In this article, we will delve into the concept of double billing in the legal profession, emphasizing why attorneys must recognize and avoid this practice. We will also explore common scenarios where double billing can occur, whether intentionally or inadvertently, and discuss strategies lawyers can employ to prevent it.  

Understanding Double Billing 

In the legal realm, double billing occurs when an attorney invoices two or more clients at their full rate for work performed during the same time frame. Essentially, it involves charging clients for more hours than were genuinely worked. Double billing can encompass various scenarios, including invoicing multiple clients for research applicable to separate cases and administrative errors. 

Double billing is inherently unethical, but it can be challenging to detect and control. Lawyers must prioritize recognizing and avoiding this practice to maintain their professional integrity and fulfill their ethical obligations to clients.  

Common Examples of Double Billing  

Again, double billing for lawyers centers on charging multiple clients for work conducted simultaneously. Here are some hypothetical examples of common double billing scenarios: 

1.  Charging for Work While Traveling:

• Scenario: An attorney travels on business for client A but spends some of the time working on billable tasks for client B during the journey. 
• Solution: The attorney should not bill both clients for the same hours worked. Options include billing each client for one hour or solely billing client A for the travel hours. 

  2. Charging Multiple Clients for the Same Work:

• Scenario: An attorney conducts two billable hours of research relevant to both client C and client D. 

• Solution: Billing both clients for the full two hours each is double billing. The attorney can bill one client only or bill each client for one hour, ensuring productivity and cost savings without double billing.
  
  3. Inaccurate Billing Due to Administrative Errors:

• Examples: 

• Duplicate invoice submission: Invoices processed manually may be accidentally submitted more than once, resulting in overbilling. 
• Time tracking errors or padding: Mistakes in manual time tracking or rounding up billable hours can lead to clients paying for more time than they received. 

Utilizing appropriate technology and systems can help eliminate billing errors, providing clients with accurate invoices. 

Why Double Billing Is Unethical  

Double billing may be difficult to detect due to confidential billing records, but it remains an unethical practice. Lawyers must adhere to the rules of professional conduct, which vary by jurisdiction but universally prohibit charging clients for “unreasonable” fees. Double billing contradicts these rules and distorts an attorney’s time and services.  

In the United States, the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct establish ethical guidelines for lawyers. Model Rule 1.5 emphasizes that lawyers must not bill more time than they actually spend on a matter. Ethical responsibility requires lawyers to maintain transparency and fairness in billing practices.  

Is Double Billing Illegal? 

Double billing is primarily unethical, but it can lead to serious consequences for lawyers. Disciplinary action by state bar associations and potential legal penalties can result from this practice, especially if it is deemed fraudulent.  

Double Billing and Client Relationships 

Double billing also impacts client relationships negatively. It demonstrates a lack of respect and transparency, undermining trust and jeopardizing long-term success for law firms. Reducing fees between clients for similar research can enhance the client experience and strengthen these vital relationships. 

Preventing Double Billing with Clio  

Understanding the causes and ethical considerations of double billing is crucial for lawyers to avoid this practice. While lawyers can consciously choose not to double bill in certain situations, some instances arise from human error, such as duplicate invoice submission or incorrect time logging.  

Fortunately, the right systems can minimize the risk of such errors. Legal billing software like Clio Manage simplifies time tracking, reducing the chance of accidental double billing. It streamlines billing and invoicing processes, freeing up more time for lawyers to focus on billable hours. 

Final Thoughts on Double Billing  

In essence, lawyers should bill only for the actual time they work. Double billing is not a shortcut to more billable hours, and it contradicts ethical guidelines. While it may be tempting to bill multiple clients for shared legal services, it undermines professional integrity and client trust. 

Recognizing the fundamentals of double billing is essential. When faced with potential double-billing scenarios, lawyers should prioritize ethical invoicing. Implementing the right systems, such as Clio Manage, can help lawyers prevent accidental double billing, provide good client experiences, and maintain the highest ethical standards in their practice. 

The post What Lawyers Need to Know About Double Billing appeared first on Law Technology Today.

Imagine having a tool that can generate fresh content at the touch of a button. Enter generative AI, a revolutionary technology that has taken the world by storm. By harnessing machine learning models, generative AI can generate quick content in response to users’ prompts – whether it be text, images or code (and other examples are sure to follow).

The rapid advancement of generative AI has sparked excitement and curiosity across industries. This cutting-edge technology opens up a realm of possibilities, especially as organizations can now combine their own data with public information within the models and effortlessly generate text tailored to their needs. It’s a game-changer for the global workforce, offering a powerful tool to enhance productivity and innovation.

Whilst useful, it’s important to remember that generative AI is a handy tool in your arsenal, not a replacement for your human team and judgement. To harness the true potential of generative AI, it is essential to navigate its capabilities and limitations with finesse, especially within the legal sector.

What makes generative AI valuable to the legal sector?  

In the long run, this technology will likely help firms do what they do best, better. By utilizing these solutions, legal firms can generate initial drafts of deals and proposals swiftly. The advantage of this is a rapid turnaround and a competitive edge over rival firms. The key trick will be that, when combined with your data, the model can turn around specific texts trained on your best practices and information.

There are specialists within the field, but we expect general technology vendors to be able to catch up due to partnerships such as Microsoft’s with OpenAI and through their additional computing power and greater access to data through ecosystems such as Microsoft 365 and Google Workspaces. Advancements like Microsoft Copilot enable tools to become more personalized by augmenting them with a firm’s specific data or from other knowledge bases. Responses are then tailored and address each firm’s unique needs. Firms can also use the tool to adapt pre-existing material to work for new scenarios quickly. ChatGPT, for example, can provide instant answers to complex matters, eliminating the need for extensive web searches and saving your team valuable time.

