Law departments lack IT savvy

Law departments are technologically left behind and unable to take advantage of technology which can increase productivity and cost savings. According to technology company Law Department DeskTop president O. Forrest Morgan  the reasons for this situation are that 'the corporations perceive that there are numerous barriers to acquiring technology and are accordingly hesitant to tackle the challenge of adopting technology. And although the list appears overwhelming, there are some very simple ways to start that will prove the value and return on an IT investment.’

Law dept IT issues

The company lists 12 issues why law departments lag behind.

• Cost of technology. Even if it is reasonable, justification of any new technology requires rigorous analysis of cost benefit issues and typically involves participation and review by corporate oversight organisations outside of the law department.
• Budgeting. It typically takes many months, frequently as many as 15 months, after a decision is made to acquire technology to actually fund the project and get it started. So it is frequently a time-consuming and work intensive process.
• IT participation. Law departments are cost centres and frequently are orphans when it comes to internal corporate IT support. They also do not have the resources or expertise within the law department to implement technology on their own and were accordingly subject to the schedules and priorities of the IT group.
• Understanding how the law department actually works. Corporate IT departments typically are technically very competent, however they generally do not understand what lawyers do or how they work, and accordingly have difficulty creating or recommending technology that is relevant to a law department.
• Ease of use. Many technology products can be intimidating and difficult to use and as a consequence are not utilized or fully utilized when they are actually installed in the law department.
• Resistance to change. It is a fact of human nature, apparently particularly strong in the legal profession, that people do not easily accept new ways of doing things.
• Concern that a new system will require additional work. There is an assumption that any new system will place an additional workload on existing people and that any new data that is required or will be developed for the system will have to be done in-house.
• Best practices. The frustration that most law department managers seem to have is that they attend various conferences and learn of potential "best practices" that could be implemented in their department. However, when they return to their department they find that they do not have a structure for readily putting such practices into place, particularly without extensive use of non-existent technology.
• Understanding legal fees. Legal fees for outside counsel typically constitute 60 per cent or more of the average corporate legal department's budget and are obviously the biggest single item. Legal fees and their management, however, are generally not well understood by any group outside of the law department.
• Knowledge management systems. It is generally understood that while it would be useful to be able to retrieve prior knowledge on a systematic basis, systems capable of doing so can be very expensive, are very labor intensive in terms of populating and maintenance , do not provide readily available information and generally do not work very well in the real world.
• Data mining. Most law departments do not have a facility which permits them to analyze closed or even pending matters on a structured basis. As a consequence there is no easy way to analyze or improve the experience contained in prior activities.
• Supply chain management. This term is largely unheard of in a law departments setting, however, it is a fundamental concept that is utilized in most corporations. Basic supply chain management and the technology for it is generally thought not to be applicable to any corporate law department.

Source: Digital Journal