Artificial Lawyer recently published an article by Karl Chapman, the CEO of Kim Technologies. The Democratization of Document Automation: We have Reached the Tipping Point.
I'm sure that Kim is an excellent piece of technology, and anything that can make it easier to create automated templates at lower cost is a good thing. But this article significantly oversimplifies the work required to get good outcomes from an automation project.
Topics: Document Automation, Legal Technology, In-House Legal, Document Assembly, Law Firm Management, Digital Signatures, Self-Service Legal Automation, Automated NDAs, Legal Automation, Matter Management, Legal Operations, Contract Management
A lot of the focus when procuring new technology is on the initial upfront costs and the ongoing software and support costs. Fair enough, these are important in evaluating the cost of the new solution.
What often seems to be overlooked are the costs of the current process and the costs of delay. This often comes up when someone in charge of the business process has determined that they have a problem they would like to fix. When a solution they would like is agreed upon, they then need broader support from other teams, such as IT or procurement.
This can result in months, sometimes years, of delay, perhaps while the IT team consider if it would cost less for them to build a solution themselves.
Topics: Practise of Law, Document Automation, Legal Technology, In-House Legal, Law Firm Management, Digital Signatures, Legal Automation, Matter Management, Legal Operations, Contract Management
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment have just released an Advance Notice of their intention to re-tender the All of Government External Legal Services contract, which expires on 22 September 2023.
The revised fee structure caught my eye.
Topics: Future of Law, In-House Legal, Law Firm Management, Legal Automation, Matter Management, Legal Operations, Value Pricing
Last week I had a call from a law firm that I first spoke to in June 2016, basically right after LawHawk launched.
The partner at that time told me “Yes, our firm is interested in the use of technology / automation etc in the profession. We have recently invested significant amounts of time (and some money) developing our own precedents and their automation using the Infinity system.”
Now, more than 5 years later, they don’t appear to have made any significant progress. Why not?
Topics: Document Automation, Legal Technology, Document Assembly, legal practice, Law Firm Management, Legal Automation
Are we too focussed on whether something is innovative?
That might seem an unusual question for me to ask, you might think. After all, haven’t I been on the Advisory Board for the College of Law’s Centre for Legal Innovation for the last five years?
Isn't a large part of what LawHawk does looking at existing processes, how they can be re-engineered, and finding new ways to work for better results?
Given how little innovation has occurred in the legal profession, don’t we want to see much more of it?
Topics: Practise of Law, Future of Law, Legal Technology, In-House Legal, legal practice, Law Firm Management
Did you notice that Public Trust recently launched an online wills and enduring powers of attorney service? Yes, you did read that right. Even Public Trust now have online wills and enduring powers of attorney.
You may be thinking this presents an issue for LawHawk, given we also offer online wills and enduring powers of attorney. It probably will affect part of our business. We may lose some online opportunities to Public Trust, but at the same time their presence online will also help to grow the overall online market. Time will tell but I think it's a positive move for making wills and EPAs more accessible.
Online wills and enduring powers of attorney are still very much a niche offer, appealing to those who are comfortable or prefer doing the whole process themselves online, or who either cannot afford, or choose not to pay the costs of, a traditional legal service.
Our online offers direct to the public represents only a small part of our overall business. The larger part of our focus – as it always has been - is working with law firms to help them to offer a better and more affordable service to their clients, while also making this a more satisfying and profitable part of the practice.
In my opinion, this further shift towards online wills and enduring powers of attorney should be of greater concern to law firms in respect of their own practices. Until relatively recently, law firms were in total control of when and how clients could get wills and powers of attorney, and what it would cost. The only real competition was the trustee companies. One was recovering from significant financial and operational issues, and the other was only working 4 days per week. Both had reputations for poor service and high fees. So not much competition, and no great surprise that law firms felt no pressure to innovate their own services.
Now, both of the trustee companies have online capabilities and are pushing them hard.
How should law firms respond? I can see several possible options. The first two are:
Topics: Practise of Law, Future of Law, Document Automation, Legal Technology, Document Assembly, Wills, Law Firm Management
Topics: Practise of Law, Future of Law, Document Automation, Document Assembly, legal practice, Law Firm Management
Topics: Practise of Law, Future of Law, Document Automation, Document Assembly, legal practice, Law Firm Management
Will the future of law belong to large or small firms? It’s a debate that is ongoing.
Topics: Practise of Law, Document Automation, Legal Technology, In-House Legal, legal practice, Law Firm Management, New Zealand Legal Jobs
021 339 527
lawhawk@lawhawk.nz
