Only 22 per cent of respondents to the Radiant Law survey said that they had a separate budget under their control for investments in process and technology, despite 78 per cent reporting that such investments would be a 'compelling need' over the next 12 months. Additionally, only 12 per cent of general counsel included in the survey said that they consistently conduct formal reviews of what is available in the marketplace for process and technology support of their department, while more than half admitted that they had no regular assessment procedure in place.

Struggling for attention

'In-house counsel have always struggled to get the attention of IT, I've never understood why,' commented Radiant Law chief executive Alex Hamilton. According to Mr Hamilton, the survey findings should be a wake up call for the majority of in-house counsel, who are failing to ensure that their own department keeps pace with technological innovation in the broader marketplace. Former LBC Wise Counsel chief executive and general counsel Paul Gilbert backs the need for legal to put pressure on the 'iron grip' of IT departments over process and technology services. 'With so many reputable solutions now available, often hosted, often more secure than the company's own infrastructure, it is a critical area for in-house teams to assert themselves in,' he commented. Around 13 per cents of respondents said that a failure on the part of their IT departments to prioritise the needs of the legal department was the biggest obstacle to new process and technology investments.

'Creek, canoe, no paddle'

While 28 per cent of respondents said that prohibitive costs were the most significant barrier to investing in process and technology for their department, questions around demonstrable value were of greater concern. Around 36 per cent of the 53 general counsel included in the survey said that they would struggle to justify investments in process and technology due to the uncertain value or outcomes of such investments for their business. With 78 per cent identifying process and technology investments as a compelling need, however, it's on general counsel to bridge the gap between identifying the need and pushing for the budget. 'To have a compelling need, but have no budgetary control is potentially “creek, canoe, no paddle” territory,' Mr Gilbert added. Sources: Legal Futures; Radiant Law