UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥

The business case for legal tech has never been clearer. Legal tech and tech innovation provides so many benefits, including reduced costs through streamlined operations, greater collaboration through standardisation, improved client and employee satisfaction, more time spent on high value work due to automation, and so much more.

Tech has had a profoundly positive impact across numerous operational areas in recent years, vastly improving document creation and management, legal research, billing and invoicing, case management, enterprise legal management, and so many other areas. But, despite the above, many senior leads fail to recognise or appreciate the value of legal tech.

In this article, we want to show lawyers, regardless of seniority, how to influence senior leaders and how to make a positive and air-tight business case for tech investment. 

Show the specific benefits of tech

Lawyers should start by showcasing the benefits of tech. We’ve mentioned broad benefits above, but these do little to assure decision-makers. Lawyers need to pick exact processes and provide a structured and evidence-based case that shows precisely how the tech will improve processes, the problems it solves, the risks involved, the financial requirements from the law firm, and the ways in which the firm can measure return on investment.

Lawyers should aim to bring as much data and evidence as possible. Exact numbers answer questions before they are asked and provide the greatest reassurance to decision-makers. And lawyers should always remain specific, always tailoring the business case to the firm and the processes under question. It is not particularly convincing to suggest, for example, that legal tech will broadly improve a particular process. But it is very convincing to show the exact amount of money tech will save and the exact amount of labour tech will reduce. 

The more specific, the more detailed, the more evidence-based, the more likely you’ll convince senior leaders in your firm. Showcasing exact improvements, substantiated by reliable and unbiased data, helps to present a positive business case for legal tech investment.

Overcome opposition and objections

Opposition to tech lessened during the pandemic, as adoption of tech accelerated and firms noticed benefits. The first shift relied on continuity – many lawyers and firms embraced tech by necessity – but that continuity made tech desirable. Many leaders took heed of obvious gains: videoconferencing undermined geographical limitations, cloud-based software allowed agile and remote working, automation took care of tedious high-volume and low-value work. The legal sector adopted a new attitude towards tech, becoming less sceptical.

But, despite the many benefits, a certain resistance remains. Senior leaders often understand the intellectual case for tech, but struggle to internalise that change, partly due to a longstanding caution and the present bias. Caution and present bias are barriers that the lawyer should be ready to address, ready to overcome, when making the case for investment.

Lawyers need to show that investment is an act of caution. Legal tech will protect the firm in the future, allowing for long-term sustainability. Lawyers should demonstrate, preferably using reliable data and evidence, preferably substantiated by any number of reports that showcase the long-term value of legal tech, that the failure invest in tech and tech innovation, in a sector where firms of all shapes and sizes are increasingly recognising the value of tech, will inexorably leave reluctant and resistant firms at a competitive disadvantage.

Lawyers should counter the present bias by focussing on long-term value. Opposition to tech investment across all sectors often stems from the immediate expenditure of the investment. Adoption and implementation of tech requires planning, strategy, implementation, and optimisation. Returns on investment are seldom immediate. And, as shown in a recent UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ Report, the absence of immediate returns deters some firms from embracing tech.

But lawyers can counter that opposition by demonstrating the consistent value provided by tech. They should show that prioritising the short-term can lead to long-term problems, that failure to compete is a source of decline. The returns from tech investment may not be immediate, but they are clear and consistent. Lawyers need to champion long-term returns.

Ultimately, the case for legal tech depends on elevating the positive and countering the negative. Lawyers should showcase specific areas of improvement, preferably giving leaders up-to-date and reliable data about expected gains. And lawyers making the business case should overcome opposition by showing that investment is an act of caution, one that protects the law firm in the future and secures long-term financial sustainability.