Login
Can legal tech solve your problems?
The current legal tech hype has induced lazy thinking about problem solving, according to a legal technology expert.
Grace Ormsby
‘Cutting through the **I.T. – Decoding the legal tech market’ is the latest ‘In Collaboration’ report from Lawyers on Demand with Ron Friedmann, which argues that technology is not necessarily the answer for all problems facing private practice and the in-house space.
According to Mr Friedmann, “too many lawyers and managers view licensing new software as an easy fix, a quick win.”
He said there are several factors that explain why there is so much hype around regarding legal tech, including “the advent of many start-ups, some quite successful; big rounds of funding for some of these players; and pressure from the board and clients to do more with less”.
Instead of starting with technology, Mr Friedmann advocates for a “wisely chosen problem” that needs to be solved.
The report provided a seven-step checklist to aid in the framing of problems and to check whether “investing in technology is the right solution.”
“Improving efficiency and effectiveness with any new technology requires real changes in how lawyers work,” it explained.
1. Confirm the problem statement
Too often, organisations “start on a path” to acquire new technology before a problem to solve has been clearly defined, according to the report.
It recommended allowing a problem definition to “sit for a period of time and then revisit it before acting”.
2. Determine the solution elements
Despite its overuse, the report said the overused phrase “people, process, and technology” does hold some truth in solving most problems, but should also include elements such as culture, incentives, economics, collaboration across organisational boundaries, customer buy-in, budgeting, and other factors where relevant.
At minimum, the report noted solution elements “should serve as a reminder that technology is rarely the only element of a solution”.
3. Make sure you really need new technology
“Decide if you really need new technology,” the report instructed, telling readers that “many individuals and organisations fail to consider how already-in-place technology could solve the problem.”
One question it asked was “even if your existing tech is not a 100 per cent fit, if it is an 80 per cent fit, is that good enough?”
4. Be prepared to redesign workflows and processes
As many problems now have a big process component, the report warned it will affect the ways lawyers and staff work.
“Even repurposing old technology may raise process change challenges,” it noted, and instructed managers to “make sure you understand how roles will change and plan for this”.
5. Pilot at minimum, go agile if possible
When developing a solution, the report recommended piloting it with small groups of users.
Noting this as “key to obtaining feedback and making adjustments,” it also highlighted pilots as “necessary to ensure that the technology, and any back-end integrations, work properly”.
If a pilot does go well, it will also likely assist in the identification of champions to support a broader rollout.
6. Consider your content strategy
For substantive law practice problems, it may be more likely that challenges ‘dress themselves’ as technological issues.
Elements of vetting, keeping precedents up to date, and creation may not necessarily be assisted by the advent of technology.
“Technology can help with that process but it cannot be a substitute,” the report reminded.
7. Develop a data strategy
For management, the report advised the need for “good data to inform your decisions”.
While technology plays a big role in analysis and visualisation, “it won’t automatically create or cleanup the key data you need”.
The report noted the collection of relevant and accurate data as the first step.
Probing readers to ask themselves “how will having this data potentially change decisions I make?”, the report put forward the following proposition:
“If you lack the data you need, you have to establish a way to collect it. If you have the data you need, it likely needs to be cleaned up prior to analysis. And you need to start with a clear vision of what data you need – and why.”
