Legaltech landscape

Phase	Function	Description	Management appreciation factor	Implementation hassle	Lawyer acceptance factor	Iatrogenic factor
Phase of contract process	What is the innovation?	What does the bit of kit do?	How excited will management be about this?	How much of a pain in the fundament is getting the kit in, setting it up and getting it to work?	Once implemented, how realistic is wholehearted embrace?	Risk of inadvertently entrenching rent-seeking behaviour?
Initiation	Legal fees bid management system	An auction portal for seeking competitive bids on external legal advisory projects	High: delivers control, visibility, metrics and cost pressure on external counsel	Medium: This all falls on legal operations though, so you may confidently assume it will be done.	Low: While no work to implement for lawyers, it removes autonomy, power to choose counsel, is unpopular with outside counsel as any bidding system guarantees more losers than winners.	High: Asks wrong question, namely: “how to I get the cheapest legal advice” rather than “how to I get the best advice or, for that matter, “do I need legal advice at all”.
	Self-service portal	A place where Sales can go to get pre-appoved legal forms to send out without vetting	High: Speeds things up and pushes away low value work from Legal	Low: Could be as easy as an intranet page or SharePoint. Legal operations as to do it.	Medium: anything that pushes NDAs off the desk has to be a good thing.	Low: disintermediates unnecessary legal touch.
	Initiation and prioritisation tool	A system for queueing prospects, getting necessary information and prioritising before starting negotiation	High: Good oversight of process, good MIS	High: It’s largely a tech and operational job, but it will span several silos. Design of the tool, ownership of and responsibility for it will be an unholy fight.	Medium: Helps initiate drafting provided it is used properly and information accurately provided	Low: Disintermediates. Provides simple information inputs and disciplines personnel to follow process.
Drafting	Template Management	Centralised templates database or clause library for approving and warehousing approved forms and boilerplate	Medium: Should drive efficiency, but part of that ineffable world of legal eagles that management doesn’t understand	High: Quite a lot of implementation, and legal ops will be disinterested. Once implemented, a lot of work to sort and upload templates, compare them, weed them out, and assign owners to them, which noone will want to do.	Medium: A useful productivity tool once implemented, saving a lot of tedious bureaucracy, and a good platform for standardisation and quality control later on.	Depends on how implemented: this could be a fulltime career for a squadron of nosey parkers, or it could be light touch and self-service tool.
	Document automation	A preconfigured questionnaire to generate first drafts of standardised contracts.	High: This is genuine high-five, look-at-me stuff: potential for handsome MIS is great. Also, it pitches really well. Reg tech providers love it.	Very high: requires input from lawyers, legal ops and reg tech providers. You have to extract the logic from your templates, code it, and build a machine to make it. Ongoing maintenance a chore, too.	Theoretically high, practically low: one of those things that seems great in concept, but sucks in practice. User becomes a form filler-outer. No lawyer wants that.	High: highly likely to take a bad contract situation and make it worse. Maintenance of templates becomes an IT ticket: expensive, slow, and out of lawyers’s hands.
	Freehand Document Assembly	An add-in to word to allow lawyers to access the inhouse clause library to quickly assemble novel drafts from standard building blocks.	Low: What do I care? All the cool stuff is a function of the template management system it feeds off (if you haven’t got one of those, forget about it).	Low: Assuming you can find the software, it is a straightfoward plugin. This is the basic promise of a distributed end-to-end system.	High: this is a neat tool that saves time and ensures I don’t forget anything. What is not to like?	Low: Disintermediates nicely.
Negotiation	Document mananagement system	A matter management system for creating drafts, storing emails, documents, version controls, and collaborating	Yuuuuge: This is the daddy. A DMS promises to give the lawyers infinite productivity and workflow, while delivering management total detail about what every lawyer does.	Immense. A multi-year project to extract your legal team from infrastructure the rest of the firm uses and put them on a “better” system. And that’s before you try to integrate it into your external spend control regime.	High in theory, low in practice: Legal eagles think this is what they want: when presented it, they find their byzantine folder structure in Outlook PSTs wasn’t so bad after all.	Higher than it ought to be. Suddenly there are information security officers, usage monitoring metrics, champion groups and stakeholder surveys
	Automated contract review	AI — call it neural networks, machine learning, or some school-leavers from Bucharest —reviewing and marking up standard form contacts.	High: Because it presents, misleadingly, as low-hanging fruit, legal operations folk glom onto this as a way of making waves. Plus, the GC hears AI and thinks “HAL 9000” and not “glamourised deltaview plus temps in Gdansk” as she really should.	Low: If you make the mistake of displaying any interest, replying to their email, vendors will be at you like a plague of locusts and will never let you go. all you need is a playbook and remember the email address.	Low: It reduces lawyers to form fillers, the form takes too long to come back, and it’s easy just to do it yourself. Full analysis here.	High: A job your team used to do off the side of the desk now costs £400k annually, and requires a weaponised procurement and internal audit system.
	Manual review assistance	Comparison, formatting tools,	Low to nil: This is not exciting, the procurement people will hate it, and IT will say things like “why don’t you just use document comparison function in word?”	Low: Usually a plugin to Word, though undoubtedly will be some configuration clashes with some other filters and metadata analysers already in use.	Medium: lawyers ought to love the productivity bump: they’re good with deltaview, but tend to leavev the formatting and janitorial stuff alone.	Low: No humans required. Genuine disintermediation. Puts power in lawyers’ hands.
	Negotiation platforms/portal
Execution	Execution Approval
	Digital execution
Contract Management	Contract management
	Metadata extraction
	Obligation management
Tracking	Onboarding process management
	Legal term benchmarking	Heatmaps for determining which of your contract provisions are most hotly negotiated	High: Plays to the “high-modernist, I can control everything by data” mindset.	High: involves you having implemented a ton of other innovations first. If you have, and they are working, it should be easy enough to generate. But you won’t have, and they won’t be.	Medium: if lawyers are allowed to freely interrogate the data. But, being “data” it will be kept at arms”s length and they will have to raise a ticket and wait to days to see any of it.	High: In order for it to be available, let alone working, there must already be a military-industrial complex of rent-seeking already in place.

With gratitude to Alex Hamilton for setting this out in his excellent book Sign Here, here is a functional breakdown of the contract tech landscape — as Alex points out, any of these functions are captured by more than one tool — itself a commercial problem for Vendors, becasue no-one likes to buy duplications: