Decreasing Spend May Underscore 'Zombie Company' Problem for Legal Tech
There's concern that legal tech investments are keeping "zombie companies," and their indistinguishable legal tech products, afloat. Still, most don't see a market bubble, but instead expect more consolidation on the horizon.
November 14, 2019 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
Legal tech raised a record $1.2 billion this year, but it may not be all well spent. Industry observers say there's too many products offering similar solutions, which leads to a crowded, indistinguishable marketplace. Observers say that's partially the reason legal tech spending has declined in recent years.
A recent HSBC UK survey found 27% of U.K. law firms were investing 5% of their revenue in tech, a steady dip from 2018's 44% and 2017's 75%. Corporate legal departments' tech spend is also declining, according to a Reuters survey. Only 27% of respondents to the "Legal Tracker LDO Index" report said they would increase their tech budget, compared to 34% last year.
Hogan Lovells legal project management head Stephen Allen noted some legal tech requires higher capital investment and clients can defer payments for an agreed upon yearly cycle, which could lead to a decreased budget spend.
But the spend decline isn't entirely pricing model-based, Allen added. "Part of that is a timing issue, and the cycle of where that is spent—but that being said, there are a lot of products that do very similar things and not all of them will be winners."
The significant similarities between various products also isn't helped by legal tech vendors not understanding lawyers' specific professional challenges.
"Legal tech vendors aren't terribly good at selling exactly what lawyers are looking for," said legal operations adviser and consultant Mitchell Kowalski. "In other words, they don't understand enough of what the needs are of their lawyers to position their products much more interestingly and excitedly to lawyers."
Mixing lax market research with an indistinguishable product could be business-ending, Kowalski said. "I think it's a two-part situation: You have a market that has far too many players in it and a consumer of the product that is very slow to adopt those products. The combination of the two is deadly."
With some legal tech companies garnering investments, indistinguishable products could trudge along before eventually dissolving or being acquired, said David Holme, co-founder and CEO of legal service provider Exigent.
"There's not enough money to make them money, that's what we are facing. Some people in the U.K. are calling them zombie companies, in legal tech we will have a lot of zombie companies." He added, "A good interest rate would wipe out some of these platforms."
Indeed, Kowalski said there could be a legal tech bubble similar to the early 2000s "dot-com" burst. "This [legal tech market] will burst. There will be a number of players that are left standing, and the market will settle done and be better off for everyone."
However, most legal tech observers contacted by LTN said they didn't foresee a legal tech bubble. Instead, they saw an upcoming wave of vendor consolidation as similar products are combined to create a stronger tech infrastructure that addresses the needs of a legal department's and law firm's broader organization challenges.
Holme said companies are more intrigued by tech that can improve the entire organization's analytics and efficiency, not just in the legal department.
"I think they are missing a trick because they can't see legal data is actually a contributor [in a company]," he explained. "Corporations are not investing in a single silo,"
Alex Smith, iManage RAVN's global product management lead and Reed Smith's former Innovation Hub manager, said lawyers are now attempting to bring legal tech solutions to scale to address wider organizational challenges.
"What I found in my time in a law firm is they are good with technology and creative with the open scale platforms," he explained. "We went from point solutions—you could call them single-use tools—to now we need tool kits that are within the corporation or the law firm that can be used across different practice groups."
Editor's Note: This article has been corrected to provide accurate figures for the HSBC survey.
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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending 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