Legal Tech Sees Opportunity in Corporate Law's Evolution
HighQ is releasing a new addition to its platform with tools that are specifically geared towards in-house counsel at a time when other legal tech providers are starting to recognize more corporate law teams as potential clients.
March 27, 2019 at 09:30 AM
3 minute read
In-house legal departments have become an attractive target to legal tech companies as they look for ways to improve efficiency. And by turning to technology, corporate legal departments may be fundamentally altering the power balance between them and their outside counsel.
“It just feels like the early stages of something, where in-house teams are really stepping up and doing some really interesting things and really looking at technology and process improvement and efficiency in a very interesting way,” said Rob MacAdam, director of legal solutions at HighQ. The legal tech solutions provider has recently built an extension onto its existing platform featuring a suite of tools geared specifically towards corporate legal teams.
So why are in-house departments suddenly looking to invest in legal tech? The better question might be why not sooner. Even within an industry that has notoriously reluctant to adapt to new technologies, corporate legal teams might still be a step out of touch. Put another way, when new solutions do hit the marketplace, a company's first thought isn't always its legal department.
“[In-house departments] are in many cases kind of the forgotten team amongst their organization. They are used as problem solvers… They haven't necessarily had that same investment as other teams [with] technology,” MacAdam said.
But legal departments are realizing they need solutions to help streamline increasingly hefty workflows. To be sure, HighQ isn't the only solutions provider to take notice of a demographic ripe for legal tech. Carly Toward, a lawyer in charge of value propositions, market positioning and industry insights for corporate legal departments at Thomson Reuters, said her company has gradually increased its focus on in-house legal teams over the last five years.
The shift is due in equal parts to a surplus work that needs to be done within those departments and the right technology finally being in place to automate the completion of that work.
“There's a ton of manual process that exists within the legal department today and [with] departments bringing in technology managers to legal ops teams, they're certainly driving that interest as well,” Toward said.
Frank Giovinazzo, a managing director at InCloudCounsel, thinks that in-house teams are subject to more routine legal processes—summarizing or negotiating basic contracts, for example—than the average lawyer at a law firm. Those duties subtract from time that could be spent on more lucrative tasks.
“To monopolize their time with routine legal functions that can be outsourced really sacrifices an extremely valuable resource that they were hired to provide,” Giovinazzo said.
Establishing that value might also entail readjusting the power dynamic that exists between corporate counsel and their law firm counterparts. The new addition to HighQ's platform was built with the idea that while it enables collaboration with outside firms, in-house counsel remains entirely in control.
MacAdam said that a company could use the platform to evaluate the performance of different firms in its employ. If the time came to part ways, there wouldn't be any haggling over data or access to the system.
“I think that the other trend that we're seeing is in-house teams stepping up and actually wrestling away control from the law firms and saying, 'This is going to be on my terms and not yours,'” MacAdam 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
- 1Deal Watch: What Dealmakers Are Thankful for in 2024
- 2'The Court Will Take Action': Judge Upbraids Combative Rudy Giuliani During Outburst at Hearing
- 3Attorney Sanctioned for Not Exercising Ordinary Care: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 4$1.9M Settlement Approved in Class Suit Over Vacant Property Fees
- 5Former Wamco Exec Charged With $600M 'Cherry-Picking' Fraud
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