Client communication: from bad to worse?

 

One regularly reads that the use of email to communicate with clients is problematic for lawyers. The focus here is on unsatisfactory confidentiality, since the sender can never know who all in an organization has access to the recipient's mailbox. Behind this is the desire to put client communication in general on a new footing and to replace Outlook & Co. with shared workflow systems.

The online magazine THE ARTIFICIAL LAWYER has now investigated the question of which methods (products) lawyers regularly use in their professional activities. The magazine surveyed 2000 lawyers, including attorneys and other members of the legal industry. The result: two out of three respondents use cell phones and Microsoft Outlook, followed relatively closely by WhatsApp (!) and Gmail. LinkedIn messages also come in at almost 50% usage, Slack at around one quarter. Facebook messages and Apple Mail rank below the rest.

In other words, if we disregard MS Outlook (mail and appointments), messenger services have gained a most prominent position in the legal profession. And the trend is probably upward. This will not please the data protectionists and certainly not those who are responsible for knowledge management in the company / organization. Those who are surprised now, however, must accept the following fact: We have known for at least 10 years that young people communicate exclusively via cell phones.

One could have been prepared.

Modern legal service - a note

 

Alisha Andert recently published an article in the newsletter of the Bucerius Center of the Legal Practice on the topic of WHY MODERN LEGAL SERVICE IS NOT A QUESTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL CASE that is well worth reading. In it, she calls for a holistic approach to legal advice, arguing that the traditional view of individual cases falls short in the digital era. We agree with the result, but only to a limited extent with the underlying assumption.

The author assumes that individual case thinking and legal detail determine everyday legal life and that standardization is therefore rather alien to the legal profession. Americans defend this approach as "bespoke lawyering". In many cases, however, the reality is not quite like that: "I haven't done a new contract in ages," confessed one lawyer during a recent interview. "The cases are so similar to each other that there are matching templates in the office for practically everything."

Now, of course, one can object that this is perhaps an isolated case, and moreover, everything is different in a large law firm anyway. Maybe, maybe only the dimensions change.

The point is this: If the example of the quoter is correct, then it is in fact the law firm staff who draw up the contract on demand, and from an economic point of view this process is quite efficient. Then it would also be understandable that many lawyers vehemently resist digitization and standardization - because in truth they have already standardized and therefore supposedly have little to gain.

But, once again emphasized, this should in no way call into question the author's conclusion based on her practically chosen example.

Filters, views, relations - and where is the AI?

During a panel discussion, Judge Michael Kunz from the Vienna Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) showed the essential functions of the new case management system "Justice 3.0" in Austria. In a nutshell: the years of preparatory work have paid off. Judges and public prosecutors now have access to a digital case management system that offers a wide range of functions:

Users can filter their cases according to a wide variety of criteria, they can also build their own "views," and even create relation tables, where key points of the parties' arguments are compared and linked to the file content. The fact that the system supports fully digital communication with all parties involved is almost taken for granted in Austria. This also includes the use of digital signatures.

The framework for Justice 3.0 was purchased from the Bavarian government, but all functions were developed in Austria. It is to be rolled out to all courts and public prosecutors' offices by the middle of next year. At those departments where it is already available, its use is strongly recommended by the employer.

And if a completely new system is being set up, aren't artificial intelligence components also being used? More about that soon ...

Software: permanent relationship instead of simply purchase

One characteristic of the Corona Crisis is the variety of webinars on offer. Those who wanted to listen actively were able to pick up valuable insights at yesterday's event hosted by Frankfurt-based reinvent legal innovation hub. Guests were David Bloch from Swiss legaltech startup Legartis and Martin Kay from international vehicle supplier ZF.

Legartis offers an AI-driven software for highly automated analysis of legal documents. At ZF, this is in use to speed up the review process of NDAs. What are the key findings?

1. If new software is to be deployed in a highly operational company, it is imperative that it is "ready". That is, the promised functionalities must actually exist and the software must have been extensively tested. If it turns out in live operation that essential functions do not work or do not work sufficiently, it is highly probable that this would be the end of the project. So there is no question of a "minimum viable product".
2. The project is by no means complete once it has been successfully put into operation. Rather, it must be followed by a process of continuous collaboration. It is particularly important to keep this in mind because the entire contract structure and pricing must be based on this.
3. The process change associated with the use of software only pays off if as many relatively uniform and not too complicated documents as possible are to be analyzed.
4. Last but not least: software does not replace people.

The good news: Despite all the challenges that could be read between the lines, the project was judged positively on both sides; consequently, new contract types are now being tackled.

Legal Software: The end of one-stop-shops?

Recently, it was reported on alm.com that customers are increasingly turning away from one-stop shops and toward individual technological solutions. Similar comments have also been heard in Viennese legal circles. What is behind all this?

First of all, a paradigm shift is taking place. Up to now, law firms have usually aimed to use as few products as possible in order to avoid interface issues and to have the greatest possible transparency in terms of costs and use. If a change of direction is now on the horizon, surely there must be some dissatisfaction?

Indeed, proponents of diversification say that "one" product is not capable of meeting the highly diverse needs of individual practice groups in larger organizations. One would add that experience with legacy law firm management software also shows how once agile developments can become quite cumbersome monoliths - at least from the customer's perspective. But are isolated products the solution?

The moment to answer this question has not yet come. In any case, an absolute prerequisite would be a standardization of interfaces across providers, and if possible even across countries. This is not easy to imagine. But at least a sum of individual products could definitely develop faster than large "tankers". For this to happen, however, the "top dogs" among the software manufacturers would have to abandon their policy of isolation and approach other, mostly newer, providers. One can hope for that.