The problem of technology adoption in law firms has been a hot topic lately. This is not a new problem, nor is it one specific to technology. It’s a problem that likely dates back to the first time anyone tried to introduce new technology, new process, or indeed any change at all into a commercial legal environment.&nbsp;&nbsp;It’s also not a problem specific to legal. The problem of adoption is fundamentally a problem of change management, and the notion of resistance to change has been written about at length for decades.&nbsp;Change management in legal organizations does come with its own set of particular hurdles. Many of these are structural: the billable hour, budget requirements, partnership culture. These hurdles must be addressed, but they are systemic and will take years to shift. Other sources of resistance are the result of immature procurement processes, and a fundamental lack of understanding or internal expertise regarding successful culture change methodology. This latter category of obstruction is easier to tackle, and all firms seeking to keep pace with changes in the market will have to do so.&nbsp;The notion that there is some magic adoption tool or method that can be applied to turn things around when a solution has been rolled out unsuccessfully is, however, wishful thinking. That’s because the most significant reason for low adoption of technology and new process in law firms is timing.&nbsp;&nbsp;Most firms and organizations address adoption as an afterthought, or as the last piece in the implementation puzzle, rather than as the cushion in which every element of a project must be enveloped from beginning to end. Treating adoption as something that can be stuck on to the end of a project like pinning the tail on a donkey will ensure that the project has minimal impact on the organization. And yet in many legal organizations, that is what adoption has come to mean.&nbsp;Law Firm Projects&nbsp;Consider a typical technology onboarding process in many firms. A business unit initiates a project to implement a new technology platform. Frequently, the impetus for the project stems from one of the following:&nbsp;<ul><li>A need to upgrade an existing system,</li><li>New circumstances (e.g., Covid) give rise to a need for new solutions (e.g., platforms allowing for remote collaboration), or</li><li>Hype around a new technology gives rise to a perceived need to invest.</li></ul>&nbsp;Upon initiation of the project, the responsible department undertakes a brief scan of the market (usually by polling known professionals at similar firms) and undertakes an RFP process with three to five vendors. The requirements set out in the RFP are generated by the responsible department, focused around the needs of administrators of the technology, with minimal consideration for user needs. The perception usually is that it’s poor form to interrupt busy lawyers to ask them about a project that is considered a “business project” even when the end users of the technology will be lawyers. There is a similar reluctance to roll out new or newly configured technology until the configuration has been finalized. There is frequently a sense that showing imperfect or unfinished projects to the lawyers will reflect poorly on the business unit executing the project, which means that roll-out will occur only once the technology has been fully implemented, with bugs having been tested and ironed out. User acceptance testing, in this type of project, is almost always undertaken by a team within IT or a subset of users in another business unit – not by the actual end users themselves. Members of the IT department are often considered an appropriate pilot group. The first time lawyers see the new technology or interface is during training, once the roll-out has commenced. They frequently don’t know that the new technology is coming down the pipeline until they receive invitations to training sessions.&nbsp;&nbsp;I have seen this model of project implementation many times, not just for foundational software but also for solutions that were so obviously lawyer-facing that the absence of lawyers in the project framework seemed astounding. One such example was in relation to the roll out of a business intelligence platform designed to show lawyers key attributes about their matters – yet no one on the project team had thought to discover from the lawyers which attributes they considered critical. &nbsp;&nbsp;Organizations and business units operating in this way don’t intend to omit adoption or change management efforts from project planning. Indeed, it is usually built in to the plan as part of the roll-out. Once the software is ready, the executing business unit will apply their version of an adoption strategy – training and a communications plan with follow-up tips and advanced training available, for example. The expectation is that the training itself, and the communications around it, are sufficient to generate adoption and usage in the lawyer population. More than this – in many firms, “adoption” is defined in this way: it has come to be synonymous with a post roll-out communications program. The team conducting such training may even be called the change management team.&nbsp;&nbsp;After roll-out, if “adoption” hasn’t been done well or is proving unsuccessful, additional communications and training might be deemed necessary. Frequently, however, the organization will stop after the initial training program has been carried out. The training is often recorded and made available on a central learning platform. The project is deemed complete, even successful.&nbsp;The Need for Change&nbsp;From a usage perspective, however, the framework for project implementation outlined above almost always fails. It should surprise no one that the model does not work to drive adoption. It’s why so many document management systems have limited usage and why, after investing heavily in new timekeeping software that can automatically capture lawyers’ time, firms may find that few of their lawyers have switched on that capability. It’s why lawyers will frequently be surprised to find that their firm has licensed a particular technology solution, unaware of its existence even after what the firm has deemed a successful roll-out.&nbsp;&nbsp;The measures that law firms and business units running technology projects consider to constitute the adoption phase of a project are woefully inadequate. Project implementation in law firms is broken when adoption is considered an end game, an add-on, or even a fix applied post roll-out.&nbsp;&nbsp;Approaching adoption at the end of a project does not address even the basic initial steps of change management philosophy, and calling a team that conducts training or issues launch communications a change management team is an extraordinary misnomer. The organization has done nothing to explain to the lawyers in advance why the new technology or process is worth taking the time to learn, or what problem of theirs it is solving, or why they should care. At no stage of the project has the project team considered the lawyers – the users – as central to the project. As the end users of the technology, the lawyers are the most critical stakeholders of all, and yet they have been absent from the entire project. Ironically, the assumption made early in the project that interrupting the lawyers would be unwelcome has guaranteed that the project is undertaken in such a way as to make the lawyers feel like second-tier citizens. They haven’t been consulted about the new technology, and have been kept out of all decisions made about it – when instead, they are the users who should have been absolutely central to every such decision. Without the lawyers’ input, the organization has no way to know whether the technology selected or new configuration set up meets key user needs, or fits within legal workflows.&nbsp;&nbsp;When law firms talk about adoption problems, they mean that in spite of having done the “change” work at the end of the project, they are having difficulty getting usage on technology platforms. It is considered to be a problem that occurs after the roll-out of software. But anything done at the roll-out stage to “drive adoption” is paying no more than lip-service to change management. If you have an adoption problem, it started well before roll-out – it started before the project even commenced, when a decision to bring on new technology occurred in the absence of consultation with the end users of that technology.&nbsp;&nbsp;In order to be truly effective, adoption has to be addressed before a project has kicked off. Business units in legal organizations need to get over their fear of the lawyers – fear of interrupting them, fear of presenting something imperfect for their consideration – and instead step up and speak to lawyers like the critical stakeholders they are, from the very beginning of every project.&nbsp;&nbsp;To receive the next post in this series and learn about successful strategies for adoption and change management, subscribe to our newsletter at the bottom of this page.

