At Firms, In-Person Networking Still Trumps Tech in Assigning Legal Work
Tech makes matchmaking between attorney and subject matter easy, but firms may be more worried about striking the right interpersonal chemistry.
March 30, 2020 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
You have to network to get work, a sentiment that still appears to hold true for lawyers looking to advance up the food chain at their existing law firm. While existing tech platforms such as experience management systems or even the more generic matter management or billing tools can be used to identify lawyers on staff whose skill set most closely aligns with a given task, those products are likely not being used to their fullest extent—yet.
Partners with a matter that needs assigning may still find it easier to simply look down the hall than consult a dashboard breaking down the number of hours a handful of associates has accumulated around a given subject area. However, with some law firms continuing to swell in size—and ranks—it's possible that technology could play a bigger role in matching attorneys with their next matter.
"That kind of walking down the hall culture, it will still be around. But it will have to change," said Jarno Vanto, a partner at Crowell & Moring.
In some respects it already has, just not on a wide scale. Various experience management systems, for instance, have typically been used across different industries to measure customer satisfaction, but have evolved to catalog the different kinds of experience that attorneys working inside a firm may have with regards to a particular subject matter.
Nathan Cemenska, director of legal operations and industry insights at Wolters Kluwer's ELM Solutions, said big consulting companies with larger staffs to manage tend to deploy these kinds of tools much more frequently than law firms. Still, he argued that even a global firm boosting 10,000 employees may not be large enough to justify the use of something like an experience management system, especially since interpersonal chemistry remains a vital part of team-oriented projects.
In fact, think of selecting an internal candidate from an experience management system like online dating. "You find a profile that on paper looks great, but then you actually meet the person and there's just no chemistry. You don't really want to meet the person. You don't even want to interact with them. You don't want to work with them. I think it's the same way in law firms," Cemenska said.
To be sure, not every tech-based method for linking the right attorney to the right matter necessarily requires an expensive new purchase. Tools that many law firms already have on hand—such as billing or matter management solutions—could potentially be repurposed to derive relevant statistics such as how many hours an employee has billed around a given niche of the law.
According to Cemenska, much of that relevant information already exists inside Wolters Kluwers' database. "But that isn't the way that we market our products right now, and I don't think many of our competitors do either," he said. So what's the hold up? The answer may simply be that the demand isn't in place. Cemenska pointed to tendency among lawyers and even some clients to stick with the people they've had positive interactions with before.
Vanto at Crowell indicated that he has yet to notice law firms making use of billing or matter management tools to source in-house talent, citing some of the potential problems such a data-centric approach could raise for the industry long term. "Certain issues would always go to the person or two individuals who are doing that work. … Then you would not enable anyone else to develop that talent or expertise in the firm if all that work went to that one person."
Still, he raised the specter of COVID-19—and the wave of remote working that may linger in the pandemic's aftermath—as a factor that could turn the tide. After all, it's harder to encounter talent face to face if it's not based in the office. Cemenska, on the other hand, argued that law firms are continuing to grow, with a greater number of attorneys necessitating tech-assisted skill searches.
"Law firms are getting bigger and bigger. They have to. And you're going to see more and more of this kind of technology and this way of looking at things. But I would say for the most part it's not going to be taking away from human relationships, I think it's going to be supplementing them," Cemenska 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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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