Month: March 2019

As corporate leaders, in-house counsel are faced with the challenge of determining which new technologies can bring the biggest impact to their operations. As we hear from in-house lawyers and others who have contributed to this survey, AI and other forms of technology can enhance in-house legal departments in many ways: due diligence review, first-draft contract preparation, contract management, legal operation analysis, litigation analysis, legal research and much more. AI can create efficiencies in previously labour-intensive legal processes, and therefore provide counsel with the luxury of time for problem solving and applying legal judgement and analysis.

But the pace with which technologies are developed necessitates a complicated analysis of return on investment, and whatever path is chosen is always done so with risk.

These new processes will certainly influence change within in-house departments and law firms alike. Focusing on where time is best spent and developing a strong base objective is only the tip of the iceberg as these developments continue. Going forward, the legal leaders in organisations will be constantly tasked with seeking technologies that best fit their unique business needs and objectives.

The key for decision makers will be to strategically choose and implement systems and processes that unlock the true potential of their teams, and point the way to the future of their organisations. It will require a change of mindset.

As a strategic business partner to in-house counsel and our members, WSG makes technology and innovation a cornerstone of its core service objectives. With immediate access to distinguished professionals and the real-time sharing of leading-edge information, we support firms and clients in their ability to capitalise on business objectives.

As customers, professionals in and around the legal profession – such as those leaders featured in these pages – will be arbiters of the success, or otherwise, of new tools, applications and services. Professionals such as these are at the helm of this potentially unbounded – yet risky – integration as machines and humans share everyday challenges.

WSG congratulates those who participated in this report, and thanks them for their keen analysis of new technologies – and the future of the industry.

Francesco Gianni

Founding Partner Gianni, Origoni, Grippo, Cappelli & Partners Chairman

World Services Group

The proliferation of blockchain technology has forced nearly every sector to re-examine traditional ways of doing business. Nowhere is the potential more apparent, or the sector more traditional, than in the negotiation, creation and execution of contracts. If the blockchain evangelists are to be believed, the manner in which parties’ contract will be changing drastically in the not-too-distant future. But while a number of high-profile success stories illustrate the transformation potential of the technology, it’s clear that there is still a way to go.

Blockchain understood

To understand blockchain technology and the potential value that it brings to business, think of how an ordinary business transaction works: there is an agreement and exchange of goods or services between parties. Each party keeps their own ledger, which records the transaction. But because the ledgers are held independently, there is scope for discrepancy between them – be it through error, disagreement or fraud. Traditionally, this was mitigated by introducing a third party to the transaction – usually a bank. But reliance on a third party introduces cost and inefficiencies that need not be there if there was a way to create and maintain a singular, shared ledger – one that is equal parts transparent and secure.

Enter blockchain

A blockchain is a series of mathematical structures, inside which individual transactions are recorded. The record of each transaction – each ‘block’ – is mathematically contingent on the block that came before it. The transaction becomes a permanent part of the history of the blockchain and, in that way, it cannot be tampered with: once it is added to the blockchain, all subsequent transactions are recorded in relation to that block and all of the blocks that came before it. Following each transaction, the updated blockchain is distributed to each participant. In this way, blockchain becomes a decentralised ledger that is impossible to tamper with effectively: any attempt to change a record in the blockchain will put it at odds with the version held by every other participant in the blockchain, as well as all of the subsequent transactions that have been recorded.

Put simply, blockchain technology allows for a distributed, decentralised and secure ledger that eliminates the need for third parties, while providing a level of validity to participants that would otherwise have been impossible. It is this technology that has made cryptocurrency like Bitcoin a viable endeavour. But the applications of blockchain are far more varied.

Smart contracts

Smart contracts are one such innovation made possible by blockchain technology – though as a concept, smart contracts have existed since the early 90s. The idea is that instead of a paper contract – one that amounts to the words on a page and the interpretation that third parties give them – one could record a contract in the form of computer code. The code not only provides for the terms of the agreement, but the execution of it as well. When the obligations of one party are satisfied, the platform behind the contract will automatically release the benefit owed by the other party.

The key to smart contracts is decentralisation – there are no banks or other third parties involved in the execution of the agreement. The idea is to allow the creation and execution of a contract between two people to be as simple and direct as possible.

The obvious question follows: where is the smart contract actually stored and how can it be possibly be trusted?

