ILTA 2011 Integration Of Legal Technology


Published on

Published in: Career
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Law Firms Feel Pressure From New Breed of Competitors Says one consultant: 'The overall marketplace for legal services is fracturing. It's unbundling and specialists are emerging' Gina Passarella The Legal Intelligencer October 26, 2010 The legal industry is falling apart. Not in the sense pundits meant when they gave that diagnosis in 2008 as firms were hit with the harsh reality of the recession. Rather, the industry is moving away from a monolithic provider of legal services -- the law firm -- to a fragmented service platform where the competition isn't just a broadening array of law firms, but legal process outsourcers and other non-law firm legal service providers as well. "Law firms are really being circled by these things," consultancy Adam Smith Esq. partner Janet Stanton said. Firms have to decide where they want to compete and how, and what fits in their business model, she said. Not only are LPOs and other firms that are adapting their business models a source of increased competition for law firms, Edge International consultant Jordan Furlong said, but so too are clients who are increasingly bringing more work in-house. "The overall marketplace for legal services is fracturing," Furlong said. "It's unbundling and specialists are emerging. Legal work will go to the provider best designed for that particular work in terms of personnel systems and mindset." By "mindset," he means firms that focus on doing only the high-end, bet-the-company work and those that do more of the commodity work. "Law firms are just going to have to decide what kind of work they want to compete for," Furlong said. "Law firms can't be both the bet-the-company law firm and the commodity law firm. I don't think that's sustainable anymore." Both Furlong and Stanton said there will be a trend toward boutique firms on one end and large, global firms on the other with little in the middle. The pressures from LPOs are real, they said. Law departments simply have to find ways to get what they need done for less money and they are slowly starting to realize that the quality isn't lost when using an LPO, Furlong said. Both Furlong and Stanton pointed to the increased hiring by many LPOs of seasoned, high-quality attorneys to do this work. "I think this is permanent, which is rare," Furlong said. "Trends come and go all the time. This one I think is here to stay. I think it's driven more by clients than by lawyers, but mainly just by the marketplace." LPOs have been created in direct competition to law firms with a goal of serving law departments and others are looking to get law firms as clients. Sometimes clients hire the LPOs and other times law firms do. On the whole, it seems the bulk of LPOs are servicing law departments and are being hired directly by law departments or by law firms at the express direction of their clients. Stanton said she is increasingly seeing a move to master contracts in which law departments use a certain provider for all of a type of service and demand that their law firms hire that provider to do that work on their matters. Many LPOs began by offering e-discovery or document review services, and that is work that will never come back to the law firm, she said. "How many years ago did BMW stop making car radios?" she asked. "It's gone, it's not coming back." Firms can either find a way to provide those same services economically or they can give it up, she said. LPOs aren't going to stop there. Stanton pointed to depositions as just one other area LPOs might look to get into. A GNAT IN AN ELEPHANT'S EAR? Despite talk of change during the recession, there was a complaint from law firms that clients weren't all that interested in changing how business was done. Furlong said general counsel can be conservative themselves and hesitant to pull the trigger. But as market forces make LPOs a more attractive option economically for some matters and general counsel test the waters and realize this might be a realistic alternative, the shift will start to happen more and more, he said. But some general counsel aren't sold yet. Roy Hibberd, general counsel of Berwyn, Pa.-based Dollar Financial Corp., said his department looked into outsourcing a few years ago to have a company handle a number of similar contracts. After doing a pilot program, he said he thought the work was good but the nuances weren't being picked up. Hibberd ended up bringing in contract lawyers to do the work instead. In the last few years, however, Hibberd said it has been interesting to see the increase with which he has been pitched by outsourcing and offshoring companies. The pitch is often to cut out the law firm and have these companies do the work directly, he said. It's ultimately up to the general counsel whether to use the companies. It may make more sense, Hibberd said, for a pharmaceutical company with consistent, similar litigation, for example, to use outsourcing services than for his company. Not all law firm leaders, perhaps unsurprisingly, agree LPOs are a threat. "I wish LPOs nothing but the best, but they are a gnat in an elephant's ear