Choosing Legal Operations Software That Works for You
Choosing the right software to match a team's specific needs can mean the difference between a well-oiled machine and one that's just spinning its wheels.
January 11, 2019 at 07:00 AM
4 minute read
We've talked about measuring what matters and key characteristics of a high-functioning legal operations team, but how does legal software fit into your organization's larger business strategy? The right software can help your legal operations team achieve maximum efficiency so they can spend less time on day-to-day tasks and more time driving true business value.
But what exactly is “the right software”? The answer will be different for every organization. Each corporation has its own goals, and no two legal operations departments are alike. Legal operations teams come in different sizes and have their own unique workloads. Choosing the right software to match a team's specific needs can mean the difference between a well-oiled machine and one that's just spinning its wheels.
However, with a number of options on the market, there are a few common denominators that define 'world-class' legal operations software. Here are two to look for:
|Work With Vendors Willing to Make You Their Partner
Legal operations software is an investment, and to ensure you are able to leverage the software for maximum value, your vendor needs to be all in—not just during the sales process and implementation, but throughout the lifecycle of the solution. Work with vendors who see you as a partner, not a customer. At the start, look for solution providers that have demonstrated a robust understanding of your business processes and are willing to collaborate with you to configure their software to fit your needs. Your solution should be defined to fit your organization's style, not the other way around. Additionally, this will reduce the time it takes to integrate the technology into the business.
Make sure the vendor gives you the opportunity to get involved in the design process and/or software testing to ensure that it actually works as you expected it would. The software should ideally minimize movement between systems and truly integrate into not only existing workflows, but other tools. For example, if you're a Microsoft Office shop, make sure you know whether the proposed software integrates with that solution. If possible, look for a tool that requires very little (if any) adjustment to use and integrate.
Once you are up and running, there should be a strong vendor support structure, including training specialists and named account managers to address any questions you may have. There should also be client user groups and focus groups that let you provide input into product roadmaps and the chance to network with other clients to share best practices. Best in class vendors understand these engagements help optimize the experience and make life better for everybody.
|Find the Right Balance Between Features and Usability
Legal operations teams wear a number of hats, spanning multiple departments—these teams don't need their jobs complicated by overly-complex software. There is a delicate balance between essential features and ease of use.
The technology should be easy to navigate, so users can quickly access the core features they need to do their jobs in an efficient manner. Users should intuitively know where to go and what features to use to accomplish their tasks. Those steps should be minimal and clearly marked so that users spend less time trying to figure out what to do, and more time getting their work done. After all, if your legal operations software complicates your business more than it helps, then it's not doing its job.
You can help by keeping things simple. Before purchasing the software, create a short list of requirements that are essential to your team's success. Focus on software that highlights those features above all else, preemptively reducing extraneous noise. As with most things, legal operations software should follow the Goldilocks principle: an effective tool strikes a balance between too little or too many features.
The right legal technology for your organization might be hard to find and, ultimately, whichever solution you decide on should be the system that best fits your particular situation. But overall, your vendor should be a partner committed to your success, and your technology should ensure your operations run smoothly and doesn't leave your team spinning its wheels.
Nathan Cemenska, JD/MBA, is the Director of Legal Operations and Industry Insights at Wolters Kluwer's ELM Solutions. He previously worked in management consultancy helping GC's improve law department performance and has prior experience as a legal operations business analyst. In past lives, Nathan owned and operated a small law firm and wrote two books about election law. He holds degrees from Northwestern University, Ohio State University and Cleveland State University.
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
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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