Key takeaways:

• • • The debate continues — GenAI is reigniting the debate over the billable hour in law firms but is unlikely to fully replace it within the next five years, with firms expected to adopt more hybrid billing models, panelists said.

    • AFAs on the rise — If alternative fee arrangements are the answer, firms need to develop clear communication, disciplined scoping, and a shared understanding of value between clients and law firms, which remains a challenge.

    • What the client needs — Clients want law firms to use GenAI not just to lower costs, but to deliver more effective and creative legal solutions, emphasizing the importance of combining human expertise with technology.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland —ÌęThe death of the law firm billable hour has been advertised and failed to materialize so many times that many in the legal industry roll their eyes when they hear the next proclamation of its impending demise.

The billable hour is an easy concept to calculate and understand, and today’s levels of law firm profitability suggests little urgency to change. However, the rapidly increasing use of generative AI (GenAI) has reopened the debate with some new excitement that this advanced tech is the long-awaited catalyst to ring the billable hour’s death knell. Certainly, GenAI use will drive law firms to adopt practices that will support profitability when using other forms of billing, and it will also help articulate value and provide clients with more transparent pricing.

At the recentÌę, a stopwatch-style debate — moderated by the Thomson Reuters Institute’s Zach Warren — tackled not just whether GenAI is a superior billing method to achieve firm and client goals but also what conditions must exist for a true shift toward it.

Client value and billing

Done well, alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) align client and outside counsel incentives, improve predictability, and shift focus to outcomes. “Clients don’t hire lawyers for how long something takes — they hire them for results,” said , founder of This Might Help Consulting. Mature and successful value-based pricing requires phase-based scoping, milestone holdbacks and bonuses, and constant re-scoping — steps not easily accomplished.

There’s no secret as to why firms avoid all that and stay within their hourly billing comfort zone: Law firm recruiting and compensation hinges largely on utilization and maximizing billable hours. Also, scoping an expensive project for partners not trained in project management is risky, and any changes can drive the parties back to the bargaining table, further eroding client trust and even the firm’s own assumptions of what may be required.

Riffing on a famous Winston Churchill quote, , founder of AtJustice and former Records & E‑Discovery practice group leader at Reed Smith, noted that the billable hour “may be the worst billing system — except for all the others.” In addition, while clients may grumble, they still pay for billable hours, so firms have no true incentive to change.

There’s no secret as to why firms avoid all that and stay within their hourly billing comfort zone: Law firm recruiting and compensation hinges largely on utilization and maximizing billable hours.

However, the ILTACON panel did illuminate one major stumbling block in the shift to AFAs: Whether firms and clients can truly agree on what success and value looks like for both parties under an AFA. In a hypothetical, panelists debated whether an AFA set for $100,000 would satisfy clients if the firm completed the work more quickly in what would have cost $80,000 if billed hourly.

Cohen said the client would be unhappy they had paid more than needed, and McPherson argued that “if the client got the value and it was predictable” and the client avoided more costly litigation, they would consider that a win and a great value. The bottom line seems to be that firms and clients need more communication upfront around client value, and disciplined scoping, iterative recalibration, and tech-enabled matter intelligence will help drive success — otherwise firms will continue to default to the billable hour.

GenAI effectiveness vs. cost reduction

The promise of GenAI to drive the costs of billable hours down is attractive and often the most emphasized aspect in discussions around its impact on the shift in billing, but we shouldn’t overlook GenAI’s ability to increase how effectively and creatively law firms can solve clients’ problems. Corporate legal departments’ requests for proposals (RFPs) for outside counsel engagement often focus upon costs, but quality and predictability still matter. The lowest bids on reverse auction platforms lose out 54% of the time, and the highest bids win 18% of the time, said panelist , Senior Pricing Manager at Perkins Coie.

Still, the primary GenAI question in many RFPs, is simply “How will you use AI to lower our costs?” This makes clear that clients just want to know how GenAI will lower their fees, and this is often what clients want to discuss when GenAI comes up, said , Director of Practice Innovation at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.

Still, it’s becoming clearer that clients want their outside firms to use AI to deliver more effective and creative solutions to their legal matters, with lower costs just a happy by-product. “Litigation is a business problem stuck in the courtroom,” said panelist , president of iDiscovery Solutions. In-house counsel can seem more firmly focused on their company’s business problems and how they can leverage the law to help solve internal business partners’ problems. Under the billable hour, outside counsel may be reluctant to consider other angles or solutions to a problem other than the most obvious, for fear of increasing the client’s bill.

Clients just want to know how GenAI will lower their fees, and this is often what clients want to discuss when GenAI comes up.

The panel further recommended that outside counsel should consider how using an AFA and GenAI in conjunction with their own legal and business acumen, may more quickly allow them to consider other solutions without fear of needlessly running up a client invoice. Overall, outside counsel needs to enunciate how the combination of their human value — strategy, judgment, and industry fluency — in conjunction with GenAI offers more effective and creative solutions, hopefully delivered more cost-effectively as well.

Will GenAI kill the billable hour in five years?

Overall, it’s unlikely GenAI kills the billable hour in the next five years, and panelists certainly foresee a slower shift that’s driven by client demand, not law firms’ own initiative.

For now, as the panel suggested, there likely will be more use of AFAs, especially around more predictable matters or those with repeatable processes, clearer tasks, and more predictable outcomes. To prepare, law firms should clarify their value beyond AI, increase pricing transparency, and better leverage their legal professionals to improve client satisfaction.

You can find more of ourÌęcoverage of recent ILTACON eventsÌęhere

Key takeaways:

• • • Goal in mind — Agentic AI functions differently from past technologies in that it works towards a goal, which means understanding the tasks to get to that goal.

    • Importance of context — The more data an AI agent has, the better decisions it will be able to execute, making proper data architecture and interoperability extremely important.

    • Lawyer input required — Despite increased autonomy, agentic AI systems still rely on legal professionals for verification and review — and knowing when to bring in human knowledge will be key to the user experience.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland — The buzziest term in legal technology currently is that of agentic AI. In theory, an AI agent presents even more technological autonomy than even generative AI (GenAI), presenting a piece of software that can simulate decision-making and even execute certain tasks in the legal workflow.

The prospect of making legal tasks even more streamlined has tantalized legal technologists. As a result, many incumbent legal technology companies are baking agentic AI into their workflows, more tech startups are bringing agentic AI concepts into the legal realm by the day, and technology teams at law firms and corporate law departments are beginning to explore what agentic AI may mean for them.

All of that is well and good, but like any technology, there’s a difference between simply adopting a new technology, and adopting it successfully. Like GenAI, general purpose AI, and a number of technologies before it, agentic AI needs the right conditions to properly thrive. Especially given that agentic AI may be the most complex piece of software that has ever been available for the legal world, simply setting it and forgetting it is not an option.