when it comes to K&L Gates," the firm's chairman, Peter Kalis, said. There is more talk than action when it comes to LPOs, not only from the media, client community and LPOs themselves, but from major law firms whose overhead is "grotesquely swollen" because the bulk of their lawyers are in New York or London, he said. "If you, within your platform as a law firm, can localize a lot of back office services and more routine-type services for clients in low-cost venues, you can achieve the same sort of outcome without risking attorney-client privilege, without worrying about transporting certain IP across national lines ... and without having the long-distance management problems that always characterize those sorts of relationships," Kalis said. He said he finds it difficult to ever consider a company that does not provide the same attorney-client privilege guarantees as law firms a threat. And Kalis said he finds the idea that clients are competition "simpleminded." There is always an ebb and flow between overall workload passed in-house and to outside firms. What clients find valuable one day might become commoditized the next. That is nothing to fear, but rather an ongoing challenge for firms to reinvent their value proposition, he said. Kalis said his competition is other law firms -- law firms of all breadths, depths and geographic reaches depending on the type and scope of work at issue. What has changed over the last decade is the traditional relationship between specific companies and specific law firms, he said. Those relationships are being challenged by the value proposition of other law firms, creating fewer safe harbors for firms that are part of the old regime of relying on institutional client loyalty. "That development is great for law firms that are willing to continuously re-examine, repackage and re-articulate their value propositions," he said. NUMBERS TALK The LPOs are increasingly capitalizing on the void left by firms that haven't adapted their value proposition. David Perla, co-CEO of New York and Mumbai-based outsourcing company Pangea3, said 80 percent of his business continues to come from law departments. There is interest from younger partners at law firms who realize the market is changing and from firm management who want to be educated about outsourcing when clients ask about it. But Perla said he isn't sure whether law firms will make any major institutional changes in this regard. Pangea3 will see a few million dollars in business this year from a law firm that brought the company work the firm's client simply wouldn't pay for young associates to handle. Far and away, Perla said, the revenue and profit engine for his company is document review for litigation and government investigations. There is always a law firm working with Pangea3 on these matters, but the company is still most often hired by a law department. That is the one area where Perla said he could see law firms become more directly involved in the hiring. The second-biggest revenue driver is corporate services, including contract drafting, review and revision; and mergers and acquisitions due diligence, he said. There is no law firm middleman in that situation, Perla said. Pangea3 also handles intellectual property analysis, patent preparation, prosecution and IP asset management. The client mix there is much more diverse, with law firms using Pangea3 and not viewing the company as a threat, he said. The final component to Pangea3's business is risk management and compliance. That includes everything from managing committee minute books and SEC filings to business intelligence. Typically a company's chief compliance officer would hire Pangea3 for this work, he said. Perla said he always guesses the 80-20 split will shift, with more work coming from law firms, but it never does. Because law departments are picking it up so rapidly and law firms are relatively slower, he doesn't see that ratio shifting soon. There's also a regional aspect to the business. Going directly to a law department in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh is a tougher prospect than going to New York or San Francisco, Perla said, because there is a closer bond between Pennsylvania clients and law firms than in other markets. Though some are hesitant to embrace LPOs, numbers speak volumes. Perla said his company's slowest year in terms of growth was in 2009 when it grew 60 percent. Pangea3 just finished the first half of its fiscal year and had revenue greater than the full 12 months prior. He said the company is on track to grow 250 percent this fiscal year. Pangea3 wouldn't disclose its revenue, but media reports showed the company earned more than $8 million in 2008. 2010 Line of Sight
  • Study by Corporate Executive Board, quoted at numerous ACC presentations in 2009
  • We did a survey mid-2009 and it showed that a significant number of the chairs of the AmLaw 100 believe that the profession is changing dramatically. They do not believe we will go back to “business as usual” as the economy recovers. On top of that, there are potentially disruptive forces that could mean even more dramatic change facing lawyers – and we will talk about these in the next hour.