Additionally, rather than spending hours processing large documents and data sets, discovery teams can use the tool to generate a summary of the key points in minutes. In the Covid Inquiry, for example, researchers plan to utilize AI to analyze responses to ensure key trends and insights are accounted for in the reports, which will be submitted as evidence, and speed up the overall process.

However, users must exercise responsibility and possess a comprehensive understanding of the content’s reliability and limitations. The generated text is only as good as the information that feeds the model. Amongst other limitations, such as hallucinations, users still need to interpret the text and decide if it’s valuable.

How can legal firms get started with Generative AI?

To harness the benefits of generative AI effectively, legal teams should begin by experimenting with different tools to understand their functionality and identify the most suitable options. Tracking daily tasks allows teams to identify areas where AI can assist, particularly in unfamiliar legal topics.

Many organizations we work with are investigating how best to leverage AI. A key step is to categorize and document your existing information so that it can be used as source data to augment the AI models. Machine-learning based classification technologies are often used for this (for example, Microsoft Syntex). Just as important is ensuring data that shouldn’t be used with AI is kept private using appropriate security controls.

In parallel, firms may want to consider experimenting with generative AI in three stages to evaluate the benefits for their use cases.

• The first is looking at what a public model tells you. This will give an idea of what is publicly known about the topic and what a non-specialist would think about your prompt.
• The second is to investigate vendors that incorporate specific information from the field – essentially bringing in what the legal sector thinks in general.
• Another stage is to find products that allow your data to be brought into the response, providing a ‘house view’.
• The last is ensuring that the output reflects what you and your firm would generally offer on a similar subject. This is, perhaps, the most important stage, as it requires the user to interpret the generated information and make edits based on experience and knowledge.
• Once a good output is achieved, then it’s important to be able to recreate it in future,

Working in this way gives users texts based on what is publicly known about the topic and your specialist data, filtered through your personal knowledge. In my opinion, this is the most effective way to approach generative AI and should be the foundation for training your team to use models. Getting your team started with quick and effective adoption is crucial to stand out in this increasingly automated landscape.

The challenges of generative AI

Integrating generative AI in the legal field presents both challenges and opportunities. Caution and interpretation are crucial when relying on AI-generated answers, as assessing their accuracy and reliability can be challenging, especially for non-experts. Firms must avoid using it uncritically and without human oversight.

It is vital to view AI as a complementary tool that fosters human-machine collaboration, recognizing that human judgment remains indispensable in the legal profession. Firms need to train their teams to critically assess the output of large language models and compare the output to equivalent human-produced items. Failing to do so and including incorrect data within legal documents risks your firm falling foul of regulations, such as the recent case where a lawyer working in New York is facing legal action following the uncritical use of ChatGPT in legal research. Leaders must ensure they incorporate costs of review and evaluation when looking at business cases for AI.

Furthermore, ensuring data security and compliance poses a significant challenge when utilizing generative AI models. Assessing the risk profile and determining where it can be used safely is essential. Legal teams must also be diligent in safeguarding confidential information and adhering to regulatory requirements. Composing internal policies regarding how to act with trusted information, such as introducing it to the model or incorporating it into your internal datasets, should be a top priority for firms looking to introduce AI solutions.

Knowing the provenance of the data is also crucial to avoid accidental intellectual property infringement. Understanding data provenance and whether corporate data can be used for model training are vital points to cover with vendors.

The next stage

Generative AI has the potential to revolutionize the legal field by enhancing efficiency, accuracy, and competitive advantage. By implementing solutions, legal firms can streamline their processes, generate personalized responses, and stay ahead in an increasingly automated landscape.

However, the responsible adoption and interpretation of generative AI is critical to its success. Legal professionals must develop strategies to overcome the challenges associated with its implementation if they hope to embrace generative AI.

By leveraging the power of generative AI while preserving the essential role of human judgment, the legal profession can embrace the transformative potential of this technology and use it to get ahead.

About the Author

Owen Morris joined Doherty Associates in 2014 and is the Director of Enterprise Architecture. He now ‘owns’ the company’s processes and is responsible for maintaining Doherty Associates ISO 9001 and ISO 27001 certifications. Owen also oversees the Microsoft cloud practice, encompassing Microsoft 365, Azure, and Power Platform, steers the project management function, and leads the cloud applications, data and development team. His wide-ranging expertise also encompasses consultancy and project development and delivery. Prior to joining Doherty Associates, Owen clocked up 11 years’ experience at Logica and Capgemini. He also holds master’s degrees in Chemical Engineering and in Computer Science.

The post The Transformative Power of Generative AI in the Legal Field appeared first on Law Technology Today.

Tara Cheever is the Co-Founder and Chief Products Officer at LIT SOFTWARE, LLC. Since 2010, she has assisted in the design, development, and marketing of TrialPad, TranscriptPad, and DocReviewPad, available for iPad and Mac as a part of the LIT SUITE. Through LIT SOFTWARE, Tara pursues her passion for leveling the legal playing field, putting easy-to-use, and powerful tools in the hands of legal professionals of all backgrounds and abilities. 

All three LIT SUITE apps are used extensively by legal professionals ranging from solo practitioners to Am Law 100 firms, by large corporations and insurance carriers, and by prosecutors, defenders, the United States Department of Justice, and other government agencies. The LIT SUITE is also widely taught in law schools across the United States and has been featured by Apple on the App Store.

Please give us three points to summarize you and your work in legal technology.

