Deflating Tech Hype Could Help Firms Keep Pace with Competition
Law firms can partner with clients as a technological resource to help compete with alternative legal services. But that might occasionally require cutting through some of the legal tech hype in the marketplace.
February 27, 2019 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
As luck would have it, law firms happen to know a thing or two about legal technology, which should be of comfort to clients looking to invest in document management solutions or the latest analytics tool.
Offering tech advice helps firms distinguish themselves in a marketplace crowded with alternative legal service providers with resources to spare. But successfully guiding clients through the glut of legal tech products on the marketplace can provide its own challenges.
Hype, for example, can play tricks with client expectations and lawyers might find themselves having to walk back those expectations back. Daniel Farris, a partner in the Chicago office of K&L Gates, points to artificial intelligence and blockchain as two areas where the palpable excitement has yet to yield any meaningful transformation within the industry.
“While there are good features of these technologies today, they tend to be in a more limited context,” he said.
Also complicating things is the reality that most innovations occur incrementally in concentrated areas, meaning that new products have to be able to play nice with what came before in order for a system to holistically maintain any kind of functionality.
Because people tend to acquire the solutions in their toolbox individually over time, bringing a new product into an existing office ecosystem can take patience and research. Think of it like buying a new smart television for your living room but then realizing it probably won't sync with your 5-year-old sound system or your DVD player.
A relatively minor purchase can quickly become expensive as old systems have to be thrown out to accommodate one new piece of technology.
“I've been on calls before where vendors were actually showing their software to in-house folks,” said Nola Vanhoy, senior director of technology and innovation at Alston & Bird. “And then as part of us being a part of their process… [we tell them], 'Here are some of the things that I saw that you're going to have to do, and are you OK with that?'”
To be sure, in today's market law firms have little choice but to be tech consultants as well as legal experts.
“You see a lot of big interest in the market and a lot of new services are being offered both in sort of the technology space but also consulting, or professional services that are not legal services,” said Daniel Farris, a partner in the Chicago office of K&L Gates. “So I think law firms, to stay competitive in the future, will have to find ways to offer similar services on the professional services side and have some integrated technology solutions on the technology side.”
But it's not like law firms don't have a running start. Vanhoy pointed out that law firms are full of employees who engage legal tech products regularly in the course of their day-to-day work. The situation is far different in legal departments, where even a robust IT department can find it's attention monopolized by other segments of the business.
“[In-house departments] probably just don't have the bandwidth to evaluate at the same level that larger firms do who have a good sized staff to do that,” Vanhoy said.
It also helps that legal tech developers are still largely creating solutions with either individual consumers or practitioners engaged at a law firm in mind. Farris said while there's been a increase in products geared towards corporate counselors, they tend to exist in narrow areas like matter management. But that many change in the future.
“With the rise of legal of legal ops, they are being forced to engage in this new area that is somewhat foreign to them, so I think there's a lot of confusion,” Farris 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
© 2025 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
- 1Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise, Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
- 2Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
- 3Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri LLC Announces Addition of New Office in Eatontown, NJ, and Named Partner
- 4Friday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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