Blockchain technology is the solution. The decentralised, theoretically uncompromisable central ledger makes for a perfect arbiter for the integrity of these agreements. Once coded, the smart contract is added to the blockchain ledger, with its integrity provided for in the same way as anything else on the blockchain. If the transaction calls for it, the money at stake can be paid by each party into the smart contract using cryptocurrency, at which point the contract will hold the money in escrow until the necessary conditions are satisfied.

In theory, removing the element of trust between parties to a contract should make for more reliability.

‘What we have realised is that smart contracts are rapidly becoming an alternative way to transact, with more than $10bn raised through smart contracts in the last 18 months,’ says Olga V. Mack, vice president of strategy at Quantstamp, a company working to build security infrastructure for blockchain-based smart contracts.

‘What we have also noticed is the rapid proliferation of this technology. The widely cited figure is that, globally, there were more than 500,000 smart contracts that existed one year ago. That number has grown to about five million that exist today. The use of smart contracts has been growing exponentially and is showing no sign of slowing down.’

Smart and secure

The trepidation surrounding blockchain and smart contracts is by no means limited to those that don’t understand it. Plenty of ardent advocates for the widespread adoption of this technology acknowledge that, like most innovations, users should exercise caution against overreliance.

The execution of the agreement is where the real value of smart contracts is realised, but the process of negotiating, agreeing and coding the contracts themselves necessarily requires a human element. As such, it is subject to the same kinds of vulnerabilities as virtually anything else. There have been a number of high-profile breaches and hacks brought about by improperly coded smart contracts that have resulted in the losses of millions of dollars. Because the process is decentralised, and the money is wrapped up in the contract itself, the normal process of testing, reporting on and fixing erroneous lines of code will not suffice. Smart contracts need to be airtight from day one.

The DAO is a smart contract protocol. By June 2016, over $250m worth of cryptocurrency had been invested in the DAO by nearly 20,000 individuals. On 17 June, a vulnerability in the core code of the protocol was exploited and used to drain over $50m in virtual currency.

Vulnerabilities in code are nothing new – even the most diligent traditional financial institutions commissioning software intended to govern staggering numbers of monetary transactions will not expect their code to be free of bugs or vulnerabilities. The potential for catastrophe should these vulnerabilities be exploited is limited: as soon as they are identified, they can be corrected and updated. But because smart contracts rely on the ever-present and immutable blockchain ledger, once a smart contract is let loose into the world, changing it becomes difficult, if not impossible.

This question has led to a burgeoning economy of auditors whose speciality is to review smart contract protocols in order to expose vulnerabilities. This isn’t perfect for the same reasons that any piece of code isn’t completely unexploitable, but the extra step of third-party verification may go a long way in making sure that would-be investors or end-users are confident.

Taking Blockchain In-House

Before taking on her new role as vice president of strategy at Quantstamp, Mack spent nearly a decade working as an in-house counsel, putting her in the unique position of being able to consider the impact of blockchain technology for corporate legal departments.

‘I think at a high level, the opportunity is not all that dissimilar from electronic signatures. I think it will free GCs to be more creative and more impactful on the business side. Smart contracts will be another tool at the disposal of the modern GC, but we’re probably not quite there yet – the infrastructure and platforms are being built as we speak,’ she says.

‘Once we figure out the platform protocol and infrastructure challenges, I would expect at that point the proliferation of applications to take place. It’s good for lawyers to get into this now, both to understand and frankly to help build it – so they are part of building applications as opposed to suffering the results of misinformed others building it.’

‘It’s certainly a revolution. But so far the most impressive applications I have seen are outside the legal world,’ adds Vincent Martinaud, counsel and legal manager at IBM. ‘The most advanced are in trade finance (we.trade consortium), global logistics (the cooperation with Maersk) and in the food ecosystem (Carrefour being the last eminent player joining Walmart, Nestlé and Unilever amongst others), and all these initiatives are underpinned by blockchain technology.’

The Maersk example that Martinaud refers to is TradeLens, the blockchain platform born out of a partnership between global shipping company Maersk and IBM. The aim is to bring the global supply chain into the future by using blockchain and smart contracts to enable smarter collaboration between importers, exporters, customs agencies and other governmental bodies to make international shipping a smoother process without compromising on auditability and security.

‘In the legal field, I don’t think there is anything comparable yet. I’m not saying smart contracts aren’t used or going to be used, but at this moment in time the technology is not as pervasive as in other, more mature sectors.’