A Matter of Timing: Your Adoption Problem Isn't Happening When You Think It Is

A glimpse into the landscape of legal innovation in Brazil might operate for many of us as a peek into the future - because developments we have long been heralding as imminent in the United States have already well and truly unfolded south of the border. For example, it is clients who dictate the cost structure of legal work performed by outside counsel, so most of this work is performed at a flat fee rather than by the hour. And the legaltech industry in Brazil is booming in comparison to that of other Latin American countries, with the number of start-ups having doubled since 2015.&nbsp;Indeed, the magnitude of the Brazilian ecosystem alone is likely to be surprising to those who aren’t familiar with it. Brazil has more law schools — some 1,300 — than the rest of the world combined. And the country has over a million lawyers — which means that there are more lawyers per capita in Brazil than in the U.S., even though there are 113 million fewer people in Brazil. This number gives rise to the astonishing fact that there is a lawyer for every 190 people in the country. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the nation is also highly litigious, with over 80 million active ongoing law suits. This latter number can be partly attributed to the fact that, compared to other jurisdictions, access to court justice costs next to nothing. With the bar for entry so low, it’s not unheard of for legal action to be brought over debts of less than $10. &nbsp;&nbsp;Over the past years, I’ve developed an interest in the way that legal innovation develops in different parts of the world, and why this varies from one place to another. Consistently, it seems, there are certain social forces that impact the speed with which change penetrates the legal industry in a particular region, and the nature of a local legal market is one of those forces. Another is regulation, and the Brazilian legal market is more highly regulated than some others, with ALSPs unable to operate and non-lawyers unable to run law firms, for example. &nbsp;&nbsp;When I spoke to Barbara Gondim da Rocha, the Head of Knowledge Management and Innovation at Rocha, Marinho E Sales Advogados (“RMS”) in Fortaleza, Brazil, she confirmed that the very size of the Brazilian legal ecosystem has had an impact on the development and adoption of legal technology in the nation. However, there are other factors at play too. As far back as 2006, Law n. 11.419 was passed in Brazil, legalizing digital evidence and electronic filings, signatures, communications, and judgments in court proceedings. The notion of digital transformation in law is not new to the Brazilian legal system.&nbsp;&nbsp;Gondim also tells me that after 2014, in the wake of recession, corporate legal departments in Brazil started taking a more strategic approach to outside legal spend. Legal counsel across the country united and organized themselves, in much the same way that counsel in the U.S. have through CLOC (though years earlier), seizing the reins of the client-lawyer relationship and demanding greater transparency around fees. Now, Barbara says, the clients in the Brazilian legal landscape overwhelmingly dictate the fee structure for legal work. &nbsp;&nbsp;With substantial cost pressure being applied consistently by clients, resulting in a high demand for flat fees, the need for law firms to adopt efficiency measures such as legal project management, alternative timekeepers and legal technology has long been understood. This is really what has driven the legal technology market in Brazil. In 2015, a local association identified 40 local Brazilian legaltech start-ups. In 2020, there are well over 80. Many of these serve as legal marketplaces, or operate in the access to justice space. Online dispute resolution and automated documents are another popular area, but what’s perhaps more interesting is that the market seems to be maturing with the evolution of advanced tools in the realm of analytics and AI. Neuralmind is one of these, promising to improve legal contract analysis using the latest advances in AI. And in 2017, AB2L was founded, an association for Law Tech in Brazil. AB2L has been very active in organizing local events and in bringing high-profile international speakers in legaltech to Brazil for various local conferences. &nbsp;&nbsp;But while the development of legal technology has been flourishing, Gondim says that the law firm resources necessary to implement it and leverage it appropriately have been lacking. She equates this problem to buying a very expensive car and yet not being able to drive. Gondim herself developed her own title after beginning to read legaltech blogs and attend conferences in other jurisdictions, where she learned about knowledge management and the significance of a strong knowledge function to support innovation at a law firm. At RMS, Gondim has gradually been able to build a team of cross-disciplinary professionals who are able to properly leverage legal technology for the benefit of not just attorneys at the firm, but also the firm’s clients.&nbsp;“Law is no longer enough,” she says. “It is assumed.” &nbsp;&nbsp;In an environment where clients are sophisticated enough to understand what a particular type of legal work should cost, and what tools are available to reduce costs, Gondim has found that working directly with clients and listening to them is critical in creating a competitive edge. After spending time talking to the firm’s clients to understand where they wanted to see improvements (spoiler alert: they demanded change on the service side), she was able to generate internal support for a broad process mapping exercise that led to improved systems and data mapping. The result? New business flowed to the firm, which is flourishing and has since opened additional offices. “It worked!” says Gondim. The firm is now able to provide greater transparency and metrics around all of its matters, in a way that is directly responsive to client demands.&nbsp;Roles like Gondim’s are gradually increasing across law firms in Brazil, and courses are available at various institutions to teach new lawyers about legal technology and legal innovation. Local enthusiasm for legal innovation is also evident in the fact that there are over 15 chapters of Legal Hackers across the country. With the advent of educated innovation drivers who are capable of leveraging the technology already available in the nation’s legal market, Brazil is on track to become one of the world’s most interesting regions for legal innovation.&nbsp;&nbsp;*This article was originally published on <a href="https://www.babel-law.com/">Tower of Babel - A Legaltech blog</a> on July 22, 2020, and has been republished here with the author's permission.

