Today we will provide information and reviews about The Real Non-Lawyer “Ownership” Question: Who Should Own Cloud Rule-Based Technology Vendors?
Read the following article to get more information.
Is non-lawyer ownership of law firms becoming a reality in the US? That’s the question raised by Andy Dawes of Riverview Law’s presentation on alternative legal business models and non-lawyer firms at the Clio User Conference, and summed up perfectly by Sam Glover at Lawyerist.
Although the issue of non-lawyer ownership has many implications for the legal justice system and for solos and small firms, I did not hear much about non-lawyer ownership from the conference attendees, an audience that consisted primarily of Clio’s small sole proprietorship. User base. Perhaps that’s because the ABA’s latest kibosh on non-lawyer ownership means that any conversation about non-lawyer ownership in the US is theoretical at best for the next few years, at least. Or maybe it’s because Cleo’s attorney users have practical concerns—and are more interested in learning more about the ins and outs of Cleo and how to improve its use in their practices than debating the pros and cons of non-lawyer ownership. That makes sense.
But just because lawyers aren’t focused on the issue of non-lawyer ownership doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter. completely reverse. One of the reasons the non-lawyer ownership debate has taken on new intensity is money. Dows’ presentation noted that investors in the UK have invested millions of dollars in alternative business structures (ABS) and other similar models in Australia and the UK. And as I noted earlier, the race is on for access to venture capital to promote access to justice. With legal “vertical” technology (a fancy name for a certain industry space) so hot, we’re standing on the brink of a potential $300 billion goldmine that’s quietly but steadily gaining investor interest. And with the SEC’s recent issuance of crowdfunding rules, we may see even more growth as many legal tech startups are small enough to take advantage of the JOBS Act changes.
Either way, the point is that today’s legal tech market is dynamic—and between the influx of capital and technology changes, the systems and platforms that emerge today will be very different from those of tomorrow. In addition, what will also change are the players themselves as existing companies look for ways to grow, while new players look for opportunities to buy their way into legal technology markets. This brings me to a topic that lawyers should be thinking about: who are the companies that own the cloud-based attorney management (LPM) and other cloud-based products that we use in our work every day. . Will today’s household names – Houdini, Cleo and Rocket Mad – remain independent, independent entities? Or they are bought by companies that focus on broader cloud-based professional services other than legal (such as the purchase of AppFolio MyCase) or other legal giants such as Bloomberg, LEXIS or Thompson Reuters (which, remember, snapped up LPO Pangea). And of course, let’s not forget that a cloud-based company can also be involuntarily liquidated as a result of financial bankruptcy.
When it comes to cloud-based LPM systems that serve the individual and small business market, the buying potential is high. Even Clio’s 20,000 users (the number reported at the Clio conference) still pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of users on more public platforms — all of which are eyeing the legal space (as evidenced by the AppFolio acquisition. Google’s new Vault to facilitate Box.net’s e-discovery and growing focus on law firms has been taken into account. Don’t get me wrong – I’m excited about the collection of cloud vendors that not only cater to singles and small businesses, but also actively seek input and feedback. .but realistically, I also have to wonder about the sustainability of products designed only for singles and smalls, as our professional sector has already lived with over-purchasing (and subsequent service degradation) of other tech tools for my convenience. to be
In any case, what matters now is that with all this volatility, the identity as well as the current and future ownership of the company to which lawyers entrust their cloud data matters. First, although none of today’s cloud subscribers require long-term contracts, once attorneys upload thousands of files to a particular platform, they likely won’t be moving anytime soon. So if a cloud firm is acquired by a larger firm with different ideas about functionality or product features, attorneys may find themselves locked into a very different system than the one they signed up for. A larger firm also may not have the same commitment to upgrading or improving a newly purchased system—a problem lawyers faced even in the pre-cloud days of LPM tools.
Acquisitions can also have consequences for customer data. Today, cloud providers store millions of pieces of confidential attorney-client documents, as well as key (not necessarily confidential) data on questions like how much attorneys charge, how long a case might take, or what keywords lead to client conversions. they save As far as I’ve seen, all of today’s major cloud players in the legal vertical market take customer confidentiality very seriously—but the acquiring company may not feel that commitment. Indeed, the fact that cloud platforms support so many transactions and collect so much “big data” likely makes them a desirable acquisition target.
Finally, early players such as Legal Zoom and Rocket Lawyer have already raised significant capital and are looking to build attorney-based subscription programs and networks to fuel continued growth. These companies could look at buying a cloud-based platform populated with legal users as a way to bring solos/smalls into their network system (which from what I can tell includes smalls at discounted rates).
Keep in mind that none of this should stop lawyers from going with the cloud—we just need to be strategic and smart about choosing a provider. In addition to a checklist of ethical considerations for choosing a cloud provider (which most of today’s leading companies are familiar with), attorneys also evaluate the provider’s business model and future plans for growth. No, you don’t need to hire a business analyst – but at the very least, take the time to do some due diligence on your cloud provider. Browse analyst opinions (if any) on sites like Tech Crunch and follow the growth of the cloud-based market as well. Also, don’t assume that buying from a provider like LEXIS or Westlaw, with a background in the legal space, is necessarily superior to a firm that serves small businesses or other similar verticals. What matters most is whether the firm adopting cloud technology devotes resources to continuing to improve the product, respects the unique ethical obligations of lawyers, and most importantly, is committed to providing individual and small services, even if they are only a small percentage. form them. Users and revenues
Call me old fashioned, but I’m still one of the few lawyers who firmly believes that law is a profession – and should remain so. But technology is blurring the lines of profession/business, meaning lawyers are subject to the same real-world rules and considerations that apply to any other business. Just as a large firm carefully vets any product before purchasing, today’s attorneys can no longer rely on the recommendations of colleagues or attorneys when searching for providers. Instead, we must contribute our necessary efforts to fully protect our companies and, most importantly, our customers. It’s certainly a heavy burden – but in my opinion, it’s a fair price to pay for access to today’s amazing technological tools that have allowed me – and all lawyers – to significantly improve the quality of the legal services we provide to clients. I will improve
