Alston & Bird Partners With Georgia State University on Legal Analytics
'I don't think we just want to limit ourselves to waiting for the market to try and deliver to us. We want to think more about it,' said Alston & Bird senior director of legal technology innovation Nola Vanhoy.
February 08, 2019 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
Alston & Bird is headed back to school. The Atlanta-based firm is partnering with the Legal Analytics Lab at Georgia State University to receive some hands-on tutoring in data analytics and related tools such as machine learning and text mining. In return, the firm's attorneys will guest-lecture in graduate-level classes and participate in analytics programs on campus.
Beyond the mutual educational value, the partnership grants Alston some independence from the whims of the legal tech marketplace, where attorneys can sometimes be at the mercy of vendors. As law schools dive deeper into the technology sphere, a symbiotic relationship with firms could combine the practical experience and scientific exploration needed to refine the next generation of legal technology.
While Alston won't be turning its back on third-party analytics products any time soon, the firm's senior director of legal technology innovation Nola Vanhoy said they are looking to dive a bit deeper with their approach to tech.
“I don't think we just want to limit ourselves to waiting for the market to try and deliver to us. We want to think more about it,” Vanhoy said.
Alston had a preexisting relationship with GSU that included internships with students who had a strong background in analytics. Fresh blood—even temporary fresh blood—helped keep the firm abreast of technological developments and other potential advances worth watching.
Vanhoy said the presence of those people kept Alston fresh. Without an influx of new ideas or concepts, it's easy for a business to fall into a rut.
“People who work together all start using the same kinds of tools together and we do things a standard way. Every business does,” Vanhoy said.
Fortunately there doesn't appear to be a shortage of tech-savvy law students approaching any time soon. In December, Legaltech News reported on first legal analytics course held at the University of Kansas School of Law, where students got to try their hand at solving complex problems with data analysis and artificial intelligence tools. A similar effort involving AI and text mining was undertaken at Columbia University last fall with the legal tech startup Evisort.
As for GSU, the school's Legal Analytics Lab is a collaboration between the university's College of Law and Institute for Insight, a data analytics unit based out of the J. Mack Robinson College of Business.
Per Charlotte Alexander, an associate professor of legal studies in the Department of Risk Management and Insurance, the institute routinely does what it calls “sprints,” which are really just opportunities for faculty and students to work with outside corporations or law firms on real-life problems. Finding a willing partner has never been an issue.
Alexander thinks that because law schools exist separately from some of the day-to-day business demands that drive law firms or tech vendors, they can focus on “bench science,” a.k.a. the scientific research experimentation that's being used to generate new insights into legal tech.
“A university doesn't have the pressure of bringing a tool to market like a startup might, and so we're able to really experiment at the cutting edge of what analytics might be able to do in analyzing judges' opinions, for example. We're able to push the limits and really serve as a laboratory,” Alexander said.
On the flip side, relationships with a law firm can provide university-based researchers with a working knowledge of how analytics are being applied practically by lawyers and their clients. Vahnoy said Alston has previously looped the institute in on cases involving clients who are interested in leveraging analytics to better understand their own business practices or litigation history.
As for the firm itself, the training from GSU could help attorneys gain a better handle on everything from variables that could impact trial outcomes to how many people are actually opening their client advisory emails.
Vanhoy expects to see more team-ups between firms and law schools in the future.
“I think other law firms will catch on. They'll go, 'Wait, why aren't we doing something like this?'” Vanhoy said.
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
- 1Why Is It Becoming More Difficult for Businesses to Mandate Arbitration of Employment Disputes?
- 2The Whys and Hows of a Mediator’s Proposal
- 3Litigators of the Week: A Trade Secret Win at the ITC for Viking Over Promising Potential Liver Drug
- 4Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 5'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
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