So, how can law firms and corporate law departments set themselves up for agentic AI success? According to legal technology leaders at the Orchestrating Intelligence: AI Agents in the Legal Space panel at the , proper agentic AI implementations start with knowing the tasks — yes, plural — at hand, and giving the system a whole lot of contextual data with which to reason.

Chaining tasks

Current technologies, and particularly the GenAI that legal professionals have become familiar with over the past three years, have become very good at executing specific actions. For example, you can ask a GenAI system, “Write me a shopping list for a family of four that gives healthy meals and minimizes costs,” and it will do that specific task very well.

The prospect of making legal tasks even more streamlined has tantalized legal technologists.

However, that’s not what agentic AI is built to do. Rather than execute a specific action, said panelist Joel Hron, Chief Technology Officer at ¶¶ÒőłÉÄê, agentic AI instead is built to achieve larger goals. “You don’t tell it to do a certain thing, you tell it to achieve a goal,” Hron explained. “And it, with the context that it has and the information that it has, figures out the best way to achieve that goal.”

This means that rather than one specific action, agentic workflows are made up of tasks that build towards a goal. For example, panelist Adam Ryan, chief product officer at Litera, pointed to the email inbox. Lawyers send and receive business development emails all the time, asking how the firm can help on a given project, or what types of cases a lawyer is working on. Rather than needing to synthesize that information themselves, then draft a response (potentially with the help of GenAI or another tool), an AI agent can begin that work automatically.

“What an agent can do is look at that email, understand the context, and be able to proactively come back with the answer to that question,” Ryan said. Each of these are individual tasks, but they all move towards the larger goal of engaging in business development with this particular client. That way, the lawyer’s time is reduced from drafting to simply reviewing a response.

All of the context

Perhaps just as important, panelists said, is making sure the AI agent has the right context by which to make a decision. Think back to Ryan’s example — a response email will look very different if it’s to a long-standing client, a high-value client the firm is trying to get into the pipeline, or a low-value client that is being cold-called. Just like a first-year associate, the more the agentic AI system understands about the task it’s trying to perform, the better it’s going to be able to execute that task.

The panel noted that while agentic AI is intended to be more autonomous than past technologies, it will not be wholly making decisions independent of legal professionals.

That’s why Hron called context “a very important driver of performance” for those looking to implement agentic AI systems. It’s also why, because of the need for as much data as possible to make that context robust, he said that he expects data interoperability to play a major role as agentic AI becomes more mainstream. “I think what you’ll see with agents is that it will significantly break down barriers between software applications working with each other,” Hron said. “An agent that is going to do its job well is going to have as much context as it possibly can.”

Ryan agreed, noting that he expects a continued emphasis on capturing structured data that can easily be used for agentic systems, across all types of tasks and matters. “I think the firms that will succeed in this race are the firms with really good structured data sets of the entire experience.”

Lawyer in the loop

Finally, the panel noted that while agentic AI is intended to be more autonomous than past technologies, it will not be wholly making decisions independent of legal professionals. Panelist Matt Zerweck, Group Product Manager at Harvey, said his organization thinks about this in two discrete ways: i) The check-in process, in which legal professionals are brought into the agentic workflow to verify or provide input to a prompt; and ii) the review process, in which legal professionals can check the output and convert that output into achieving the overall goal.

¶¶ÒőłÉÄê’ Hron noted that a big part of agentic AI success will be the user experience for the tool, which if executed correctly, will lead to more trust in the system. This even occurs through small visual cues, similar to the way that hyperlinks in online articles let the reader know there is an external citation for what is written, he said.

Just like a first-year associate, the more the agentic AI system understands about the task it’s trying to perform, the better it’s going to be able to execute that task.

Indeed, user experience of a software has been built historically for humans to take actions, but now, Hron said that he thinks “the design principles of the future of software will be much more about maximizing the speed at which optimization and verification will happen.”

In the future, panelists noted, agentic AI will have the ability to learn user preferences and how to refine its workflows over time. Zerwick explained that legal tech developers are already thinking, “how do you go from constantly kicking off an agent, to the agent going without you doing anything, to the agent reaching out directly to you?”

To be sure, we are in the very early days for agentic AI in legal. But the panel said that when agentic AI becomes more commonplace, it will amplify the strong work attorneys already do. Hron said he sees AI agents as a boon for the strongest attorneys in particular, given that a lot of the more tedious work performed by all attorneys will become more automated.

“It makes the harder decisions more important,” Hron said. “So, it amplifies the best people in the organization, because it brings those decisions to the fore more often.”

You can find more of our coverage of recent ILTACON events here

Key takeaways:

• • • Proactive management — Law firms must adopt proactive project management strategies to effectively prioritize and align projects with evolving firm-wide strategic initiatives, especially in the face of rapid AI adoption.

    • Plan for the future — Consistent prioritization models and robust intake processes enable firms to better manage both planned and ad hoc projects, supporting long-term, multi-year goals.

    • Trust at the fore — Building trust across practice areas and creating a culture of collaboration are essential for successfully implementing successful project management strategies within law firms.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland — One side effect of the explosion of AI within law firms is that, due to the portability of the technology, everyone wants a piece of the action. Whether on financial teams, business development and marketing teams, or lawyers themselves, technology remains top of mind for just about every function’s strategic planning into 2026 and beyond.

Naturally, this will cause some capacity constraints on various teams. IT will be affected, of course; and so too will security and risk management teams. However, there is one area that law firms may have already been struggling to build out that suddenly faces a crunch: project management offices. Suddenly, there are more projects to be done than ever before, and an office within the firm that may have been somewhat neglected before has been given increased importance.

So how can law firms bolster their project management capabilities and workflows on the fly? A session, Project Management: The Secret Edge to Strategic Planning at the aimed to advance the critical conversation around project management. Too often, the panelists said, law firm project management functions are stuck being reactive to pre-existing projects, rather than being proactive in determining how projects can be prioritized to align with larger firm strategic initiatives.

“These projects are already happening. These lists aren’t driving strategic decision-making, they’ve already been approved,” said panelist Maura Whelan, Director of Project Management at McDermott, Will & Schulte. “But this is a mature practice in our industry, and we want to acknowledge that.”

Picking priorities

For law firms to become more proactive about project management has to start with leadership asking a question that sounds simple in theory but is more difficult in execution: How do you prioritize certain projects over others?

There are a bunch of different potential methods to doing this, Whelen explained, adding that one way her firm has done this is through aligning projects with different firm strategic initiatives, then prioritizing those initiatives and ranking them from top to bottom. Project managers could also assign a 1 to 5 on value, or have a matrix of feasibility vs. impact, or any number of potential ways of categorization.

However, what’s important, Whelan said, is to have something that is consistent and universally agreed upon by firm stakeholders. “Look for the model that works for you, evolve the model that’s best for your firm — but you need to have an agreed upon model,” she said.