Regional Snapshot: What's Happening in Legal Innovation in Brazil

In spite of its proximity to European countries such as France, Austria and Spain, where legal innovation is flourishing, Italy has still not seen a lot of development in this area.&nbsp;It’s impossible to regard the evolution of legal technology and legal innovation in any region in the absence of the regulatory framework within which the legal industry sits. In Italy, law is highly regulated. No alternative business structures are permitted for law firms, meaning that for the most part lawyers operate in associations with profits split across partners. Even practicing in-house carries license restrictions imposed by the National Bar Council. This restrictive environment means that lawyers are less likely to introduce cross-industry expertise into firm leadership, and less likely to invest heavily in high value technology that comes with a price tag that may generate concerns around the take-home profit-per-partner.&nbsp;Marco Imperiale, an Italian lawyer and the Innovation Officer at LCA Studio Legale in Milan, says that the limitations on practice and technology simply mean he approaches innovation in different ways. When his role was initially created, Marco became the first legal innovation officer in the country.&nbsp;“I focus on both tech and non-tech innovation – such as third party funding, legal design, sustainability. If you put fifty Chief Innovation Officers for law firms in the same room, you’ll notice that everyone is doing a different job. I am lucky to be involved in a significant number of different kinds of projects.”&nbsp;Regarding the technology aspect, Marco says “in Italian law firms it is very hard to work with a data-oriented mindset, although we are ahead of the curve.” Trying to be innovative in an environment that is not yet open to new ways of doing things has its challenges. “Let’s put it this way. We try to be 2030 in a country that looks a lot like 2010, especially compared to the uptake of legaltech tools in the US, UK or some Asian countries”.&nbsp;For a country with a population of sixty million people, there are a large number of lawyers in Italy – almost 250,000. However, the legal market features fewer large deals than in some of the neighboring European economies, and it is generally characterized by small and mid-sized firms. A good number of lawyers working for larger firms are employed in the Italian offices of international firms. For the most part, Italian lawyers service individuals or the country’s own companies, which tend to be on the smaller side – 85% of Italian companies have fewer than 50 employees. And, Marco says, these corporate clients aren’t asking for innovation in the same way that clients in other jurisdictions are.&nbsp;“If we consider all the Italian firms, the technology available in Italy is still at its early stage,” Marco says. “Legal technology is not considered an emergency. When clients will consider it as an emergency, and some of our clients are already on that path, there will be a huge step forward”.&nbsp;Marco says it’s not that his firm isn’t investing in technology, but rather that they are an exception. However, as in other regions, COVID has had an influence on digital transformation, particularly in the increased confidence lawyers have in digital tools. This is a positive development for people like Marco, who hopes that the post-COVID world will see a boost in the adoption of digital solutions.&nbsp;It’s likely that language also plays a role in the scarce development of legaltech in Italy. The Italian language is in limited use across the world compared to, say, French or Spanish. Consequently, the incentive for vendors to enter this market is low. The cost of customizing an existing tool for the Italian language outweighs the benefits of new-market penetration. The industry therefore remains far less automated and the work less standardized than in many other jurisdictions.&nbsp;“You know how it works. You need to train the machines, which means investing time and effort, and both of them have an economic value from the firm’s perspective. More than this, lawyers really like plug-and-play software. This means that unless a tool is really ready to go (and this is very difficult from a practical point of view) it is unlikely to be adopted”.&nbsp;Some lawyers in Italy use tools to augment their legal practice because they work in the outpost of an international firm, or in a larger firm like Marco’s. “For a practice management tool – maybe the US leadership of a firm will pay for an Italian customization for internal use. Or maybe the partners will decide to carry on with the investment because they see the added value. But for smaller, national firms, such expenses are not considered essential”.&nbsp;However, the glass is not always half-empty. “I believe we are a very creative and flexible country; therefore, I am optimistic regarding the rise of legal tech, especially in the mid-term. We just need the right stimulus,” says Marco. “Moreover, I’d stress that it’s not only a matter of tools, but of implementation, and it’s hard to find a country that focuses more on emotional connection than Italy”.&nbsp;This is an interesting point, the notion that implementation and uptake of technology may be influenced by the nature of the people in a region, and by the emotional authenticity of their communications.&nbsp;A scan of the legal technology companies currently operating in Italy, however, reveals only a handful of entities. Two of these offer practice management functionalities for law firms. One is targeted at corporate clients, for contract lifecycle management, and the others are compliance tools. However, there are ten chapters of Legal Hackers operating across the country, signaling a rising interest in legaltech among law students and the younger generation of lawyers in Italy. After LCA created a role dedicated to innovation, other firms have followed suit and there are now four innovation roles in the Italian legal industry. In 2012, Italy’s “Start-Up Act” was passed (Decree-Law 179/2012), providing support and various incentives to companies that can be classified as innovative technology start-ups. The country’s first Legal Tech Forum was held in 2015, organized by the IP-focused Italian legaltech start-up Koprja. The forum is now an annual event that has also spawned an online educational platform (Legal Tech Academy), to keep lawyers updated on the legal technology ecosystem.&nbsp;Marco points out that Diritto al Futuro, an event dedicated to the future of legal profession, organized by ASLA – an association that includes most of the Italian big law firms - brought 2000 people to the Italian stock exchange last year. “This means that both students and lawyers are feeling the necessity of riding the legal technology wave. If they don’t, they’re likely to pay a significant price”.&nbsp;This groundswell of activity is indicative of approaching change. In spite of the continued heavy regulation of the legal market in Italy, we may soon start to see some legaltech evolution in this region.&nbsp;*This article was originally published on <a href="https://www.babel-law.com/">Tower of Babel - A Legaltech Blog</a> on September 14, 2020. It is republished here with the author's permission.

