Millennial or Boomer, Tech Adoption in Legal Doesn't Come Down to Age
Generational differences in law firm or legal department leaders don't portend less or more tech adoption. What does influence such adoption is a wide array of business factors.
February 20, 2020 at 10:30 AM
3 minute read
When it comes to the legal industry, the stereotype that boomers are more tech-averse compared to millennials doesn't hold much weight, according to a recently released survey of international legal departments.
Released last month, the Association of Corporate Counsel's ACC Chief Legal Officers Survey found tech adoption rates among millennial and boomer chief legal officers are similar.
"By generation, 48 percent of boomers are keen on adopting new technology solutions compared with 56 percent of millennial CLOs," the report noted.
Legal tech observers say the sparse difference in adoption rates highlights an overall acceptance of tech's efficiency abilities. They argue it isn't the age of the tech leader that dictates a firm's or legal department's tech usage, but a number of other unrelated factors specific to each legal office.
Generally, the implementation rates of technology is steered by the organization's tech maturation.
"As a broad statement, I would say millennials are more likely to individually be open to technology because they kind of grew up with tablets, iPhones or BlackBerrys versus boomers. It wasn't part of the early stages of their career," said HBR Consulting chief commercial officer Kevin Clem. "Having said that, [in-house tech adoption] is less driven by the age of the CLO and more driven by where the law firm and legal departments are in their maturity continuum and legal operations."
Clem said a legal department's size, region and work in highly regulated industries is a better indicator that a legal department will have a high rate of tech usage. For boomers who fill CLO roles, their adjustment rate to technology is highly individualized, but most adjust to their new responsibilities, Clem said.
Major, Lindsey & Africa managed legal services global practice leader Mark Yacano agreed, saying no CLO can ignore evolving legal service delivery models and the technology enabling it.
"You cannot be in that role and oblivious to the role of technology and how it is transforming how services are delivered."
Similar to the legal department, in a law firm it's not the age of those at the helm, but their focus that leads to tech adoption, Yacano said. He noted that the chief information officer, or any role tasked with understanding what software can streamline work and provide workflow transparency, is a good indicator a firm is implementing technology.
"I don't think they all need to be technologists, but they need an ear to the ground to understand the possibilities for efficiencies," Yacano added.
Overall, Yacano and Clem stressed that tech adoption in a specific firm or company will come down to individual factors.
"We sometimes stereotype lawyers and firms as being change resistant and clinging to the old model, but I think it's very much a case-by-case study and the nature of the firm leadership and practice leaders," Yacano said.
Clem agreed, noting even with a tech-friendly millennial filling a CLO role, that doesn't lead to instant buy-in by executives.
"I still think millennials are more receptive, it's just there are other factors that tend to be directly correlated with the adoption of technology," he said. "It doesn't matter how open you are with technology—if you can't justify adopting technology, it's going to be tough to justify investment."
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
- 1When Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
- 2New York Top Court Says Clickwrap Assent Binds Plaintiff's Personal-Injury Claim to Arbitration in Uber Case
- 3'You Can’t Do a First Draft of Common Sense': Microsoft GC Jon Palmer Talks AI, Litigation, and Leadership
- 4About the Awards: Southeastern Legal Awards Q&A with Regional Managing Editor Michael Marciano
- 5Private Credit Boom: Miami’s Role as a Financial and Litigation Hub
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