For Legal Tech, Crossing Borders Requires More Than Just a Passport
Legal tech tools that follow local legal processes, and those that are widely established, can more easily travel from country to country. But language barriers, and varying regulations, means that legal tech isn't a truly one-size-fits-all proposition.
November 22, 2019 at 11:00 AM
4 minute read
In the legal tech world, language isn't the only thing that can get lost in translation. Heads of innovation at international law firms say that launching legal tech across different countries isn't always as simple as installing software. Bringing new products to different countries can oftentimes mean tailoring them to a new region's laws, data regulations and language. There are some tools, however, that more easily cross borders than others.
"There's no way you could design a product around global law because there is no global law," said Tom Gummer, innovation manager of Kennedys Law, which recently expanded its KLAiM virtual lawyer platform to its Latin America clients.
Gummer noted "one of the challenges is making sure the requirements of each jurisdiction has been considered." That includes updating the tech with local legal expertise.
Unlike the piecemeal approach of designing the software in accordance to local law, adding more languages to a software's user interface can be done more broadly, he added. For instance, an English-written user interface can benefit U.S. and U.K. offices, while translating the user interface to Spanish benefit users in most South American countries.
Differing language aside, Gummer said online workflow platforms are more straightforward to launch across international offices, because these platforms, such as those that manage prelitigation tasks, may follow a similar set of processes in various jurisdictions.
Hogan Lovells global lead of legal services delivery Stephen Allen noted that e-discovery tools also travel well because many can operate in multiple languages, and the platforms are more established.
"[E-discovery platforms] had more time to mature and I also think it's much easier to understand," Allen said. "The actual market is a lot older … and you don't have to train people about why to use it."
But while e-discovery is leveraged by international lawyers, other platforms such as court analytic tools aren't as readily usable outside of the U.S., Allen added.
"You don't have the same level of data. PACER makes all federal court cases and decisions online immediately," he said. Legal tech companies such as Gavelytics and LexisNexis' Lex Machina, for instance, can offer insights into judges' rulings by accessing these public databases. But elsewhere, such as in France, access to court documents can be restricted and inhibit the market for court analysis tools.
While a court system may dictate how accessible court records are, governments' regulations can also place new requirements on data sharing for law firm tools. For instance, Reed Smith practice innovation director David Pulice noted that the firm's extranet was popular across its 29 national and international offices. But when the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect May 25, 2018, lawyers became concerned about where their client data was being stored and obtaining consent from clients before placing their data on the cloud.
"To combat that we installed an environment in the U.K. to ease the adoption of the tool both for our lawyers and clients," Pulice said. "The lawyers would have it right there to ease the clients' concern about storing data abroad."
Reed Smith's solution echoes what other law firm innovation leaders also note: that deploying legal tech with the intention of global use can ultimately be done if it meets client needs.
"If they can use it, we want to give them the ability to use it," Pulice said. "We've purposely tried to eliminate those barriers. Even with all that good work, there are some barriers that we have to try to overcome, but again, I think a lot of it is education and letting them know what's available."
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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending 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