For law firms to become more proactive about project management has to start with leadership asking a question that sounds simple in theory but is more difficult in execution: How do you prioritize certain projects over others?

Once the firm has shaped the initial prioritization, however, that does not mean that the projects are set for the year. The panel noted that not only will firm priorities shift throughout the year, but pressing projects themselves too will rise. Cindy Etoh, Director of Project Services at Ropes & Gray, estimated that about 20% of the projects her team works on during the year are ad hoc projects that emerge after the initial yearly planning. As a result, she has quarterly planning meetings to go over new project requests with firm leadership, during which she’ll discuss each project’s business case and assign a ranking score at that time.

Mary Nguyen, Director of Planning & Strategy at Paul Weiss, said her firm sees a similar percentage of ad hoc projects arise. Because the firm has instituted a strong intake process with past projects, her team doesn’t feel caught off-guard, Nguyen said, adding that the intake process “also helps us predict the work with some scientific backing to it.”

With years of data now piling up, Paul Weiss is beginning to look at the project portfolio not even in yearly chunks, but in multi-year key goals and themes, she explained, noting that it’s a relatively new initiative, but it came to the fore particularly with large projects such as cloud migrations or AI implementations that could be hard to handle without long-range thinking. “That really prompted us to start thinking and planning in a different way.”

Agents of change

It’s one thing to plan more strategically for a firm’s projects, and it’s wholly another matter to make sure that firm personnel are actually on board with those projects as they’re rolled out.

Panelists put forth the idea of portfolio change management as a potential balm — the idea that change management does not need to only happen at the project level, but as a portfolio-wide plan that can be portable across all projects now and in the future.

Nguyen pointed to recent developments in the cloud and AI, for example, that demonstrate two key reasons why traditional change management methods are not cutting it. First, the use cases are so vast and possibilities endless that project managers can show people how to perform the initial few steps but not necessarily know the outcome. Second, technologies are rapidly changing, so that for a full, firm-wide tech implementation such as launching Copilot, project managers need to update processes monthly instead of two or three times a year.

Panelists put forth the idea of portfolio change management as a potential balm — the idea that change management does not need to only happen at the project level, but as a portfolio-wide plan that can be portable across all projects now and in the future.

With rapid, unknowable change at the fore, Reesa David, Project Manager at legal service provider InOutsource, said one currency is more valuable than the rest — trust. She suggested having a project manager not only assigned to different practice areas, but a liaison that actually sits within those practice areas. “Whether it’s technical or non-technical, you’re able to translate those resource needs,” David said, adding that will allow team leaders to break down silos when different groups have different strategies and different practices.

Cindy Fragliossi, Head of the Project Management Office at Fried Frank, agreed on the importance of trust and also noted that it can also be a reflection of firm culture. As the saying goes, she noted, “culture eats strategy for breakfast” — meaning that all the planning in the world won’t mean much if the firm culture isn’t one of collaboration on new and existing projects. “Your [project management office] and its growth will be defined by firm culture and what its demands are,” she added.

Indeed, there is a lot of change in today’s law firms, maybe too much for some; however, with proper proactive project planning and a strategy for getting stakeholders on board, project management does not need to be overwhelming. “Good change management principles can help us all be more successful,” added McDermott, Will & Schulte’s Whelan.

Register now forÌęThe Emerging Technology and Generative AI Forum, a cutting-edge conference that will explore the latest advancements in GenAI and their potential to revolutionize legal and tax practices

Now, however, comes a new question: What if those interactions can happen autonomously, in which an AI program is given a specific task, knows what it needs to accomplish that task, and can call on other programs and systems without human input? Enter AI agents — which many legal technologists believe will be the next step in the AI evolution for the industry — that can develop more complex ways of working throughout autonomous execution of specific tasks.

As these AI agents can make calls over and over, said Rob Saccone, Chief Technology Officer at tech company Lega, something special emerges — the ability to autonomously fix a process that isn’t working. “We also discovered that with carefully crafted prompts, models could not only generate text, or code for us, they could develop plans for us,” Saccone said.

Machines developing autonomous plans may conjure images of the mythic robot lawyer. However, at a panelÌęduring the recentÌęÌęconference,ÌęAgentic AI: How this emerging area may impact the legal profession, the panelists said they view AI agents less as a robot lawyer and more a highly caffeinated assistant — one that can perform specific tasks very well and can interact with the environment on a 24/7 basis, but one that also takes regular oversight and training to function effectively.

What makes AI agentic?

Reanna Martinez, Director of Innovation, Systems, and Data at Munger, Tolles & Olson, said she regularly hears questions from attorneys about the differences between generative AI (GenAI), agentic AI, and other types of technologies in the marketplace. She delineated four key aspects that make a piece of technology agentic in nature:

• • • Primary function — Agentic AI is given a full goal to achieve, rather than a specific task.
    • Autonomy — Agentic AI has high autonomous ability, as it figures out what is needed to accomplish a goal, rather than a discrete prompt every time.
    • Learning and adaptability — Also high, with the ability to respond to new stimuli and the environment.
    • Decision-making — Agentic AI has the ability to discern the best outcome to achieve its goal, then execute on that outcome in the real world.

Crucially, agentic AI is not the same thing as GenAI, Martinez added. Many GenAI systems aren’t agentic, as “they’re using LLMs to perform certain tasks, but they’re not autonomous, they’re written by software engineers to do something specific.” Agentic, meanwhile, means “churning through a problem to get to the best result.”

AI agents can also accomplish these goals around the clock, as “agents are taking things that are routine and time-consuming and creating 24-hour access,” she explained. In a supermarket, for example, an AI agent can not only determine whether the stock of a product is low but actively research the best method of procurement and place an order, all without human input.

These abilities can also extend to the marketing sphere. For instance, an AI agent can take a new product, research its audience and marketing strategy, conduct A/B marketing campaigns using email and Google, and more. “It’s doing all of these things like a normal marketing professional would, but it’s doing it 24/7 because it has a goal,” Martinez said.

The applicability to law firms

What does that mean for the legal industry? AI agents have a host of potential use cases, noted Sara Miro, Director of Knowledge Solutions at Sullivan & Cromwell. And many of them can cut down on a lot of (non-billable) time within a firm, such as:

• • • Marketing and lead generation — AI agents can look at client news, conduct research, and create pitch materials “24/7, doing work while you’re sleeping.”
    • Client in-take and follow-up — They can also track client activity and monitor communications, generating reports and suggesting touchpoints, which can be particularly important for lawyers because “the business development part takes a lot of time and effort, and it’s non-billable.”
    • Task recommendations — The agents can observe work processes and propose next steps, suggest precedent, and draft documents, in an overall effort to “suggest what you should be working on next to get the best result in this matter.”
    • Voice assistants — If allowed, AI agents can listen to communications and book meetings, organize to-do lists, and prepare for the next steps of an engagement. An agent can even conduct an entire series of meetings, immediately booking a follow-up meeting invite “because it knows what you’re looking for.” Then, it can put it into all calendars, book a specific conference room that a partner wants, and collect materials for the meeting.

