3 Surprises Legal Teams Can Expect When Developing Internal Chatbots
At a Legalweek panel, those from all corners of the legal industry discussed what they learned from launching their own internal chatbots.
February 05, 2020 at 05:19 PM
3 minute read
Chatbots have been at the forefront of efforts to automate legal services and internal knowledge repositories. But building and deploying these services can come with their fair share of welcome, and unwelcome, surprises. At the "Optimizing the Role of Chatbots in Legal" session at Legalweek New York, those from all corners of the legal industry discussed what they learned from launching their own internal chatbots. Here are some highlights from the talk:
|There's a Reason It's Not Called a Talkbot
Law firm staff may be taking chatbots too literally. Flyn Flesher, knowledge management counsel supervisor at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, noted that when his firm launched an internal chatbot, anyone in the firm was able to ask it questions via email or through a dedicated website. What he soon found out, however, was that many preferred to, well, online chat with the chatbot.
"[What was] surprising to me was the extent to which people used the web-based version of the chatbot rather than sending emails to it. … The email [version] was down for a week and no one noticed expect for me."
Jim McKenna, CIO at Fenwick & West, had a similar experience when his firm launched its internal voice-enabled chatbot called Fenni in 2018. "A surprise for us was that we initially thought people would want to use their voice to interact with it, [but] what we found is people would type out their questions."
|Constructing a Chatbot Isn't Hard
Building a program to answer and retain queries from internal staff can seem like a tall order. But those legal teams that have done it in the past know firsthand it is anything but. "First surprise was how easy it was to program it … it maybe takes one month to make a chatbot with very limited features, and everyone can do it now," said Vitaly Vinogradov, CEO of Amulex, a legal services provider in Russia.
Ogletree Deakins's Flesher noted that he started working on a proof of concept for his firm's chatbot in early January and had a working prototype by the end of March. "Essentially very little has changed with the underlying code from [March] … and that was 30 hours of coding from someone who has not done serious coding in 15 years."
|There's a People (and Content) Problem
To be sure, creating a chatbot is not without its fair share of challenges, which oftentimes stems more from people and content challenges than technical ones. "The easy part of it was the technology, the hard part of it was getting everyone to agree this is the single source of truth" and keeping that source updated, said McKenna, of Fenwick & West.
Indeed, even though Flesher noted how relatively easy and quick it was to develop a chatbot, he added that filling it with useful content was a whole other affair. "Gathering the questions and answers, that's a multiyear ongoing process."
Francine French, lead e-discovery Manager GSK, also ran into the same challenge with her company's development of an internal chatbot. "The hardest [thing is] keeping up with the questions and answers and new feedback."
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
- 1Commentary: Freedom's Just Another Word
- 2Former McCarter & English Associate Fired Over 'Gangsta Rap' LinkedIn Post Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation
- 3First-of-Its-Kind Parkinson’s Patch at Center of Fight Over FDA Approval of Generic Version
- 4The end of the 'Rust' criminal case against Alec Baldwin may unlock a civil lawsuit
- 5Solana Labs Co-Founder Allegedly Pocketed Ex-Wife’s ‘Millions of Dollars’ of Crypto Gains
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