We talk to a lot of organisations about document automation.  Many of them have problems that document automation can help with.  Some of them are literally drowning in paperwork, lacking sufficient experienced staff, and know they are exposed to undesirable levels of risk through inadvertent error or lost opportunities through delay.  The people on the front-line need a solution now!

Although it is something that they want to start using because they know the benefits it will provide them in terms of greater speed and quality of document creation, with reduced costs and risk of error, many of them already have some type of system that already has, or could have as an extra module, some sort of document generation capability which they are not using.  In a corporate context this could be a procurement system or an HR system, and in a law firm, it is often the firm’s practice management system.

Sensibly they want to look into that option further before they make a decision on how they will start to use document automation.  The problem is that we see a lot of people go into that process, but few come out the other side.  Months or years will pass without getting any of the benefits they know they need.  How can this problem be avoided?

If you are considering these types of issues, the following questions and thoughts based on our observations might help you and your team move through evaluation more quickly and effectively and avoid it becoming a black hole that devours your initiative before you get going:

I like learning about new legal technologies, and how they can help me, but like most people I can still struggle to find time to try them all out.

A good example is digital signatures.  I’ve known about them for years, and always thought they will eventually be the way that we sign all our documents, but haven’t made the time to look into it and why I should use it now.  However a couple of weeks ago Mike Eyal from Secured Signing and I caught up again after first meeting at the LawFest Conference in May.  Secured Signing are another New Zealand based legal technology company, established in 2010 with a number of satisfied customers.

Mike showed me how the Secured Signing system works, and I could tell it was a natural fit for our document automation system and something I wanted to start using.  We have now built a Secured Signing integration which we can drop into any of our automated document templates so that users can automatically create Secured Signing “Smart Tags”.  These are very simple pieces of formatted text that the Secured Signing system can recognise and act on to manage the digital signing process.

At the conclusion of New Zealand legal technology conference LawFest, one attendee said to me that a lot of the legal tech offerings seem to be targeted at private practice lawyers and there is a lack of understanding of the different needs of in-house lawyers.  Does he have a point? 

You may have seen me talk about using legaltech to achieve great outcomes.  You may have nodded your head in agreement. After all, who wouldn’t agree that getting a great result is, well, great?  But what does this actually mean?  

There are a lot of legaltech options out there.  If you’ve tried one piece of legaltech, and been left feeling like the guy on the right, you’re not alone.  This happens all too often.  With so many providers (sometimes appearing to offer the same solution), you have to find one that can solve problems you have, in the way that suits you, in the way they said they would.  Don’t part with your money or your time, until you know this will be the case.

“Not surprisingly (in hindsight, at least), his first initiative was to implement document automation.  This was almost eight years ago!”

Over half a year on from leaving London, I ask myself:  what did I learn from my time in London?  Perhaps I can best answer this question by first asking myself: what did I expect?  Global market-leading bank, hundreds of years old, based in London - everything must go faster and run more efficiently than in little New Zealand, right?  Well, sort of.

“It’s those with the most experience that can contribute the most knowledge to new technologies.”  

There’s been a lot of press in New Zealand recently about the growing division between the baby boomers and millennials/gen Y.  For example, Bill English has said the age of eligibility for superannuation will rise to 67 from 2037 (i.e. it won’t directly affect the baby boomers).  For a few years now, the house prices in the most popular areas of NZ have been out of reach of most millennials.  This blog isn’t intended to discuss the economic and social arguments behind these situations we find ourselves in.  I am, however, interested in how the stereotypical differences in mindsets between the generations can make innovation tricky within organisations.  How do we get the best outcomes, in light of these differences?

The most interesting developments in the last month...

It’s been quite a month for legal tech in New Zealand, with several announcements by New Zealand firms that are worth of mention.

As noted in recent blogs, precedents and legal opinions are valuable tools for law firms to ensure they are working efficiently and to high standards of quality.  A third tool I believe is essential is having high quality checklists and other guidance, which can help someone work through a processs quickly and safely. 

Like precedents, checklists that are well designed, current and comprehensive can be very hard to update and maintain, but as Atul Gawande shows in The Checklist Manifesto they are not just for inexperienced people, and can be essential to reducing mistakes in all fields, including medicine, aviation, construction, finance - and law.

The next question I recommend clients ask their lawyers to find out how they really work, and to identify law firms that are working differently and better than others, relates to checklists, guidance and other quality control methods.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about a topic dear to my heart - whether law firms are investing enough time and effort in precedents: http://blog.lawhawk.nz/blog/does-your-law-firm-use-precedents.

This week, in the 6th set of questions, I want to look at another core area where an established law firm should be able to provide additional value and benefits to their clients beyond what others can: the legal opinions that the firm's lawyers give on a daily basis. 

Many people are still asking whether Legal Tech will completely replace the flesh and bones lawyer.  We don’t think so, and neither do most of the legal tech commentators we’ve come across in the last month.  Technology will sit alongside humans to provide better outcomes for clients, not replace humans.  As we note in our comments about Synergist below, we believe that over-reliance on technology may compromise effective outcomes when people still need to build relationships and work together.