7 Data-Driven Strategies To Help Law Firms Thrive, Demonstrate Client Value in the Age of COVID-19
Here are just a few of the data-related activities that firms are currently engaged in to meet client demand.
May 21, 2020 at 11:00 AM
7 minute read
Facing unprecedented challenges stemming from the coronavirus pandemic, law firms clients are asking for guidance on a range of issues, including business interruption insurance, privacy-related risks, changing patterns of litigation, negotiation of contracts due to force majeure clauses, M&A transactions, HR-related issues related to remote work, among others. They all want to know how to reduce costs, lower exposure, and identify, prioritize, and mitigate risks.
In response, law firms are learning to leverage data in a host of new ways to deliver insight to clients, provide them with targeted advice, and become a more trusted partner. For example, many firms are putting out daily and weekly client alerts based on legislative and state directives, new court rules and the changing legal environment. To do so, firms are aggregating their own data as well as data from clients, PACER, courts and financial records. They are also deploying specialized analytics tools that help them sort through massive volumes of data quickly to surface what is most relevant for their clients.
By aggregating data from a wide variety of sources and applying the lens of analytics, law firms have been able to answer client questions more quickly, summarize information and present it in graphical format, connect disparate data sources, and discover key trends that would otherwise not be known. In short, data and analytics are now at the center of nearly every discussion between firms and their clients.
Here are just a few of the data-related activities that firms are currently engaged in to meet client demand:
Performing "what if" analyses to compare alternative legal strategies. For a client trying to determine whether or not they can claim insurance under a business interruption clause, for example, attorneys are using litigation data to get more insight into what the policy actually says, what the courts have done historically in similar cases, and what other cases have been filed against the insurance carrier to determine the client's likelihood of winning a dispute. Attorneys are also helping clients perform detailed cost-benefit analyses to evaluate whether pursing the claim is worth it.
Using historical litigation data to predict the potential behaviors and actions of opposing counsel, parties and judges. For instance, a firm working on a high-stakes HR-related matter might use data and analytics to identify the historical tendencies of the judge presiding over case in similar kinds of cases. Which other judges or legal precedents does that particular judge cite most frequently? How does the judge typically respond to specific kinds of arguments or motions in such cases? Performing this kind of analysis is a very effective way to mitigate risk and limit exposure in court before a trial gets underway.
Keeping clients apprised of the latest laws and regulatory changes that may affect compliance efforts, impact business, and increase risk. Data-savvy firms are using specialized tools to track changes in federal and state laws and calculate the potential impact of those changes on business operations. In fact, some firms are creating customized analytics tools for clients that combine transactional data, state legislative data, and law firm data so clients have the information they need to perform in-depth analysis and do the work in-house. When firms and clients combine the power of analytics with up-to-date regulatory, legislative and litigation data, they get a more comprehensive and accurate picture of the entire legal landscape. Clients end up litigating fewer cases and are able to manage the flow of litigation more effectively. They can also close cases more quickly and achieve better outcomes.
Helping clients get a more precise understanding of key performance indicators and budgets. Now more than ever, clients want law firms to show them data that helps them understand their position in court, and the costs and benefits of moving forward with a particular action. Clients want to be able to quantify the costs and risks related to very specific variables like case timing and case duration, the scope of potential damages, the likely cost of high-ticket expert witnesses, or the likelihood that a judgement may require additional compliance activities or restitution. Whether the focus is on negotiating supplier contracts, pursuing an acquisition in the current business climate, or settling on key litigation that would otherwise have been settled in court, clients are aware that data can answer their questions related to financial risk, and they want firms to help them find and understand it.
Helping clients negotiate and renew contracts, and understand the risks and liabilities that are in their existing contracts. Many companies have a limited or incomplete understanding of what's in their contracts, and how changes wrought by the pandemic may affect them in the near and long term. Large transportation companies like airlines and cruise operators, for example, are trying to understand hundreds and even thousands of contracts that govern their business relationships and the extent of their liabilities associated with them. Contracts analytics tools can help them pinpoint key clauses, uncover vulnerabilities and quantify risks to help them decide whether and how to renegotiate. These automated tools can also provide a more cost-effective alternative to traditional due diligence prior to negotiations.
Deploying data-based tools to bolster business development efforts. For instance, firms are now more than ever using data from customer relationship management (CRM) systems not only to identify potential leads, but also to find opportunities buried within existing personal and professional relationships. Other tools can create invaluable opportunities for firms to approach clients or prospects proactively and alert them to legal risks or business opportunities before their competitors do. For instance, if a firm searching historical litigation data learns that a current or prospective client faces an average of 132 EEOC claims in the U.S. every year (and uses four firms to handle those cases), they can perform an analysis of trends in such cases and identify the client's vulnerabilities in relation to those trends. They can also present data that reveals their own track record in litigating such cases and present a customized plan to proactively mitigate the client's risk, reduce exposure and reduce costs.
Helping clients decide when and how to move forward on key transactions, such as M&As. Organizations that would otherwise be engaged in due diligence for a transaction are now debating whether to continue with a transaction or hold off. Law firms may be called upon to identify the litigation and compliance risks associated with the transaction, assess the impact of any material changes in the wake of the pandemic (company value, market size, etc.), and help negotiate an appropriate price adjustment to compensate for the risks entailed. This may require litigation analytics, but it could also involve analysis of compliance risk factors and documents related to SEC filings and associated exhibits, deal summaries, underlying agreements and more.
Because of these challenging times, many organizations will experience a surge in disputes and litigation in the months to come. More often, clients are asking firms to help them find the data that will help them assess the merits and risks of a specific case, legal strategy, key business decision, or long-term business strategy. Firms that have the ability to aggregate and analyze data from a variety of sources and turn it into actionable intelligence will be in the best position to earn trust, strengthen client relationships, and enjoy a significant advantage over their competitors.
Jeff Pfeifer is chief product officer for LexisNexis North America. Over a 30-year career in legal technology, he has worked to introduce a series of cutting-edge solutions for lawyers and other legal professionals. Follow him on Twitter @JeffPfeifer.
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 AllTrade Secret Litigation: How Will AI Innovations Likely Be Litigated?
Standing on Less Shaky Ground: 'Guthrie' Decision Impact on NY Wage and Hour Matters
7 minute readThe First Amendment on Trial: Factors That Influence Juror Receptivity
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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