I co-founded LIT SOFTWARE with Ian O’Flaherty in 2010. I assist in the design and continued development of the LIT SUITE apps – TrialPad, TranscriptPad, DocReviewPad, and ExhibitsPad (plus another one on the way!) to help democratize legal technology and even the litigation playing field. I am constantly on the lookout for high-bar legal tasks (i.e. expensive/frequently outsourced tasks, or tasks that only complicated technology is available for) that LIT SOFTWARE can create approachable and streamlined solutions for.

How did you become involved in legal tech?

I began working in a technology-driven trial presentation and litigation support company owned by LIT SOFTWARE Founder Ian O’Flaherty. There I learned many legal technology solutions, but all of them were both complex and expensive. When the iPad came out we saw it as a way to simplify and lower the cost of trial presentation. We released TrialPad in the end of 2010, and it has helped democratize legal presentations, reducing or eliminating the use of outside consultants and complex technology. We’ve continued developing along the same philosophy, making easy-to-use and inexpensive apps that are just as sophisticated as the staid technology and processes they are designed to supplant.

What projects have you been focused on recently?

I’ve been working on bringing on-device syncing technology to TranscriptPad. Now you can bring a video into TranscriptPad, sync it with the transcript, and edit, play, and export clips based on page line designations. The technology uses Natural Language Processing and employs Machine Learning to create a very accurate sync, and because it is all on-device, it is fully confidential and never needs to be uploaded to a cloud or an outside service. It is available in a free public beta to all our customers now, and we are still iterating to make it the easiest way to edit and play back legal video.

What do you see as the biggest challenge in legal tech today?

I think the biggest hurdle in legal tech has been the same for a while – getting practitioners to adopt the tech. I hope that will change as the technologies offered become less more straightforward and user-friendly.

What legal tech resource helped you the most in your legal tech career?

Legal-focused blogs, podcasts, and speakers. There are so many people with expertise and great information to share.

What do you see as the most important emerging tech, legal or not, right now?

I think everyone would immediately think of generative AI, but I disagree in the short term. Short-term I think it is the collective technology understanding that young lawyers are bringing to the table upon graduation from law school, and the excellent legal-specific technology training many of them are learning in their law program. Most of those new lawyers grew up with technology that some senior partners are still hesitant to use.

What do you see for the future of legal tech?

Pervasiveness. Paper files that have gone the same place quills and scrolls went, and interactive, easy, and approachable solutions for everything.

What advice would you give to other women who want to get involved in legal tech?

Dive in! The water is warm. There is a place for anyone with initiative, imagination, and the will to apply work to both.

Give a shout-out to another woman in legal tech who you admire or have learned something from!

Since I first started attending the ABA TECHSHOW, Adriana Linares has stuck out in my mind as a woman who understands so many aspects of the legal tech world, and who is approachable and knowledgeable.

The post Women of Legal Tech: Tara Cheever appeared first on Law Technology Today.

Danielle Hall has served as the Executive Director for the Kansas Lawyers Assistance Program since December 2019. In addition to overseeing the daily operations, she administers a variety of programs for lawyers and law students who need assistance due to a substance use-disorder, mental health, or law practice management related issue. Prior to her appointment, she served as a Deputy Disciplinary Administrator for the State of Kansas where she prosecuted attorney disciplinary cases and served as a coordinator for the Attorney Diversion Program where she also provided training to lawyers in law practice management and technology use. Danielle regularly teaches continuing legal education on many topics including lawyer well-being, ethics, and law practice management and technology use in the law office. She is currently VP of Policy for the Institute for Well-Being in Law, Co-Chair of the DEI Committee for the Kansas Women Attorneys Association, Chair of the Kansas Bar Association Law Practice Management Committee and is a member of the KBA Ethics Advisory Committee. Danielle has also been active in the American Bar Association having served on several LP Division committees, presented at ABA TECHSHOW, and is a regular contributor to the Product Watch column in the Law Practice Magazine. Danielle is also an adjunct professor at her alma matter, Washburn University, where she teaches a law practice management course.

Please give us three points to summarize you and your work in legal technology.

A large portion of my work in legal technology involves advising and training other legal professionals in areas such as how to implement technology to better serve clients and operate more efficiently, as well as recognizing best practices and our ethical obligations when implementing technology. A major goal of mine in providing these services at the Lawyers Assistance Program is to help lawyers with law practice management and legal technology in hopes that it reduces the stresses that sometimes come with running a practice. As a result, I provide everything from one-on-one consultations to developing written resources, as well as providing in-house trainings for entire legal teams.

Providing Continuing Legal Education on legal technology is also a focus of my work. This includes providing education for both lawyers and paralegals. I am fortunate to live in a state that has law practice management accreditation for CLE, so in addition to teaching a lot of technology ethics, I have also taught a number of “how to” programs. I also love providing education by writing on this topic and I have been fortunate enough to get those opportunities, such as contributing to the Product Watch column for the ABA LP Division Law Practice Magazine and the Kansas Bar Association Tech Tips Blog.

In addition to teaching lawyers and other legal professionals about legal technology, I have also taught a course in the Legal Studies Department at Washburn University for the last 5 years, where I have enjoyed teaching future paralegals and future law students about legal technology. This spring, I will also get the opportunity to teach a course on law practice management for law students at Washburn Law. I am very much looking forward to implementing components of legal tech into this course.

How did you become involved in legal tech?

I became involved in legal tech by chance over a decade ago. It also helped that at the time I had a supportive boss who wasn’t afraid of trying new things. After a few years of working at my state’s bar association and listening to lawyers across my state talk about the challenges they faced, I worked to develop what was at that time the association’s law office management assistance program. This program included providing training and education on legal tech to lawyers. From there, my knowledge and skills in this area have pretty much traveled with me in every position since, including working in attorney regulation and to this day I still work to provide lawyers assistance and resources in this area.

