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
© 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