None of this occurs without oversight, of course, as well as some custom engineering to take into account firm desires and preferences. “I can’t imagine a situation where you’re going to give complete control over to these agents, even five years from now,” Miro said, adding that as preferences change over time, “there has to be flexibility.”

Today’s risks

Of course, any new technology is going to have an element of risk that law firms need to evaluate. Munger Tolles’ Martinez said she plots new applications on a risk/value matrix, factoring in security, the readiness of users and the environment, the level of accuracy, the impact if something goes wrong, cost, and ROI.

While the potential value to the firm can sometimes get lost in the nuances of new technology, it is perhaps the most important factor, she added. “The important thing is that you always have to start with your business use case — what is the thing you’re trying to solve?”

Miro agreed, noting that even though agentic AI may be new, “it’s tech, it’s software. The analysis really shouldn’t be that different from how you evaluate things today.” With that in mind, her main risk concerns look similar to other tech systems: a need to evaluate security and privacy, accuracy and reliability, and compliance and ethics.

However, there are a few additional wrinkles to agentic AI’s rollout, the panel explained. For example, autonomy: How much independent decision-making should be allowed? If an AI agent develops a business development use case while sleeping that’s great, but if the agent goes ahead contacts the potential client directly, that can create issues. Or if the agent takes the initiative to set up a follow-up meeting, that can be helpful; but the firm likely will not want the agent to autonomously select to whom the meeting invites get sent.

And as with GenAI itself, agentic AI is supposed to be additive to lawyers and law firm personnel, not a replacement for their skills. ÌęAnd now is the time to begin thinking how to upskill legal professionals to work with the next wave of technology, Sullivan & Cromwell’s Miro said.

After all, agentic AI systems are powerful and autonomous, but they’re not all-encompassing. “Don’t fire your teams,” she said. “There’s still a place for everyone.”

You can find more of our coverage of recent ILTA events here

Sound difficult? The reality of true integration may be even tougher. According to a panel, AI Made Practical: Enhancing Existing Tools and Driving Firm Adoption at the recent conference, any legal technologist entering the GenAI world with expectations of a perfect rollout will soon have those notions roundly distinguished.

However, that doesn’t mean that driving adoption of GenAI tools is impossible. It simply takes planning, from initial evaluation through implementation and feedback.

First, the evaluation

When the firm Frost Brown Todd began its GenAI journey, firm leaders started with urgency: They needed GenAI now, said panelist Masako Hashimoto, the firm’s Senior Legal Project Manager. “Our thing was that GenAI was going to change the practice of law, and if we don’t figure this out, others will,” she said.

This meant evaluating not only AI tools, but their applications to firm attorneys, all at the same time. Hashimoto noted that firm leadership understood that the GenAI implementation didn’t need to immediately be perfect, and it would be supplementing rather than replacing tasks. They simply required speed.

Many law firms have found themselves in the same conundrum, given the rapid pace of GenAI development since ChatGPT’s initial release less than 30 months ago. However, this need for rapid implementation means that many legal technologists have had to learn not only a new technology, but how lawyers would be implementing it in a practical way.

GenAI was going to change the practice of law, and if we don’t figure this out, others will.

Panelist Victor Chavez, Knowledge & Innovation Attorney at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, said he has seen some firms fall into the trap of evaluating technology before knowing how it’s going to be used — a totally backwards mindset. “You can have the coolest, shiniest AI car that can drive you anywhere you want to go,” Chavez said. “But if you don’t have a map — the problem you’re trying to solve — you’re not going to get anywhere effectively.”

Yet, even if legal technologists don’t immediately know the use case for an AI tool, they should be working on ways to solicit that feedback quickly. Another panelist, Christopher Fryer, Chief Information Officer at Hanson Bridgett, explained that when his firm was testing Microsoft Copilot, he saw quick interest among the human resources team — both because of the use case potential, but perhaps more importantly, because of weekly meetings the team would have to share worthwhile prompts and tips.

It’s an idea he’s taking forward to fully roll-out Copilot and other tools, with a monthly session in which attorneys can highlight to one another what they’ve learned. “One of the most important things you can do is gather those use cases and showcase them,” Fryer said.

Encouraging adoption

Even after a GenAI tool is selected, however, the work is far from done. Frost Brown’s Hashimoto said she approaches GenAI adoption as “not a technology project, it’s a change management project.” In one recent case, her firm’s attorneys were very excited about a new tool, and the firm was excited to provide training and licenses — until two months later, when Hashimoto noticed usage had dropped precipitously.

It was a case of mismatched expectations. “They thought that GenAI technology was something that would work like a washing machine. They would put the dirty clothes in, they would press the button, and they would get what they get,” Hashimoto said.

Undeterred, she and the Frost Brown Todd team retooled. They relaunched the tool internally with a team of 24 specifically chosen lawyers across various practice areas. The attorneys dedicated between two and four hours a week to dive into the technology; and crucially, the firm would give them up to 30 billable hours credit for doing so. Hashimoto’s team was there for white glove help, but not to tell people how to do things because they wanted attorneys to adopt the tool in ways that would fit with their pre-existing work.

“That vulnerability approach really worked,” she explained, adding that the attorneys would “learn from each other much better than the formal training sessions.”

This can make encouraging adoption even more difficult for legal technologists, noted Chavez of Sheppard Mullin. “The hardest part of this current period right now is that the technology is the easy side,” he said. “The harder part is making your knowledge and your mastery an approachable asset for the attorneys.”

They thought that GenAI technology was something that would work like a washing machine. They would put the dirty clothes in, they would press the button, and they would get what they get.

For his part, Chavez said that he’s spent much of the past year simply trying to be available within the firm, even to the point of being “annoying.” Even if attorneys learn best from one another, the technology function can still be a helpful ear in a time of need. Plus, simply by being available, firm technologists can more easily capture precious data.

“We created those spaces for the attorneys to come by and say, ‘I was thinking of doing 1, 2, and 3, how can AI help me?’” Chavez said. “And that’s where you collect your use cases.”

Supporting ongoing iteration

Indeed, law firm technologists may be operating with a dearth of data in the early days of the GenAI lifecycle. Hanson Bridgett’s Fryer acknowledged that not many have figured out the magic formula to measure GenAI’s ROI. For now, he’s focused on a path to building ROI in the future: Start small, build those wins, and have a story that people can rally around.

“I would not lead with this as an efficiency tool, because every time I do with a partner, they walk away,” Fryer said. Instead, he’s approaching GenAI an idea-generation tool. “In order to build ROI, you have to have a story, and you have to have something that people will listen to.”