Regional Snapshot: What's Happening in Legal Innovation in Italy

The model for law firm sales lags far behind that of other businesses, even as new technology and data solutions become available to support business development. There persists a notion that business development in law firms should be predominantly driven by partners and through word of mouth. By contrast, SAAS companies have developed highly effective sales strategies, leveraging digital tools and a data-driven approach. This article will discuss the advantages for law firms of steering away from a partner-focused sales model to one based on the proven strategies of SAAS companies. Business development and sales tactics in law firms remain largely entrenched in tradition, with marketing professionals failing to adopt the new tools offered by the market. In other industries sales practices have changed dramatically as the software supporting business development has evolved. SAAS companies in particular have proven success by adopting data-driven approaches and leveraging automation tools. If law firms adopted similar strategies to SAAS companies and avoided relying exclusively on a partner-driven sales approach, they could drive more sales and significantly increase revenue. Partners are not Sales People The partner-focused sales approach used by law firms for decades has been successful in many respects. Studies show that many top tier firms get most of their work through word-of-mouth or repeat clients. There is considerable risk of confirmation bias in these studies, however. It’s hard to know what additional work law firms could be bringing in if they deployed additional mechanisms for business development beyond the tried-and-true partner model. The typical law firm structure means that, in addition to the hefty legal responsibilities that come with the promotion to partner, there are also significant business development expectations. Partners are not natural salespeople, so it’s problematic when lawyer-driven business development practices constitute the main sales strategy for a firm. Unlike a trained salesperson, with years of successful experience to show for it, a partner rarely has sales training and legal expertise is a world away from the tactical planning that makes for successful sales. Requiring partners to be almost exclusively responsible for generating their own business does not set partners up for efficiency in practice, and potentially reduces their ability to leverage their most substantial skill set. Partners are legal experts, not sales superstars. Similar to how it would be absurd to ask a senior software developer to generate new clients and close business leads, it is inefficient to ask partners to take on the full weight of this dual responsibility. To further understand this dynamic, we sat down with Jeff Berardi, Partner at Baretz+Brunelle. Jeff confirmed that most law firms do not maintain formal sales functions. Although there are exceptions to the rule, the reality is that only a small percentage of firms have made a concerted effort to recruit, train, and manage outside sales professionals who are not existing partners in the firm. He also shared that there are often robust business development departments in law firms where the sales professionals serve in a sales support role. They provide law firm lawyers with assistance and direction on client pitches, proposals, event management, and in other related support activities. Changing how law firms do sales is an important opportunity for growth and increased revenue. Law firms could be bringing in much more business by leveraging new tools and adopting modern-day sales models. Current Systems are not Working Although most law firms invest in customer relationship management (CRM) software and corollary strategies, such as email outreach campaigns, these investments consistently under-deliver for a few reasons: 1. CRM platforms used in law firms rely on lawyers' manual input. Lawyers are tasked with spending hours that could be spent billing manually imputing data on their clients and potential clients instead of relying on automation software. When relying on manual data entry, these systems are scant, providing inadequate data to be truly helpful. &nbsp;2. Processes are rarely implemented to ensure that pertinent data is automatically populated. If firms focused on improving the automated capture of relevant data it would allow lawyers to rely more heavily on CRM software, and free up their time. &nbsp;3. Ultimately when data inputs are insufficient, systems become useless. CRM platforms are expensive investments for law firms but in the absence of processes to ensure the data they capture is useful, the return on investment will be low to minimal. Poor customer relationship management in any business has consequences including potential decreased productivity and growth, as well as missed opportunities in the long run. Another issue impacting sales is that cross-functional collaboration is lacking in law firms. Jeff Berardi shared that he often sees a disconnect across the marketing communications, business development, and sales functions. If each of these functions are acting independently of one another, there are lost opportunities. Even in those situations where there is partial or full integration across these different functions, there are often additional steps or initiatives that can be taken to streamline the sales process or to make it even more effective. To illustrate, Jeff shared the following example: “we are seeing really great results for clients that employ a campaign-based approach driven by compelling content that blends opportunities related to greater awareness of services, direct engagement with clients through the use of thoughtful content, and targeted client development efforts.” The SAAS Sales Model A critical aspect of a SAAS sales model is demand generation. Many SAAS companies will have employees dedicated exclusively to generating potential clients. Instead of waiting for inbound clients, their responsibilities concentrate solely on developing leads, increasing awareness and calling clients. They are specialists with extensive training in sales development and years of experience in leveraging data-driven approaches. There are many benefits to this model, including the ability to drive proactive outreach campaigns and undertake data-driven prospecting. From a marketing perspective, law firms could similarly leverage digital marketing trends to drive more business. Law firm marketing departments typically focus on broad-based, mass communication marketing tactics, including client alerts, thought leadership distribution, webinars, and social media. In contrast, B2B businesses opt for a more personalized, behavior-based approach to marketing. As a proactive alternative, most other industries have adapted to a model that pulls clients into highly personalized digital campaigns that align to their specific needs at the precise right time. To further understand the opportunity law firms stand to gain from embracing digital marketing, we spoke with Shade Vaughn, an expert in data-driven marketing. Shade is the Chief Growth and Communications Officer at Paul Hastings, an international Amlaw 25 firm based in New York. Shade was hired from outside of the legal industry from Cap Gemini, in a bold move that appears designed to modernize the firm’s approach to business development. Shade shared that the foremost opportunity for law firms in digital marketing is within behavioral intent tools. These tools are "illuminating the dark funnel," he explained, meaning they can help lawyers become exceptionally good at understanding what their current and prospective clients need. It helps anticipate incoming business and what the client needs. Shade explained that reaching out to prospective clients after they appear in the media or after a ruling that potentially impacted them is too late. Instead, lawyers should look to prospective clients' behavior patterns to decipher their next strategic move. By understanding what clients are researching online, the content they are consuming, and the remarks their leadership is marking in the media, lawyers can understand a client's business strategy. The next step entails discreetly exposing the prospective client to the law firm's experience, either through personalized advertisements, sponsored content, or even paid media. Shade emphasized that when there is a spike of interest in the law