Legal Tech Providers' Health May Be a Top Concern For Clients Post COVID-19
A down economy may be putting more pressure on corporate legal departments to insure that their vendors and service providers are going to be in business for the long-haul. But startups and legacy companies might be operating under different expectations.
June 05, 2020 at 02:38 PM
4 minute read
Business people shaking hands on New York city background. Concept of partnership. Double exposure.
In a post COVID-19 economy, corporations and their in-house legal department aren't any more eager than they were before the pandemic to waste time and money on a vendor relationship or service that quickly fizzles out. But the pandemic could offer additional reasons for corporate legal departments to investigate the long-term health of outside providers before signing on the dotted line.
While speaking during a recent webinar series hosted last month by Corporate Counsel, John Albright, chief legal and compliance officer at Hub International Ltd., indicated that the stakes around in-house's due diligence with vendors may have risen.
"As we're looking at these platforms and evaluating them, it puts added pressure on you to make sure that you're selecting a vendor that's going to be there for the long haul," he said.
But while COVID-19 may add more urgency to the situation, it is certainly not the underlying cause. Instead, the issue ultimately stems from one of the legal industry's Catch 22′s: For legal tech or service providers, the most lucrative kind of business model to lock into is one that makes it difficult for clients to leave without enduring some inconvenience or business disruption.
On the other hand, one-off services like buying a piece of software or a new computer, significantly lower the risk for a corporate legal department or law firm were that same provider to suddenly go out of business. Kimball Parker, president of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati's tech subsidiary SixFifty, used legal research as an example of a service that doesn't require a great deal of time or resource investment from clients. Privacy compliance is a different story.
"Your whole audit history is tied into a platform, right? So if you get audited and a company who you've used is out of business, that's an issue. And so there you probably want to be more careful," Parker said.
However, in-house legal departments, law firms and other clients may not view legacy companies with the same scrutiny as they reserve for startups. According to Parker, SixFifty has has not received any inquiries about its financial health during or prior to the pandemic, something he attributes to the longevity of its parent law firm and the impression of stability it may give to potential clients. Parker believes that the same is generally true for legacy or larger legal tech companies like Thomson Reuters.
"It's really hard to yank a Thomson Reuters [research] customer away, because those law firms have put so much time and so much time and so much training to be able to research on it so to be able to switch them is difficult," Parker said.
But startups typically haven't accrued that same level of stickiness with clients yet. Dorna Moini, CEO and founder of the document automation platform Documate, said that prospective customers have been asking questions about the company's financial health and longevity since its doors opened 3-years ago. The level of investment that the document automation process in particular requires may play just as big of a role as the company's youth.
"When you onboard onto a document automation system like ours, you are taking time to set up your templates and customize everything to your exact needs. And so given that that takes time, a lot of users don't ever want to have to redo that process," Moini said.
To help clients feel more comfortable, Documate is willing to share its financial status if asked. The company can also set clients up to be hosted on their own server, so that the use of Documate software wouldn't be interrupted even if the platform itself were to go out of business.
Per Moini, Documate has never lost a potential customer over concerns about is financial situation, but she does think those are questions that in-house counsel or other clients should continue to ask of their service providers, COVID-19 or not.
"I think those risks exist whether you are onboarding with a company that is a startup or whether you are onboarding with a company that is 40 years old," Moini 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
© 2025 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
- 1GOP-Led SEC Tightens Control Over Enforcement Investigations, Lawyers Say
- 2Transgender Care Fight Targets More Adults as Georgia, Other States Weigh Laws
- 3Roundup Special Master's Report Recommends Lead Counsel Get $0 in Common Benefit Fees
- 4Georgia Justices Urged to Revive Malpractice Suit Against Retired Barnes & Thornburg Atty
- 5How Gibson Dunn Lawyers Helped Assemble the LA FireAid Benefit Concert in 'Extreme' Time Crunch
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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