What projects have you been focused on recently?

The intersection of technology and well-being has been something I have been focusing and working on for the last couple of years. As the pandemic brought about remote work environments, I noticed that work-life balance and boundaries were areas that many were attempting to figure out how to navigate in their new environment. I also noticed many were struggling with these issues more than we may have already been struggling with in this profession pre-pandemic. As a result, I have been working with and teaching lawyers how to develop better habits to strike a balance with technology and improve their overall well-being.

What do you see as the biggest challenge in legal tech today?

I still think we are slow to adopt technology when compared to other industries. This is partly due to both the actual and perceived risks that need to be evaluated. There is also, however, a general hesitation that still exists to embrace technology. Despite the pandemic making an impact on firms and courts adopting technology, showing we could evaluate and act quickly when needed, I fear we may be hitting some technology fatigue. This could certainly impact the pace at which we continue to adopt technology.

What legal tech resource helped you the most in your legal tech career?

The technology resources that have helped me most throughout my career have been those that have assisted me with staying organized and helped to increase my productivity, such calendaring and scheduling tools, as well as apps that can assist with to-do lists and time management.

What do you see as the most important emerging tech, legal or not, right now?

Generative AI is definitely the hot topic right now. I think this is something we are going to continue to talk about, including in the regulatory landscape.

What do you see for the future of legal tech?

I think we may be at another tipping point with technology in the legal profession as we see rapid advancements in technology like generative AI and others. We saw this when cloud technology rapidly developed. With rapid advancement comes new issues to consider, as well as the excitement surrounding what new technologies can bring to the practice of law. The profession will eventually reach a point where certain technology can no longer be ignored, particularly as clients also become aware of the technology and use it themselves. As this happens, we start moving from conversations about should we or shouldn’t we to how do we adopt certain technology.

What advice would you give to other women who want to get involved in legal tech?

Go ahead and take that leap of faith! There is a great network of women in legal tech that will support you and help to guide you along the way when you need, so you don’t have to do it alone. Reach out to them. There are many opportunities for networking and meeting those of us that work in the industry, so take those opportunities and don’t be afraid to insert yourself into the discussion.

Give a shout-out to another woman in legal tech who you admire or have learned something from!

There are so many women in the industry who I look up to, respect, and have learned something from on multiple occasions throughout the years, but I remember when I was first starting out and working on developing the practice management assistance program at the Kansas Bar Association that first met Catherine Sanders Reach. I learned so much from her in the beginning and I may have had her on speed dial for the first couple of years. The rest is history from there after I met all the wonderful PMAs. Women like Natalie Kelly, Shawn Holahan, Heidi Alexander, Roberta Tepper, and Charity Anastasio―just to name a few―have all been women that I have learned from and who I admire dearly. There is a reason why all these women have been honored in the past as Women of Legal Tech!

The post Women of Legal Tech: Danielle Hall appeared first on Law Technology Today.

Sarah Lawsky studies tax law, computational law, and the intersection of the two. Her recent work focuses on the formalization of tax law, and she is part of a team of computer scientists and lawyers who are creating the domain-specific programming language Catala, which is designed to formalize statutes such as the Internal Revenue Code. She has also created a website that generates multiple-choice practice problems and selected tax code and regulation sections books for free for tax classes. At Northwestern, she teaches a range of tax classes. Before entering academia, she worked as a tax lawyer for large law firms.

Please give us three points to summarize you and your work in legal technology.

1. Technology is an amazing tool for making information accessible and understandable, and for increasing transparency of all kinds. My work in legal technology is motivated by the principle that money and privilege shouldn’t be necessary to get access to information, such as information about the law, learning the law, law schools, and the legal academic job market.
2. My work in legal tech is also motivated by the fact that coding is powerful, fun, and easy to learn to do badly. Pretty much anything anyone would want to know about computers is out there for free; it’s just a matter of putting in the time to learn it. I love being able to think of a problem, invent a general solution, learn how to implement that solution, and then actually implement it and see it exist in the world.
3. Technology is useful in every part of my job as a professor and lawyer—scholarship, pedagogy, and service—because there are patterns, rules, and large sets of data everywhere, and tech is a great way to bring that information together and communicate it clearly.

How did you become involved in legal tech?

Anyone with an interest in tech (or logic, or computation) who becomes a lawyer and wants to be the most effective lawyer possible will probably become involved in legal tech without even trying. For me, when I was a junior associate, a client wanted a deal priced in an unusual way that related to the tax treatment of the deal. Because of the type of business being sold and the structure of the deal, this was a complex calculation, and the desired price changed over time as the underlying facts and valuations changed. I coded a tool that the team used to determine and update the desired price.

What projects have you been focused on recently?

My main scholarly project is studying how tax law is formalized and ways to improve that formalization. My scholarship about the structure of the tax code underpins Catala, https://catala-lang.org/, a domain-specific programming language designed to formalize tax statutes that is being created by a group of computer scientists and lawyers (including me). I’ve coded a website, https://www.lawskypracticeproblems.org/, that generates free multiple-choice practice problems for federal income tax and partnership tax. The latest expansion, at

https://www.lawskypracticeproblems.org/codeandregs, allows people to create free selected tax Code and regulation sections books for classes or professional use, including only the Code and regulation sections they want. I’m also expanding this to include other titles of the U.S. Code.

