Holistic Legal Tech: Differing Approaches

A slew of integrations with third party-vendors isn't necessarily the right solution for every legal tech company.

legal technology legal tech law gavel digitalEarlier this week, my fellow Above the Law columnist, Bob Ambrogi, discussed the idea that legal technology products should be thought of holistically, as part of a lawyer’s overall workflow. I read his column with interest because he never fails to offer thoughtful, insightful analysis of the legal industry and technology’s impact on it. After reading his columns, I often find myself mulling over the interesting issues that he’s raised.

Tuesday’s blog post was no different. Bob made some astute observations about lawyer’s workflows in 2017 and offered some intriguing hypotheses regarding the unique challenges that 21st century lawyers — and legal software developers — face. I found myself nodding in agreement regarding his “big picture” view of lawyers and technology, but ultimately questioning one of his main assertions: that integrations between legal technology products were the key to a more holistic, streamlined experience for lawyers.

Bob’s main premise was that legal technology companies and lawyers “could be better served by thinking about how particular technology products fit within the broader context of the work lawyers do.”

Next, he asserted that 21st century legal technologies were more amenable to integrations than old school premise-based software:

“But now, a more holistic view is possible, thanks in large part to two factors – the prevalence of cloud computing and the burgeoning number of legal tech startups. These days, cloud platforms and APIs make it easy for tech products to play well with other products.”

He then suggested that integrations between legal technology products were oftentimes the best way to achieve the goal of providing the best service to customers.

I would respectfully suggest that he misses the mark with that particular conclusion and fails to take into account many of the ways that multiple integrations can be problematic — and costly — for lawyers.

Sponsored

Security Issues

For starters, there are the security issues presented when lawyers store their confidential client data with multiple third-party vendors. Because lawyers have an ethical duty to vet each and every third-party provider who has access to confidential client data, the more integrations, the more vetting that must be done. So, the more integrations you allow into your firm’s primary cloud-computing software platform, the more companies you have to thoroughly research and vet. And, even more daunting, some ethics opinions suggest you have a continuing duty to re-visit the procedures of each provider that hosts your firm’s client data on a regular (often annual) basis to verify their responses to your questions.

One way to reduce this time-consuming continuing obligation while likewise reducing security risks is to limit the number of integrations — and thus the number of third parties that have access to your law firm’s data.

Increased costs

With increased integrations come increased costs. Typically you have to subscribe to each cloud-based software platform separately and then link each one via integrations to your primary platform. The more platforms you use, the higher your monthly costs.

Sponsored

In comparison, law firm costs are reduced when a legal software company develops a product over time with the end goal being to provide comprehensive software, with features built-in based on customer feedback rather than outsourcing this task to third party vendors.  At the same time, the law firm has access to a cohesive, streamlined workflow, with many necessary features seamlessly built into their platform of choice.

Inconsistent end-to-end experience

The streamlined user experience encountered when working within a single platform is often lost when jumping between different software products. Moving from one interface to the next can often be jarring, assuming the integration itself works well. Unfortunately, many integrations are difficult to set up and don’t always work as expected.

Scan through posts in any online lawyer forum for examples of integration experiences gone awry. Many integrations are rudimentary at best and fail to meet expectations. For example, the risk of errors or omissions can often occur in cases where the applications are not equally robust and therefore can’t accommodate the same level of detail. Additionally, over time, as each product changes, the communication between the software platforms can degrade, and connections can break, resulting in data errors or sometimes a complete shut down of the integration.”

Inconsistent customer service

When integrations fail to work as expected, you may encounter another problem that often arises when multiple software vendors are involved: “he said, she said” customer service. We’ve all been there, stuck smack dab in the middle as two different companies point the finger, each claiming the other is the source of the problem. Trying to resolve your problem can be difficult when neither company accepts blame.

And if it’s not outright finger pointing, it’s inconsistent customer service. For example, when legal software integrates with consumer apps, inconsistent customer service abounds. Some consumer-facing software provides little, if any, in-person customer service. Others provide limited or very poor person-to-person responses to your inquiries.

Increased complexity

As result, oftentimes integrations increase complexity because you encounter issues where legal software only works the way you’d like it to after stringing many different integrations together. You have to pay multiple vendors. You have to learn how to use each type of software. You have to keep up with and learn how to use the new updates as they are added to each software platform. When you encounter problems with the integrations, you have to reach out to multiple vendors to try to resolve the issue. And you have to regularly vet each provider for security and ensure that their standards and internal procedures continue to be sufficient.

In other words, integrations increase complexity. So while Bob’s vision of a holistic legal technology experience grounded in integrations sounds appealing in theory, I would respectfully suggest that the reality of multiple software integrations is oftentimes markedly different.

In comparison, when a legal software provider invests time, money, and resources into solving its customers problems by building requested features into the software, the customer experience is significantly improved. This is because the software company can control and be accountable for end-to-end, cohesive user experiences grounded in comprehensive strategic direction, product development, customer support, affordable pricing, and more. There is less complexity and greater stability when integrations are minimized and used only when absolutely necessary. 

Of course, when it comes to a holistic legal technology experience, there is one assertion from his post upon which both Bob and I can wholeheartedly agree:

If companies think about how their products best serve these overall workflows, it follows that they will better serve their customers.

I would suggest that there are different ways for legal software companies to achieve this goal, and that a slew of integrations with third party-vendors isn’t necessarily the right solution for every legal tech company — or every lawyer.


Niki BlackNicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and the Legal Technology Evangelist at MyCase, web-based law practice management software. She’s been blogging since 2005, has written a weekly column for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York. She’s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter @nikiblack and she can be reached at niki.black@mycase.com.

CRM Banner