firm's advertising, there is a perfect opportunity to pick up the phone to suggest a meeting. New Approaches and Modern Technology There are now hundreds of offerings on the market that help law firms sell their services proactively and more effectively. In order to provide some examples, we sat down with two experts, Ed Walters from Fastcase, David Kamien and Mind-Alliance, and Laura Leopard from Leopard Solutions. We conducted interviews to understand their experience and opinions on how law firms can leverage technology. Tracking Clients' Market Activity The fundamental start-up theory prioritizes a client-first approach, where a deep understanding of clients and their pain points is crucial to any successful product. Law firms can benefit tremendously from tracking their clients' market activity. Ed Walters from Fastcase, a tool that provides cloud-based software for lawyers, helped us understand the current gaps and benefits. Ed shared that law firms currently track their clients' activities, but in an anecdotal way where they read legal news for mentions of a client. Proactively anticipating clients' needs and pain points is essential for business development. When an important client of a firm is sued, that client often has many options for representation, and it might be the most proactive firm that wins the client's business. Ed shared that a few firms have taken this approach by creating direct APIs from state and federal docket tracking services such as Docket Alarm. Some of these APIs can be set up to trigger direct emails to a firm’s relationship manager, or to automatically update the firm's internal business development tools. This kind of API alert no longer requires a software developer – it can be as simple as a search for the client's name turned into an email alert or an API that syncs directly with the firm's CRM or KM system. Firms with automated alerts can proactively reach out to clients days before litigation is reported in the news, which provides an actionable strategic advantage in winning business. &nbsp;Company Profiles and Intelligence Reports&nbsp; When law firms opt for producing company profiles and reports manually, it can overburden human resources such as research services teams, and harm the efficiency of business development activities. On-demand automations save time and provide effective alternatives. MindPeer BD is an example of one of these automation products, allowing partners to easily access automatically generated information regarding prospective clients. In fact, David Kamien, CEO at Mind-Alliance, believes that the key to making this practice more efficient is templated automations and API-driven feeds from multiple data sources. Within this process of knowledge sharing and collaboration, it is essential to avoid email traffic with static PDF, Word and PPT attachments. David advocates instead for dynamically updated company profiles that are interactive and can be used asynchronously. This practice ultimately provides partners with high-value client insight reports, and frees up data analyst’s time. Leveraging Data Law firms manage much internal data on employment, deals, and client information. In many cases, however, other types of internal data are tracked poorly. For example, alumni data, which firms use as a vital business development tool and recruitment, is often incomplete and outdated. Laura Leopard, the CEO of Leopard Solutions (a software that provides legal recruiters, attorneys, law firms, corporations &amp; law schools with legal intelligence data) shared that "having up-to-date and accurate internal data provides the firm with a report card on how well they are doing with lateral and entry-level hiring. The strength of any data set depends on the quality of the data, which is why we place such a high focus on quality at Leopard." According to Laura, data should be the backbone of decision-making for two main reasons. Firstly, firms need reliable benchmarking data to see how well they are doing compared to their peers. They need to identify competitors in each location and each practice area. Unfortunately, their outside data is often lacking, meaning they require data service providers such as Leopard Solutions to supplement it. Secondly, Laura believes that data-based decisions are the best path to success. Data provides the framework for essential decisions such as next hires, competitors, new office locations, etc.&nbsp;&nbsp;The benefits of data-based decisions are vast, but one large plus – especially in the current market - is that they can lower the risk of employee moves, both big and small. Being grounded in good, solid data grants more confidence in making big decisions.&nbsp;*This article first appeared on LinkedIn, on April 18, 2022. It has been republished here with permission of the author.

The 'S' Word

Law Schools in the United States have been historically focused on teaching students using caselaw research tools and techniques. In real practice, lawyers need to add a few more tools to their toolkit. During the past decade there has been an explosion of new tools, powered by algorithms and analytics which streamline a variety of traditional tasks which in the past took hours of time. During this period clients have also demanded that law firms leverage tools to make them more efficient. I have outlined below seven important new tools that can help a junior lawyer improve their work product while also saving time and avoiding errors.&nbsp;<ol><li>1. Brief Analyzers: Brief analysis tools go beyond cite checking. They not only identify whether the precedents cited in the brief are still “good law,” but they also use AI, natural language processing, and neural networks to recommend cases that you may have missed during your research. <a href="https://www.legaltechnologyhub.com/vendors/research-by-casetext/">Casetext Cara</a> (part of Casetext Research) was the pioneer in this technology, but Westlaw, Bloomberg Law, and Lexis have all now developed brief analysis tools.</li></ol>&nbsp;When to use: There are three main use cases: when you are updating an older brief, and when you are finalizing a newly drafted brief (an important final step in the review process). Brief analysis tools can be used to locate weak or omitted precedents in an opponent’s brief.&nbsp;2. Know-how Tools: <a href="https://www.legaltechnologyhub.com/vendors/practical-law-us-by-thomson-reuters/">Thomson Reuters Practical Law</a>, <a href="https://www.legaltechnologyhub.com/vendors/practical-guidance-by-lexis-nexis/">LexisNexis Practical Guidance</a>, and Bloomberg Law Practical Guidance (integrated and available on the Bloomberg Law platform) are considered “know-how” tools. Treatises provide theoretical analysis; know-how tools provide a wealth of step-by-step guidance on how to perform a specific task. These guidance materials include checklists, flow charts, toolkits, practice commentary, and model documents. Know-how guidance materials can also be found in the Practicing Law Institute PLI Plus and Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw platforms.&nbsp;When to use: When you are trying to get up to speed quickly for a new assignment or when you are looking for a model document, form, process guidance, or checklist.&nbsp;3. Jurisdictional Surveys: Fifty-state statutory and regulatory survey functionality is available in Westlaw, Lexis, Bloomberg Law, and Wolters Kluwer SmartCharts (part of VitalLaw). These tools can save hours of research time by quickly generating a chart which compares laws on specific issues across multiple jurisdictions. Products typically provide a link to the full text of each law or regulation.&nbsp;When to use: If you are given an assignment to locate and compare the statutes or regulations on a specific issue across multiple states or even all 50 states, use a 50-state/jurisdictional survey tool.&nbsp;4. Docket Tracking and Case Alerts: The clerk of each court compiles case filings in a docket. Many states, counties, and local jurisdictions provide online access to dockets, but some do not. Lexis CourtLink, WestLaw Docket Track, Bloomberg Law, Docket Alarm and Courthouse News all offer docket tracking options.&nbsp;Tracking. Docket tracking functionality allows you to receive updates on a specific case. Tracks will generate an email alert whenever there is a new filing in that case. Most systems cannot send updates in real time. Instead, the program checks the docket at a set time each day. Check with your firm’s librarians / research analysts to determine the best resource for the specific tracking need.