I collect information each year about entry-level law school hiring and create an annual report about the characteristics of reported hires in that year and over time, at https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/entry-level-hiring-report/. This a stealth law-and-tech project, in that all the text and pictures for the report are generated from code I’ve written that takes as its input the spreadsheet with information about hires.

I’ve also built some websites that are primarily for my colleagues, including a grading calculator and a curriculum database.

What do you see as the biggest challenge in legal tech today?

One big challenge in legal tech today is balancing the genuinely enormous potential of legal technology with the hype or misrepresentations that exist because people stand to benefit from selling the technology they are hyping, or because they don’t really understand the underlying technology, or both.

The post Women of Legal Tech: Sarah Lawsky appeared first on Law Technology Today.

Amy Conroy is a Data Scientist at Mishcon de Reya where her work involves using litigation data to improve existing processes, develop new applications, and provide better insights into the way that the firm litigates. She is also the Co-Founder and Director of Law School 2.0, a LegalTech education company that delivers legal innovation education through practical experience opportunities and online training events.

By background Amy studied her Honors Law LLB degree at the University of Bristol where she became interested in the intersection of the Law and technology. She went on to complete a MSc in Computer Science, also at the University of Bristol, where her MSc Thesis was on the development of an automatic legal judgment summarization system. She continues her Legal NLP research with Bristol’s Computer Science department as a Visiting Academic Research Associate.

Please give us three points to summarize you and your work in legal technology.

My interest in legal technology comes from both the technical and legal sides as I studied Law as my undergraduate degree before doing an MSc in Computer Science. Now my day job as a Data Scientist at Mishcon de Reya combines both my legal and technical knowledge.

I am passionate about improving legal tech education and more generally closing the knowledge gap that exists pertaining to legal innovation, this is a piece of work I am pushing forward through the organization I co-founded, Law School 2.0.

I love mentoring students and those new to their legal career, and opening their eyes to new alternative careers when they want to work in the legal industry but aren’t interested in becoming lawyers.

How did you become involved in legal tech?

I wrote my LLB thesis on AI and the Right to Be Forgotten, specifically if our personal data rights are protected when data is processed through machine learning algorithms. This sparked my interest in how law and emerging technologies work together and I decided to pursue a Masters in computer science to advance my technical skills and understanding of how these technologies actually worked. While studying my MSc a friend and I started building an open-source tenancy advice service, built using Docassemble, which was my first real exposure to legal tech (although I didn’t realise at the time!).

From there, I started speaking to those working in legal tech and became interested in how I could innovate in legal as well as combine my interests from both of my degrees, and the more I learnt about legal tech the more it felt like a natural fit for me. What attracted me to the field the most was the opportunity to be creative and work at the edge of what is technically possible, while uncovering new ways for the legal industry to operate and match the technical advancements of other industries.

What projects have you been focused on recently?

At my day job a lot of what we’re currently doing is exploring better ways to collect structured litigation data while leveraging the tools that we already have. This is surprisingly tricky, as most of the legal tech available has been developed for the non-contentious market. I’ve also been pushing forward the MDR Research arm of our Data Science team, through which we collaborate with other organisations and academic institutions on Legal AI research.

At Law School 2.0 we’ve been working hard on our newest initiative the Legal Service Innovation Course, which has been sponsored by iManage and Barbri. We really emphasise going back to basics with legal innovation projects and iterating through the Problem > Solution > Adoption phases of any project, rather than jumping right in with your dream solution that might not be solving a problem that exists in your organisation. We’re excited to be releasing a course that covers each of these aspects and can be applied to any legal innovation project.

What do you see as the biggest challenge in legal tech today?

The general theme of running before you can walk and the search for a quick and easy solution are both challenges for the legal tech industry. There is a burden on the vendor and the customer to make sure they’re selecting a solution that is solving a real problem and can be implemented in the organisation given how they currently operate and the resources they have available, otherwise it will end up costing both parties wasted resources and money in the long run.

What do you see as the most important emerging tech, legal or not, right now?

It’d be impossible not to say Generative AI. Whether people are approaching the tech because it solves identified and well-scoped problems in their legal work is one thing. However, what has been interesting is seeing the reaction from those working outside of legal innovation in law firms who are so keen to get their hands on this technology. This is the type of technology adoption that many innovation teams often struggle to gain with more ‘traditional’ legal tech implementations, so it opens a real opportunity to increase education around legal innovation and the use of technology in legal.

What advice would you give to other women who want to get involved in legal tech?

Reach out to those in the industry who inspire you, or who have career paths that you are interested in. Everyone I’ve met in legal tech is very friendly and willing to share advice over a cup of coffee.

Also remember it’s okay if you’re path doesn’t match someone else’s, what’s exciting about legal tech is it’s still early days and the career paths are still being created, so you have an opportunity to forge your own path.

Give a shout-out to another woman in legal tech who you admire or have learned something from!

Catherine Bamford, CEO and Founder of BamLegal, has been an inspiration to me since I entered the legal tech field. She has always been so open and honest with her advice and guidance, and I’m really lucky to have her as a friend.

The post Women of Legal Tech: Amy Conroy appeared first on Law Technology Today.

Cindy Cohn is the Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. From 2000-2015 she served as EFF’s Legal Director as well as its General Counsel. In 1993, EFF she served lead attorney in Bernstein v. Dept. of Justice, the successful First Amendment challenge to the U.S. export restrictions on cryptography. Among other honors, Ms. Cohn was named to TheNonProfitTimes 2020 Power & Influence TOP 50 list, and in 2018, Forbes included Ms. Cohn as one of America’s Top 50 Women in Tech. In 2013, The National Law Journal named Ms. Cohn one of 100 most influential lawyers in America, noting: “If Big Brother is watching, he better look out for Cindy Cohn.”