It is not hard to imagine the potential uses of blockchain within the legal sphere: anything which relies on record-keeping between multiple parties could find value in the technology. Land registries, particularly in developing countries where record-keeping is beleaguered by inaccuracy and corruption, could be revolutionised, as could intellectual property registers around the world.

That blockchain technology hasn’t become a staple of the in-house toolkit makes sense: the broader business world is still working to realise its potential. It’s also a highly technical and often misunderstood area: while lawyers are used to quickly digesting and using foreign pieces of information, this is a different beast entirely.

As these innovations become increasingly common within business, lawyers will not only have to begin thinking about how they can be leveraged for use on their own in-house teams, but how they can put themselves in a position to give legal advice in a post-blockchain world.

This may not be a perfect fit for a profession that has long been accused of technological aversion.

Blockchain is a field where the two worlds of software development and legal expertise meet. As the applications of blockchain and smart contracts move towards the legal realm, the pressure is on for lawyers to grow their understanding of a field typically left to the CIO.

Gloria Sánchez Soriano, group vice president and head of transformation, legal at Santander, has considered how disruption of this kind might impact the kinds of lawyers that can thrive in in-house teams.

‘Lawyers, and the people we will be hiring in the future must be able to provide legal advice to innovative projects. If you don’t understand blockchain, it will be very difficult for you to provide advice on this. And we are also considering all this in our training programmes at the Santander Legal Academy,’ she says.

‘Santander has a department which is in charge of the legal advice of our innovation areas, but there are also many other areas – for example, corporate investment banking – which have just done a blockchain project with a very technological base, so the lawyers who were traditionally advising these businesses now need to be able to advise about technological issues.’

There is an appreciation among lawyers interviewed and surveyed for this report that while this technology will be important going forward, lawyers are currently not equipped to deal with the change. Just 14% of those surveyed felt that current lawyers were adequately equipped to deal with technological changes within their profession. 61% felt that they were not.

Ready or not, change is coming, but these changes don’t spell doom for the legal profession: they simply mean that there will need to be an adaptation.

‘I do think that it will transform the expectation of competency for lawyers. In doing so, I also ultimately think it will make our jobs more exciting so that we don’t have to do all those administrative things that can be minimised and we can really drive volume- and quality- generating for our businesses,’ says Mack.

‘I think the next 10-20 years will be an exciting time to practice law. We will have an impact, we will be true partners to other business units. There is an increasing trend for legal to be a partner, to be volume and quality generating and to measure all of that. I think this is a technology that will help us to get there sooner and will help legal to become embedded and solidify the support of any business.’

Trepidation and regulation

While businesses marvel at the potential of blockchain, governments around the world are fighting their own battles with the technology. With the potential of blockchain to have a major impact on many highly regulated areas of business, it is inevitable that a regulatory response is coming.

The philosophy at the foundation of blockchain already sits uneasily alongside current regulatory and governmental structures: for instance, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) dictates that individuals be able to request for their personal information to be deleted by those that hold it, yet the biggest draw of blockchain is the permanence of its record.

The anonymity that blockchain provides for cryptocurrencies also lends itself to use in more illegitimate endeavours. Tax evasion is a concern. Because cryptocurrency transactions are not easily attributable to individuals (if at all, depending on the currency being used) it makes it difficult for tax authorities to detect the lost tax revenue and punish those involved.

Then there’s the hard kind of criminality – money laundering, terrorist financing and drug dealing. For these, the EU has already taken steps to include cryptocurrency in the existing regulatory framework. The latest iteration of the EU’s Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD5) brought cryptocurrency exchanges and certain e-wallet providers within the scope of the regulation. It would put these entities in the same position as traditional firms when it comes to their obligations to implement preventative measures and report suspicious activity relating to money laundering. The new directive entered into force in July 2018, meaning that EU member states will be required to comply by 10 January 2020.

The AMLD5 is not comprehensive, and certain corners of the cryptocurrency world are not covered, including certain wallet providers and independent trading platforms. Also, being an EU creation, it is only applicable to EU member states. As adoption of this technology grows, the need for global collaboration will increase, given its borderless nature.

Other jurisdictions have taken a more suspicious view of the technology. China banned cryptocurrency entirely in 2017. In the same year, South Korea banned initial coin offerings and interested parties are now eagerly waiting to see how the government proceeds from here. Japan was one of the first countries to recognise Bitcoin as a currency, though regulators have been silent on other blockchain-backed innovations.

