawyers usually reach out first to purchase the service, Seeber said, and paralegals were the go-to person afterward.
Seeber doesn't see that role changing and said it even may grow. “The non-lawyer has an evolving role in the legal ecosystem,” he explained.
Ari Kaplan Advisors and Level 2 Legal Solutions conducted the survey based on the responses of 13 paralegals and 22 paralegal managers in Am Law 200, midsize and Canadian firms.
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
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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