Businesses Want Outside Counsel to Be More Tech Savvy. What Does That Mean?
Corporate legal departments want law firms to step up their game with technology, but outside counsel may not have enough incentive to change or even a concrete idea of how they can improve their tech posture moving forward.
July 10, 2020 at 03:16 PM
4 minute read
Corporate legal departments want to see law firms enhance their level of technological sophistication—but what does that mean, exactly? While arriving at an answer may require both outside and inside counsel to define more specific parameters around what they hope to gain out of technology, actually effecting change might hinge on larger cultural shifts still playing out within the legal market itself.
In the meantime, the most immediate takeaway could be that law firms are coming up short—and sometimes heading in the wrong direction altogether—with technology.
"It's no secret that law firms in general remain behind the curve when it comes to incorporating new technology into their services. Legal departments don't expect or want law firms to become technology providers. Instead, they want to see a willingness and drive for law firms to find, develop and incorporate new digital solutions, which improve cost and efficiency for their clients," said Catherine Moynihan, associate vice president of legal management services at the Association of Corporate Counsel, said via email.
But terms like "efficiency" can still leave plenty of room for interpretation, and it could be that sometimes even corporate legal departments are struggling to fill in the gaps. Tomu Johnson, a former in-house attorney and CEO of Parsons Behle & Latimer's tech subsidiary Parsons Behle Lab, believes that in-house attorneys may themselves lack the depth of technical expertise or understanding required to quantify their expectations to outside counsel.
"It's hard for in-house counsel to say what they want, they just know that what their attorneys are providing is not it," Johnson said.
Still, it's not that law firms aren't ignoring technology altogether. Firms like Mayer Brown, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Dentons, for example, have all rolled out tech solutions geared towards helping clients stay up to date on regulatory developments around the COVID-19 pandemic. But while those kinds of applications may help bring clients through the door, they won't necessarily get them to stay.
Brett Burney of Burney Consultants said that he's seen a variety of law firm booths pop up at Corporate Legal Operations Consortium (CLOC) conferences over the last few years, usually emphasizing their use of technology. Blockchain-oriented projects seemed to be of high interest to larger firms in particular, who Burney noted invested capital in hiring analysts, programmers and other development talent.
"I know that law firms that law firms are doing a lot of these databases and developing apps and being a part of blockchain meetings and talking about AI, but I feel like that's just kind of more from a marketing perspective, to give a perception of what the reputation is, that they are on the cutting edge," Burney said.
But when it comes right down to it, law firms are still sitting across the table from corporate counsel expecting more access to pricing data, the use of less e-mail in favor of collaboration platforms like Slack and more efficient document storage. So why are some firms still falling behind?
The culprit could be a lack of meaningful incentive. For starters, law firms working off a billable hour model could be loath to implement solutions that can save time. The only leverage that the corporate client has is its business and changing outside counsel is often poses too big a hassle for too little return.
Johnson at Parsons Behle Lab believes that increased competition from within the legal market will eventually be what pushes firms to progress, especially as states like California and Utah allow tech-oriented businesses to take a bigger role in the legal process.
"Law firms have to adapt or die," 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
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
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