When Legal Tech Installations Go Wrong, It's the Revenue that Suffers
Most law firms and corporate legal departments aren't leveraging extremely complex technology, but even a new document management software or billing system could easily ramp up frustrations and potential revenue loss.
December 09, 2019 at 11:45 AM
3 minute read
Installing new software may entail a learning curve for any organization, including a law firm and corporate legal department.
But when its business model hinges on the billable hour and being accessible to clients, the slightest inconvenience or error can be frustrating and potentially revenue-breaking for the legal industry.
"Usually there's a period of time [law firms] are slower to do things when they're learning something new," said Diane Camacho, founder and CEO of DLC Consulting Services, a law firm management consulting provider for solo and small firms. "It can be very frustrating and it could take people longer to do things than usual."
She added, "Sometimes there's a lot of frustration. The work doesn't stop when there's a change—you are expected to produce the same amount of work."
But when the firm is moving slower, it's most likely doing and billing less.
While taking on large projects such as migrating to the cloud or switching offices presents potential challenges to running the firm smoothly, Camacho noted that even smaller tasks like installing a new billing or accounting system could result in revenue loss if there are errors in that technology or new workflow.
"The errors would be the reports not balancing in the accounting system, because everything is mapped in the back end."
To avoid a potential mishap, Camacho recommended law firms run both the new and legacy system in parallel for a month as a safety net to ensure the accuracy of the content collected.
But it's not just the billing or accounting systems that can cause trouble if not properly installed or managed. While not perhaps revenue-breaking, HBR Consulting IT managed services chief technology officer Matt Coatney also noted document management tools can cause operational risks for lawyers who are constantly sending and receiving emails.
"These document management systems have to be tightly integrated into emails and folders lawyers use," he explained. "Given how much content lawyers work on on a daily basis, that's a ton of content that needs to flow from system to system."
However, Coatney noted it's difficult to correlate lost revenue to working harder or longer to redirect documents or files. "Yes, it is a bit of a tax on lawyers' productivity, [but] if they are browsing between folders, that takes 30 seconds," he said.
Still, legal tech platforms' complexity and integration into other various software can lead to greater likelihood of malfunctions or instability, Coatney said.
"It's largely in their customization of the Microsoft suite. That's probably the most common example where the tools that are tightly integrated and what the tools can do can be pretty invasive," he said.
To avoid integration complications, Coatney advised law firms and legal departments to carefully consider if a new application is needed. However, if installing new software is essential, the new platform and the organization's current tech should be analyzed for any potential stability concerns, he 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
- 1Weil Advances 18 to Partner, Largest Class Since 2021
- 2People and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
- 3Beef Between Two South Florida Law Firms Deepens With Suit Over Defamation
- 4Judge Skips Over Sanctions in Talc Bankruptcy: 'That’s A No'
- 5Hit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
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