Please give us three points to summarize you and your work in legal technology.

1. I am the Executive Director of EFF, the oldest and largest digital civil liberties organization in the world.
2. I led Bernstein v. DOJ, the case that helped free encryption technologies from restrictive governmental licensing and allowed users to engage private conversations, have better security and do commercial transactions online.
3. I helped EFF challenge and scale back both NSA and FBI surveillance.

How did you become involved in legal tech?

As a young lawyer, I volunteered with EFF to work pro bono on one of the early Internet cases (Bernstein v. DOJ). From there I joined EFF formally in 2000 as its Legal Director and became Executive Director in 2015.

What projects have you been focused on recently?

My focus recently has been on leading a now-100 person digital civil liberties organization. On the program side I continue to work on cases ensuring that the First and Fourth Amendments are applied to the digital world in ways that protect all of us.

The post Women of Legal Tech: Cindy Cohn appeared first on Law Technology Today.

Julie Saltman is the CEO and co-founder of Standd, an AI-native due diligence and deal review platform, which eliminates friction and creates clarity throughout the deal process, so everyone around the table can focus on building the relationships that are critical to success. Julie founded Standd after over a decade practicing law, mostly as a trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice. At DOJ, Julie served in the Tax Division, Civil Division, and Federal Programs Branch, where she handled cases raising complex regulatory and administrative law questions in federal trial and appellate courts across the US. She also served as an Assistant General Counsel at the U.S. Copyright Office, and as an Adjunct Professor of Legal Research, Analysis, and Writing at Georgetown Law. She has worked with startups and entrepreneurs in the legal tech space, and written articles on legal tech and regulatory tech. She is a graduate of Yale University and the University of Michigan Law School.

Please give us three points to summarize you and your work in legal technology.

I am the CEO of Standd, an AI-native due diligence and deal review platform. Our vision is to provide a platform where lawyers, investors, bankers, buyers, and sellers work together to close deals with greater transparency, better insights, fewer fire drills, and more time to build the relationships that are critical to success.

Though only about a year old, Standd has been growing fast and gaining recognition. Last fall, Standd was selected out of 1200+ applicants for the AWS Impact Accelerator for Women Founders, where we received non-dilutive funding and incredible support from AWS. A few months later, we were selected for Techstars Seattle — where we won best pitch at Demo Day in February 2023. Standd launched its MVP in March 2023 and the full due diligence platform in July 2023. We’re currently piloting our software with law firms and financial firms.

I think legal tech, much like litigation where I began my career, is primarily about people. I love talking to lawyers all over the world about their work, what brings them fulfillment, and what causes frustration. I began my journey in legal tech just talking to lawyers in different roles to learn more about the problem I wanted to solve, and these conversations continue to be one of the best parts of my job.

How did you become involved in legal tech?

I came to legal tech from an unlikely part of the legal industry: the federal government. I started my legal career as a DOJ Honors Attorney in the Civil Tax Division, and later moved to the Civil Division, and the Federal Programs Branch. I spent over a decade working as a litigator for the department, where I was fortunate to work on some fascinating and impactful cases. But I never felt like litigation was the right fit for my skills and personality. I had always had an entrepreneurial streak: I wrote a blog in law school, and enjoyed growing my readership to impressive numbers, and at DOJ I co-founded the first department-wide gender equity affinity group, which now has thousands of members. To figure out my next move, I started having coffee with lawyers who’d left jobs at the government or top firms to start their own firms, and was so inspired by their gumption, creativity, and focus on personal fulfillment. I also saw an opportunity: many of these firms were trying to use technology to improve efficiency. That inspired me to make the jump to start building in the legal tech space.

What projects have you been focused on recently?

We built Standd to eliminate the time-consuming, manual work and provide greater clarity in the legal diligence process, and our early customers are lawyers. But as we’ve learned more about the diligence and deal review process, we see opportunities to solve problems for everyone around the deal table. We’re focusing on learning more about the different players and personas by doing customer discovery, design work, and pilots with venture capital firms, investment banks, private equity firms, and sell-side companies. This research has lead to some exciting innovations that we’ll be launching in the coming months.

What do you see as the biggest challenge in legal tech today?

I think generative AI is raising interesting questions about what is and isn’t legal work. We as an industry may need to revisit some of our core assumptions about legal work, as they relate to both what constitutes UPL and how we value the services we provide to clients.

What legal tech resource helped you the most in your legal tech career?

The legal tech community as a whole has been a wonderful resource, especially the women of legal tech. I’ve had so many great conversations with entrepreneurs and leaders at AmLaw100 firms who were willing to share knowledge and feedback, and provide support throughout my time in the industry.

What do you see as the most important emerging tech, legal or not, right now?

I’m certainly excited about the advances in applied and generative AI, but I also think the innovation happening in climate tech is so important.

What do you see for the future of legal tech?

Traditionally, legal tech was more focused on serving institutional interests. Standd, and other new companies, are focusing more on solving problems for individual lawyers to provide greater benefits to the firm as a whole. I think this approach to problem solving is where future innovation will happen.

What advice would you give to other women who want to get involved in legal tech?

Don’t try to figure everything out for yourself. Any time I am blocked, I schedule coffees with people who might be able to help — and every time, it ends up being more valuable than I could have imagined.

Give a shout-out to another woman in legal tech who you admire or have learned something from!

Michelle Crosby, the CEO and founder of Wevorce, has been an incredible thought partner, supporter, and champion as we’ve grown and hit our early milestones. She is a true trailblazer, and her determination, passion, and creativity have inspired my whole team.

