Different Priorities: UK Tech GCs Don't Think Technology Is Always the Answer
The "2020 Tech GC Report" survey found that while legal departments in U.K. tech companies prioritize people and processes ahead of technology, many are still bogged down by manual work.
July 28, 2020 at 01:37 PM
3 minute read
Legal departments in U.K. tech companies are looking to focus on more high-value work, and by extension, become a revenue-driver for their organization. But many aren't leaning on legal technology to achieve their goal, according to the 2020 Tech GC Report, a survey of 30 senior attorneys in "high growth" U.K. technology companies, conducted by contract collaboration platform Juro and law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.
Half of all survey respondents said their biggest priority for the year ahead is "adding value to the business," while around one-third also cited improving legal processes. When asked how they intend to add value, around two-thirds pointed to enabling self-service legal processes and supporting the organization's commercial strategy.
However, around two-thirds cited limited budgets and resources, and being buried in low-level legal work, as the biggest challenges to adding value. Still, most have yet to turn to technology to automate all of their low-level work. Slightly over half, for instance, noted that the largest pain point in managing their contract processes were the manual processes they had in place.
To be sure, limited budgets is likely to inhibit how much technology and automation these legal departments can bring in-house. But many are not eyeing tech solutions in the first place. Only less than 40%, for instance, were looking for tech platforms that enable self-service legal processes.
"Technology helps, but often we see the priority being [first] people, followed by process, followed by technology," said Richard Mabey, co-founder and CEO at Juro.
Mabey added that legal departments are asking themselves more holistic questions beyond just how they can deploy legal technology. For instance, "Have you built processes that enable you to scale the value that is being delivered, and do you have the technology that facilitates and enables the implementation? Of those, you can do one and two—people and processes—without technology."
As an example, he noted that something as simple as creating a shared email address can be a way to share requests among the legal department without implementing any new software.
But not updating technology is also holding back these legal departments' broader evolution, especially when it comes to contract processes. "There is still a huge reliance on Microsoft Word as the primary current through which to assemble and negotiate documents. And the issue with Microsoft Word is that it's not particularly collaborative in the way which it works," Mabey said.
When they are bringing in new technology, survey respondents noted they want platforms that can seamlessly hit the ground running. The survey found that around 80% look for ease of adoption in a new technology, while around 60% prioritize system integration.
However, Mabey noted legal technology isn't as flexible and easily adopted as general tech products. The problem, he explained, is that while many legal tech tools are "being kind of designed by lawyers for lawyers, the recipients and the users of a lot of legal software are people who aren't lawyers." In fact, many departments besides legal, such as sales and HR, for instance, may regularly use legal tech platforms, including contracting solutions, he 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 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