The tension at the heart of proposed cryptocurrency regulation is an old one. With convenience and efficiency at the core of the blockchain and smart contract value proposition, the inevitable attempt by world tax authorities to take their cut of these transactions may hinder the core draw of the technology. On the other side of the coin, is there really any need for complete anonymity when it comes to financial transactions? This tension will inevitably shape the approaches to regulation of blockchain technology and, ultimately, play a major role in uptake – both for in-house purposes and beyond.

The pressure on general counsel to innovate could be having a trickle-down effect on the external legal advisers they instruct.

The overwhelming majority – 91% – of in-house counsel surveyed for this report felt that it was important that their external advisers kept abreast of new technologies.

‘It is absolutely essential,’ says Gábor Kukovecz, head of legal and operations at Diageo. ‘The baseline is that we must be able to communicate very effectively with our external law firms. This requires that they use state-of-the-art communication and cloud-based collaboration software. In the near future, we will implement a collaboration software in which we work together with our external law firms that they must also fully implement.’

How important is it that your external law firms keep abreast of new technologies?

Despite there being a common recognition that it is an important factor, nearly as many in-house counsel reported that they didn’t know if their external providers were implementing technology to deliver their legal solutions (36%) as those that answered that they were (40%). Just 37% felt satisfied with the use of technology by external firms; 25% were not satisfied, and 38% were unsure.

As the conversation around alternative fee structures and the traditional firm-client relationship continues, many in-house counsel made the point that there is no reason that their efforts to reduce costs and increase efficiency via technology shouldn’t be replicated by their external counterparts. After all, in a number of ways, the GC is to the law firm as the business is to the GC – which is to say, the GC is the client and it should be incumbent on the firm to provide the best value for money.

‘Clients are no longer willing to pay for high numbers of billable hours when they are aware that many tasks can be done faster and cheaper,’ opined Tobiasz Adam Kowalczyk, head of legal at Volkswagen Poznan.

Are you satisfied with the use of technology by your external law firms?

‘Paralegals and associates who once devoted hours for document review can be now easily replaced by e-discovery processes. In a constant pursuit for efficiency and optimisation, clients expect more for less, which has made the legal market even more competitive. Fresh players have entered the market, providing clients with automated and cost-cutting solutions. I see automation as the way forward, making projects smarter and more efficient. Legal automation won’t be un-invented, and – eagerly or not – more and more firms will need to adopt it out of necessity.’

There are also rewards to be reaped in terms of collaboration. The initiatives taken by external firms can serve as a useful model for in-house teams trying to create efficiencies of their own.

‘External firms must have technological systems updated in order to provide us with the most modern solution and to share it with our internal legal team,’ said Ana Soriano, head legal counsel at Inveravante.

Not everyone is as bullish on technology, however. To some, the use of technology is mostly smoke compared to other, softer competencies.

‘The improvement I actually want from law firms is not based in technology,’ said Ruth Pearson, general counsel of LendInvest. ‘I’d be far more inclined to instruct a firm that could demonstrate an investment in understanding their clients – for example, by hiring non-lawyers to improve their commercial acumen and understanding of what drives their clients, moving away from billable hours to a client-focused incentive structure, understanding risk appetite and being able to advise within those parameters, than a firm that thinks it can demonstrate technological innovation.’

‘I prefer a good lawyer not using tech to a bad lawyer using tech,’ stated the general counsel of one large French manufacturing company.

When asked if the question of technology arises when undertaking a panel review of external advisers, just 35% said that it was a factor, while the majority (41%) said it wasn’t a factor at all. With panels becoming narrower and more deliberate all the time, the points on which firms differentiate themselves will take on an increasing importance. Given GC’s evident interest in the use of technology by external firms, this factor may grow in significance in the near future.

‘Depending on the jurisdiction and the business activity being undertaken, it is of moderate importance,’ said the group counsel of one global engineering company. ‘However, in the selection of lead counsel for C-suite-led matters, it has moved to the forefront of selection criteria.’

Despite clear interest from the in-house community, the growth of legal tech hasn’t achieved the same blistering pace that fintech has managed. The rate at which the financial sector has caught on has meant wide-ranging technological innovation, at every level of the industry.

