Jeffrey Brandt recently posted an article regarding why lawyers are slow to adopt emerging legal technology and he explores law firm inertia and the likely players who act to impede embracement of technology. The article is available here.
I wholeheartedly agree with Brandt’s underlying premise; firms need to modernize and evolve with the demands of practice. A competitive legal market paired with exploding eDiscovery costs necessitates that that the business of law constantly assess not only how it serves clients but also how it manages internal data. However, as I stated in my summary of LegalTech NY 2014 (available here), legal technology products aren’t created and don’t exist in a vacuum. Technology is powerful but, it is a means to an end and lawyers start with jurisprudence before partnering their client/strategy with a specific process or product.
Focusing on technology decision-makers in firms, Brandt highlights three “suspects” who may be roadblocks to quickly endorsing new products; lawyers, senior management and IT management. Reasonably, each of these cohorts has its own perspective. Expanding on Brandt's list, I would like to include the client as a critical catalyst in the law firm technology conversation. Clients are decision drivers. Client expectations can accelerate the adoption of new technology and conversely, can obstruct it because of cost, fear of the unknown, a lack of education, etc.
The technology equation in law firms is complicated. Layered on top of potentially competing decision-makers is an ever-changing list of priorities that spans one or more invested law firm demographics and includes (in order of importance);
- Versatility – For large firms with diverse clientele, products need to be versatile to fit large and small matters and linear review to predictive coding
- In-house versus Outsourcing – How do firms balance the flexibility and long-term cost of internal solutions with the advantages of up-to-the-moment resources where your costs are a la carte
- Cost to the Client – What are the fees associated with specific products and what cost sensitivities exist from single plaintiffs to financial institutions
- Cost to the Firm – What institutional costs are there (dedicated servers, bandwidth, computing hardware, etc.)? How does the cloud affect cost?
- Functionality – Incorporating the concept of versatility above, is there a “self-service” option, how customizable are interfaces, etc.?
- Cross-border Litigation/Investigation – What tools best support multi-jurisdictional, international matters and their associated issues (data privacy, liability, etc.)?
- User Experience – An intuitive, robust user experience (from document reviewer to back-end analyst)
- Institutional Expertise – Although being technology-agnostic is valuable, firms should be competent with all the products they employ to assure that they are meeting their responsibilities to the client
- Brand – Reputation and tenure in the market is significant. A vendor who has evolved with the market more likely proves itself as viable
- Customer Service – Often the vendor/client breaking point, the project management component of eDiscovery providers is an important variable.
So, in my opinion, lawyers and firms are slow to warm to technology because of the competing tensions in a professional organization where substantive practice and process converge. Law firms would be wise to create dynamic matrixes that combine players and technology priorities that guide a best practices approach to vendor selection.
Comments