{"id":2316,"date":"2018-02-05T18:02:08","date_gmt":"2018-02-05T23:02:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/?p=490775"},"modified":"2018-02-06T09:54:21","modified_gmt":"2018-02-06T14:54:21","slug":"the-conference-formerly-known-as-legaltech-takes-shape-as-legalweek","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/legal-innovation-center\/2018\/02\/05\/the-conference-formerly-known-as-legaltech-takes-shape-as-legalweek\/","title":{"rendered":"The Conference Formerly Known As Legaltech Takes Shape As Legalweek"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"I have a Super Bowl tradition, and it has nothing to do with football. Every year, either the week before or the week after the Super Bowl, I am in New York City, consumed by the craziness that is the three days of Legaltech, long one of the leading legal technology conferences.<\/p>\n

Or should I say that \u201cwas\u201d Legaltech, given that last year, ALM, the company that owns and produces the conference, rebranded it as Legalweek: The Experience<\/a>, an expanded version that encompasses multiple conferences. This year, they included the venerable\u00a0Legaltech<\/a>, as well as\u00a0LegalCIO<\/a>,\u00a0LegalMarketing<\/a>, the Business of Law Forum<\/a>, and the\u00a0Legal Diversity & Talent Management Forum<\/a>. There were also three standalone\u00a0workshops<\/a>\u00a0devoted to artificial intelligence, in-house leadership, and solo practice.<\/p>\n

If my history is correct, Legaltech (originally called Legal Tech) started in 1982, originally produced by Janet Felleman<\/a>, in partnership with Price Waterhouse, to help attorneys learn how to use and manage technology in the law office. She ran it until 2001, when it was taken over by the National Law Publishing Company, which was publisher of the The National Law Journal and The New York Law Journal. In 1997, the American Lawyer Group — the predecessor to today\u2019s ALM — acquired that company, and with it, the Legaltech conference.<\/p>\n

For 17 years after ALM acquired the conference, it was overseen by one executive, Henry Dicker<\/a>. As I noted in a 2016 blog post<\/a> when Dicker left ALM to become chief revenue officer at the eDiscovery and digital forensics company\u00a0Franklin Data<\/strong><\/a>, he was long considered the conference\u2019s chief architect.<\/p>\n

\u201cHenry\u2019s departure,\u201d I wrote at the time, \u201cmarks the end of one era for Legaltech and the start of the next.\u201d<\/p>\n

That \u201cnext\u201d started just a month later, when ALM brought on John Stuttard<\/a>, a trade show veteran, to lead its global events division. It was Stuttard\u2019s idea to revamp the conference as Legalweek, aiming broaden its scope and offer a little something for everyone.<\/p>\n

It was not a bad idea, given that, as I wrote here last year<\/a>, Legaltech was crying out for a shake-up. What was once a showcase of varied hardware and software products and educational programs had become so dominated by one theme — eDiscovery — that it threatened to suffocate the life out of Legaltech.<\/p>\n

Last year, the first year of Legalweek, the concept had mixed results. The Legaltech part of it was much like Legaltechs of the past. There seemed to be a bit fewer companies displaying their wares in the exhibit hall, but in its overall programming and activity, the conference seemed to be on par with other recent Legaltech shows.<\/p>\n

However, in that first year, the Legalweek part of it seemed almost invisible. Many attendees seemed oblivious to the conference\u2019s parallel tracks. One, the LegalSmallFirm track designed to bring more smaller-firm lawyers into the conference, seemed to fail miserably, with only 30 or 40 people in a ballroom with a capacity of 600.<\/p>\n

\u201cStill, I give ALM and Stuttard credit for trying to shake things up,\u201d I wrote in my post-mortem<\/a> after last year\u2019s show. \u201cAnd for a first effort, it went well. No doubt, Legalweek will return next year, and, no doubt, \u2018the experience\u2019 will be more refined.\u201d<\/p>\n

Turns out, this year it was more refined. This year, people \u201cgot\u201d the Legalweek concept to a far greater extent than they did last year, it seemed to me. Overall this year, the number of exhibitors was down, but attendance was up. It is impossible to say what accounted for the rise in attendance, but I suspect the varied Legalweek programming helped.<\/p>\n

In a notable way, ALM broke from the past with this year\u2019s show. For most of the years that ALM has run Legaltech, it has treated the conference as almost a separate entity, with little interplay between Legaltech and other ALM divisions, most notably the news and editorial division for which it is best known. In fact, for many years, ALM prohibited its editorial staff from even covering Legaltech, because of the feared conflict of interest.<\/p>\n

This year, that changed. In its current incarnation, ALM consists of three overarching divisions — the editorial publications and media for which it is best known; ALM Intelligence, which sells various products and services derived from its many years of surveys and reports on the legal profession; and ALM Events, the division that runs Legalweek and other conferences.<\/p>\n

This year, for the first time that I can remember, all three of those divisions were front and center at the conference. Perhaps the most successful addition to this year\u2019s conference was the Business of Law Forum, a two-day program dedicated to discussing the future course of innovation in the legal industry and how law firms can capitalize on coming changes.<\/p>\n

This forum was conceived and put together<\/a> by ALM editors and reporters who cover the business of law, led by Gina Passarella Cipriani, editor-in-chief of The American Lawyer. I cannot remember a prior time when ALM editorial staff played so prominent a role in organizing and presenting a program or track at Legaltech.<\/p>\n

The same was true for ALM Intelligence. For the second year, the division\u2019s research was highlighted in the conference\u2019s opening \u201cstate of the industry\u201d session. Beyond that, however, ALM research seemed to be frequently referenced by speakers and Patrick Fuller, vice president of ALM Intelligence, seemed to be a ubiquitous moderator.<\/p>\n

This strikes me as the right approach for ALM — to bring all its strengths to bear in presenting this conference. It made it a richer conference, from a content perspective, and fueled the Legalweek concept.<\/p>\n

Can ALM do better with Legalweek? Absolutely. I agree completely with all of the changes recommended by Ed Sohn in his column last week<\/a> (except banish moderators, not just because I was one, but because I believe a good moderator can enhance a panel). And I would add two more urgent recommendations:<\/p>\n