‘As successful fintechs have rapidly matured from start-ups to mature technology disruptors, banks have started the journey to transform their core digital capabilities, with several areas of focus. These include: a digital-native customer experience; big data and advanced analytics; moving towards a scalable technology landscape through cloud and automation; adoption of APIs (Application Programmable Interface),’ says Giulio Romanelli, associate partner at McKinsey & Company.

Part of the reason for the legal profession’s shortfall is a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the legal community and a natural aversion to change, but that doesn’t tell the whole story.

‘There’s a lot of hype in the space and I think there are often very clever technical solutions looking for problems,’ says Chris Wray, chief legal officer of Mattereum, a start-up working to bring blockchain technology to business.

‘Although there is interest in the theory or the potential, I think there’s also, quite rightly, a demand for: what’s the use case right now? I’m not sure I would criticise the profession generally for being somewhat cautious. I do think there’s a curiosity and a willingness to try and learn about both the potential implications and to update skills accordingly but there’s also, I think, the correct recognition that a lot of the use cases are still in the future.’

The reality is that, for blockchain, alongside more prosaic types of technological assistance, many legal teams remain in monitoring mode – surveying the field and keeping tabs on likely applications, but not necessarily investing just yet.

‘We simply have to be clever in finding the right applications, and also doing a little bit of trial and error rather than just rushing to one of the service providers, buying their generic application and then learning later that it was not the most suitable application,’ says Dr Alexander Steinbrecher, head of group corporate, mergers and acquisitions and legal affairs, Bombardier Transportation.

‘I’d rather invest a little bit more time window shopping and defining our needs rather than rushing ahead and being the first users.’

The sense among the in-house counsel surveyed was that their private practice counterparts aren’t faring much better: just 40% of respondents said their external legal advisers were implementing new technology to deliver their legal services and solutions. Still, one common sentiment among those interviewed was that private practice has a role to play in being a first mover in the legal tech takeover, setting the example for in-house teams to follow.

‘When we first undertook the research process of finding out what was in the market, it came as a pleasant surprise to see that law firms are leading innovation in the legal sector and how many are doing things like working with start-ups in developing new technology,’ says Cristina Álvarez Fernández, head of legal Europe at transport infrastructure developer Cintra.

‘Clients in particular are trying to change the way that they invoice, looking at alternate fee arrangements or, in some cases, bringing more work in-house. As a result, I think they have been forced to find ways to reduce cost and maintain their profitability. But at the same time, they will have no doubt seen other industries disrupted by technology and seen that this is the way forward.’

In an increasingly competitive European marketplace for legal services, corporate pressure on the billable hour is driving law firms (including those at the sharper, mid-sized end) to increase their own efficiencies, and reshape their service offering and value add for companies.

‘Let’s be fair: some parts of a lawyer’s job are not very fun. You want to be doing the legal work and so the technology enables that by taking away a lot of the drudgery. The smart lawyers understand that they can pull that off, they can get more work, win more competitive panels, they’ll grow their share of clients and have a more fulfilling legal practice,’ says a spokesperson at one law firm-sponsored legal tech accelerator.

But some in-house are more sceptical about the extent to which law firms are truly aboard the innovation wagon.

‘It’s mainly driven out of fear. It’s less: “Let’s be super innovative and change the market and then ultimately be super profitable”, it’s more: “I think something’s happening and it may have a negative impact on our business model so let’s work on it to manage the negative impact”,’ says Matthias Meckert, head of legal at PGIM.

‘The activity on the side of the law firms – all of them talk the talk but only a few are actually able to deliver. It may have something to do with the fact that law firms are run by lawyers and rarely by entrepreneurs. Behind the scenes, many admit that they are fearing the investment. The ones who invest do really exciting stuff.’

While in-house teams might be more cautious when it comes to making decisions on which solutions to adopt, at law firms, the conversation is sometimes clouded by existential angst.

‘The conversations we are having with in-house teams on the application of AI technology are different to the conversations we are having with law firms. With law firms, there’s always that concern of: “If we adopt this technology, how is it going to affect our model? How is it going to change the way that clients perceive us? Is it going to make the client value us less because we’re using technology to support us in the work?” Whereas with in-house teams, it’s fairly straightforward: “I need to make a change, and I can see that this is going to make my life more efficient, more interesting and more stimulating” – it’s a much less complicated discussion,’ says Emily Foges, CEO of legal AI platform, Luminance.

