Is Legal Tech Reluctance to Share Usage Data Hampering Adoption?
Low adoption rates, losing a competitive advantage and clients preventing disclosures hinders many legal tech companies from sharing usage data. But as data-driven tech purchases become the norm, the silent approach to metrics could backfire.
June 30, 2020 at 12:00 PM
4 minute read
Legal tech companies largely decline to publicly share usage data. But some say continuing the status quo may have long-term effects that stifle startups and hinder greater legal tech adoption.
Many legal tech company won't share usage data details to avoid losing a competitive advantage. While every company must decide what information they are willing to share, they should provide some metrics, argued PacerPro COO Anna McGrane.
"There will be an ongoing question of where the line of secret sauce comes in," McGrane said of a company's competitive advantage. "[However,] just because you don't want to reveal everything doesn't mean you don't have to reveal anything."
To be sure, PacerPro released user metrics on Monday. In its white paper, it highlighted the usage of 21 Big Law and boutique law firm clients.
The report, for example, noted DLA Piper became a partner in 2016 with a goal to "automate data capture; eliminate delay in notifications; [and] standardize process." What's more, PacerPro noted DLA Piper obtained 419,607 PDF2Go files and saved 6,308 hours, according to the report.
McGrane noted that the company didn't share what the firms do with the documents. Instead, the data shared focused on simplicity and was straightforward to understand its impact, McGrane explained.
When asked if the white paper could serve as another form of marketing, McGrane said, "My argument would be good marketing is educational in nature. This is education, so is good marketing."
She added that the release of the document is part of a larger push to encourage more legal tech companies to publicly share usage data to improve the industry.
"Given how relatively small our profession is—just looking at the number of firms and professionals—there's a unique opportunity for those of us in this space to speak up and effect a sea change where providing data becomes business as usual," she said.
To be sure, PacerPro isn't the first legal tech company to release client usage metrics. In March, Everlaw released a report describing review time per project, what type and how much data was shared through its platform and other behaviors and trends. Clio also provides an annual legal trends report that analyzes aggregated and anonymized data from its platform to determine broader U.S. legal trends.
Despite some efforts, many legal tech companies say protecting clients' privacy blocks them from sharing data. But legal sector-focused management consulting firm Fireman & Co. president Joshua Fireman, who wrote the PacerPro case study, noted more lawyers are making data-driven tech decisions that require data usage figures.
"In respect of most technology initiatives and particularly data initiatives in firms, when you have a chance to say here's a product that can bring about tangible change and quantify change that was really exciting," he said. "We're better off when it's transparent information."
To be sure, the recent push for data-driven decisions is causing some legal tech companies to publicly announce its usage metrics.
"This is a key initiative for ContractPodAi over the next 12 months," wrote ContractPod Technologies CEO Sarvarth Misra in an email. "We want to start publishing benchmarking metrics data, which will help general counsel better understand the key metrics which are critical for them to achieve their business outcomes."
Still, while the legal market's tech-purchasing process is evolving, legal tech companies may remain reluctant to share usage data because of low adoption rates, argued Nicolas Leroux, managing director of legal services provider Kalexius. Leroux explained that it's an "uphill battle" to persuade clients to use all of its software bundle and points to a slow tech adoption rate.
"Based on [that] and anecdotal evidence from competitors and clients, I think the adoption is really low and that's the reason why they don't want to share its usage data," he said. "And of course there's more standard considerations of protecting and not sharing too much information about your business."
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