by
ChatGPT)
Wait,
what?
Some
recent
research
reveals
a
gap:
70%
of
legal
tech
investment
targets
vendors
who
focus
on
the
40%
of
time
lawyers
actually
spend
on
things
like
legal
research?
Why?
Some
research
findings
reported
by
Hwang
Jae
Hyuk
suggest
this
very
thing.
Hyuk
is
the
founder
and
CEO
of
a
company
called
AdminLess.AI
which
appears
to
focus
on
automating
administrative
work
for
law
firms.
I
don’t
know
Hyuk
and
can’t
vouch
for
his
findings.
But
they
sound
consistent
with
what
I
have
observed
and
seen.
I’ll
spell
out
the
why
in
a
moment.
But
first
let’s
look
at
what
he
says
in
a
recent
LinkedIn
post.
The
Findings
Hyuk
says
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
spend
60%
of
their
time
on
administrative
work
like
file
organization,
back-office
stuff,
and
verification
(which
I
assume
means
in
part
verifying
cites
provided
by
GenAI
output).
Much
of
this
stuff
is
nonbillable;
Hyuk’s
findings
are
generally
consistent
in
this
regard
with
what
Clio’s
yearly
Legal
Trends
Reports
have
consistently
found.
Forty
percent
of
lawyer
time
according
to
Hyuk
is
spent
on
the
legal
work
lawyers
really
like
doing:
the
research
and
intellectually
challenging
activities.
Yet,
according
to
Hyuk,
investors
in
legal
tech
vendors
focus
70%
of
their
dollars
on
those
that
provide
the
sexy
stuff:
research
tools,
contract
AI,
and
e-discovery.
Many
of
these
tools
are
based
on
GenAI.
He
notes
that
only
six
well-known
legal
tech
providers
focus
on
the
60%
while
over
15
providers
focus
on
the
40%.
He
asks
the
very
legitimate
question:
“Why
this
massive
gap
between
what
lawyers
do
and
what
the
industry
builds?”
The
answer
reveals
something
troubling
about
current
investment
priorities
in
legal
tech.
Mind
The
Gap
The
gap
is
particularly
surprising
since
it
is
the
60%
work
that
AI
tools
and
automation
can
do
really
well
and
accurately.
The
40%
work,
the
legal
research?
The
focus
of
vendors
here
is
on
using
GenAI
to
do
this
kind
of
work,
which
frankly
it’s
not
all
that
great
at.
It
makes
mistakes.
It
hallucinates.
It’s
inaccurate.
And
as
Hyuk
notes
and
about
which
Melissa
Rogozinski
and
I
have
also
written,
it
requires
constant
verification
and
supervision.
Certainly,
one
could
argue
that
investors
are
following
that
effort
and
pouring
money
into
vendors
that
are
working
hard
to
eliminate
these
problems.
They
are
just
rewarding
vendors
who
are
spending
the
time
and
energy
on
the
GenAI
tools
to
make
them
better
and
eliminate
the
hallucinations
and
inaccuracies.
But
I
tend
to
think
it’s
not
necessarily
that
logical.
First,
the
stuff
that
the
six
companies
Hyuk
references
as
working
on
tools
to
better
and
more
efficiently
deal
with
the
60%
–Docusign,
Filevine,
NetDocuments,
Clio,
Smokeball,
and
8am
(which
he
refers
to
as
MyCase,
which
was
the
company
name
pre-recent
rebranding)
—
are
doing,
well,
boring
stuff.
(My
apologies
to
all.)
It’s
not
sexy
stuff.
It’s
back-office
work:
billing,
collections,
intake,
payments,
etc.
Stuff
that’s
not
billable
but
eats
up
incredible
amounts
of
many
lawyers’
and
legal
professionals’
days.
And
pardon
the
sports
reference
but
since
we
are
in
football
playoff
season
here
in
the
US,
it’s
the
blocking
and
tackling
work
that
has
to
be
done
for
the
quarterbacks
and
wide
receivers
of
the
world
to
shine.
To
enable
the
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
to
do
what
they
are
good
at
and
like
doing.
It’s
the
kind
of
work
in
sports
and
in
the
real
world
that
rarely
gets
the
attention
that
other
work
does.
But
it’s
just
as
important
if
not
more
so.
GenAI
for
GenAI’s
Sake
Another
reason
for
the
gap:
much
of
the
60%
work
is
done
not
by
GenAI
tools
but
by
standard
AI
tools
and
automation.
Granted,
I
know
from
writing
about
and
observing
legal
tech,
that
the
six
companies
Hyuk
names
are
working
on
GenAI
tools
to
build
on
what
they
do
best.
But
it’s
to
achieve
their
mission
to
provide
a
core
product
to
do
the
important
but
often
boring
business
part
of
running
a
law
firm.
Their
view
is
if
a
GenAI
tool
can
make
what
we
offer
better,
we
will
offer
it.
If
not,
we
won’t.
The
15
companies
mentioned
focusing
on
the
40%
of
lawyers’
work
often
narrow
their
focus
to
GenAI
and
GenAI
only,
trying
to
make
it
work
where
it
doesn’t
fit.
To
offer
GenAI
tools
for
GenAI’s
sake
as
opposed
to
solving
real
problems
and
pain
points.
But
because
GenAI
is
all
the
rage
these
days,
investors
flock
to
those
providers
who
are
selling
new
and
shiny
toys.
The
investors
are
betting
that
the
customers
of
these
vendors
will
also
flock
to
the
new
and
shiny
toys
even
though
there
may
still
be
challenges
with
them
and
their
implementation.
And
in
spite
of
the
fact
that
other
tools
that
aren’t
GenAI
can
still
solve
many
law
firm
challenges.
What’s
a
Lawyer
to
Do?
The
fact
that
Hyuk’s
gap
exists
given
the
challenges
with
GenAI
tools
should
in
and
of
itself
give
law
firms
some
pause
when
looking
at
AI
and
GenAI
tools.
It’s
legitimate
to
ask
whether
investors
are
pouring
money
into
GenAI
firms
because
it’s
the
thing
to
do
or
do
these
tools
offer
real
solutions
to
lawyers’
and
legal
professionals’
problems?
The
bottom
line:
law
firms
would
do
well
to
take
GenAI
vendor
claims
with
a
grain
of
salt.
They
need
to
ask
if
the
shiny
new
toy
will
solve
their
real
pain
points
or
will
just
add
work
to
check
and
verify
outputs.
This
requires
research
and
something
that
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
are
good
at:
skepticism.
Questioning.
Not
accepting
claims
at
face
value.
Lawyers
and
legal
professionals
have
the
analytical
tools
to
cut
through
vendor
hype.
So
use
them.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.