Law Firms Are Still Investing in Tech, but the Pace May Have Slowed
Law firms are continuing to identify tech as an imperative to their ongoing competitive advantage, but a new report indicates that investment in technology may be facing a slight decline as the focus shifts towards solutions that enhance client collaboration.
October 30, 2019 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
Law firm investment in technology may be trending slightly downwards, according to the new 2019 legal tech report that was released last week by HSBC UK and produced with The Lawyer Magazine.
Comprised of responses from partners and other senior business leaders inside 50 U.K.-based firms, the report found 81% of respondents identified technology as the item that is the most strategically important to their firm.
However, the 2019 report also showed a decline in the amount of revenue firms were investing in technology. In 2017, 75% of firms indicated that they would spend 5% of their revenue or more on tech. That number dropped to 44% in 2018 and declined again to 27% in 2019.
Chloe Clift, head of professional services in commercial banking for HSBC UK, indicated that a variety of factors could be at a play, from uncertainty over Brexit to an abundance of caution over large-scale tech investments.
"[Law firms have] spent a lot of money on new technology over the last three or four years," Clift said. "Possibly cyclical spending has driven the reduction in percent of turnover spent on technology"
However, Beau Mersereau, innovation leader at the firm of Fish & Richardson, said most of the people he's spoken with feel that firms are investing in technology at close to the same levels as they have in the past.
One thing that may have changed is how those expenditures are categorized. Mersereau noted a change in recent years that has seen legal tech products transition from a one-time purchase to a recurring, subscription-based model, such as a cloud service.
Tech's transition from a capital expenditure to an operational expense may be causing some confusion at firms. "I think that their money has shifted into operational expenses. They think they are spending more, but in reality they might not actually be," Mersereau said.
Meanwhile, revenue that is continuing to be invested in tech may be headed in different directions than in years past, with cybersecurity potentially taking a backseat to solutions that improve the client experience.
According to the survey, 44% of respondents are prioritizing client collaboration tools when it comes to their investment in technology, placing those solutions well ahead of other staples like cybersecurity (15%) and automated document production (13%).
Conversely, figures from the 2018 report show that 84% of respondents selected cybersecurity as the top priority for technology investment, followed closely by client collaboration tools at 79% and automated document production at 74%.
Clift attributed the change to an increasingly fragmented and highly competitive legal marketplace, which has made client trust a key metric for law firms.
"You need to be at the forefront of client collaboration to make sure that you are remaining as competitive as you can be and maintaining those relationships," Clift said. She gave the example of firms deploying solutions that help to increase pricing predictability and transparency.
Mersereau said Fish & Richardson began investing in those kinds of tools after the last economic downturn. "We had to because we started offering alternative fee agreements, for example, in our litigation practice," Mersereau said.
Still, there may only be so much tech can do with regards to flexible pricing models.
When asked, 41% of respondents "strongly agreed" that investments in technology could help facilitate the creation of more innovative pricing structures, but only 21% showed the same level of belief toward the possibility that tech could help them shift from the billable hour towards flexible pricing models.
"I think that from speaking to clients that is absolutely the hope that technology will help move into more innovative pricing structures. Whether it's happening in reality I think is still to be proven," Clift 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
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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