  • In our practice we are seeing firms invest in exclusive relationships that are positioned to meet the needs of all of their clients’ needs. The appropriate solution can change based on the needs of the client and/or case—i.e., cloud, Saas, completely outsourcing, and/or hybrid approaches.
  • The vast majority of attorneys in private practice (70%) work in a law firm with ten or fewer attorneys. A solo practice is the career and lifestyle choice of almost half (48%) of private legal practitioners. Only 14% of attorneys work in firms with more than 100 lawyers.
  • Saas (software-as-a-service) Wide Area Network enabled application aka “Hosted” or “Online” applications e.g., Google Apps,, WebEx, GoogleMail, Hosted MS Exchange, InView, Compass Guardian Paas (platform-as-a-service) foundational elements to dev new apps e.g., Coghead, Google Application Engine Iaas (infrastructure-as-a-service) computational/storage infrastructure in a centralized, location-transparent service e.g., Amazon S3
  • -Go over these results and ask for feedback/thoughts/comments…
  • Hope
  • Hope
  • ILTA 2011 Integration Of Legal Technology

    1. 1. Integration of Legal Technology and Legal Services George Rudoy , Partner & Managing Director, HSNO Owen O’Connor , Managing Director, Cernam Online Evidence
    2. 2. Disruptive Technologies “ Call me radical, but it seems to me that if we can envisage a day when the average desk-top machine has more processing power than all of humanity put together, then it might be time for lawyers to rethink some of their working practices and processes. This is not Google and hand-held e-mail plus a few bells and whistles. This is an unprecedented revolution in the power of the tools available to man.” Richard Susskind, The End of Lawyers? (2008), 64.
    3. 3. Agenda <ul><li>Legal Industry Trends </li></ul><ul><li>Creating New Efficiencies </li></ul><ul><li>New Technology Advancements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cloud Provider Engagement - a Structured Approach </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The Gap Between Professions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Don’t forget external users! </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Discussion and Q&A </li></ul>
    4. 4. Legal Industry Trends
    5. 5. “ The overall marketplace for legal services is fracturing. It's unbundling and specialists are emerging.” “ Firms have to decide where they want to compete and how, and what fits in their business model” “ Trends come and go all the time. This one I think is here to stay.” “ General Counsel to Cut Legal Spending Up to 25%: Catastrophe or Opportunity?” “ The GC.…shifted his legal spending from 50 percent internal and 50 percent external to 70-30, thus reducing outside spending by 40 percent.” Sources: ABA Journal; Legal Intelligencer; AmLaw Daily; HBR 2010 Law Department Survey
    6. 6. Legal Industry Trends <ul><li>Fundamental changes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>difficult to determine what will change and what will remain same </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sellers market shifting (partially) to buyers market </li></ul><ul><li>Increased need to demonstrate client value </li></ul><ul><ul><li>not about discounts, it’s about how firm delivers value </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>productivity, efficiency, loyalty </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Alternative fee structures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>pressure for it not coming from clients as much as is being written about </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>not so often flat fee as more predictable fees, caps, etc. </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Legal Industry Trends: 2010 Managing Partner Survey <ul><li>Firm leaders believe current downturn will lead to more fundamental and lasting changes in the legal market. </li></ul><ul><li>Within 3 years: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>96% expect increase in use of alternative pricing models; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>81% expect increased investments to make practices more efficient; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>55% expect increased use of non-lawyer project managers; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>43% expect an increase in outsourcing of routine legal activities. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>86% said they were innovatively changing the ways in which they engage in legal practice and conduct administrative functions. </li></ul>Source: HBR LEIB Survey, Q2 2010
    8. 8. Gradual Rebound or Temporary Anomaly? <ul><li>The HBR Peer Monitor Index was up three points in Q4 2010 to 55 (PMI of 65 or higher indicates strong performance). </li></ul><ul><li>Q4 saw a 1% increase in demand for law firm services in Q4 versus prior year – first growth in 2 years </li></ul><ul><li>Productivity (hours / lawyer) increased slightly by 0.7%. Headcount remained neutral. </li></ul><ul><li>Direct expenses down 4.5% but moderating; overhead fell 0.5%. </li></ul><ul><li>For 2010, small rise in rates, plus staff reductions and tight cost controls, improved PPEP by 3-6 %. </li></ul><ul><li>Demands for 2011 are below pre‐recession levels and can dip lower due to a possibly of a double-dip recession </li></ul>Source: HBR Peer Monitor Index Q4 2010 Executive Report
