48 LEXPERT MAGAZINE
|
SEPTEMBER
/
OCTOBER 2018
| ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE |
views also revealed that:
Very few GCs were testing or implement-
ing AI systems;
Many GCs pursued new technology cau-
tiously absent demonstrable and tangible
benefit to their departments' operation
and efficiency;
e use of technology was uneven across
organizations, varying between jurisdic-
tions and departments;
Because law departments don't generate
revenue, new IT investment could be hard
to justify;
And, GCs are divided as to the long-term
practical benefits of AI.
e overall impression is that many
GCs are sitting back and waiting for their
external counsel to take the initiative. In-
deed, interviewers found that GCs would
like "a more proactive stance from law
firms in sharing the potential benefits of
AI — through testing, implementation
and cost saving."
According to Mark Rigotti, CEO of in-
ternational law firm Herbert Smith Free-
hills, writing in a firm publication entitled
Artificial Intelligence: e client perspective,
clients have "strong and varied views on
why their private practice firms need to
respond to new and potentially disruptive
technologies." Not only do clients believe
that AI will enhance efficiency, they be-
lieve that it will encourage "an enhanced
engagement" with their law firms: "Clients
want their law firms to move beyond tradi-
tional transactional lead delivery to a new,
more collaborative relationship model."
e upshot is that even as the clients
$150,000 at some form of soware and
treating it like it's a legal tech solution just
so they can say they're innovative," he says.
"at approach borders on disingenuous
and serves to point out that the biggest
challenge facing legal tech is that it is being
used as a band-aid instead of improving the
nuts and bolts of law firm processes."
Sukesh Kamra, a lawyer and the Toron-
to-based National Director, Knowledge
Management, at Norton Rose Fulbright
Canada LLP, agrees that progress is un-
even. "What we're seeing is a true monu-
mental disruption, where a culture based
on precedent and conservative attitudes
has had to open up and embrace change on
many fronts, including legal tech, pricing,
staffing and compensation," he says. "It's a
complete revolution for which some firms
are more ready than others."
Norton Rose Fulbright appears to be
in the ready group. e firm recently
launched "Parker," an interactive chat-
bot that will guide clients in determin-
ing their exposure and obligations under
mandatary Canadian data breach laws
and new regulations that will come into
effect on Nov. 1 under the Personal In-
formation Protection and Electronic Docu-
ments Act (PIPEDA). "Parker is a tool built
on the IBM Watson platform that helps
organizations understand whether they
are subject to certain privacy laws," says
Ryan Berger, the Vancouver-based based
co-chair of Norton Rose Fullbright's data
and privacy group.
e Canadian release follows on the
success of Parker in Australia, where the
program originated, and its subsequent
modification to answer questions about
the new European data protection law,
the General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR), which came into effect on May
25, 2018. Parker's GDPR version, devel-
oped by Norton Rose's Australian arm, is
primarily aimed at multinational business-
es that need to determine whether and how
the new law applies to them.
If the Australian and GDPR versions are
any indication, Parker will be an unquali-
fied success in Canada. e first 24 hours of
Parker Australia's December 2017 launch
drew more than 1,000 conversations to
the chatbot, with the number rising to
5,976 over the next six months. For its part,
GDPR Parker rang up 3,826 conversations
drive the bus from the back seat, they ex-
pect law firms to steer the course and keep
the tank full. Whether or not clients' laid-
back tendencies will impair the voyage re-
mains to be seen. What seems indisputable,
however, is that there is no sense sending an
e-mail to someone without a computer, or a
spreadsheet to someone who can't navigate
Excel. All the more so in the case of AI,
whose "machine learning" capabilities are
oen rooted in continuing input from as
many stakeholders as possible.
Still, the fact remains that clients drive
the bus. To their credit, some firms have
responded to clients' demands for innova-
tion by exploring the possibilities of tech-
nology aggressively.
Yet Chris Bentley, Managing Director
of the Legal Innovation Zone and Law
Practice program at Ryerson University
in Toronto, is concerned about the pace
of adoption. "ere's certainly more and
more discussion, feelers and entreaties re-
lated to legal tech, and there are some real
leaders in the profession," he says. "But
while there are islands of progress within
the established law firm legal community
and corporate legal departments, on the
whole lawyers aren't proceeding at the pace
or urgency that is required."
Matthew Peters, the Vancouver-based
National Leader, Markets at McCarthy
Tétrault LLP, says that the pressure on law
firms to innovate may be creating the im-
pression that individual firms are further
along the tech curve than they assert they
are. "ere are people who are throwing
– MATTHEW PETERS
MCCARTHY TÉTRAULT LLP
"There are people
who are throwing
$150,000 at some
form of software
and treating it like
it's a legal tech
solution just so
they can say they're
innovative. That
approach borders
on disingenuous…"