Disruption – at the margins

When asked whether technology had the potential to disrupt the legal profession over the next five years, 84% said they believed that technology will be disruptive. The real trouble comes when trying to drill down on what form this disruption might take.

Just 6% of those who believed technology will be disruptive in the next five years thought that the disruption would be negative. 66% felt that it would be somewhat positive, and 29% thought that the disruption would be entirely positive.

Between the believers and non-believers, there is room for nuance. Many GCs are taking an approach that falls dead in the middle of those who think that tech is going to revolutionise the profession in moments and those who think it’s all smoke and mirrors with no real capacity for change. Instead, they believe that rather than technology being a disruptor of the in-house legal role, it does not go far enough to modernise and truly transform.

‘By implementing some tech tools you get a 10%, maybe 20% efficiency increase. This is not really disruptive, this is where I am improving a little bit, I’m streamlining existing structures, but not changing the fundamentals,’ says Meckert.

‘Change gets really exciting once you say, “Let’s start big picture and not with the details – why are we doing that, how do we create value for our business, should we outsource or should we collaborate with others?” Then you start really changing the game.’

Most in-house commentators are confident that the core tasks carried out by lawyers are unlikely to face the kind of disruption that renders the profession obsolete. Although standard and routine work is likely to eventually be automated, businesses will still require lawyers to provide advice on more complex issues such as risk management and corporate governance. Many anticipate an opportunity to engage in more strategic, value-added work, such as relationship-building, lobbying and training across the business. Jobs lost are predicted to be on the routine end – perhaps paralegals, those providing exclusively contractual or notary services, or those providing non-complex high street advice.

‘According to one global consulting firm, 85% of the jobs that people will have in 2030 don’t exist today – which is quite frightening, because it means that only 15% of today’s jobs will survive to 2030. But I would not say that 85% of what I’m doing with my legal team will no longer be done by us in 2030,’ says Steinbrecher.

‘… Smart in-house legal teams will have managed to develop in-house legal expertise and knowledge in areas where they are no longer dependent on external lawyers, and they can only do that because they are no longer wasting their time and energy on low-skilled, legal administration work.’

Far from reducing headcount in-house, it will actually help combat attrition, some predict.

‘People are less interested in doing day-to-day work on a repetitive basis. People would like to do projects which are more challenging, would like to be empowered. So if you could outsource more administrative and bureaucratic things to a service provider or a tech solution, super, as those tasks need to be completed,’ says Meckert.

‘We embrace those solutions as resources would become free to do higher value, higher risk, more intellectually challenging, more fulfilling work. This keeps my team engaged and allows a better contribution towards the business.’

Similarly, on the law firm side, a digital revolution must be accompanied by an analogue one for any real disruption to occur.

‘Law firms need cultural disruption. Lots of law firms talk about being disruptive, but very few are. There has been very little disruption of law as a service and the change that will be best received by their clients is unlikely to be technology led,’ says Ruth Pearson, general counsel of LendInvest.

A (value) chain reaction

The ecosystem of law firms, their clients, businesses, their in-house teams, and third-party legal tech providers has always been delicate, but the surge of innovation and technology is challenging the value chain to shift to accommodate the changing roles played by each link.

In light of this, each player must go through a process of understanding the space they occupy in this new value chain. Suddenly liberated by the digitalisation of research, due diligence, analysis and document drafting, lawyers will be free to build on the customer relationship by being more responsive and alive to the impact of their advice – particularly in companies moving at a highly innovative pace.

‘If my business is now fully embracing, for example, processing and collecting data and I could patch my piece of the puzzle – the legal data – into that platform, that’s great. In the age of platform industries, the law department can’t be an island, it needs to be integrated and fully aligned with the business and its digital strategy.’ says Meckert.

‘The best inspirations are those I get from conversations outside my “home” industry or with non-lawyers. Those ideas challenge the way we think traditionally.’

Patching into the corporate zeitgeist enabled the Cintra legal team to leverage company-wide investment in technology for the legal team and plan its own technological upgrade. The legal team has worked closely with the IT team to investigate potential new legal tech tools.

‘This isn’t something that’s unique to legal, it’s been happening in other departments already. In general, our company and the group are very interested in innovation and new technology,’ explains Álvarez Fernández.

‘I think that in time, we will see the relationship between in-house departments and external firms change as a result of technology – mostly where fees are concerned. I suspect that the fees of law firms can be reduced, or at least controlled, depending on the market and matters at hand. But I don’t think the interplay will shift.’

