General Counsel Embracing Business Role, But Say Most Attorneys Lack Tech Competence
The "General Counsel Report: Corporate Legal Departments in 2020" survey found that most GCs are now expected to be business strategists, but less than half believe most attorneys have adequate technical competence.
October 15, 2019 at 02:22 PM
4 minute read
It's no surprise that the general counsel role is changing, but what today's GCs see as their strategic priorities—and how they view attorneys' general tech competence—may come as a surprise to many outside counsel and legal technologists.
According to "The General Counsel Report: Corporate Legal Departments in 2020," sponsored by FTI Consulting and Relativity and conducted by consultant and author Ari Kaplan, 97 percent of GC respondents say they are now expected to be business strategists, largely driven by pervasive enterprise risk. This means that not only are today's GCs giving legal advice, but they're participating in business strategy sessions as well.
"Rather than serving as the gatekeeper, the general counsel is now expected by regulators, institutions and the board to help steer the ship if the business is not headed in the right direction," one unnamed GC said in the survey.
Wendy King, senior managing director at FTI Technology, agreed, nothing that many of these GCs are being asked to become more entrenched in various business units and asked to play a key role. "Largely, it's a shift away from being the department that says no to everything, toward one that offers creative problem solving and solutions," she explained. "This could mean being responsible for steering or righting the course toward compliance, educating the enterprise on policies, tracking ROI for projects and setting long-term strategy."
But if technology is going to play a role in that business strategy, GCs don't necessarily trust attorneys to take part. Just 39% of GCs said they believe most attorneys have adequate technical competence (10% said they didn't know). Two-thirds said the same about paralegals.
This figure may have led to another survey finding: When asked where the legal profession was going, just 38% of GCs said it would be technology-driven, especially by AI. To King, the stance on technology aptitude was surprising, and the two figures are consistent as "when so many attorneys believe that the profession is lacking in technology competency, it is hard for them to view the future of law being largely technology driven."
"It's true that there's still a lot of work to be done in terms of counsel getting comfortable with technology and understanding the nuances of how different tools and advanced analytics work," she added. "But we see most of our clients taking technology use seriously and taking steps to become more sophisticated. Most have a general openness to embracing technology as part of their practice and finding new ways to apply it to reduce costs, improve efficiencies and work smarter for their organizations."
The survey also found that today's GCs have a wide array of different risks to juggle. Of the 32 GCs surveyed, 69% said their organization had changed its privacy policies because of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), for instance. A majority also said they were equipped to handle information governance and data remediation issues (70%), as well as emerging data sources such as social media or cloud-based apps (57%).
Many newer technologies do not seem to be on GCs' radar, though. Most said they were unprepared to handle blockchain and cryptocurrency (79%), as well as AI and machine learning technologies (73%).
"It's notable that counsel feels under equipped in these areas, because they are the ones most likely to significantly impact e-discovery and other day-to-day legal work now and in the coming years," King said. "Varied data from cloud-based apps, social media and mobile devices are now table stakes in e-discovery, and legal teams are increasingly facing matters in which they must collect, process, analyze and review potentially relevant information from a wide range of sources."
She added that this lack of confidence means there is "a pressing need for education and outside expertise to help counsel navigate the landscape of emerging data sources."
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
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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