Shouldering More Work, In-House Becomes Selective with Tech Adoption
A new survey indicates that organizations are wielding tech in an effort to bolster productivity as more legal work is kept in-house. But don't expect companies to drastically increase their technology spend over the next year.
June 19, 2019 at 11:00 AM
4 minute read
This week Wolters Kluwer unveiled the results of its 2019 General Counsel Barometer survey, which solicited responses from 193 companies working across a variety of industries in the U.S., U.K., and other European countries.
The upshot is that 53 percent of respondents said they are doing more and more legal work in-house, while many are eyeing technologies that can help cultivate a more strategic or proactive approach to legal work as opposed to the reactive stance that has historically dominated the industry.
“There's a recognition that that isn't good enough, and so there's this movement to not just [get] out of trouble when there's trouble, but making sure that you never get into trouble in the first place,” said Nathan Cemenska, director of legal operations and industry insight at Wolters Kluwers ELM Solutions.
To that end, general counsel appear to be shifting their attention away from day-to-day legal operations. Only 47 percent of general counsel surveyed in 2019 said that they were the primary employees running legal operations within their organizations, down significantly from the 95 percent who said the same just three years ago.
However, general counsels' move to spend more time thinking about strategy doesn't necessarily mean there's an accelerated adoption of legal tech in-house. When asked about the state of their company's investment in legal technology over the next 12 months, 57 percent of respondents indicated that it would increase slightly, 26 percent indicated that there would be no change and only 15 percent said that it would increase greatly.
Those numbers don't preclude an appetite for technology, but might instead be indicative of other factors that are getting in the way, such as budgetary restrictions or a reluctance to dive too deep, too fast.
“If they try to boil the ocean by changing everything at once, it will crash and burn and they'll lose credibility and people will get frustrated,” Cemenska said.
Instead, legal department technology adoption will likely be filtered through some very specific needs. According to 70 percent of those surveyed, the main reason for investing in technology or increasing technology spend revolves around improving productivity.
When pressed for where technology was expected to deliver the biggest advances in efficiency, 64 percent of respondents said contract management— specifically contract creation, management of the renewal process and risk mitigation. Those considerations may also be driving the ways that companies use AI as well.
According to the survey, 44 respondents indicated that AI is having the biggest impact in contract management and review. E-discovery took the second biggest piece of the pie at 27 percent, followed by managing repeatable legal workflow at 22 percent.
“If you've got 200,000 contracts, you can't take make sense of that on your own. You've got to use technology to do that,” Cemenska said.
He pointed to contract analysis tools, where an AI identifies key terms in a document or PDFs to extract and index data, as an example. Once those solutions are in place, it's easier for an organization to proactively mitigate future risk by, say, identifying problematic clauses hidden within existing contracts.
“Now you can go back and make sure you don't make that mistake again by using the software, maybe by going back and identifying all of the previous contracts that had that sort of language and renegotiating them,” Cemenska said.
The desire to cultivate that kind of efficiency has even spread to the way that corporate counsel engages with mobile applications, which one-on-one interviews alluded to in the survey would suggest are not in wide use by legal departments. Still, the most popular mobile tasks are the ones that favor speed.
For example, 34 percent of respondents favored their workload calendar, followed by invoice approval at 27 percent and invoice review at 16 percent. Cemenska indicated that when it comes to mobile apps, it's all about found time and chores that can be completed in a cab on the way to the next meeting.
“It's almost like being on, I don't know, Tinder or something, where you just give it a quick look and say, 'This is good, this isn't, this is good,'” Cemenska 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
- 1Blank Rome Adds Life Sciences Trio From Reed Smith
- 2Divided State Supreme Court Clears the Way for Child Sexual Abuse Cases Against Church, Schools
- 3From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering
- 4‘Diminishing Returns’: Is the Superstar Supreme Court Lawyer Overvalued?
- 5LinkedIn Accused of Sharing LinkedIn Learning Video Data With Meta
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