Successful Innovation May Hinge on Properly Explaining Efficiency Rather Than Tech
Attorneys don't always understand the technologies being deployed within their offices, but it may be an over-reliance on general terms such as "efficiency" that's the real hurdle to innovation buy-in.
June 26, 2020 at 02:55 PM
4 minute read
While the technological aptitude of the average law firm or corporate legal department attorney may be in the low range, just how receptive they are to new innovation efforts could be tied more directly into how those initiatives are explained. Especially beyond the use of buzzwords such as "efficiency."
To be sure, a tech knowledge gap is still a reality inside firms or legal departments. For example, the 2020 Wolters Kluwer Future Ready Lawyer Survey, released earlier this month, showed that 67% of in-house legal respondents believed that big data and predictive analytics would have a significant impact on their department. However, only 25% claimed to understand that concept very well.
Those findings may be applicable not just to corporate legal departments, but attorneys in general. Tomu Johnson, co-founder and CEO of Parsons Behle & Latimer's tech subsidiary Parsons Behle Lab, indicated that while attorneys generally understand that technology has wrought some radical changes to the way law is practiced, that may be where it stops.
"They don't have the aptitude to keep on top of all the different changes in every different type of law tools, whether it's changes in [electronic discovery reference model] technology, changes in document drafting automation technology [or] changes in billing technology," Johnson said.
It may be that attorneys are most likely to educate themselves on a tool or piece of technology when their back is against the wall. Brett Burney of Burney Consultants indicated that many lawyers seek him out for tech-related advice in the aftermath of a litigation matter "that just went completely sour."
"In other words, that they had to pay so much money simply because it was their own mistake and they didn't have everything collected correctly," Burney said.
Still, law firms and legal departments probably don't want to be pushing tech-based initiatives exclusively when their pants are on fire. Getting lawyers engaged in those projects doesn't necessarily require a crash course in artificial intelligence, e-discovery tech, or other innovations.
According to Johnson, lawyers typically just want to know how a product is going to make their lives better or help them recoup additional money for clients. "When I talked to attorneys about our automation tool, they didn't really care what was under the hood. They just wanted to make sure it worked. But they didn't care how my engineer got it to work," Johnson said.
Still, bringing attorneys to that point can require a very finely tuned message that may be getting lost inside of the general "efficiency" push that dominates most law firm, legal department or even tech vendor messaging. Burney mentioned that he was recently working with a software provider who asked him to look over their marketing materials, which in his opinion focused disproportionately on the amount of time the solution could potentially save its users.
"It needs to be efficiency in that it allows you to get your work done and done correctly, done accurately," Burney said.
Meanwhile, the average tech IQ inside of law firms and legal departments could be growing. Burney noted that he's seen questions around a job candidate's previous technical experience or knowledge become more common during interviews. Johnson at Parsons Behle Lab also believes that the younger generation of attorneys will bring both a greater degree of tech-savvy and willingness to learn to the table.
"I think that that will be the biggest change for our profession," Johnson 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
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