Firms Hear Clients' Tech Demands, but They Still Can't Rouse Full Buy-In
A lack of understanding tech and budget restraints may stunt some law firms' tech goals, but a new Wolters Kluwer report found leadership resistance may be the biggest detractor from any tech adoption plans.
June 11, 2020 at 12:53 PM
4 minute read
The days of the traditional law firm model are numbered, and most firms agree technology will be an important component of future services. However, despite the awareness, a new report found law firms are still finding resistance to adopting technology and are struggling to understand the tech options available.
Last week, Wolters Kluwer released its annual "Future Ready Lawyer Survey: Performance Drivers" report, compiled from the answers of 700 lawyers in private practice, in-house legal departments and business services firms across the U.S. and Europe.
The survey found 83% of law firms expect to see a greater use of technology to improve productivity. It noted that the move toward technology is fueled by meeting client demands and increasing competition from non-law firms, including alternative legal service providers and evolving in-house legal departments.
Despite attorneys' ambitions, however, only 29% of law firm respondents said they are very prepared to understand technology solutions, and only 25% believe they are very prepared to understand the benefits of technology to the firm. Similarly, few law firms believe they are very prepared to improve client services or offer greater specialization (both are tied at only 26%).
The survey also found a difference in what legal departments see as transformational tech and what their outside counsel views as transformative.
More than half of corporate legal department respondents (67%) said big data and predictive analytics are technologies that will have significant impact during the next three years, compared to 58% of law firms that shared the sentiment. Wolters Kluwer vice president and general manager of legal markets Ken Crutchfield noted the non-alignment was more so a reflection of different tech needs for in-house and outside counsel.
The need for predictive analytics and big data is clearer for legal departments, which are one of many departments in a corporate structure with various arrays of data available for business analytics, Crutchfield explained. Law firms may see less of need for big data and predictive analytic software, which may explain why most law firm respondents (59%) see AI as the top transformational tech.
Crutchfield noted that law firms were focusing on supporting their workflows and operations, which can lead to better solutions rather than throwing technology at a process to appear innovative.
Before a firm can launch a new tech project or solution, lawyers say organizational issues (43%) are the largest barriers to tech adoption.
Respondents revealed organizational hurdles include working without an overall tech strategy; having a change-averse culture; operating with no change management processes; and difficulty modifying workflows. While those challenges are significant, overcoming leadership resistance is the most difficult challenge, Crutchfield said.
"If you send your IT department off to implement AI but you don't have management that ensures there's behavioral change," there won't be firmwide adoption, he said.
To be sure, management-level personnel weren't the only factors driving tech resistance. Wolters Kuwer noted 31% of law firm respondents said a lack of tech knowledge, understanding or skills also hindered them from adopting new technology.
Lastly, 26% of respondents said financial issues stopped the firm from using software, which included overall cost and an inability to show return on investment.
Not being able to showcase ROI is tied to not having a goal or purpose when buying technology, Crutchfield argued. If firm leadership sees a problem, decides how it will be solved and how to measure success when the problem is solved, ROI is easier to explain, he said.
"A technology project can become technology for tech's sake if there's not that focus from leadership," Crutchfield noted.
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
- 1As 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
- 2Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 3Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 4Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 5Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
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