Is the Cloud Cheaper? For Law Firms, It's Difficult to Say
Cloud computing may be less costly than using on-premises technology in some cases, but law firms are struggling to offset the costs of ongoing cloud usage—or to even place a number on those savings.
October 01, 2019 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
Cloud service providers still haven't made the legal industry a true believer in the cloud's cost-efficiencies just yet, according to the results of the 2019 LTN Law Firm Tech Survey.
While lawyers are beginning to embrace the cloud, 58% of firms polled in the survey, which gauges top U.S. law firms' technology opinions and usage, said their biggest cloud challenge is the cloud's cost savings not being great enough.
Miles & Stockbridge IT chief information officer Kenneth Adams said his firm has used the cloud for roughly five years, and praised the cloud's efficiency and cost-effectiveness, but he still hasn't seen similar cost savings from a cloud-based email platform yet. "We still have an in-house email [system] because the cost isn't worth it going to Office 365 for email. It's so cost-prohibitive," he said.
To be sure, different cloud platforms will elicit different levels of savings. Law firms and legal tech consultants said determining which legal tech platform is most cost-effective to move to the cloud includes evaluating how frequently the platform will be used and if the provider's pricing model is appropriate to their usage.
Volpe and Koenig shareholder Robert Leonard said his firm examined and decided to migrate its document management and docketing system to the cloud, but not other on-premises technology because those platforms provided features and pricing that made it worth it.
"It's sort of like a capital expenditure analysis," he explained. "Moving to the cloud, it's a subscription, monthly or yearly payment model per user versus if you build your own server or maintain your own server yourself, then you have a large upfront cost. But then you have in some instances less subscription-based cost. It's not 100% cut-and-dried."
HBR Consulting technology executive Matt Coatney said law firms that constantly use an on-premises software usually decide not to switch to a cloud-based alternative because then they're faced with a per-data usage pricing model. Instead, more firms are most likely to leverage the cloud for backup storage because it doesn't incur computational costs, he said.
However, legal technology consultant and Dennis Kennedy Advisory Services president Dennis Kennedy argued law firms aren't accurately measuring the direct and indirect expenses of the cloud.
"What I found is that people don't consider all the costs or they don't factor in the inconveniences and problems," Kennedy said. "They either don't give it a cost or they don't look at the savings they get in the whole context."
He added, "If you don't assess a cost or value on peoples' time, employee time and convenience, I think that skews your calculations. And also, one of the big benefits of cloud tools is to capture data and analyze data, and I don't think legacy software allows you the same opportunity to look at data for efficiencies and patterns."
As cloud computing platforms multiply, cloud service providers, including Microsoft, are actively pushing clients such as law firms to their cloud-based products. However, Coatney and Leonard both acknowledged law firms will wait to see how other firms adapt before following.
"Software companies are definitely moving to cloud-based solutions but we are not necessarily early adopters, we don't want to be the guinea pig with our clients' data and risking our ability to provide services," Leonard said. "We go for the tried and true, so no, we don't feel pressured to adopt software that only exists on the cloud."
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
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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