    9. 9. Practice Dynamics Source: HBR Peer Monitor Index Q4 2010 Executive Report Bankruptcy DEMAND GROWTH BY PRACTICE: ALL SEGMENTS Growth Rate (%) Litigation M&A L&E General Corp Tax Capital Markets Real Estate Period over Period Growth 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 IP-Lit Proportion of Overall Market 2009 v 2008 2010 v 2009 Q4 ‘10 v Q4 ‘09
    10. 10. A Shift In Client Attitudes <ul><li>Clients are smarter consumers of legal services and tolerance for annual increases is gone </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In the past ten years, costs to U.S. companies grew 20% yet legal costs rose 76% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Diminishing perceived value of many types of legal matters </li></ul><ul><li>Desire for “better, faster, cheaper” </li></ul><ul><li>Growing determination to bring the economic interests of the client and the law firm into better alignment </li></ul><ul><li>Yet most corporations are not satisfied that current approach (to litigation) best meets their needs: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>58% of companies prefer to litigate versus arbitration or mediation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>40% of US companies expect to increase EDD spending in 2011 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Areas of greatest litigation concern include IP/Patents, Regulatory, Product Liability </li></ul></ul>Source: HBR research; Fulbright & Jaworski 7 th Annual Litigation Trends Survey, 2010
    11. 11. New Practice Models New Practice Models Evolving Market Forces Disruptive Technologies
    12. 12. Creating New Efficiencies
    13. 13. Creating New Efficiencies <ul><li>Technology & Support Structure, Information Management and Best Practices </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Integration and Centralization of Legal Technology & Support functions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Considering new ways of outsourcing (i.e. Cloud Technologies) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Establishing clear business case process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Key metrics and process for tracking performance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mobile workflows </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Categorization of efforts to drive organizational buy in and success: KM, LPM, CRM, Social CRM, Client Development, Business Development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integration of contextually relevant content from external sources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Developing primary information delivery mechanisms (i.e portals) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>adoption/utilization challenges </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>metrics to monitor usage </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integration of client data into attorney workflows/applications </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Creating New Efficiencies <ul><li>Legal Project Management (a few questions to ask) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What does LPM actually mean? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who in your firms is responsible for creating project plans, setting milestones, budgets and deliverables? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What tools do you use for LPM? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Project management is a professional discipline in its own right, do you feel your attorneys have the ability to become effective project managers?    </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Using certified PMPs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Training programs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What are the key ways LPM have helped create organizational efficiencies? </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Creating New Efficiencies <ul><li>AFAs (more questions) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What are your longer range plans, and what are you looking to accomplish this year? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is working well, and where do you see the challenges? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How prevalent are AFAs in your firms? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How do you establish pricing for AFAs and what data do you use to evaluate? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What mechanisms do you use to monitor & ensure profitability in an AFA arrangement? </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Creating New Efficiencies <ul><li>Cross Selling & Business Development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What are the untapped or not easily accessed sources of information that could be used for business development? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What technologies are being utilized to make this information more easily accessible? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What are attorneys asking for now that is not yet available to them? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Has anyone yet begun to merge firm data with web-based social network data to help attorneys? </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. New Technology Advancements