&nbsp;Alerting. Courthouse News, Docket Alarm and Bloomberg Law provide alerts when a particular individual is named in a complaint, when a company is sued, etc. Costs for trackers and alerts vary across platforms; so check with the librarian / research analysts in your organization to determine the most cost-effective way to set these up.&nbsp;When to use: When you are asked to monitor a specific case for new filings, or when you are asked to monitor new cases on a person, organization, or topic.&nbsp;5. Redlining Codes: There are several tools that can quickly redline and compare how the language in codes or regulations has changed over time. These tools are available in Lexis, Westlaw, Bloomberg, and VitalLaw.&nbsp;When to use: It is sometimes necessary to pinpoint the language of the law at a specific point in time. Code redlining tools highlight changes between versions of a law or regulation.&nbsp;6. Litigation Analytics: Litigation analytics are an important new source of litigation intelligence. Litigation analytics aggregate docket data from multiple courts. Typical data elements include: party names, judges, attorneys, causes of action, motion type, and time to motion grant/denial An algorithm is used to extract, analyze, and generate reports. Lex Machina, Lexis, Westlaw, Bloomberg Law, Trellis, Docket Alarm and Docket Navigator include litigation analytics. Gavelytics is a solution focused entirely in this area in the United States. In Canada, Court Analytics by Loom Analytics provides a similar capability.&nbsp;When to use: Most common uses are: gaining insights to the experience of your law firm, your opponent, or the judge assigned to your case; understanding how litigation outcomes differ depending on the court or judge; developing a litigation strategy; managing client expectations; or preparing for a pitch.&nbsp;7. Deal Analyzers/Deal Analytics/What’s Market: Transactional lawyers need to know what the most common deal terms and clauses are for a particular type of deal. A new class of drafting tools helps lawyers locate exemplar documents or clauses. These tools can redline and compare documents, identify the prevailing “market standard,” and generate deal analytics using filters such as parties, underwriters, deal value, industry, clause types, etc. These tools are available from Lexis Nexis Intelligize, Thomson Reuters Practical Law, Bloomberg Law, and Wolters Kluwer M&amp;A Deal Analytics.&nbsp;When to use: The use cases are limitless, but here are some sample scenarios:<ul><li>- During the drafting process, see what clauses your firm has used in similar prior deals.&nbsp;</li><li>- Compare your draft document with the market standard using custom criteria.</li><li>- See what clauses a counterparty has agreed to in the past.</li><li>- Generate a league table highlighting your firm's experience in an industry or involvement in certain kinds of deals.</li></ul>&nbsp;Bonus: Parallel SearchCasetext's Parallel Search uses advanced neural networks to provide a new kind of search. With help from a neural transformer model trained on the law, Parallel Search uses complete sentences to find you results with matching concepts, even if they use none of the same keywords. Use Parallel Search as a first stop for your legal research.&nbsp;Advanced Research and Workflow Tools&nbsp;<figure class="table"><table><tbody><tr><td>Product Type</td><td>Westlaw&nbsp;</td><td>Lexis&nbsp;</td><td>Bloomberg Law</td><td>Other</td></tr><tr><td>Litigation Analytics</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td><ul><li>Lex Machina</li><li>Docket Alarm</li><li>Trellis</li><li>Gavelytics</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Brief Analysis</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td><ul><li>Casetext Cara</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Practical Guidance</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td><ul><li>PLI Plus</li><li>VitalLaw</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Dockets</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td><ul><li>Pacer</li><li>Courthouse News</li><li>Docket Alarm</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Redlining Codes</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td><ul><li>VitalLaw</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>50-State Comparison</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td><ul><li>VitalLaw</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Deal Analytics Clause Redlining What’s Market</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>✓</td><td><ul><li>LN Intelligize</li><li>TR Practical Law</li><li>WK M&amp;A Clause Analytics</li></ul>&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Neural Network Search</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>Casetext Parallel Search</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>&nbsp;

Power Tools for Summer Associates: Seven Research / Workflow Tools You Didn't See in Law School

Many definitions of digital transformation are extremely broad, suggesting that it requires bringing a digital-first approach to all parts of a business, or true business model change. But many professionals whose mandate includes digital transformation are lacking the authority within their organizations to undertake enterprise-wide change – let alone the resources.&nbsp;&nbsp;While it may be true that digital transformation – once complete – impacts a business as a whole, defining it in this way at the start of the process is stultifying, making it appear that any smaller changes can’t constitute transformation because their individual impact is too insignificant. The impact of many such smaller changes together, however, may well add up to organization-wide transformation over time.&nbsp;Don’t Boil the Ocean – All at Once&nbsp;If you are someone whose role within an organization involves digital transformation, and you don’t have the authority to initiate an enterprise-wide initiative, where do you start?&nbsp;&nbsp;Most people working in business or law have heard the phrase “don’t boil the ocean”, suggesting that rather than tackle a large project all at once you should break it down and approach it in manageable steps. It’s also true, however, that spending some time to understand the bigger picture before delving into narrower initiatives can pay dividends down the track.&nbsp;&nbsp;In spite of your perceived lack of authority on the business as a whole, there is value before undertaking any digital transformation initiative in performing thorough discovery exercises to understand the way that relevant departments operate, and to start to build support and momentum towards a broader initiative. Understanding what systems are in place and where they are being used in other parts of the business, for example, will ensure that you don’t replicate efforts or duplicate technology investments in your own department. Understanding how data and information travel between systems (or where those connections are lacking but necessary), will give you better insights into what initiatives your team could undertake that might have impact beyond your own department. By engaging in these discussions, you will also build support amongst a network of stakeholders that might enable you to amplify your influence in the organization and generate additional inter-departmental resources to support your projects. &nbsp;&nbsp;Making an impact&nbsp;While undertaking discovery and understanding the systems and data landscape of your organization is important before commencing any digital transformation initiative, this doesn’t mean that those efforts must be similarly broad.&nbsp;Instead, consider what parts of the organization you and your team are able to directly impact, and what the most important needs are in that area. Instead of buying a fancy technology system because it is high in the hype cycle and promises to achieve digital transformation, look at the business needs that are of highest strategic priority to the organization. In particular, look for:&nbsp;<ul style="list-style-type:disc;"><li>Processes that are manual, unnecessarily onerous, and causing frustration.</li><li>Areas where there are “too many cooks”, in other words there are so many hand-offs within the same process as to make it needlessly complicated.</li><li>Processes around which there is confusion, or where efforts are being duplicated.