Midsize Firms<\/strong><\/p>\n Despite all the differences, midsize firms typically serve some number of business clients particularly within their geographic footprint. They often get called on to serve as local counsel by bigger firms. Importantly, they usually lack the staff and resources of large law firms for IT, marketing, accounting, and other non-legal (and non-billable) functions.<\/p>\n In addition, because costs are spread among fewer partners, achieving consensus on tech investment can be difficult. Managing partners have to work harder to convince their partners that a tech tool will save them money or give them a competitive edge. Often tech decisions are made more by the lawyers and less by tech people, which adds to the challenge. That leads to problems since it\u2019s harder to get informed decisions from busy lawyers. The analysis often gets bogged down because the decision makers lack both time and internal tech support. It\u2019s a dynamic vendors need to understand but often don\u2019t.\u00a0<\/p>\n In addition, as one of the speakers noted, midsize firms tend to stick with the tech they know and are less inclined to try something new. Many firms also often don\u2019t know what they have, what\u2019s integrated, and what\u2019s redundant when it comes to their tech stack. In addition to all this, midlaw is now facing a tsunami of confusing product choices.<\/p>\n Nicola Shaver<\/a>, CEO of LTH, addressed this issue at the outset of the conference. In March, LTH actually tracked the number of vendors offering AI legal products and discovered there were about 500. Today, says Shaver, there are over 620. That\u2019s a huge increase in a short period of time. And as providers scale from startup to mainstream, the risk of product overlap grows. Shaver also pointed out that the vendors midsize firms have historically depended on may not be the best fit for AI tools. There\u2019s also growing recognition that AI isn\u2019t just a support tool, it has to be part of the firm\u2019s overall strategy.<\/p>\n On top of this, AI may mean that Biglaw firms can take on new areas of work that, given their economic structure, would not have been profitable or geographically feasible. AI may change all that, placing even more pressure on midlaw.<\/p>\n So it\u2019s no surprise midlaw leaders are feeling the pressure.<\/p>\n The Seminar<\/strong><\/p>\n All of this is why the AI wave is particularly concerning for midlaw. The LTH webinar was directed at just these concerns and included topics such as:<\/p>\n The Opportunities<\/strong><\/p>\n But despite all the challenges for midlaw, there is a great opportunity today as a panel of Shaver, Sara Glassmeyer<\/a>, LTH Director of Data Curation, and Wilkins pointed out. As Shaver put it, it\u2019s a tremendously exciting time and a huge opportunity right now for midsize firms that are smaller, leaner, and tighter than Biglaw. Moreover, AI can enable midsize law firms to do things they never could before. Midsize firms have historically had fewer resources which meant there was certain work and clients they could not take long. That\u2019s not necessarily true anymore, at least to the same extent.<\/p>\n In many ways, according to the panel, midlaw may have the most to gain as a result of AI. In many ways, they are in the position to really shake things up for Biglaw in terms of price, service, and even the ability to bill in alternative ways. Smaller firms may have the ability to change faster and be more nimble, if they put their minds to it.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n To my knowledge \u2014 and I follow legal tech events closely \u2014 there are no national conferences devoted exclusively to midsize law firms. So, it was refreshing to see LTH step into this space.<\/p>\n This is particularly key since vendors have begun to explore this market, often without fully understanding how midsize firms operate, make decisions, or differ from larger firms. Too often we all tend to look at Biglaw and assume midlaw is the same. It\u2019s not. So, conferences like this will address a large share of the market and I can\u2019t help to believe there will be more.<\/p>\n On a more fundamental level, midsize law firms, like law firms of all sizes, need to ask some hard questions about where the business of law is going. As Shaver put it so well, \u201cstrategy always comes back to business goals. You need to decide what want to achieve as a business over the next five years.\u201d<\/p>\n Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger and writer. He publishes\u00a0TechLaw Crossroads<\/a>, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n The post Midsize Law Firm Challenges And Opportunities In The World Of AI<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n The midsize U.S. law firm law market often gets overlooked in the press and to some extent by vendors. Part of the reason is definitional: a midsize firm in New York City is far different than one in, say, Duluth, Minnesota. Part of it is the differing client mix. Even the culture of midsize law firms is diffuse. It\u2019s tough to talk about and market to such a diverse group with a broad range of interests and clients. And vendors often don\u2019t understand the challenges that midsize firms face.<\/p>\n That\u2019s why a day-long seminar put on by Legaltech Hub<\/a> (LTH) in Chicago last week was so compelling. LTH is an \u201cinsights and analysis platform\u201d that helps legal tech buyers among, other things (by way of disclosure, Stephanie Wilkins<\/a>, LTH\u2019s Director of Content, is a regular panelist along with me and several others on Bob Ambrogi\u2019s LegalTech Week<\/a> roundtable). The conference was billed as a MidLaw Tech and Innovation CLE Seminar<\/em><\/a> and is the first in a series of LTH seminars. The event reflected LTH\u2019s recognition that despite differences there are some common threads among midsize firms, many of which were discussed by the presenters.<\/p>\n Midsize Firms<\/strong><\/p>\n Despite all the differences, midsize firms typically serve some number of business clients particularly within their geographic footprint. They often get called on to serve as local counsel by bigger firms. Importantly, they usually lack the staff and resources of large law firms for IT, marketing, accounting, and other non-legal (and non-billable) functions.<\/p>\n In addition, because costs are spread among fewer partners, achieving consensus on tech investment can be difficult. Managing partners have to work harder to convince their partners that a tech tool will save them money or give them a competitive edge. Often tech decisions are made more by the lawyers and less by tech people, which adds to the challenge. That leads to problems since it\u2019s harder to get informed decisions from busy lawyers. The analysis often gets bogged down because the decision makers lack both time and internal tech support. It\u2019s a dynamic vendors need to understand but often don\u2019t.\u00a0<\/p>\n In addition, as one of the speakers noted, midsize firms tend to stick with the tech they know and are less inclined to try something new. Many firms also often don\u2019t know what they have, what\u2019s integrated, and what\u2019s redundant when it comes to their tech stack. In addition to all this, midlaw is now facing a tsunami of confusing product choices.<\/p>\n Nicola Shaver<\/a>, CEO of LTH, addressed this issue at the outset of the conference. In March, LTH actually tracked the number of vendors offering AI legal products and discovered there were about 500. Today, says Shaver, there are over 620. That\u2019s a huge increase in a short period of time. And as providers scale from startup to mainstream, the risk of product overlap grows. Shaver also pointed out that the vendors midsize firms have historically depended on may not be the best fit for AI tools. There\u2019s also growing recognition that AI isn\u2019t just a support tool, it has to be part of the firm\u2019s overall strategy.<\/p>\n On top of this, AI may mean that Biglaw firms can take on new areas of work that, given their economic structure, would not have been profitable or geographically feasible. AI may change all that, placing even more pressure on midlaw.<\/p>\n So it\u2019s no surprise midlaw leaders are feeling the pressure.<\/p>\n The Seminar<\/strong><\/p>\n All of this is why the AI wave is particularly concerning for midlaw. The LTH webinar was directed at just these concerns and included topics such as:<\/p>\n\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2024\/08\/GettyImages-1979476603-300x169.jpg?resize=300%2C169&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/figure>\n\n