In these early GenAI days, the panel suggested that it’s important for firm leaders to know where to focus their efforts. Hashimoto said she sorts attorneys into four general buckets: i) those who are skeptical that AI can perform any type of legal work; ii) those who don’t care and will continue to use their old processes; iii) those who are far ahead and know everything about the technology already; and iv) those who may be skeptical but are also interested in seeing where AI can help.

It’s with that last category where Hashimoto has found the most success. To continue to nurture adoption, she’ll make sure to schedule follow-up meetings with these attorneys to both see whether they’re using a tool effectively but also to ensure they know her team is available to help.

After all, her project management role — and the role of most legal technologists — is to respond directly to what their firm’s stakeholders need. And that maxim has not changed with GenAI, she said. “Every time you talk to an attorney interested in GenAI, really understand where they’re coming from and then speak from their standpoint of where GenAI can help them.”

You can find more of our past coverage from ILTA eventsÌęhere

The International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) , coming at the end of April, is set to explore these advancements through a careful focus on training and experiential learning — two pillars that should be central to legal technology education in any setting.

5 concepts reshaping the legal profession

First, we want to explore five critical educational concepts — a few of the many — that are reshaping the legal profession and briefly highlight how to support the need for training and upskilling in these areas.

1. The necessity of GenAI literacy

GenAI is either already revolutionizing or is at least well positioned to revolutionize the way legal professionals conduct research, draft documents, oversee operational aspects of law firm administration and managing client interactions. The American Bar Association (ABA) is already developing emerging rules for AI governance, underscoring the urgency of integrating this knowledge into legal education. In addition, the European Union and several US states also are leading the way in this area.

Beyond theoretical understanding, the profession requires hands-on training to effectively use well-known AI tools such as Microsoft Copilot and ChatGPT, legal domain-specific tools, and many others. These tools can automate routine tasks like contract drafting and data analysis but require an understanding of some of the potential pitfalls and the need for monitoring within the course of using AI to avoid biases, hallucinations, privacy and confidentiality violations, and more.

These experiential learning concepts are most helpful in training legal professionals. Mock scenarios and can prepare students to harness these tools effectively while understanding the ethical considerations that accompany their use.

At ILTA EVOLVE 2025, for example, attendees can expect practical demonstrations and real-world case studies on GenAI applications. Indeed, GenAI is not just about efficiency, it’s about transforming the way professionals approach legal work. To stay competitive, legal professionals need both a conceptual framework and the practical skills to leverage this technology responsibly.

2. Addressing emerging cybersecurity risks

With law firms serving as repositories for highly sensitive client information while working on complex transitions requiring confidentiality, cybersecurity is a cornerstone of modern legal practice. The escalating sophistication of cyber-threats demands that legal professionals understand concepts like information governance, data breach response, and emerging cyber-risk areas, both from the offensive and defensive perspectives of the discipline.

Legal education programs must go beyond theoretical discussions to do a deep dive into technology and offer actionable training in areas such as , cybersecurity protocols, and risk mitigation strategies. The Dark Web, facial recognition technology, and cited by US law enforcement should also be elements of this education.

ILTA EVOLVE 2025’s agenda places cybersecurity front and center, technology providers develop hands-on workshops and simulations for attendees that mirror real-world cyber incidents. Not surprisingly, the legal profession is uniquely vulnerable to cyberattacks and protecting client data must be a top priority. Education around cybersecurity issues is not optional — it’s an ethical and professional obligation.

3. Developing information governance expertise

Information governance — the effective management of information assets — is increasingly critical for law firms as they navigate complex regulatory environments. Poor information governance not only risks non-compliance but also undermines a firm’s operational efficiency and client trust.

Educational events are served well by prioritizing this area and offering sessions and workshops that combine theoretical frameworks with practical exercises. The ILTA EVOLVE 2025 conference dedicates several sessions to this topic, helping attendees understand the lifecycle of information management from creation to disposal.

4. Emerging standards and legal technology ethics

As technology evolves, so too do the standards and ethical considerations that govern its use. The ABA’s emerging rules on AI such as and other frameworks like ISO 42001 offer guiding principles, but legal professionals need more than awareness. They need actionable insights into how these standards affect their day-to-day work. Consider the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and also well-known acts such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). These standards and regulations are ever-changing, and engaging with industry experts to understand compliance is an important element for all legal technologists.

Legal education should also examine both the ethical implications and practical applications of emerging standards. Potentially, moot compliance audits or real-life past use cases may emerge as innovative ways to engage event attendees with these concepts as well as sessions that break down these standards into practical applications.

5. The value of experiential learning

Experiential learning opportunities — whether in law schools, professional organizations, or conferences — enable participants to build confidence and competence in real-world settings. For example, workshops that simulate AI-assisted litigation or cybersecurity breach response can prepare legal professionals to navigate complex scenarios with agility and expertise.

There is a broader need for experiential learning in legal education, where offering practical, technology-focused training is an element of increasing focus. For example, one of the standout features of ILTA EVOLVE 2025 is its focus on experiential learning that includes four hands-on workshops to give participants the opportunity to directly engage with cutting-edge tools and techniques.

The path forward for legal education

As the legal profession undergoes a profound transformation, education must adapt to prepare professionals for the challenges and opportunities ahead. Institutions must integrate experiential learning, emphasize emerging technologies, and provide actionable training that mirrors real-world demands.

By addressing key themes such as GenAI, cybersecurity, information governance, and emerging standards, educational events can equip attendees with actionable insights and set a benchmark for how legal education should evolve.

You can find out more about ILTA’s here

At the same time, however, there’s a recognition that not all GenAI implementations are created equal. And given the nascent nature of the technology, coupled with increased interest from law firm leadership who may be itching to push up adoption timelines, law firm technology teams saw in GenAI a project unlike anything they’ve seen before. The world of GenAI implementation has been one of shifting priorities, flexible goals, and a continual need for feedback and communication to make sure firms stay on the right track.

It’s akin to painting on the fly, noted the Designed for Success: Mastering the Art of Artificial Intelligence panel, at the 2024 (ILTACON). Yet, with careful consideration, the right brushes, and a whole lot of patience, some firms are creating their own GenAI masterpiece. Here’s how three large law firms approached their own blank canvas.

The initial design

When developing BakerHostetler’s GenAI program, Katherine Lowry, the firm’s Chief Information Officer and head of its IncuBaker tech subsidiary, said she may have been starting from a blank canvas in terms of the technology itself, but not in terms of people and process. Due to the firm starting IncuBaker in 2016, she already had a team she felt “could have iterative moments of looking at the technology and seeing if it’s a fit,” which helped when GenAI arrived.

Given their leg up, they were able to more quickly plug the technology into a seven-step innovation framework: Discover; Explore; Manage risk; Share knowledge; Experimentation; Monitor; and Release.

