Legal teams often rely on support from Finance, IT, or Procurement to access new technology and systems.

This is confirmed in the Deloitte In-house Insights Report “Trusted navigators in complex and challenging environments”, prepared in response to the September 2022 survey of New Zealand's in-house legal community, which identified the CFO/COO as the most common decision maker, followed by the CIO/IT Department.

Topics: Document Automation, Legal Technology, In-House Legal, Digital Signatures, Legal Automation, Matter Management, Legal Operations, Contract Management

As an in-house lawyer or lawyer in a firm, you may have heard about the benefits of using technology to improve your legal processes and get better outcomes. You may have seen some impressive demos or testimonials from vendors who claim to have the perfect solution for your needs.

But how do you decide which technology or approach is the best for your situation?

How do you navigate the overwhelming amount of information and noise in the market?

The truth is, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this question. Different technologies and approaches have different strengths and weaknesses, depending on your goals, constraints, preferences, and context.

What works for one legal team may not work for another. And what works today may not work tomorrow.

So, how can you simplify your thinking and make progress in evaluating LegalTech?

Here are five suggestions that may help you:

Topics: Document Automation, Legal Technology, In-House Legal, Document Assembly, Law Firm Management, Legal Automation, Matter Management, Legal Operations, Contract Management

An area where improvements might easily be made to overall contracting speed is in the approvals process.

Topics: Document Automation, Legal Technology, In-House Legal, Document Assembly, Legal Automation, Matter Management, Legal Operations, Contract Management, Productivity

 

I found the latest podcast by Ron Baker and Ed Kless in The Soul of Enterprise (The Time Tax: The Crime of Stealing Customers’ Time) very thought provoking. I recommend it highly.

It is based on an article by B Joseph Pine II and James H Gilmore – Competing for Customer Time.

While there is ongoing discussion about the hourly billing model and lawyers charging for their time, the focus in the podcast and article is on the value of the client’s time and how to avoid wasting it.

Pine and Gilmore come out strongly:

"While not crimes against humanity, time-wasters are certainly offences against human customers. The worst thing you can do is waste your customers’ time – yet companies do it all the time.”

They go on to say:

“Companies can create value for customers by eliminating activities that waste their time; saving their time when so desired; offering experiences where time is valued; and even helping customers to wisely invest their time.”

and

“No company should impose wasted time on customers. The primary strategic choices today focus on time well saved and time well spent.”

This made me think about how this applies to our business, LawHawk, and the legal automation solutions we design, build and support. I have set out my thoughts below.

Topics: Document Automation, Legal Technology, In-House Legal, Law Firm Management, Self-Service Legal Automation, Legal Automation, Matter Management, Legal Operations, Contract Management

 

It's not uncommon for someone to show some initial interest in a legal automation project, get excited seeing how it could make a real difference in their work and that of their team, and then be told that it is not possible.

What can you do in that situation?

Topics: Legal Technology, In-House Legal, Document Assembly, Law Firm Management, Compliance, Legal Automation, Matter Management, Legal Operations, Contract Management, Law Firm Profitability

 

A common concern we hear when talking to prospective clients about legal automation is that they haven't got a budget, and they don't think they can get one.

Often, however, this is before we have discussed the size and cost of the problem or the opportunity to be addressed and the expected benefits, and therefore, it needs more context before a price can be agreed and a budget could be obtained.

What should you do before worrying about price and budget for an automation project?

Topics: Legal Technology, In-House Legal, Document Assembly, Law Firm Management, Compliance, Legal Automation, Matter Management, Legal Operations, Contract Management, Law Firm Profitability

When I’m asked for the best resources to improve overall contracting processes and outcomes, there are two that I can recommend knowing they will provide excellent insights and return on investment.

While particularly relevant for in-house legal teams and contract managers (who can get immediate benefits), they offer significant value to commercial lawyers in law firms who want to understand how they can really add the most value to their clients’ businesses.

Topics: Document Automation, Procurement, Legal Technology, In-House Legal, Document Assembly, Law Firm Management, Legal Operations, Contract Management, Law Firm Strategy, Productivity

Looking ahead to the coming year, I think (maybe with a bit of hope thrown in) several themes will be key. This is what we will be focussing on helping our customers with, and in our own business.

Topics: Practise of Law, Future of Law, Document Automation, Legal Technology, Law Firm Management, Compliance, Legal Operations, Contract Management, Law Firm Strategy, Productivity

When evaluating new technology, a proof of concept can be a very helpful way of ensuring you get what you think you are getting while avoiding unnecessary costs.

However, we sometimes see proof-of-concept projects that go off the rails, don’t achieve the expected outcomes, and cost a lot of money.

There is one particular mistake that we frequently see people make.

Topics: Document Automation, Legal Technology, In-House Legal, Document Assembly, Legal Automation, Matter Management, Legal Operations, Contract Management

Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) solutions often boast an enticing feature known as auto redlining, enabling the automatic review of draft contracts by artificial intelligence (AI) to suggest changes. While this functionality may seem promising, its utility and effectiveness warrant closer examination.

I approach this feature with a degree of scepticism. Contracts represent a record of the collaborative arrangement between parties, leveraging their unique skills and experiences to create shared value. The question arises: Can AI, based on the analysis of countless contracts, truly capture and enhance the maximum value that can be achieved through collaboration by these two or more particular parties?

Topics: Legal Automation, Legal Operations, Contract Management