Like many involved in legal automation, we initially started with a focus on document automation.

This was the particular pain point we had experienced as banking and corporate lawyers ourselves, and we were looking for a way to draft complex legal documents much more quickly and with fewer errors.

When we set up LawHawk eight years ago, there weren’t many options for broader workflow automation, so most initial projects were limited to document automation. Even so, it was common for our projects to deliver 75% or more time savings when drafting individual documents, and potentially much more when delivering packages of documents. This could often translate to several hours of time savings for drafters per matter.

As more options emerged in the process automation space, we started to join up components for more end-to-end solutions. Sometimes, this was just a matter of incorporating digital signing into the process. Other times it could include incorporating digital intake forms or automated approvals.

We found that customers who were willing to look at all the various stages of the process and consider how they might be changed to make the process as efficient as possible and to ensure the best overall outcomes were getting much greater results than what we had envisaged. Yes, they were still saving hours for individuals drafting documents, but they were telling us that they were actually saving weeks of time that was usually lost through:

• gathering only parts of the information at a time and needing to clarify things
• waiting for people to respond
• having to send follow-up emails
• often losing valuable documents or information (or having it stuck in Outlook or shared drives that were not easily searchable, which is essentially the same thing for the organisation).

Same Solution, Different Outcomes – Why?

We have also seen significant differences in outcomes between similar organisations that have adopted similar solutions.

We noticed that the organisations that had the best results were the ones that were open to changing the process more.

One customer used the extra time freed up by drafting the documents much more quickly to send the draft to the counterparty well before negotiations. They found that this meant they agreed on everything in the meeting, and could send the document for digital signing while in the meeting and conclude everything on the spot. Both parties could leave the meeting knowing they had an agreement and start ordering materials and scheduling staff. See the case study here.

Another client in the same industry, with essentially the same solution, used automation to create the contract but did the drafting later and didn’t send it to the counterparty with as much time to prepare as the other company did. As a result, things still weren’t agreed upon during the meeting. The usual back-and-forth exchange of documents by email still continued, and they didn’t adopt digital signing, which meant they still had to chase contracts.

What’s the risk of challenging old assumptions and trying something new?

We regularly talk to lawyers in law firms and in-house legal teams who are reluctant to adopt digital intake forms. They are sure their clients will not accept being asked to fill in a form.

This doesn’t match what we observe from law firms and legal teams who have had no problem getting clients to fill in forms, particularly when the clients understand that it will be better for them to do it that way. We see similar reluctance with digital signing, which is one of the easiest things to implement.

Many customers have told us that they were surprised that their initial expectation of resistance proved to be so wrong.

Putting a digital front end on the process is a key enabler for all the other benefits that can follow. Of course, there will be some people who don’t want to fill out the form. That’s fine, you can continue to look after them, however works best for you and them. However, for the ones that the digital form does work for, you have likely saved a lot of time for both you and them.

Rather than make assumptions, it’s usually best to try things out.

Instead of worrying about what might go wrong, think about what could happen if things go well.

By fixing more of the overall process you may have taken the first significant step towards saving not only hours of drafting time for the legal team but also weeks of time across the process, enabling better business outcomes for the whole organisation.

If you are considering a legal automation project in 2025, don’t jump to the solution for only part of the process.

Be curious about what might be possible and open-minded about whether something different might work in your organisation, even if it hasn’t been tried before or it was tried another time and didn’t work in those circumstances.

If you are worried about not knowing what might be possible or what might be possible on your budget, that’s fine. That’s precisely the situation in which we find many law firms and legal teams and where we can add some of our most significant value. We can help you to quickly identify what is possible and likely to be best for you.