Tips From Big Law to Get Lawyers to Use Technology
Lawyers aren't known for being tech savvy, but that doesn't mean they won't use new software—so long as it is properly presented to them.
February 01, 2019 at 11:39 AM
3 minute read
As with any product, you should know who your target demographic is, and legal technology is no different. Directors of research at several large firms offered their insights and past experiences deploying technology at the “From Conversation to Conversion: Tips to Get Lawyers to Use New Tech” Legalweek session.
June Liebert, Sidley Austin's firmwide director of its library and research services, explained that choosing valuable software should be based on what a lawyer's practice needs are. For software to be deemed beneficial, it must help them address a client's matter.
For Cynthia Brown of Littler Mendelson, the first step with any new solution is testing its ability. After that, it's on to promoting and attracting lawyer engagement with the new product. Panelists agreed that promotion of the product should emphasize how it will improve a lawyer's day to day work.
“Basically we are taking the approach when we promote products that the idea is not to promote the product but what is going to make their lives more easier, make them more efficient, help them support their clients more effectively,” said Cheryl Smith, O'Melveny & Myers' director of information services.
Obtaining a firm leader to champion the product early on is also valuable promotion, the panel added.
After a technology is deployed, data analytics can offer useful insight regarding its usage and provide evidence for its continued support and information on who its key users are, added Jean O'Grady of DLA Piper.
“It's so critical to be able to understand what lawyers are using and who are the bigger users. When a vendor is discontinuing a product or the law firm decides to no longer purchase the product, knowing beforehand which lawyers are using what products is important,” she said.
To be sure, technology adoption rates can vary, and they may take some time to grow. “The adoption is not going to be immediate, it's OK if there's a curve,” O'Grady said. “It is OK for lawyers to come to you and ask you to 'use it for me now, and I'll learn it later.'”
For example, a boot camp training at DLA Piper teaching associates how to use analytic programs to help with their cases was an “adoption by proxy,” O'Grady said.
“It raised the general awareness that analytics are available and [allowed] lawyers [to] ask new questions,” O'Grady said. She added DLA Piper saw consistently higher usage of analytic programs after the boot camp.
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