Many agree that they do not see an Uber-type revolution arriving on the horizon for the external legal services market, although most concede that there will be some future adjustment of legal service providers.

‘It will be a game changer in the end. Alternative service providers are entering the market in Europe (some have been in the States for a long time now) and some of them have their own technology,’ says Sánchez Soriano.

‘I’m also seeing small law firms with very, very specialised people in technology projects. I think that is becoming interesting because these are not the typical law firms that we are used to working with, but maybe for very technological projects, you’d call these people who are doing things in blockchain or using other technologies.’

Human resources

One other very significant way in which this trend towards technology is changing legal departments and private practice firms is in the makeup of their personnel. 60% of those surveyed for this report felt that today’s lawyers were not adequately equipped to adapt to technological changes within the legal profession.

In response, a focus on technology innovation has led, in some cases, to the creation of roles to specifically facilitate transformation, as innovation managers, data scientists and legal technology administrators begin to enter the field, particularly in law firms. However, such functions are currently less common in-house.

‘Sometimes I have found people in-house who, additionally to their own duties, are in charge of innovation, but the problem in many cases is that these people don’t have a real budget for implementation or even worse, that they don’t have the support from the general counsel or the wider business,’ says Sánchez Soriano.

But, at least on the technical side, some predict that these roles could eventually permeate the in-house ecosystem, as legal specialists with the responsibility for licensing and maintaining tools and platforms like the standardised written and coded terms utilised in smart contracts. Digital legal officers or lawyers that compile software tools with intelligent applications could evolve.

‘The new role of lawyer is more likely a legal process designer to some extent,’ says Dr Volker Daum, general counsel of B. Braun Group.

‘… This will create and maintain jobs, and may even create future jobs, because it’s not just legal advising anymore – we are part of the process and the value chain.’

But equally, although the nature and nascence of new technology makes it difficult to immediately separate the truly transformative from the passing curiosity, hard tech skills of some sort will inevitably be in need of an upgrade.

‘We have projects focused on everything from blockchain to machine learning, so as lawyers, we need to understand these technologies but also provide legal advice for the new questions and challenges that will arise as a business,’ says Sánchez Soriano.

‘…We will be considering all this for the training we need to give to our lawyers and the people we will be hiring in the future, so that we are able to provide legal advice to innovative projects. If you don’t understand blockchain, for instance, it will be very difficult for you to provide advice on it.’

Counsel are divided over the extent to which it will be necessary for lawyers to learn coding, beyond the skills that will likely be taught as a routine part of elementary education for future (and, to some extent, current) generations.

Shaking the foundations?

If lawyers entering the profession today are required to be of a different breed than those that came before them, the question must be asked: are legal education institutions preparing them for this?

Up until now, the bedrock of a solid legal training has been the time spent as a trainee or junior lawyer on due diligence, contract drafting and analysis.

‘We can already remember (fondly or not) the time when, not so long ago, junior lawyers would spend hours preparing first drafts of transactional documents and hence were indirectly trained to the underlying issues behind a specific drafting or wording,’ says Olivier Kodjo, general counsel of ENGIE Solar.

But even if the potential impacts of automation and AI are overblown, these institutions will have to adjust to avoid an undermining of the experiential foundations of the profession. Alternative training models will likely have to be found: a training that neglects the technological skills that are becoming part and parcel of the job is becoming increasingly unfeasible.

‘As educators, we need to be doing these things… Even if you are not convinced, you need to better train your students on these kinds of tasks because they ask for it,’ says Professor Christophe Roquilly, Dean for Faculty and Research at EDHEC Business School.

However it is achieved, demystifying technology for lawyers at all levels – and thereby equipping them for an innovative, digital future – will likely be a bridge to the elusive culture change that underpins the successful evolution and future-proofing of the industry.

‘Innovation flows much better when people are able to see machine learning not as magic, not as something that someone with a magic wand goes ‘Ping!’ and it starts working,’ says Professor Enrique Dans, Professor of Information Technologies and Systems at IE Business School.

In today’s business world, more than ever before, learning is a lifelong pursuit and it is the responsibility for those at the top of each organisation – the corporation, the law firm, the law school – to have the foresight to set a tone that prioritises innovation and agility. For true innovation to take hold, there needs to be an agreement of what constitutes good service and an alignment of priorities and mindsets throughout the organisation and the value chain – to avoid each party being left incompatible with the other.