</li><li>Areas where work-arounds have been developed because there is no system in place to support a necessary process.</li><li>Areas where it would save time and improve decision-making if data was connected, but system integrations are unavailable or haven’t been built.</li><li>Areas of low efficiency or realization, or pockets of unprofitability.</li><li>Parts of the organization from which repeated complaints are made to leadership, or where an unusually high number of calls are made to IT support or the organization’s help desk.</li></ul>&nbsp;In identifying the right project to take on, consider whether:&nbsp;<ul style="list-style-type:disc;"><li>You have the ability to instigate and drive an initiative of this kind;</li><li>The initiative is linked to the strategic goals of the business and your department;</li><li>The project is high value and will provide a meaningful return on investment; and</li><li>You have the resources (both financial and human) to tackle this project now.</li></ul>&nbsp;Your aim is to identify the right initiative through which you can realistically drive digital transformation from your position within the organization and in light of the broader context of the organization. Only once you have selected this initiative should you consider whether new technology is necessary at all, and if it is, what work must be done before selecting the relevant technology in order to ensure that the organization is ready to onboard that technology.&nbsp;&nbsp;Watch out for the next edition of LTH Insights for more practical guidance on digital transformation in legal practice.&nbsp;

Digital Transformation: How to Start

As roles in law firms and other parts of the legal ecosystem evolve, it is becoming more common for talent to cross the divide between firms and vendors, bringing new perspectives and experience to both environments. This is a development that should be heralded with fanfare and applause as it stands to benefit all stakeholders in the ecosystem, bringing greater transparency to legal technology procurement and sales.&nbsp;As innovation teams proliferate in law firms, the relevant skillsets for prospective talent have broadened. A range of experience is now recognized as useful for KM and innovation professionals in firms, including technical product management, service design, client value, and more. Many of the new skills that innovation teams are hiring for cannot be found through the traditional recruitment avenues used by law firms, who have had a long tendency to hire from other firms or look for lawyers to fill roles even on the business side. The expansion of desirable skillsets in various law firm teams is thus giving rise to a burgeoning trend of law firms looking to legal technology vendors for new talent.&nbsp;At the same time, as KM and innovation leaders in firms develop relationships with external vendors, it is becoming more common for vendors to hire senior business professionals from law firms to bring new perspectives to the sale side. For these companies, hiring talent from law firms provides them with insight into the procurement processes and the customer context that they otherwise would not have. For the professionals who take this step, the cross-over is a unique opportunity to update their technical skills and work on new challenges.&nbsp;Ultimately, an increased cross-over in talent between law firms and vendors provides opportunities for significant benefits to the ecosystem as a whole, with potential arising for better partnerships, greater transparency around procurement, and improved adoption of technology by lawyers.&nbsp;Conservative Approach Historically Prevented Cross-Over&nbsp;Although knowledge sharing is a competitive advantage, sharing talent has not traditionally been viewed in the same way. Law firms, and particularly recruiters within firms, are still catching up to the reality that the traditional talent route is no longer the best one for all professional services personnel. The increased importance of multi-disciplinary teams within firms is a fairly new phenomenon, and one with which many recruiters are still grappling. They have yet to update their processes to reflect the changes that are happening in the legal talent market.&nbsp;Given that vendors have traditionally been viewed as sales organizations that have little in common with the law firms they sell to, it’s a full about-turn for recruiters to look to them as potential treasure-troves of new talent. Recruiters are still more likely to look to other firms in recruiting senior business leaders, often seeking to poach prospects who are already occupying the same type of position that the recruiter is trying to fill.&nbsp;Unfortunately, this short-sighted view – particularly when it comes to modern roles that involve driving culture change and leading technology innovation efforts – is unlikely to result in an optimum pool of candidates. An innovation team will always be more successful if it is diverse, which includes diversity of experience, perspectives and skill-sets. Using a checklist approach to recruitment for roles that are required to think outside the box may limit a firm’s ability to hire the most effective talent for these positions.&nbsp;Due to the persistence of these conservative recruitment approaches, it has continued to be unusual for law firms to hire for innovation roles from vendors, especially at senior levels. A few forward-thinking law firms led the charge in this respect, paving the way for others. One early such hire was Shearman &amp; Sterling’s recruitment of Glenn LaForce from Aderant, where he was Vice President of Knowledge Management. Shearman installed LaForce as Global Director of Knowledge and Research, where he has successfully led a 40+ person innovative team for over three and a half years. This notable departure from traditional recruitment paths by Shearman &amp; Sterling was spearheaded by the firm’s forward-thinking Chief Knowledge and Client Value Officer, Meredith Williams-Range, and its success has opened the door for other firms to similarly break from tradition.&nbsp;Recently, there have been more of these moves, with an increasing number of firms appearing to recognize the benefit of bringing in a broader perspective to their innovation efforts. In order to gain insight into the impact that crossing the law firm-vendor divide can have on legal organizations, we interviewed Kate Cain, Alma Asay and Cheryl Wilson-Griffin.&nbsp;Kate Cain began on Sidley Austin's KM team, transitioned to Foundation on the vendor side, and is now back to the law firm side again leading KM and Innovation at Fenwick. Alma Asay was previously the CEO of Allegory, which was sold to Litera where she became an Evangelist before moving into her current position as the Senior Director of Practice Innovation at Crowell &amp; Moring. Cheryl Wilson-Griffin was a former Director of Legal Technology Solutions at King &amp; Spalding and is now COO at Lupl.&nbsp; &nbsp; Increase in Cross-Over as Skill Sets Merge&nbsp;Diverse teams that include people who have worked with both law firms and vendors have a greater appreciation for the competing priorities on each side. Alma points out that most people in legal innovation attempt to improve the delivery of legal services without a complete understanding of each side's challenges and finite resources. Alma’s experience on the vendor side has provided insight into the limited ability vendors have to upgrade or change a product for a single customer. As a corollary to that insight, due to her experience working in law firms she has an understanding for why firms can only implement so many solutions at any given time, even if other projects might look interesting. In Alma’s view, when skillsets and insights merge from both vendor and law firm experience, there is an increased understanding about what each side can do to achieve value faster, more candid communication about roadblocks, and a better likelihood of realistic expectations. Projects are consequently set up for greater success, benefitting all parties in the long run.&nbsp;On the vendor side, by contrast, Kate explains that her knowledge from having been a discerning consumer was hugely valuable for product development, bringing essential perspectives to design discussions, development priorities, and overall product roadmap strategies. Her insight from having worked on the buyer side helped ensure that what the vendor ultimately delivered was aligned with what customers need now and in the future.