Given the nascent nature of the technology, coupled with increased interest from law firm leadership who may be itching to push up adoption timeline, law firm technology teams saw in GenAI a project unlike anything they’ve seen before.

Vishal Agnihotri, Senior Director of Knowledge and Innovation at Alston & Bird, said that the discover and explore phases were a bit different for this technology in particular. Compared to past technologies, Agnihotri said, “it feels like this one had the most hype or excitement attached with it.” As a result, rather than trying to convince the firm to use the technology, she found she had the opposite problem: “We were not saying it was magic, there is a lot of hard work,” Agnihotri explained. “It’s a very interesting thing to work around when you’re used to pitching technologies for years in your firm.”

At Crowell & Moring, Chief Innovation and Value Officer Alma Asay said the firm tackled this problem by encouraging experimentation — in an ethical way. The firm used GenAI early for “legal-adjacent” work that did not contain client information, and then that evolved into experimentation within Microsoft’s Azure system, which allowed for more contained use case development.

During this period, Asay added, leadership meetings commonly revolved around the question: “What technologies can we use safely so we can start to push the envelope, and which do we need to be more cautious about?”

Build vs. buy

With the discovery and exploration period firmly underway, the ILTACON panel noted that in the middle of 2023, discussions started to move towards implementation and adoption — or more crucially, the decision whether to build their own technology or purchase it from outside providers.

Asay says that she was in the buy-mindset upon joining the firm in 2021, especially as the former founder of a legal technology company herself. However, she found that with GenAI, the tools were so new and there were few options for what the firm wanted to do, that “we didn’t want to spend speculative cash” in hopes that the tools would catch up.

Instead, Crowell leaned on Microsoft’s tools on the back end and utilized low-code development to build their own technology, rather than slow down development. “It was really just that sense we wanted to keep pushing forward,” she said.

At Alston & Bird, Agnihotri said the firm wanted to take a multi-pronged approach. First, similar to Crowell, they built with an Azure and OpenAI back-end, which “will get us warmed up and trained enough to understand how to do this.” Second, the firm “didn’t want to try and emulate content powerhouses,” so for use cases requiring large amounts of legal data, it would “evaluate those tools on their merits.” Finally, firm leadership looked at buying legal use cases from Microsoft itself — a new option, given how Microsoft’s tools can be adopted directly to legal use cases easier than ever before.

“This is different from any other technology that we have explored or rolled out, because the dust is still settling on all this.”

Of course, this decision will be different at every firm, and notably all three firms on the panel are global in scope. No matter the size of firm, however, it’s worth exploring where it might fall on Gartner’s in regard to GenAI, said BakerHostetler’s Lowry, estimating that her “strategic mindset would be that we’re going to be 80% to 90% consumption.”

She also found that with GenAI, there were more opportunities to embed and extend technologies further than she would have anticipated. For example, when talking with GenAI vendors, she realized “we could build as fast as they could build.” However, even if a firm can build GenAI tools, that’s not always the answer: “We can build that. Do we want to? Maybe not.”

Picking and choosing spots

The panel agreed that GenAI will have a crucial place in the law firm of the future. Exactly where that place is, however, remains to be seen. “This is different from any other technology that we have explored or rolled out, because the dust is still settling on all this,” explained Agnihotri, adding that her firm has received mixed client signals regarding GenAI.

In some cases, she said, attorneys would receive RFPs from the firm’s business development team that mentioned AI, along with outside counsel guidelines restricting its use from the same client on the same day. Ultimately, rather than rolling out GenAI to every client matter, Agnihotri explained that “we’re always looking for a signal from the client for interest.”

Crowell’s Asay agreed, joking that she has a four-year-old that is really into the game, The floor is lava. “And I feel like I’m playing that all day, every day, with generative AI.”

Even internally, she said, she realized she was at risk of losing people’s trust with a scattered rollout. The firm started using ChatGPT, then rolled out its own proprietary Crowell AI soon after, then mandated training on Crowell AI or users would lose the access they already had. She worried attorneys might not appreciate all the external forces mandating these rapid changes.

“I had to be very open with people and say, I know we’re asking a lot of you, it’s the nature of what we’re doing here,” she noted. “And I was really amazed with the willingness of attorneys to roll with it.”

Agnihotri added that these stops and starts aren’t likely to change soon, even as GenAI as a whole maintains momentum forward. She said Alston & Bird adopted a mantra familiar to those in the northern United States and Canada: Drive carefully in snowy and icy conditions, because that’s when GenAI is today.

“You never hit the brakes,” she said. “Gen AI’s journey was you can never hit the brakes, because that’s not an option, but you can’t go full speed ahead either.”

You can find more here.

Of course, in actuality, AI won’t actually kill law firm profits, mostly because law firms and their attorneys are extremely adaptable, and they will find ways to replace the legal tasks being done by AI with higher-value and more fulfilling work.

However, there is a caveat to this, of course: To move on to that higher-value work, the firm’s pre-existing work has to be worthwhile. That’s where data comes in — not only to ensure that AI and new technology solutions work correctly, but to ensure that the work which law firms do is correctly valued and in line with the firm’s strategic direction and focus on profitability.

At the (ILTACON) session, The Cost of Doing Business: Data Supported Profitability, representatives from three law firms broke down how they are using data to ensure their firm’s work is profitable — a job that’s sometimes easier said than done.

Make it actionable

Today, law firms have a treasure trove of data at their fingertips. Whether it’s litigation analytics, transactional workflows, or internal marketing and business development inquiries, lawyers in many cases have more reports and dashboards than they know what to do with.

There’s a problem with that, however, noted Andrew Gastwirth, Chief Information Officer at DLA Piper, because many of those reports are siloed and backwards looking. When he joined the firm seven years ago, he said that

one of his first initiatives was to “get out of email and get into workflows.”

“If it’s not actionable, you’re just collecting data for the sake of collecting data. We have to make a really big move to stop doing that,” Gastwirth said. Instead, law firms should be providing areas in which people can look at the same data at the same time, and put the data in the context of the larger business rather grouping it by individual clients.

Martha Louks, Director of Technology Services at McDermott Discovery, a subsidiary of law firm McDermott Will & Emery, said that something as simple as a help desk ticketing system is beneficial. At first, when McDermott introduced a more formalized help desk workflow, there was pushback because, naturally enough, everybody just wanted their own individual problems fixed quickly.

“If it’s not actionable, you’re just collecting data for the sake of collecting data. We have to make a really big move to stop doing that.”

Soon, however, having this additional workflow meant the firm had a whole new slew of numbers to analyze. And they found by searching the help desk tickets that people were burned out, especially project managers. The billable hours weren’t reflecting any sort of change, but upon closer inspection, the number of cases each day had increased significantly.

Indeed, the firm was losing billable time because of how much these managers simply needed to switch from one task to another. “The billable time was flat, and we were not capturing as much as we could have or should have,” Louks explained.

