Kennedys IQ Manager Discusses How Firm Subsidiaries Can Compete With Legal Tech
Kimberley Davies, former head of e-discovery at Luminance, discusses the edge that law firm tech subsidiaries may have over traditional tech companies plus the barriers to entry.
April 09, 2020 at 11:30 AM
5 minute read
Kimberley Davies likes the early-days identity search that encompasses life at a startup. Which is one of the reasons she left document review company Luminance, where she most recently was head of discovery, earlier this year to accept a commercial development manager position with one of the newest law firm tech subsidiaries on the block.
An offshoot of law firm Kennedys, the tech-driven Kennedys IQ launched in February. But it has already established a mission statement that feels somewhat at odds with its law firm lineage.
"The key thing is to give organizations access to technology that helps them to use lawyers less. Helping with parts of the claims process where you might not have a lawyer involved or you might have a lawyer involved but you actually don't need to," Davies said.
It may sound counterintuitive for a law firm tech subsidiary to be looking at ways for lawyers to do less work. But Davies framed the objective as a matter of bringing additional value to the table beyond the legal expertise that, for better or worse, is already taken for granted with lawyers. For example, AI-powered solutions like the company's Settlement Negotiator automate certain aspects of the claims process with the hopes of making it both paperless and more efficient.
In an interview with Legaltech News, Davies talks about the ups and downs of being at a legal tech subsidiary. This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Legaltech News: Do you think firms and attorneys are getting more comfortable with the idea of leveraging technology that allows people to be a little bit less reliant upon them?
Kimberley Davies: Everyone knows we can do the legal part. When we go out and pitch a client, they assume that we know what the law is, they assume that we can do the things they ask to from a legal standpoint. They want to know how we can add value to that. And actually, Kennedys IQ is a way that lawyers are adding extra value to their clients, and I think that's part of acknowledgement that [clients] are not going to use lawyers if they don't need to. … Ultimately you are helping your client solve a problem, and as a trusted adviser, that's what you should be doing.
Is there more pressure to do that now that law firms are facing competition from alternative legal service providers and the Big Four?
Law firms haven't operated particularly as businesses for a number years, and now they are coming back to that mission of "OK, we are businesses. We need to think about solving a problem and providing value to our clients."
How is the sales strategy for a law firm tech subsidiary different than that of a more traditional legal tech company?
When you are a normal tech startup and you are starting out, you have to find people to sell to. You are going out to look for lead generation and those sorts of things. But because Kennedys IQ is part of Kennedys, actually Kennedys lawyers have been talking about technology to their clients before Kennedys IQ was Kennedys IQ.
And so mostly it's partners really understanding their clients' businesses. They are not going in to sell them technology. They are not going in there to throw technology at them as so many providers do. Actually it's going in there and saying, "OK, you've got this particular problem. You could use me to do that or we've got some technology here that would help you with that."
Are there any other advantages law firm tech subsidiaries might have over legal tech companies?
We've got these phenomenal legal experts who are able to advise and also access to their clients who have got some really interesting thoughts on technology.
As part of your role, you'll be working closely with the firm's lawyers to try and facilitate the development of tech. What are some of the challenges of trying to bridge those legal and technology skill sets?
It's pretty much exactly what my job is—a bit of a translation job, really. I guess the key thing for me when I'm listening to lawyers, when I'm talking to clients, when I'm talking about technology in general [is], it's all very well to tell you how great it is and to use all of those buzzwords. But I think if I just tell you what benefits [technology] is going to have for you, then I think that's really what communicates very well.
Do you foresee more law firms actively building technology to sell on the legal tech market? Are there still barriers standing in the way for firms interested in moving in that direction?
You've then got the challenge of funding. Setting up subsidiaries in some jurisdictions, there can be issues around funding and how do you structure that. But I guess it depends on the law firm, what territories they've got in technology, can they attract the right people…
I've seen some law firms do it well. I've seen some law firms do it not so well. I think especially if there are circumstances where there are providers on the market that have some piece of technology that works, that's easy to use, then it may not be the best idea to reinvent the wheel.
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
- 1City Bar Presents Thomas E. Dewey Awards to Outstanding NYC Prosecutors
- 2NC Solicitor General Park Withdraws His 4th Circuit Nomination
- 3Trump-Appointed Judge Presides Over NASCAR Antitrust Dispute Under Case Reassignment
- 4CFPB Orders Big Banks to Limit Overdraft Fees to $5. But Will Its Edict Stick?
- 5FIFA Faces Legal Challenge Over Winning Saudi World Cup Bid
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