Former IBM Watson's Brian Kuhn's New Role: Creating a Legal Tech GitHub
Brian Kuhn, who has now become the vice president of Elevate's new Digital Strategies and Solutions business, discusses how personalization and apps stores are becoming forces to be reckoned with inside the legal tech market.
January 14, 2020 at 02:48 PM
6 minute read
For Brian Kuhn, the name of the game is "personalization." Last week it was announced that Kuhn, the co-founder and former global leader of IBM Watson's legal consulting practice would join alternative legal service provider Elevate as its vice president of its new Digital Strategies and Solutions unit. In his new role, Kuhn will be focused on addressing the needs of legal departments and law firms undergoing digital transformations.
But how exactly does one go about such a task? For Kuhn, it's a lot like customizing a car. While the body might remain the same, individual components like the seat colors and steering wheels can be swapped out as needed—and the same general approach may be necessary in the future of legal software.
Below, Kuhn talks about creating an "internal GitHub" at Elevate and the missing link that may still be hindering legal departments' digitization. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
In March 2019, Elevate's founder and executive chairman Liam Brown told LTN that he wants "Elevate to help law firms overcome their inability to invest in expensive technologies and resources that in-house clients increasingly desire." What's the primary barrier that firms are facing in that endeavor? Is it cost? Human resources? Something else?
Brian Kuhn: The something else factor weighs the heaviest. And that something else is the increasing expectations around personalization—personalized service, personalized results from software. Because people have developed consumer-grade expectations in their personal lives, and those have been carried through to their professional lives. Every time they interact with an app and get 24/7, 365-immediacy they come to rely on it …
In my opinion, good technology is now everywhere in the legal industry, which is great. That's great news. [But] the future I believe is not necessarily or not exclusively about providing good technology. That's table stakes. The future is about helping people apply it, given that there are so many options and given that so many of the technology offerings are themselves incredibly configurable and customizable.
In 2019 Elevate acquired several companies, among them LexPredict, which has an AI and data analytics component. How do you guys anticipate you'll be implementing those moving forward?
Speaking for my group, one of our goals is to create an internal GitHub analogue, where we're able to bring speed and scale to highly configurable, cost-effective engagements because we repurpose software elements. So that internal code base or repository of software tools, would include code that we extract from existing products and solutions. If we need the natural language processing capability of an existing Elevate capability we can take it out and just aggregate it. And we can take out user interface elements, the look and feel, connectors—meaning integration elements.
My goal with this business unit is to create an internal repository, a paint palette of different colors that we can draw from and that others can draw from to address customers' needs quickly and really deliver on personalization.
Just over a year ago, Gatner released the results of a survey indicating that 81% of legal departments are not prepared to support their company's digitization efforts. What do you think that the cause of that is?
This comes back to how to apply the technology … The problem is again not that there's [a shortage of] good technology, it's that the market has not yet been educated on how to apply that technology to business problems. So good news: Now technology is highly configurable. Bad news: Now you have to start thinking about business, which means that you need people who understand business people … who understands business problems and can translate them to a technologist and then work with a vendor.
It requires new conversations, and that's a change-management issue, and that's what I feel to be the real roadblock. The companies that have developed these highly configurable offerings are still selling them as if they are point solutions.
In a prior interview, Liam Brown told LTN that "general counsel are still comfortable buying legal services the traditional way." How do you bridge that gap between that demographic and perhaps the next generation of legal services customers who may have an entirely different set of preferences?
Seventy-five percent of insurance companies and the legal departments within them report that litigation management effectiveness is getting more attention from corporate leadership … Most legal departments still go over budget in their litigation spend in high-volume litigation industries like insurance and banking by about 37%. So I don't know why they are comfortable with it.
I would suggest many aren't given the increased scrutiny and trying to look for new options. Those options have not been available for a long time because they require customer specificity, they require the context that comes from customer specific data.
Last summer, Elevate made three of its products available on the Reynen Court legal tech app. As firms continue to gravitate towards "end-to-end" platforms, should we expect to see more app-stores for legal tech?
Absolutely. You should certainly expect to see app stores where the legal industry and certainly the regulatory bodies or professional associations within it agree upon the rules of the road for what is good machine learning and what is bad machine learning? What can be sold on this app store? And Reynen Court is doing as Apple did with its app store.
There are certain standards to sell an app and those standards in this industry, once they are figured out, will be standards of safety and standards of regulation. As long as they are adhered to people will have these safe app stores to go to and everything on the app store will interoperate, just as it does with Apple, which is one of the benefits.
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 AllIn-House Gurus Say Inattention to Human Side of Tech Adoption Can Derail Best-Laid Plans
5 minute readK&L Gates Looks to Extend Gen AI Expertise to Access to Justice Fight
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
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