    18. 18. Firms Are Creating Strategic Partnerships That Meet the Diverse Needs of Their Clients Information management, litigation and discovery needs often become more diverse as client and case size increases Many “Do it Yourself” and Outsourced Solutions Options Are Available Based on Clients’ Needs
    19. 19. 70% of U.S. attorneys in private practice work in law firms with ten or fewer attorneys Ten or less 2000 statistics from ABA: See , Cloud and Software as a Service (SaaS) technology brings robust, modern technology all lawyers and clients—not just the big ones Cloud Technologies
    20. 20. <ul><li>Emerging “In-House” Solutions: </li></ul><ul><li>Software-as-a-Service (Saas) </li></ul><ul><li>Platform-as-a-Service (Paas) </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure-as-a-Service (Iaas) </li></ul><ul><li>Advantages : </li></ul><ul><li>No up front investment </li></ul><ul><li>Pay only when you use </li></ul><ul><li>Reduction in overhead (staff and infrastructure) </li></ul><ul><li>Emerging “Outsourced” Solutions: </li></ul><ul><li>Discovery Repositories </li></ul><ul><li>Early Data Assessment Consulting </li></ul><ul><li>Computer-Aided Review </li></ul><ul><li>Advantages : </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to scale quickly </li></ul><ul><li>Diverse options </li></ul><ul><li>Partner knowledge and experience </li></ul>Cloud Technologies
    21. 21. AmLaw Tech Survey 2010 <ul><li>80% of law firm respondents reported using cloud computing services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>29% said it lowers costs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>60% use cloud-based services for e-discovery or litigation support features </li></ul><ul><ul><li>5% use the cloud for document management, while 6% utilize cloud computing for storage purposes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>39% are worried about security </li></ul>
    22. 22. Cloud Security in 60 Seconds <ul><li>“ We have a SAS70 that proves we’re secure” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Who has a SAS70? (Amazon Web Services? Your server hosting provider? A completely unrelated datacenter?) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What exactly does it cover? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Your data is encrypted, we use 128-bit SSL security / banking-grade security” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Must differentiate encryption in transit from encryption at rest </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Few providers have meaningful at-rest encryption </li></ul></ul>
    23. 23. Key Cloud Security Questions <ul><li>If our data is encrypted, can your staff access the contents of our data? </li></ul><ul><li>If we view the audit logs for your service, will they show access by your support staff? </li></ul><ul><li>Outside of your staff, who else can access data (downstream providers, contractors)? </li></ul><ul><li>What are your dependencies on other cloud service providers, specifically Amazon? </li></ul><ul><li>How are your security features tested? </li></ul>
    24. 24. Cloud Provider Engagement - A Structured Approach
    25. 25. Managing Cloud Providers <ul><li>Why would anyone run a project just to select a cloud service provider? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ There is only one vendor in the area, we just need to negotiate and contract with them” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ This is a hosted cloud service, IT doesn’t need to deploy anything so it’s not an IT project” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ This is just a pilot adoption, we don’t want to bloat the effort with project management” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ The dollars involved mean this isn’t a project” </li></ul></ul>
    26. 26. The $30 per month trap <ul><li>“ 5 users at $30 each is pocket change, we’ll just use a purchasing card or expense it” </li></ul><ul><li>$16k starts to look more like a project </li></ul><ul><li>.. and you’re storing what data in this service? </li></ul>Month Users Total Monthly Cost Yearly Cost 1 5 $150 3 8 $240 6 14 $420 9 25 $750 12 44 $1,320 $15,840
    27. 27. Structured Cloud Engagement <ul><li>Identify project stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Identify outline requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Research market players (never assume only one provider exists) </li></ul><ul><li>Document detailed requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Assess specific providers (potential RFI/RFP) </li></ul><ul><li>Validate choice of preferred provider </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Due diligence, integration planning, security </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Negotiate, contract, integrate / deploy </li></ul>