&nbsp;Benefits of Cross-Over for Law Firms, Vendors and the Industry at Large&nbsp;Having an individual on the team who understands both the lawyer and the vendor sides of the equation is vital to ensuring successful ecosystem partnerships, streamlining procurement and improving adoption. Now working back on the law firm side leading KM and innovation efforts, Kate says that: "understanding how a software company works, especially from the product management and ongoing development perspective, provides powerful insight into how to evaluate potential solutions."&nbsp;"When lawyers understand what it is like to be on the receiving end of customers' enhancement requests, bug reporting, and use case questions, they are better positioned to advocate for their team and partner better with vendors." Kate explains that this perspective has helped her to understand how to frame a question or report an issue in a way that will make sense to product or engineering teams. More specifically, she can pre-emptively provide the supporting information the vendor needs, such as relevant examples and helpful context.&nbsp;This knowledge also improves efficiency around the negotiation stages of legaltech procurement, creating better outcomes for law firms. Frequently, for example, vendors are limited in price but flexible in other aspects of the relationships. Individuals who understand this from having worked on the vendor side are able to leverage their expertise to arrange better terms for their firms. To illustrate, Cheryl shared that she was able to use her insight to help her firm negotiate the best price on a piece of expensive legal technology and ensure the firm had options to protect it against low adoption – precisely, an 18-month no-cause cancellation term.&nbsp; For vendors, navigating the complex priorities that lawyers are juggling can seem overwhelming and obsolete. Having the insight of a seasoned lawyer onboard who has experienced multiple procurement processes from the inside of a firm is a tremendous asset. Cheryl explained that knowing how law firms buy allows you to navigate the complex and confusing procurement process more capably when working on the vendor side. For instance, you can prepare documentation that answers the questions you know are coming, implement security protocols you see the firm will need and set better internal expectations about when a deal might close.&nbsp;Anyone who crosses the divide between a law firm and a vendor company has to be ready for significant change. Our interviewees shared that some of these changes can make your professional life better, but others might make you initially uncomfortable. Cheryl divulged that going from a well-staffed law firm to join a vendor without the same sort of support network and deep resources was a bit of a shock. In contrast, going from a vendor to a firm it can be equally shocking to find how much is done for you on the administrative side. Over time, however, given the many different cultures in law firms and especially at vendor companies, there is the potential to find a fit that will make a candidate happy on either side.&nbsp;As the industry evolves and recruitment practices develop to take into account the new skillsets that abound in legal, the number of people who choose to cross the law firm-vendor divide at some point in their careers is likely to increase significantly. This trend should be embraced, as it will benefit vendors, law firms, and the industry at large. For organizations currently seeking talent, the suggestion from those we interviewed in relation to this topic is to actively recruit candidates with experience from more diverse environments. Diversity and innovative thought will abound when recruiters recognize that the right expertise can arise out of a variety of contexts, and move away from prioritizing candidates who have only ever worked at law firms.&nbsp;

Crossing the Divide

That’s it – you’ve made the sale.&nbsp;&nbsp;Or as good as made it, anyway: you’ve been told you’re in the budget, or in the review process. The firm has your pricing proposal, your terms, a draft contract. You’ve provided all the security documentation they asked for.&nbsp;&nbsp;And then, a month goes by. Another month. You hear nothing. Crickets. You email your contact, wait a respectful amount of time, email again – no response. The end of your sales quarter is coming up, and you can’t get anyone to speak to you, at a lead you already told your boss was a sure conversion.&nbsp;What happened? Why do law firms go silent just when you think you’re on the verge of a sale?&nbsp;As someone who has just left large law and spent a good deal of time navigating the procurement process, let me give you some insight into what’s happening on the law firm side. Here are five reasons law firms go silent.&nbsp;&nbsp;<ul><li>They Don’t Have Any Information About What’s Happening</li></ul>&nbsp;The internal procurement process at some firms is as much of a black box to your internal contacts as it is to you. Even if the spend or investment of a new solution has been tacitly approved, there are many steps to move through before the new solution can be greenlit and a contract signed. In some cases, this is the case even for a pilot or proof of concept. The stakeholders involved in the procurement process don’t all report up to the same decision-maker, and the way they work together (or don’t) varies from firm to firm, as do the many steps that make up the start-to-finish procurement process. Your contact may be holding off on getting back to you until they can figure out where your project sits in that process.&nbsp;<ul><li>There are Five (or Ten) Projects Ahead of Yours</li></ul>&nbsp;At large organizations in particular, there are many projects happening at once, all in different stages of onboarding and implementation. Your technology solution might solve a clear use case and have solid internal support, but it is almost certainly only one of several – or many – products that your internal contact is shepherding through internal processes. It’s likely that there are a number of other vendors in the queue before you, and your contact is busy responding to them.&nbsp;&nbsp;<ul><li>They Get 500 Emails a Day&nbsp;</li></ul>&nbsp;The high number of simultaneous projects and the intensity of ongoing work within a firm means that legal innovation, operations or KM folk these days are under fire from emails in the same way that many lawyers are. On top of that, especially since Covid, meetings have proliferated and your contact may be sitting for 10 hours a day in back-to-back meetings while emails pile up. Unless there is movement on your project, your check-in is unlikely to be top of their list to action once they get a chance to deal with the back-log. It’s also possible that your email has been lost in that back-log, which is why a polite follow-up after a decent amount of time is warranted (and will often be appreciated).&nbsp;<ul><li>There’s Nothing They Can Do For You</li></ul>&nbsp;The distributed nature of procurement in legal organizations (and law firms in particular) means that there is no one decision-maker who can push things through. If your project has been approved in the budget, or your solution has been put forward for procurement, it likely means that your contact has completed all the necessary steps over which they have direct control. Once the paperwork has been submitted, your contact loses sight of the various feasibility, resource, and security reviews that need to be conducted before a contract is reviewed. At this stage, there’s little they can do to drive the process or to help you move things along.&nbsp;<ul><li>You’re Being Pushy</li></ul>&nbsp;The unfortunate truth is that procurement and law firm sales cycles take a long time. That is frustrating not just for you, but for your internal contacts – the reason you have a project in-flight is because they want to work with you, which means they want to see the procurement process completed. But if you are sending emails every few days or even every week, you may lose favor. Your contact will tell you when there’s something to report. A check-in every now and then is fine, but give them some breathing space.&nbsp;&nbsp;Regardless of the reason, it’s annoying when a law firm prospect is ghosting you. Is there anything you can do to break through and get a response? Check out the next LTH Vendor Cheatsheet to find out.&nbsp;