Too Much? Practice Management Platforms Diverge on Adding Video Conferencing Features
In response to COVID-19, some legal practice management companies are looking to add video conferencing features to their platforms. But other providers aren't following suit, worried such a move would take away from their main focus and run into problems.
May 01, 2020 at 08:30 AM
4 minute read
COVID-19 spurred a significant uptick in video conference usage by lawyers and support staff. In response, some practice management providers are developing or licensing video conferencing software and integrating it into their platforms. But not all practice management developers are jumping on the video conference bandwagon.
To be sure, practice management companies agree video conferencing usage was growing pre-COVID-19 and will continue to be used after national stay-at-home mandates are relaxed.
"If anything it's been a trend for remote working and collaboration, but COVID-19 is accelerating that adoption," noted AdvoLogix chief product officer Dave Schwab.
Still, Schwab said the Sugar Land, Texas-based practice management platform has no intention on adding video conferencing capabilities because it takes away from the company's main focus: matter management.
"If you are doing that in-house, you have to update it with new releases and allocate enough time to make sure you are stress testing," Schwab noted.
While some practice management providers argue providing video conference services isn't in their purview, others look to capitalize on the growing legal professional usage. Litify, for example, launched its video conference feature Uplink for its practice management suite on April 21.
Uplink allows users to join a video conference by clicking an invitation link on a computer or smartphone with no app downloads required, according to Litify. Uplink also provides users with a recording and transcription of conversations, which Litify said is securely stored and is a useful note-taking feature for lawyers talking to clients.
Litify acquired phone and text messaging tracking solution Uplink in October 2019. Litify later added video conferencing capabilities to Uplink in-house, noted Litify chief revenue officer Terry Dohrmann.
Even though the novel coronavirus caused most to work from home, Litify previously observed customers leveraging various video conference platforms while working with Litify and other legal management platforms, Dohrmann explained. But he added that while COVID-19 wasn't the impetus for creating a video conference platform, it did accelerate it as a top priority.
And Dohrmann argued greater video conferencing is a behavioral change that will continue beyond COVID-19: "The use of video conferencing and text messaging has been on the incline and COVID and any crisis likely will accelerate it."
Similarly, practice management platform Law Ruler is also considering licensing and integrating a proprietary video conference software into its platform, said Law Ruler Software marketing consultant Nick Apollo. Like Litify, Law Ruler was considering adding video conferencing capabilities before the coronavirus pandemic.
Apollo noted that lawyers and support staff have become more accustomed to video conferencing, and higher usage may demand integration with their other business tools, including practice management software.
Still in its early phase, a big focus for its video conference feature is its security, Apollo added. He noted that attorneys' confidential discussions and conversations cloaked under attorney-client privilege must be protected.
However, protecting an attorney's confidential conversation with a client may be too tall of a task for some practice management providers, said AbacusNext practice automation, chief solutions architect Tomas Suros.
"There was a pretty quick backlash against Zoom of, 'Is their security and passcodes to enter meetings [good enough]?' That type of risk is something firms can't take on," Suros said.
Also, competition is stiff in the video conference arena with the likes of Zoom, Skype and others, he added.
"We are not considering video conferencing technologies because that's not our strength and these businesses, Zoom, Skype and WhatsApp … a lot of technologies that exist that are mature and have a lot of features and what we have seen is those companies compete furiously," Suros 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1'If You Have the Offering, India Is the Shining Star': International Firms on Bolstering Their India Desks
- 2Meet Christopher Benjamin: New Miami-Dade Judge
- 3Are Federal and State Superfund Laws the Best Way to Address Microplastics?
- 4Attorney Can't Invest in Firm With Non-Lawyer Owner?
- 5Former Perkins Coie Partner Moves to Stradley Ronon in Chicago
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