Bad for Business? Firms Diverge Over Entering Legal Tech Market
For some, law firm-backed technology can face resistance in the market and stunt a firm's openness to new tools. For others, knowing the inner workings of a firm is the key to legal innovation. So what's the deal?
March 25, 2019 at 10:32 AM
5 minute read
As the boundaries delineating law firms and legal tech providers begin to blur, a debate is swirling over how much mingling is good for business. Or, as some believe, bad for business.
Over the past few years, a growing number of law firms in the U.S. and U.K. have been helping legal tech startups design their tools, making equity investments in those startups, or even spinning off their own legal tech subsidiaries. Yet while many believe legal tech plays a vital role in the delivery of legal services and the future of the legal market, some are questioning just how close is too close when it comes to law firms supporting technology businesses.
Among the handful of law firms who have launched legal tech incubators, Allen & Overy stands out. Its incubator Fuse is the only one that forgoes equity investment in the tech companies it supports (though the law firm did make a rare exception with blockchain fintech startup Nivaura).
Allen & Overy has said that Fuse's focus is on supporting the development of its legal tech startups' technology, which in turn is leveraged by the firm's attorneys to improve client services.
“This is really about delivering solutions for the clients,” David Lucking, a partner and head of the firm's U.S.-based International Capital Markets Group, told Legaltech News in January. “If your focus is more self-interested … it takes away from what we want to do with Fuse.”
Shruti Ajitsaria, head of Fuse and counsel at Allen & Overy, also does not believe it does legal tech companies any good for law firms to take equity. She told Legaltech News in January that law firm investment in AI contract review platform Luminance, for example, “really hampered them. I haven't seen them get the same traction as RAVN and Kira. Other law firms don't want to use technology that is in part held by another law firm.”
Ajitsaria declined to update her comments for this article. The “law firm investment” to which she was referring, however, was likely from U.K.-based Slaughter and May, which took a 5 percent equity stake in Luminance in 2017 and participated in the AI company's latest $10 million funding round in February 2019.
Luminance CEO Emily Foges pushed back on the idea that Slaughter and May's investment has hindered her company's business in the legal market. “Definitely doesn't chime with our experience at all,” she said, adding that the company has 140 customers, “including very big law firms around the world, some of which may consider themselves competitors of Slaughter and May.”
Foges said that if anything, Slaughter and May's support was beneficial to the company's growth. “In terms of providing a point of reference for [new clients], it has been nothing but helpful,” she explained.
Still, others say there is some truth that law firm-backed technology can face certain resistance. “We have encountered this, where a law firm was a little hesitant to adopt our solutions because of that affiliation, but it's been in the minority,” said Bryon Bratcher, managing director of GravityStack, a legal tech subsidiary of Reed Smith that develops its own proprietary legal technology and offers managed legal and IT services.
Bratcher noted that such resistance has come from a variety of potential law firm clients. “It's been a mix. We've had apprehension from firms that Reed Smith, our parent company, does not compete with whatsoever, and we've had resistance with a couple that do compete with them for legal services. But we have clients right now that adopt our products that Reed Smith competes with on the pitch table every day for litigating and transactional work.”
Firms do business with GravityStack, Bratcher said, because they appreciate that a law firm-owned legal tech company will have a deeper understanding of their needs. “We've literally had our law firm customers tell us one of the main reasons they want our solutions is that we get it, we get their business.”
And this understanding drives how the subsidiary designs its platforms, he added. GravityStack products have “been battle tested internally with Reed Smith. … [It's] an advantage over other providers and other technology companies because they would have to spend six or seven figures to get that type of research and development.”
But moving into the tech business may come at a price. After all, law firms that develop or support certain specific technology may be reluctant to think outside of their own investments.
“Where I think there is sort of a fly in the ointment is that … it dissuades those firms from investing in other technologies that might be better than the technology that they have been developing or investing in,” said Etan Mark, a partner at Mark Migdal & Hayden.
Still, while it can hinder a firm's ability to think outside of their own boundaries, Mark doesn't believe supporting or becoming a legal technology provider will ultimately be that detrimental to a law firm's business. After all, a law firm's main focus at the end of the day is on serving its clients.
“There are some instances where I might not invest in the tech created by the law firm, but I think generally the right answer is to [purchase or invest] in the technology that is going to be most beneficial for your case and client at that moment,” Mark 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
- 1How Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
- 2Pa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
- 3The Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
- 4Publication of Information Regarding Client Matters
- 5The State of Cost Recovery — Post COVID
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