Much has been said about whether disruptive technologies could spell the end of the legal profession as we know it, but GCs aren’t worried. In fact, they’re excited.

Of those in-house counsel surveyed for this report, the vast majority agreed that technology will disrupt the legal profession in the next five years, with 94% acknowledging that technology will be at least somewhat disruptive. 32% said that they feel this disruption will affect the profession to a great extent.

Every respondent that said they expected there to be some disruption in the next five years felt that this would be positive, with 71% saying that the disruption will be ‘somewhat positive’, and 29% saying that it will be ‘entirely positive’.

‘I’m fully convinced of the benefits of the AI, and we all need to adapt to what is coming, because it is coming, whether we like it or not,’ says Cristina Álvarez Fernádez, head of legal at Cintra. ‘I’m 100% optimistic this technological revolution is going to be good for us: we’re simply going to provide legal services differently.’

This positivity is echoed by the approach many of the GCs interviewed for this report have taken to the issue: embrace disruption and reap the benefits.

‘The legal function needs to and can play a role in showcasing the benefits of introducing technological solutions in an enterprise,’ says Johan Huizing, associate general counsel at Itron. ‘We must be leaders in adoption of high-performing technology and not merely followers. Only then can we play a role as thought leaders and will we be accepted as team members that have value for the business.’

To what extent do you agree that technology has disrupted the legal profession in the past 5 years?

‘Legal professionals who want to thrive in modern business must lean towards technological transformation,’ adds Tobiasz Adam Kowalczyk, head of legal at Volkswagen Poznan.

‘The great news is that lawyers have the tools at their disposal to enable this change. The digital revolution offers us the chance to compete, and it provides law firms and legal departments with the ability to transform into something much more exciting. The legal profession will not disappear, but it will surely change due to technology. This shift will most probably trigger new forms of what being a lawyer means. The sooner we accept it as the new normal, the better off we’re going to be.’

One general counsel from a prominent international engineering firm, who did not think that AI will be a factor within the next ten years, said that their main concerns were ethical.

To what extent do you agree that technology will disrupt the legal profession in the next 5 years?

‘How can you build trust in code? There are ethical questions around its use in certain applications such as disciplinary actions or other employment-related areas,’ they said.

‘It’s not all hype, but the profession is very conservative and the ultimate question is: to what extent will management trust a “machine”?’

Virtually all of those surveyed agree that AI will be a disruptor in the legal industry, with just 9% feeling that it will not be a disruptor at all. Despite this apparent enthusiasm, just 6% said their team currently uses an AI solution, all of whom said they only use it to assist in low-level work. Within this small group, overall feelings on AI’s ability to act as a disruptor in the industry are positive: 83% agreed that AI would be a disruptor, with half feeling that such disruption would come between the next five and ten years.

When asked which factor was more important when considering adopting an AI-based tool, all respondents cited either the reduction of costs (38%) or an improvement in quality of work (62%).

‘Looking forward, AI will be able to cover all technical and easy legal work: cost reduction, quality improvement,’ says Artem Afanasiev, general counsel of DIXY Group.

Overall, the key disagreement comes over the question of when, not if. Over half feel that AI-based disruption would come between the next five to ten years, but a portion said they thought the disruption would come much later: 23% think it won’t be a factor for at least ten years.

Overall, how positive do you think technology disruption will be?

Then comes the question of preparation. If disruption is coming for the legal profession, all eyes will turn to the incumbent lawyers to see how they fare in response to the seemingly inevitable changes heading for their profession. Whether or not legal education institutions and professional development programmes throughout Europe have left today’s lawyers well placed to adapt and thrive will be imperative.

When asked about current lawyers’ preparedness for technological disruption, the in-house counsel surveyed and interviewed were less enthusiastic. 14% felt that today’s lawyers, on average, were adequately prepared; 61% did not. The rest were unsure.

‘AI is limited for the majority of in-house right now because the base data sets are not in place, substantial enough or well enough maintained,’ explains the general counsel for a prominent consumer goods brand.

‘This is a real point of difference with the accounting/finance world where recording data in a structured way has always been the order of the day – that area will see a huge impact from AI in the near future whereas in-house legal first needs to get its ducks in a row, change its behaviours and set that foundation upon which expensive AI solutions are built.’