Costs and profit

In many cases, law firms not only struggle to get a handle on billable time, but also the cost side of the equation. At McDermott, Louks said she undertook a major initiative to not only determine the standard costs of an e-discovery matter, but also the costs that often aren’t captured: write offs, write downs, and value-adds. “All of it is a cost to the business,” she said, adding that it’s not often thought of that way since it’s not easily measurable.

This need to standardize and accurately measure costs was a major issue at DLA Piper as well, Gastwirth added, and it was a major reason why he pushed the firm to move to the cloud, for more standardized pricing, and also to move from a capital expenditures economic model for technology to an operational expenditures model. As a result, “my spend has become incredibly predictable, with fewer peaks and valleys,” he said.

Of course, this isn’t a panacea for everything. Cloud services can also be more expensive in some cases, for example. Plus, when it comes to the in-sourcing/outsourcing question, it often comes down to scale on operating expenses compared to licensing fees, the panel suggested.

All in all, managed services don’t add to a firm’s infrastructure, Louks explained, but “when you involve more help, it does tend to cost more money. It’s a challenge.” And if a firm has a good sense of its usage and what it’s measuring, it’s better able to make a decision. “It’s a delicate balance.”

“If you’re not specific in the problem that you’re trying to solve with AI or automation, you will fail.”

With proper measurement of these costs, firms are better able to make a true profitability decision — in some cases, that may even mean treating technology as that write-off or value add.

Monique Sever, Litigation Support & eDiscovery Supervisor at Canadian midsize law firm Harper Grey, said her firm’s stated strategy is “to gain the trust of our clients in order to service them best,” which means a more personal service because it’s a midsize firm. The result is that the firm has to be strategic about where it generates profit: a large and profitable insurance defense client, for instance, may mean that e-discovery is often a write-off or value add, Sever said.

In this way, technology is not necessarily a profit center, but a strategic investment to better serve the overall profit interests of the firm; however, any technology interests should also be careful to track so the firm can see where those trade-offs occur.

“We also do want to get credit,” McDermott’s Louks said. “There’s a cost to all of that. I can actually quantify and say how much this is costing us per year so the firm can make an informed choice.”

The future of profitability

AI is not going to fundamentally change how law firms function, the panel agreed, but there will be benefits. “It’s going to be an enhancement for the way that we work,” DLA Piper’s Gastwirth said.

At the same time, however, any AI or generative AI implementation needs to be done with the firm’s overall strategy and profitability in mind. “If you’re not specific in the problem that you’re trying to solve with AI or automation, you will fail,” Gastwirth said, adding that he always asks two questions of any technology project. First, are we in this business? For example, if the firm doesn’t want to be an email hosting provider, it should outsource that capability.

Second, is this a 24-7 requirement? “If it is, it’s got to go out of the house,” he said, citing network and security operations, in which the firm has a core team. ÌęDLA Piper also supplements these operations so the firm does not worry about being called all the time.

Gastwirth said he was “shocked” about the understanding of profitability within legal, but notes that it doesn’t have to be that way. Today’s law firm leaders, he said, should be “refocusing the firm overall that you really are running a business.”

And technology can play a key part, but only when properly slotted into the firm’s overall profitability strategy. As Gastwirth stated, quoting from a Microsoft colleague: “A fool with a tool is still a fool.”

You can find more about how GenAI can impact professional services here.

As a result, it’s perhaps not surprising that many mid-size and large law firms now have dedicated information governance (IG) policies in place. For many firms, however, the issue comes with taking the next step: What do we actually do with our IG policy to help guide the firm?

A session at theÌę titled, You have an IG policy in place, now how do you manage compliance? looked to help answer that key question. The five law firm panelists, all members of a group known as the Law Firm Information Governance Symposium that has developed on the subject, noted that while many firms may pay lip service to IG concepts, a functioning program can take a lot of hard work.

“In my career, IG is sometimes not so easy to accomplish,” said Leigh Isaacs, Senior Director of Information Governance at .

Achieving buy-in with communication

Jill Sterbakov, Information Governance Compliance Attorney at , said she often gets the question of how often a traditional records room can transform into a modern information governance team. She estimates that “if you can secure the buy-in you need, the resources you need, in a large firm it should take about 3-5 years to develop an advanced program,” but that’s with one caveat: It requires full-firm buy-in.

“You need to sell before you can build,” Sterbakov added, noting that this doesn’t just mean going to GCs or managing partners for leadership input. “If you’re walking into an organization and you’re building an IG program, you really need to go to the practice group leaders and sell to them.”

Isaacs agreed, noting that data professionals need to “understand the culture and politics of the firm so you really know where to start.” She said that being a good listener is an underrated key skill. “If I’m taking a position where I’m coming in and telling you what medicine to take because it’s good for you, I might get some resistance to that,” she explained.

This means that all proper IG plans should include both two-way communication and a proper information program around the firm’s information governance goals. Karen Allen, Information Governance Manager at , called this the “user education” portion. “I try to avoid the word training because when you say training, people run and hide,” Allen said, adding that this education around proper IG etiquette should be baked into every interaction. “It’s not one and done, [or] a once-a-year type of thing.”

In fact, law firm IG professionals should think outside the box about ways to get this training across, she explained. In one conversation, she noted, she brought actual Legos into the office to illustrate a point about how cloud architecture works.

Sterbakov also added that the firm’s internal calendar has become her friend. “I can see, oh the Philadelphia L&E group is meeting on March 3. So, I can go to the practice group leader and say, can I grab five minutes of that meeting?”

Technology and obligations

Panel moderator Michele Gossmeyer, Global Director, Information Governance, Risk and Compliance at , noted that law firms can’t lead with technology — it’s people and processes that need to drive technology’s use. That said, the panel agreed that the technology is an important component to making sure an IG program runs smoothly.

That’s why one of her most crucial relationships within the firm is with its IT team, Allen said, citing an example from her previous firm of building a dashboard with the IT staff to identify where data lived on employees’ computers. The dashboard allowed her to identify potential governance problems, such as: “I have a senior partner who has 40 gigs on my documents on their desktop and 12 documents in the DMS.”

That visibility was only possible with the technology and collaborative efforts with IT, Allen said. “They know where a lot of the stuff is, even if they don’t know why it’s important to us.”

Isaacs agreed, saying that she even brought IT into her IG education efforts, adding that “now we’ve got a nice cross-section of training.”

Data maps and visibility into data usage that technology provides can provide ammo in tough conversations with leadership, Sterbakov of Morgan Lewis said, citing, for example, that it’s “not just this one guy [putting things on C-drive] but 50% of the firm is doing this.” She added that people “always think they’re a unique situation” to get away with non-compliance but explaining the importance of compliance with “this is what we’re telling our clients and our insurer” can help get them back on track.