The post Women of Legal Tech: Julie Saltman appeared first on Law Technology Today.

Flo Nicolas is a technology thought leader with a decade of experience in technology operations and a lawyer that is passionate about promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). As the Co-Founder and Chief Operating Officer of DEI Directive, a technology company offering a comprehensive DEI Intelligence Platform that empowers HR and DEI Professionals to monitor and measure the impact of their initiatives using data analytics. 

Flo is also the creator and host of two TV shows in New Hampshire. “Get Tech Smart” educates viewers about tech innovations, while “Get Resource Smart” spotlights organizations providing essential community resources. In addition, Flo is an alumnus of the LinkedIn Accelerator Program: Technology and Innovation. During the program, she created innovative content that featured diverse women in tech.

Flo advocates for access to STEAM education for ALL, Women in Tech, and Diversity in Tech. Her advocacy has earned her recognition, including being honored with the prestigious NH Business Review Outstanding Women in Business 2023 award and named NH Tech Alliance Tech Professional of the Year 2023.

Flo is a philanthropist who volunteers on multiple boards and mentors underrepresented tech and legal professionals. She hosts DEI Networking events in New Hampshire, fostering community engagement and collaboration for inclusivity.

Please give us three points to summarize you and your work in legal technology.

As a tech educator, thought leader, advocate, speaker, and board member, I am recognized for championing diversity across various industries. My focus is spotlighting women in technology, including legal technology. In my role as Co-Founder and COO of DEI Directive, I drive innovation through data-driven strategies, empowering organizations to embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion. Passionate about empowering women in technology and promoting girls’ engagement in STEM fields, I am dedicated to fostering diversity and inclusion while advocating for digital transformation to shape the future of industries.

How did you become involved in legal tech?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, as the world came to a halt, I found my involvement in legal technology. At that time, I served as the Chief Growth and Community Officer, working alongside Laura Frederick, President and Owner of How To Contract. Hosting the Contracts Tech Showcase, a show I created, I invited Legal Technology Contracts tech vendors to provide demos and discuss the significance of leveraging legal technology for lawyers. Through my social media platform, I actively promoted and advocated for legal digital transformation.

Being selected for the LinkedIn Accelerator Program: Innovation and Technology was a turning point. I took the opportunity to highlight remarkable women in legal technology worldwide. Continuously using my platform, I advocate for technology adoption, keeping my followers informed about the dynamic changes in the legal industry. My passion extends to tweeting about emerging technologies and their impact on regulatory and risk issues.

As the #nonboringlawyer, I have found my unique role as a tech translator, simplifying the complexities of the rapidly evolving technology world for my followers. Continuing my dedication to the legal field, I co-host the international ContractsCon training through How to Contract. Additionally, I was recently invited to moderate the Legal Automation virtual summit hosted by TechSommet and sponsored by Mitratech. My contributions have been recognized through features in prominent platforms, such as the Legally Speaking Podcast hosted by Robert Hannah and Above the Law.

What projects have you been focused on recently?

I will be hosting the prestigious ContractCon Las Vegas, set to take place at The University of Nevada-Las Vegas William S. Boyd School. This highly anticipated event brings legal professionals worldwide to contract drafting and negotiating training. The last ContractsCon, held at the University of Miami Law School, was sponsored by various legal technology vendors.

In addition to my role as host, I am actively collaborating with prominent law firms in New Hampshire on their 1L internship program. This program focuses on providing summer internships to aspiring lawyers from diverse backgrounds. As part of my involvement, I am dedicated to incorporating legal technology education into the program, equipping interns with essential skills for the future of the legal field.

As the Co-Founder and COO of DEI Directive, I am committed to advocating for access to legal technology tools for all lawyers. Furthermore, I am passionate about fostering a more inclusive legal industry, particularly in legal technology. Through my ongoing project, the show Get Tech Smart, I am dedicated to educating my community and followers about the evolving landscape of legal technology.

Recognizing the need for increased adoption of legal technology in New Hampshire, I aim to catalyze change in my state. By raising awareness and promoting the benefits of legal technology, I strive to facilitate greater adoption and enhance the efficiency of the legal community.

What do you see as the biggest challenge in legal tech today?

The legal technology landscape, much like other sectors, presents a multitude of challenges. One prevalent obstacle is the resistance among some lawyers to adopt new technologies, often stemming from the traditional mindset of “if it’s not broken, why fix it?” There exists an unwillingness to invest time in learning and embracing emerging technologies.

Furthermore, the current economic climate has led to downsizing within law firms, resulting in slashed technology budgets. For some, investing in new technologies is simply not a viable option given the financial constraints. Additionally, the rapid pace of technological advancements, including the emergence of artificial intelligence and ChatGPT, poses a significant hurdle even for seasoned technologists. It becomes an added burden for law firms, legal operations, and in-house counsel to stay abreast of these evolving technologies.

Compounding these challenges are the increasing concerns surrounding cybersecurity, data privacy, regulatory compliance, deep fake technology, and other associated risks. This growing apprehension often leads to a cautious approach in adopting new technologies, as the potential consequences and implications must be thoroughly vetted.

In navigating this complex landscape, it is imperative for the legal industry to strike a balance between embracing technological innovation and mitigating risks. Proactive measures, such as thorough vetting, robust cybersecurity protocols, and ongoing education and training, are essential to instill confidence and enable a successful integration of legal technology solutions.

By addressing these challenges head-on, the legal industry can embrace the transformative potential of technology while upholding the highest standards of security, compliance, and ethical practice.

What legal tech resource helped you the most in your legal tech career?

