Credit: Shutterstock.comThe Australian Legal Tech Scene is Vibrant, but Dominated by Men
Women are involved in the founding of just one in five legal tech companies in the country, according to The Australia 2020 Global Legal Tech Report.
April 16, 2020 at 02:00 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com International
Australia's legal tech industry is vibrant and thriving, according to a new report, but the companies that make up the market are overwhelmingly founded by men, according to a new report.
The Australia 2020 Global Legal Tech Report, which provides a snapshot of the legal tech ecosystem in Australia, says women are involved in the founding of just one in five legal tech companies in the country.
It also said some 12% of Australian legal tech firms focus on document automation, with 8% offering legal operations and 6% offering legal analytics.
"Our inaugural research into Australia's legal tech companies reveals a vibrant and kaleidoscopic market that is home to companies at many different stages of development," states the report, by the Australian Legal Tech Association and legal innovation company Alpha Creates.
The report identifies 2015 as Australia's legal tech startup tipping point, as 37 of the 54 legal tech companies that responded to the survey were founded from this point onward.
The majority of the firms—44%—aim their products at law firms, with 27% targeting corporate law departments.
The report, the first in a series which will look at the state of legal tech in different parts of the world, identifies two key themes in the Australian market.
Only 21% of legal tech organizations in Australia have female founders or co-founders, similar to the low representation of women at the upper echelons of law in Australia.
Even so, there are marked differences with those with female founders.
They are interested in a broader market than legal tech companies without a female founder or co-founder, the report found.
"Only 32% of female-founded companies indicated law firms as their primary target, compared to 49% of legal tech companies without female representation in their founding group," the report stated.
Secondly, despite the attention artificial intelligence receives in the media and from legal leaders, only 22% of legal tech firms are driven by AI.
AI technologies appear to require more developer resources and AI legal tech companies had more than twice the number of developers than legal tech companies using other technologies.
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
- 1Matt's Corner: Contributory Negligence Can Be a Bar to Legal Malpractice Recovery
- 2Meet The New Judge: Rockdale County State Court Jurist Aims for Efficiency and Integrity
- 3People in the News—Dec. 3, 2024—Stradley Ronon, Pierson Ferdinand
- 4The Year That Was
- 5Employment Law Changes Expected From Second Trump Administration
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
