The Promise and Reality of Legal Tech
The news is filled with stories highlighting the promise of new technologies—machine learning, AI, blockchain—for the practice of law. Unfortunately, legal department experience with technology has not continually matched the headline aspiration.
April 12, 2018 at 11:55 AM
6 minute read
The news is filled with stories highlighting the promise of new technologies—machine learning, AI, blockchain—for the practice of law. Unfortunately, legal department experience with technology has not continually matched the headline aspiration. In fact, less than half of legal department users think current technology, such as matter management, contract management, e-billing, etc., has provided a less impressive “somewhat high” increase in efficiency, reduction in costs or increase in quality.
If a revolution in business is coming, it hasn't reached most legal departments.
So, why do legal departments continue to experience this gap between perceived potential and actual experience?
|The Promise
In the last decade, the options for legal departments outside law firms have moved from pure labor arbitrage plays with offshore LPOs offering savings on labor for highly routine, rules-based work, to technology enabled process improvement systems with software that categorizes information, routes matters or performs low-level factual analysis or discovery.
Fortunately, processing power has advanced far enough to enable automated problem solving in the form of advanced analytics and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Recent studies tout the potential automation of 25 to 50 percent of legal department work, while some academic studies suggest a realistic technology adoption rate of new legal technology would reduce hours worked by lawyers by at least 2.5 percent annually, or, approximately one extra week annually for every lawyer on the team.
Now that this technological change is being matched with increased commercial investment, there is real reason for optimism about the utility of legal tech. For example:
- Over the last five years, approximately $1.3 billion of VC investment has flown into legal.
- Grand View Research, Inc. forecasts that the global legal process outsourcing (LPO) market is expected to reach USD 27.19 billion by 2024.
- Law firms are setting up accelerators (MDR Labs), investment arms (Next Law Labs), work spaces (Fuse), etc., to drive advances.
AI and data analytics will enable technology to take on more rules and judgment-based activities (ex: due diligence, contract drafting, regulatory compliance), helping legal departments become more efficient and focus time on higher-value work. At least for those in-house teams that are ready.
|Where We Are Today
Despite the growing promise of legal tech, legal department investment remains low. On average, only 2 percent of legal department budgets go to technology investments (although corporate IT likely accounts for some additional investments). Some of the most commonly used legal department technology systems include:
- E-billing systems (57 percent of legal departments)
- Document management (54 percent)
- Subsdiary and entity management (48 percent)
- IP management (44 percent)
- Contract management (43 percent)
- Matter management (34 percent)
Moreover, only 8 percent of legal departments currently use AI and even then for very specific applications. Interestingly, and despite the many touted benefits, a majority of legal department don't have plans to use AI in the next three years.
The low investment is likely a function of previous disappointment and general skepticism. While results vary by technology type, less the half of legal department respondents thought their e-billing, matter management, contract and management systems met their cost reduction and quality improvement goals. So even technologies that support specific legal department needs don't always meet expectations.
Legal departments point to too many challenges with technology use such as difficulty evaluating technology products, data quality, access concerns and poor employee adoption. Without addressing these challenges, legal departments sacrifice an opportunity to use emerging new technology.
|Bridging the Gap
The companies who are most satisfied with their current technologies prioritize process fit and user adoption during implementation. That means involving end users throughout the technology selection and implementation process by listening to their ideas, understanding the true technology use case, and incorporating their feedback. These tactics will make them more invested in the project and more likely to actually use the technology.
A few practical steps Legal departments can follow:
- Start with Use Cases—Legal technologies need to have a clear use. Review workflows to determine where legal investment would most benefit the department. You can start by creating an inventory of all collaborative legal systems in use and speak with representatives across practices (like litigation, compliance, or IP) and geographies to understand their current technology capabilities and needs. This established buy-in from end users and surfaced both critical needs and shortcomings and will inform department decisions when buying new technology systems or features.
- Launch a Test Trial—Legal departments should be more willing to launch test trials of new technologies. Taking a test-and-learn approach can help the department understand the capabilities of software and services while learning how they underlying software functions.
- Delegate Process Standardization Where Necessary—Use of software likely requires some process standardization. This requirement often puts the breaks on projects, however, legal departments can use the vendors to manage standardizing and integrating legal workflows while the legal department focuses on evaluation.
Law firms can also be a positive source of experience. As your law firms often have more incentives to invest in new technologies, legal departments should use their relationships to identify promising opportunities for in-house improvement. Asking your law firms the following four questions can help you stay abreast of change:
- In what technologies are you investing?
- How has the technology improved your efficiency?
- How does technology Impact the quality of work performed?
- What data analytic and information security capabilities are required?
- What should my legal department learn from your technology investments?
Conclusion
In fits and starts, the technologies available to improve legal department effectiveness and provide more real-time compliance oversight are improving. What's missing is a firm sense of how legal departments should proceed forward. Legal departments must become better technology consumers with the ability to identify needs, quickly evaluate new technologies and remap workflows around end-user need. The legal departments that master these skills will be best positioned to take advantage of the legal tech revolution.
Abbott Martin is a legal research leader at Gartner, a research and advisory company headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
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 AllImmigration Under the Trump Administration: Five Things to Expect in the First 90 Days
8 minute readSteward Health CEO Saga Signals Escalation of Coercive Congressional Oversight Against Private Parties
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Leadership Changes Announced in Four NYC Boroughs
- 2Workers’ Compensation Appeals and New Procedure for Appeals to Superior Court in Georgia
- 3State Court Considers If Physician Can Be Held Liable for Lack of Tests, Treatment
- 4The Fall of Chevron Deference and the Future of the Courts
- 5NY Judicial Watchdog: Westchester County Trial Court Judge Tried to Interfere in Divorce Case on Behalf of Friend's Law Firm
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