I actively engage with various legal resources and follow esteemed technology experts such as Alex Su, Colin Levy, Olga Mack, Cat Casey, and many more. I rely on reputable legal technology news sources like law.com, Artificial Lawyer, Bloomberg Law, Above the Law, and other notable legal technology outlets and blogs to stay informed. While keeping up with the fast-paced nature of news can be challenging, I prioritize thorough research and staying up to date with trending developments. Additionally, being part of legal tech LinkedIn groups serves as an invaluable way to remain current and connected within the legal technology community.

What do you see as the most important emerging tech, legal or not, right now?

The legal technology industry is currently experiencing a significant boom, with legaltech startups securing substantial investments from eager investors. The market’s appetite for AI embedded technologies is driving this surge, as investors recognize the potential and are willing to open their wallets for innovative legaltech solutions.

What do you see for the future of legal tech?

The future of legal technology is promising, with vendors embracing new and innovative technologies in their products. Some Law schools are also recognizing the importance of legal tech education and the need to incorporate it into the law school curriculum. To remain competitive, lawyers must become proficient in tools like electronic signatures, contract lifecycle management, and eDiscovery. While automation and AI may lead to job changes, they create new opportunities. Technological competence will likely become a requirement in ethics regulations, and lawyers must stay up-to-date with technology to serve their clients better, particularly those in the technology sector. Embracing technology will be essential for lawyers to navigate the evolving legal landscape and provide effective client representation.

What advice would you give to other women who want to get involved in legal tech?

Entering the field of legal technology requires exposure and a willingness to learn. When I delved deeper into this field, I began by conducting research and engaging in conversations with legal technology vendors. I asked questions to understand how the technology works, its benefits for lawyers, legal operations, and other legal professionals, as well as any associated risks. Learning is facilitated by asking questions and exploring software. If you have a passion for learning about the industry, anyone can transition into legal technology.

Give a shout-out to another woman in legal tech who you admire or have learned something from!

A big shout-out to Olga Mack, the queen of legal contracts technology, for her inspiring work. I also admire Cat Casey, the queen of E-Discovery, for her expertise in the field. Leah Molatseli, whom I had the pleasure of featuring as part of the LinkedIn Accelerator Program: Technology and Innovation, is truly the African Legal Technology Queen. And let’s not forget Terri Mottershead, another legal tech goddess, who is making a significant impact on the legal technology market in Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. Their contributions are shaping the industry and driving innovation.

The post Women of Legal Tech: Flo Nicolas appeared first on Law Technology Today.

Alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) are non-law-firm providers with purpose-built delivery services that perform legal work at a lower cost than traditional law firms and corporate legal departments, offering increased flexibility designed to address the legal needs of any organization.

What are the benefits of using an ALSP?

1. Gain specialized expertise
   ALSPs can offer a range of expertise that legal departments don’t have in-house. In some instances, this allows companies to meet a peak demand or complex request without increasing their permanent headcount.

2. Reduce costs
   ALSPs offer the benefit of a cost-effective pricing structure while budgeting and forecasting legal spend with absolute certainty. Legal operations consultants put a strong focus on data and metrics to conserve legal spend, maximize legal resources, and evaluate processes and solutions within legal departments.
3. Access legal resources quickly
   With flexible staffing offerings, ALSP clients can tap into quality legal resources quickly to ramp up support for new or existing needs. These resources include lawyers and legal professionals at all levels providing added flexibility and fit to clients’ organizations.

4. Save time and increase efficiency
   With the increasing pressures felt by legal teams, we often see a decrease in legal operations efficiencies. ALSPs have the ability to evaluate and adjust a wide variety of processes, methodologies, and technologies that are critical to maintaining effectiveness.
5. Leverage cutting-edge technologies and innovations

As technology plays an increasing role in the practice of law, it’s essential that attorneys stay abreast of emerging technologies and disruptors in the field. ALSPs bring an innovation mindset to the legal industry that can prove invaluable to companies.

In today’s legal industry landscape, law departments and companies are challenged to find ways to do more with less by completing certain legal tasks at a lower cost and with more efficient methodologies. Once an outlier, ALSPs have since shown they can successfully provide the legal services that companies rely on to handle a wide range of legal work across numerous practice areas from commercial law and transactions to government contracting, intellectual property (IP) law and licensing, technology transactions, compliance functions, litigation, regulatory law, and more. Through innovative service plans with flexible pricing models, clients gain easier access to quality legal resources when they need them. This allows clients to manage overflow legal work, spikes in workflow, special projects, or any other legal support needed in that given practice area with clarity as to cost and timing.

Major law firms are also pressured by their clients to do more with less which makes ALSPs an excellent option for BigLaw players seeking to quickly expand or contract their workforce, offload routine matters, enlist specialized expertise, and support client needs with tech-centric offerings.

Offering the flexibility of remote, on-demand, and specialized engagement with outsourced legal services, according to the Alternative Legal Services Providers 2023 Report, published by the Thomson Reuters Institute, the Center on Ethics and the Legal Profession at Georgetown Law, and the Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford, ALSPs now comprise a $20.6 billion segment of the legal market. An excellent resource for efficient, cost-effective, and customized solutions, ALSPs can address the legal needs of almost any organization.

About the Author

Monica Zent is an experienced entrepreneur, investor, inventor, and trusted legal advisor and strategist to multiple global brands. Zent is also founder and CEO of Foxwordy Inc., a patented digital collaboration platform for the legal industry, and founder of ZentLaw, one of the nation’s leading alternative law firms. 

The post Why Choose an ALSP? appeared first on Law Technology Today.