There I am walking down the aisle of yet another legaltech conference checking out the many exhibitor booths. I notice there are more and more AI solutions and other tools that will, and have disrupted transactional practices. But litigation is another matter and I am somewhat anxious to see whether some competitor or startup might have gotten wind of my own genius ideas and brought them to market before me.
Ah, but good news, I don’t see anyone who “gets it” the way I do. I’m safe, it seems.
And boy, “These other legaltech companies sure are missing the boat,” I say to myself as I turn the corner to find an elevator. And then it happens.
Within my reflection in the mirror that is the elevator, I see I have become a Woody Allen-like character, or even worse, maybe Woody Allen himself; neurotically talking to myself, analyzing others, and waxing and waning. Not poetically.
Here I am, a legaltech entrepreneur, one of those “disruptors” you read about, and I can’t even escape my own legal training to see the value and opportunity in others’ new and innovative legaltech offerings. Is the legal cynicism engraved so deep within me that I can only escape from it when discussing my own company? Now I have an even deeper appreciation for Jae Um’s articles that discuss the challenges of selling into the legal field and why it’s so different. I can’t even get out of my own way!
I’m sure many of us lawyers tend to create this type of paralysis for ourselves without even realizing it, which is why it’s so important that we have other professionals running the business-side of our practices and companies. Thankfully most organizations, including my own, are now run in large part by an experienced team of business development, marketing and operations professionals. If you haven’t, do yourself a favor and get out of your own way!
As I rode up the elevator to my room, I, of course, congratulated myself on my self-realization. That’s what we Woody Allen types do.
But I also continued to ponder why I was so doubtful of these other legaltech companies. Some seem like they are more of a feature or an add-on to an existing technology. Some promise robust analytics with outcomes that just feel too remote. Or am I simply tuning them out because of all the exuberant hype because of their use of trendy marketing terms? I mean, blockchain doesn’t change what we do, just how it’s done. So, why do I react with such skepticism?
After further thought, I think Baretz+Brunelle had it partially right in their 2018 Legal Tech Go to Market Report, that noted, “… the [legal] industry suffers from widespread confusion on what to sell, how to sell it and whom to sell it to. …[there’s] no firm grasp of go-to-market strategy.”
But there are plenty of companies, VortexLegal included, that have found traction and real revenues. The issue is, as others have opined, that law firms will only adopt technologies that don’t threaten their business model and in-house legal departments are looking for solutions that solve a meaningful problem, are easy to implement and offer an attractive ROI in a short period of time. While some of the offerings out there seem to be able to deliver on these promises, not enough do.
As I lay down on the bed in my hotel room and begin reviewing the marketing material from one of the companies I had visited, I think I hit upon the biggest challenge for litigation-related legaltech companies: All the tech in the world can’t replace or replicate the in-person, face-to-face experience inherent in lawyering.
Whether you are opposing counsel or a party in a lawsuit, everything changes when you meet the opposing counsel face-to-face to do combat. Your blood pressure changes, the adrenaline kicks in, your well-rehearsed answers aren’t so well-rehearsed anymore.
It’s like playing poker. Sure, you can play poker online, but the real Battle Royale can only be experienced in-person, face to face.
Technology can improve legal processes and can certainly make lawyers more efficient. Legal procurement and operations can definitely improve every aspect of our industry.
But there is no technology that can replace the benefits of being in-person and face-to-face, whether it’s to make an argument in front of the judge, conduct a deposition, or handle a mediation.
During litigation, part of this process involves evaluating how opposing counsel and their client will handle themselves at trial. Technology can improve our processes, supplement our analysis, but there is no substitute for meeting in-person. Simply put, technology is not going to replace the lawyer or the “legal experience.”
Lawyers operate from a position of fear, especially when it comes to technology. Brad Blickstein has posted hilarious LinkedIn memes that are 20+ years old magazine clippings which highlight the then “emerging trends” of growing in-house operations, the rise of alternative fee arrangements, and the “new concept” of legal operations. What’s old is new. And what’s new is old. One in particular covered lawyers arguing against the use of personal computers because it would be the “end of law as we know it.”
Indeed, each generation of lawyers has different tools at its disposal. And the “old guard” who not so long ago was the “new guard” find that technology challenges their business model. So, to my fellow legaltech entrepreneurs I suggest this: worry less about breaking into Big Law and instead find law firms that are growing, looking to displace the established, entrenched firms and grow from there. The growth of legal operations and legal procurement also means there is a new audience for us to speak to who speak in KPI’s and other metric-oriented terms.
As lawyers and legal entrepreneurs, it’s important that we open ourselves up to how technology can help us, our practice and our clients. That means we have to accept new tools, new business models and new definitions of what “the practice of law” means. The protective guild is not serving anyone other than the well-healed so we need to embrace technology and tech-enabled platforms that better connect consumers with attorneys.
I can’t change those lawyers who are protectionist, nor do I blame them. It’s the buyers of legal services, the corporate legal departments, who need to drive the change. They need to identify those lawyers and legaltech companies that share their values, retain them and pilot our technology services.
One company I dealt with recently had an expedited onboarding and compliance program for legaltech companies. It was faster but no less rigorous. More companies should adopt a similar program.
After all, can you imagine if we were still hiring law firms that refused to use personal computers?
The founder and CEO of VortexLegal, Jonathan Broder is an attorney by background who left the practice of law to follow his entrepreneurial passions. Jon was a lawyer and legal recruiter before launching VortexLegal, an alternative legal services provider. VortexLegal provides an automated matching and billing platform that connects law firms and corporate legal departments with a curated community of appearance counsel to attend routine, administrative hearings for a flat rate resulting in substantial savings for clients. Jon earned his J.D. from the John Marshall Law School in Chicago in 2004, was a member and editor of the Law Review and is licensed in Florida.