Fish & Richardson Legal Tech Director on Why His Group Split With IT
Historically, Fish & Richardson has focused on creating legal tech that improves the firm's inefficiencies. Now, after spinning off from the IT department, the firm's legal technology solutions group is placing a higher premium on developing client-centric tools.
August 15, 2019 at 08:30 AM
3 minute read
While some firms have created subsidiaries to develop and sell their proprietary legal tech, other firms have taken a different route, recruiting software developers in-house to create technology that exclusively benefits the firm and its clients.
Fish & Richardson joined the latter group when it formally spun off its legal technology solutions group from its IT department and promoted applications, development and support director Beau Mersereau to head the new group.
The group’s team of application specialists, business analysts, quality assurance automation engineers and developers that report to Mersereau are tasked with creating client-facing and internal legal tech solutions.
In a conversation with Legaltech News, Mersereau discussed how the group manages the law firm’s massive troves of data, the opportunities in leveraging machine learning, and the reasoning for moving the group out of the IT department. These answers have been edited for clarity and brevity.
Legaltech News: Why was the legal technology solutions group spun off from Fish & Richardson’s IT department?
Beau Mersereau: We wanted to focus primarily on new technologies and innovative services, and bifurcating it allowed us to focus on the areas that were important to our clients. That also allowed the IT department to focus on technology and providing better services to our firm with less distractions.
What are some of the new solutions the group is developing?
We are piloting machine learning to auto-classify documents or incoming mail from the Patent and Trademark Office that will allow us to route mail automatically to the appropriate teams. Eventually, we hope to start doing other things from auto-classifying time cards to having better data within our pricing group.
We hired a data scientist this year and he’s been helping us a lot. He used to be an astrophysicist, and it’s pretty interesting to have someone from a different field looking at our data and trying to understand it. Law firms have a lot of data and it’s not always easy to find the nuggets of good information in there.
What are some of the challenges or benefits of having that trove of data?
A lot of other firms have their knowledge, information and data locked into documents. We’ve been using document assembly since 2001 and because of that, especially on the patent and trademark side, we actually store all the information we use to generate our documents in a database. We have a lot of information that we track and it’s not always easy to look for patterns and find out, for example, how long it takes to do something before the Patent and Trademark Office. But we have that data now and we are learning from it.
How important is machine learning-powered legal tech?
Law firms are constantly looking for ways to become efficient and our clients are demanding we be more efficient and innovative [with] our use of technology, and machine learning is a game changer. When you pair that with the computing power that you have with the cloud, which is far more than what we have on premises with our servers, we have the ability to build models more quickly to help us classify information.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
- 2‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
- 33 Incidents Lead to Charges Against the Alexander Brothers; Cousin Remains at Large
- 4Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Combined Class of Partners and Counsel in Firm History
- 5High Court Drops Case Over Nvidia's Effort to Ditch Fraud Suit
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