    28. 28. The Emerging IT PM Hero <ul><li>Cloud provider engagement shows the range of skills needed in an IT project manager </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Market awareness & research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical writing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vendor assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Financial </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Negotiation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Managing cloud providers could become a full-time role based on current trends </li></ul>
    29. 29. The Gap Between Professions
    31. 31. What do the Stakeholders Care About? <ul><li>IT </li></ul><ul><li>Storage </li></ul><ul><li>Archive </li></ul><ul><li>Accessibility </li></ul><ul><li>Security </li></ul><ul><li>COMPLIANCE </li></ul><ul><li>Risk </li></ul><ul><li>Regulations </li></ul><ul><li>VENDORS </li></ul><ul><li>The Sale </li></ul><ul><li>COUNSEL </li></ul><ul><li>Cost strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Collect </li></ul><ul><li>Review </li></ul><ul><li>Risks </li></ul><ul><li>Case strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Mine from many sources </li></ul><ul><li>Greater responsibilities </li></ul><ul><li>Holds </li></ul><ul><li>LEGAL </li></ul><ul><li>Manage Cost, Risk & Strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Contract </li></ul><ul><li>RECORDS </li></ul><ul><li>Volume </li></ul><ul><li>Records Retention </li></ul><ul><li>Preservation </li></ul><ul><li>CUSTODIANS/USERS </li></ul><ul><li>Doing their job </li></ul><ul><li>Hassle-free </li></ul>
    32. 32. Alignment Issues Fit Effort Value Maintenance Systems Dept. Business Divergent perspectives on implementing processes Legal/Outside Counsel Within technical infrastructure Within process landscape Within project scope/need Increases (new process) Increases/Decreases (process improvement) Increases (response to new burden) Within system portfolio Profit, efficiency, savings, etc. Reduced Risk Coordination, Burden ? ??
    33. 33. Who handles to intersection of law and technology – law firm perspective
    34. 34. Who handles to intersection of law and technology – corporate perspective
    35. 35. Budgeting Gaps <ul><li>Depends on the company’s perspective. </li></ul><ul><li>Proactive approach – typically involves DRP planning along with a sizeable software purchase – e-archival, doc management, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Usually, comes from the IT Dept. budget. </li></ul><ul><li>Reactive approach – typically involves responding to a threatened/filed litigation by way of a sizeable services purchase. </li></ul><ul><li>Usually, comes from the Legal Dept. budget. </li></ul>
    36. 36. Nomenclature Gaps <ul><li>Archive </li></ul><ul><li>Files and Folders </li></ul><ul><li>Backup </li></ul>
    37. 37. Scheduling Gap Scheduling Gaps
    38. 38. Don’t forget external users!
    39. 39. Clients are IT users too <ul><li>Must clients experience law firm tech in some form </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Portal and collaboration systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Document review platforms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bulk file transfer tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Firm websites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Voice & video conferencing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Billing systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attorney access to client-hosted systems (portals etc) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Secure email systems </li></ul></ul>
    40. 40. Poor Client Experiences <ul><li>Multiple equivalent systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>e.g., multiple Sharepoint portals or file sharing sites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Different platforms or versions across different cases, between different offices or practice areas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Separate passwords etc within a single project or firm </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Poor platforms / poor experience for core services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Document sharing, voice conferencing, electronic billing, secure email services </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Inconsistency and initial confusion on e-discovery providers, review platforms and methodologies </li></ul>
    41. 41. Ideal Client Experience <ul><li>Single client web portal, across all locations (globally) all and practice groups </li></ul><ul><li>Client web portal linked from website front page </li></ul><ul><li>Team details, electronic billing, file transfer and basic collaboration provided via core portal </li></ul><ul><li>All secondary portals, web applications, third-party web services etc linked from core portal </li></ul><ul><li>Single set of authentication credentials with self-service password reset and direct helpdesk contact </li></ul><ul><li>Applications updated/retired in a controlled manner </li></ul>
    42. 42. Integration of Legal Technology and Legal Services George Rudoy , CEO, Integrated Legal Technology, LLC P: +1 347 208 2740 [email_address] Owen O’Connor , Managing Director, Cernam Online Evidence P: +353 1 716 3793 [email_address] Twitter: @CernamOwen