Indeed, the panelists pointed to data compliance requirements within outside counsel guidelines (OCGs) as a periodic burden, but also as a potential weapon for enforcing IG policies. James Merrifield, Director of Information Governance & Business Intake at , touts OCGs as a way to drive buy-in, “because now it’s not just important to the firm, but to the client.”

Sterbakov noted she reads every OCG that comes into the firm “and they’re getting more and more sophisticated what they’re asking to do. [And] if we accept those outside counsel guidelines, we’re telling them we’re doing that.”

Sound overwhelming? It certainly can be, especially as data governance technology is still continuing to evolve. But Merrifield said his key to satisfying disparate IG requirements within OCGs is to start small, perhaps by taking the firm’s largest 20 clients and certifying those requirements are satisfied first before building out.

Indeed, taking the next step in IG can potentially difficult, especially for those firms without ample technology or staffing resources. But Wiley’s Allen — herself the sole person fully responsible for IG within her firm — said data and records professionals shouldn’t be afraid to ask for help. “I have tentacles everywhere else that can help me get done what I need to get done,” she said. “Even as a party of one, that doesn’t mean you can’t staff your program.”

As a result, many law firms today have undertaken initiatives to not only clean up their data but find ways to put that data to work. At the , five law firm leaders revealed unique and creative initiatives that can serve as a model to others looking to get the most out of their firms’ imperfect data.

Frost Brown Todd: The amazing race

For those not steeped in reality TV, CBS’s The Amazing Race is a show where contestants race around the world to solve challenges and reach the finish line ahead of their competitors. So, when Cindy Bare, Chief Data & Innovation Officer of (FBT), began looking for a way to encourage attorneys to complete matter surveys in order to get more data into the firm’s system, she decided to “make data fun” with a play off the show.

FBT’s version of The Amazing Race was a weeklong competition in which teams of attorneys would virtually “travel” to different locations by completing five-minute matter surveys online. These teams would compete for the highest survey completion rates, and each day would be rewarded with a different exotic location (such as Mayan wonder ) that had some relevance to the attorneys (the firm had recently opened offices in California that had significant experience in Mexico).

Bare noted the initiative had a number of goals, including getting wide buy-in from across practice groups, solidifying the firm’s taxonomy of different industries, and most importantly, getting leadership buy-in. The clear focus from top-down leadership allowed not only tech-centric attorneys, but the entire firm, to see the importance of inputting matter data. “If it’s not tied to strategy,” Bare adds, “why would anybody care about doing it?”

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe: Apples to apples

Cal Yeaman, Project Attorney with ’s Analytics team, had a problem. His team had a number of current and prospective technology vendors, particularly in litigation and e-discovery, and collected metrics from them all. But in many cases, the metrics they collected weren’t necessarily comparable, with differing contract terms and pricing, and varying qualitative experiences based on an individual’s personal experience.

The firm turned to a data solution that may seem simple yet turned out to be highly effective: an Excel sheet. Yeaman and the Orrick Analytics team created a sheet that analyzed seven different e-discovery pricing models for each vendor, allowing for direct comparisons on what each offered. The sheet also allows for qualitative KPIs, such as who has a project management team, who has a great tool for image collection searches, and more.

“Being able to not only have the data elements speak to each other
 but being able to marry that with the qualitative factors that make somebody a winning collection,” says Yeaman.

From there, the Orrick team can drill down to make more discrete decisions — such as which vendors and pricing models will work for each practice group. Having this source of truth “really opens a dialogue and a collaborative way of working with our vendor partners,” Yeaman explains, adding that it’s no longer all on one person to be the e-discovery vendor expert in the firm. “Having this kind of complex and scary and expensive thing translated into terms that are easily understood and comparable, and having the expert in the room, helps alleviate a lot of that stress.”

Crowell & Moring: Diving into diversity

When Alma Asay started as ’s Chief Innovation and Value Officer about two years ago, she says had a few distinct goals. The first was structural: She wanted to argue for a data warehouse that could be the single source of data truth for the firm. Then, once that was in place, she wanted to build new applications of that data that was now collected in one place — such as for firm diversity and utilization metrics.

The first piece was difficult, Asay says, explaining that creating a warehouse from scratch took a lot of manual searching and engineering, such as finding pieces of data across the firm and how to combine them. Where there were no data points, it was on Asay’s team try to define the data they needed and how to gather it.

From there, the team design reports and leveraged existing data for new purposes. With the data warehouse, Asay said, data movement became fast, accurate, centralized, and fluid. For example, the firm’s old diversity policy said that the firm could use employee data, but only if the firm checked with the individual first — a process that was inefficient and unhelpful.

So first the firm created new policies that were clear, simple, and easy to administer and standardize. The result: an increase from 70% of attorneys self-reporting their data to 96%. The new policies “gave people the comfort level needed to share that information” while still giving the data team what they needed.

Troutman Pepper: Bringing it together

Working with ’s high-volume transactional group, Director of Firm Intelligence Keli Whitnell had a unique problem. The group actually had excellent data hygiene for collecting deal data, with a repository stretching back years. The problem: The group didn’t have much insight into that data or ways to make direct comparisons using the data.

The question became, Whitnell says, simply “how can we bring this information together, so we have actionable insights for our attorneys?”

The answer is the result of a 10-year journey. The firm started a migration to a client management system (CMS) to manage information, which has evolved to create new forms for matter opening and integrate client data nightly. Whitnell’s team then created a dashboard with the CMS, building out an overlay that includes both financial information and the firm’s matter information, allowing the firm to better understand overall matter value as well as the value of potential referrals.

Now, Troutman can actually uncover business development opportunities, allowing it to pinpoint areas of lucrative business. “Not only do we understand the value of our own matters, but we can really start to leverage those referral relationships,” Whitnell says.

Goodwin Procter: Match game

David Hobbie, Director of Knowledge Management (Litigation) at , believes firms have data that can help solve one of the oldest law firm dilemmas: the work their attorneys are assigned to do every day. For example, Goodwin’s United Kingdom office noticed that some associates would get asked for work over and over again from the same partners, while others would fall by the wayside. Some associates would also only ever work with one or two partners, eschewing potential career development.

The several of the firm’s offices felt more data could give insight into how the solve the problem and created the Goodwin UK@Work project. While previous firm dashboards had allowed insights into attorney work at the individual level, Hobbie and his team developed an online visualization tool that allowed insights into practice groups, offices, and other slices of the firm as a whole, allowing for direct comparisons between attorneys.

Now, the latest iteration of the tool allows breakdowns by client, billable hours and matters by client. The work-tracking dashboard allows search by practice group, individual search by detail, and creates a heat map that shows which associates are working on which matters.

The project was a success, Hobbie says, with broad, consistent usage over last six months. And not only did his team solve a distinct firm problem, but it also raised their profile within the firm as well. “They’re using it a lot, which is great,” he says. “I also got a nice atta boy! from the head of the London office to the COO.”