Automation Could Be Key In Freeing Millennial Associates From Rote Tasks
"We have a workforce coming in that wants to be challenged," Cynthia Brown, director of research services at Littler Mendelson. "They want to have meaning in what they do, and they really don't want to do those repetitive tasks."
February 06, 2020 at 02:39 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
Practice may make perfect, but repetitive tasks are not considered a fan-favorite among attorneys. But there are tasks in every organization—no matter how mundane—that still need to be accomplished. The "Robotic Process Automation: The Next Step in Legal Automation" session of Legalweek 2020 in New York, offered with some tips on how bots can be used to help automate some of those tasks,
Cynthia Brown, director of research services at Littler Mendelson, framed process automation as more of a necessity than a whim, pointing to a changing workforce that finds employees—especially millennials—less willing to engage in repetitive tasks.
"We have a workforce coming in that wants to be challenged. They want to have meaning in what they do, and they really don't want to do those repetitive tasks," Brown said.
Pulling cases, for example, is something that might leave an associate feeling unchallenged but is just another day on the job for a bot. There are also automated chatbots that field some of the more basic or simpler questions that come in late at night online, whether its from a client or an attorney.
Michelle Dewey, who manages the national research team at Baker & Hostetler, walked the panel through a bankruptcy bot that the firm built in order to help field general bankruptcy and research questions such as rules, client pricing and memo retrieval. Constructing the solution required the firm to balance the present with the future, anticipating the possibility that the app could eventually be adapted for other functions.
"We needed something that would scale up but would also scale horizontally. We needed something that would scale across other practice groups," Dewey said.
But that's not the only challenge facing law firms who want to build more automation into their infrastructure. Organization is critical, and Dewey suggested that firms undertaking a bot project first draw up an extensive list of the various stakeholders involved, which can range from clients to internal employees and vendors.
Jennifer Mendez, director of knowledge management firm solutions at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, recommended that firms leverage their personal networks both on and offline to identify suitable vendors who can help construct the bot.
"I can't tell you how many times we get incredibly valuable feedback that is honest and raw offline," Mendez said.
The initial goal is to get to a "minimum viable product," which is essentially the earliest completed version of a new project that addresses a few key priorities while being suitable for use by employees.
"Getting something that's functional out allows you to build and continue to be better," Dewey said.
But, to be sure, automation is not a solution for all of life's little problems—just the routine ones. The right vendor, feedback or even employee buy-in won't help firms if the task they are trying to address simply doesn't lend itself to automation.
"You want something that is never going to change," Brown 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 All2 Years After Paul Plevin Merger, Quarles & Brady’s Revenue Up More than 13%
Southern California Law Firms Boast Industry-Leading Revenue, Demand Through Q3
Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
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