We need more simplicity in legal tech

What is the most common reason legal departments fail to adopt legal tech? If you Google that question, the same answer appears over and over: purchasing software doesn’t magically solve problems. It’s the process that solves problems.

Process over features

If you enter the market hoping to pick some service off-the-shelf, you’re in for a nasty surprise. Nothing on the market will automatically draft perfect contracts for you, for example. You still need the logic and the process set out. When do you choose document A over B? When is it appropriate to go to a fallback position? Even if you hire an experienced and qualified lawyer, these types of decisions are not binary. These are questions that require human judgment, and automation can only happen when you’ve explicitly written down those rules.

In my conversations, I frequently hear about big budget legal tech projects that fail spectacularly.

• 77% of Inhouse Lawyers Experience Failed Legal Tech Projects
• 50% of all first-time CLM implementations will fail to deliver the expected benefits

The GC might initiate an ambitious project, provide zero input, and end up shocked when they get a generic system. It isn’t adapted to their needs, and no one knows how to use it. It’s no wonder they become too frightened to try legal tech again.

On the other hand, even simple technologies can be leveraged for real automation. Clever use of Excel spreadsheets can replace contract management systems, and Google Forms is a perfectly viable substitute for an intake ticketing system. Even some plain comments placed in a Word document can go a long way to helping others fill out a contract. The difference is whether a project has been properly planned and executed.

While you can’t throw money at the problem to make it go away, there are still shortcuts. Too many legal departments jump straight into the most expensive system they can afford, but never gave thought to the other currency, time. Lawyers are notoriously busy and overworked, and it should never be overlooked that implementing new technology will cost just as much in time as money. When Legatics conducted their survey between 2019 and 2021, 50% of trainees and associates and 35% of partners chose “lack of time” as the
primary issue. I’m convinced those numbers are trending upwards. If you’re short on time, you should be looking for something simple. The key is ease of use.

Ease of use

If you don’t have the energy to implement and learn a full fledged contract management system, you should scale down and score some quick wins for your department. For example, you could start with a simple naming convention. It doesn’t cost you anything, and might take all of 20 minutes to communicate it to others. Sure, it lacks all the amazing features of the shiny new system, but you understand the ins and outs of the system. You are in full control of the success of its implementation. Then you can gradually implement a legal portal, cloud storage, and eventually work yourself into a contract management system.

The point I’m trying to make is that sophistication can be a barrier to success, and ease of use generates real value. Ease of use isn’t always a new feature or a new design. Ease of use can be scaling back on the complexity and focusing on a core problem. Don’t worry about sprinting across the field, just take it one steady step at a time. One of the cornerstones of our approach with https://reference.legal/ is simplicity. No installation, no training, the entire system can be explained in just a few minutes. When I look at other legal tech products, I think they often forget, it’s not about how long the feature list is, it’s about how much value the product provides. And in my opinion, simplicity provides more value than unused features.