A lot of lawyers use document assembly, but it hasn’t turned into the game-changing technology that some predicted it would be. In this episode of the Kennedy-Mighell Report, hosts Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss why lawyers aren’t using document assembly and why this should probably change. In addition, they discuss both the benefits and pitfalls of using this technology, why standardized templates don’t really work as a replacement, and tools that make diving into document assembly software more manageable. As always, stay tuned for the parting shots, that one tip, website, or observation that you can use the second the podcast ends.
If you have technology questions, call Dennis and Tom’s Tech Question Hotline at 720-441-6820 for the answers to all your tech inquiries.
Special thanks to our sponsor, ServeNow.
Mentioned in This Episode
The Kennedy-Mighell Report
Why Lawyers Don’t Use Document Assembly (and Why They Should)
Intro: Web 2.0, Innovation, Trend, Collaboration, Software, Metadata… Got the world turning as fast as it can, hear how technology can help, legally speaking with two of the top legal technology experts, authors and lawyers, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell. Welcome to The Kennedy-Mighell Report here on the Legal Talk Network.
Dennis Kennedy: And welcome to Episode 201 of The Kennedy-Mighell Report. I am Dennis Kennedy in St. Louis.
Tom Mighell: And I am Tom Mighell in Dallas.
Dennis Kennedy: In our last episode we celebrated our 200th episode with a special all-audience question show and it was a lot of fun. We highly recommend the episode and encourage you to let us know your own questions that we can answer on one of our shows.
In this episode we actually are going back to the future and discussing the one legal technology that has always made the most sense for lawyers, at least to me, but never has seemed to be adopted all that widely and it’s Document Assembly.
Tom, what’s all in our agenda for this episode?
Tom Mighell: Well, Dennis, in this edition of The Kennedy-Mighell Report we will indeed be talking about Document Assembly for lawyers. In our second segment, I am going to ask Dennis some questions about the recent Fin (Legal) Tech Conference at Chicago-Kent Law School that he attended. And as usual, we will finish up with our parting shots, that one tip, website or observation that you can start to use the second that this podcast is over.
But first Document Assembly, to me the concept of Document Assembly has always seemed like the neglected stepchild of legal technology. It’s been around for a long time. It’s a relatively straightforward technology to implement. It makes a whole lot of sense, but there are still a lot of lawyers who won’t even try to take advantage of it.
So I think it seems like a topic that never really gets old, which makes it fodder for the podcast. Dennis, what got Document Assembly back on your radar?
Dennis Kennedy: Well, I saw a presentation that covered both Document Assembly and Smart Contracting and the new blockchain related concept and I felt like it was like the new old and the new new. And what was striking to me about the presentation is what they talked about as the hurdles for Document Assembly and the benefits of Document Assembly were the same things that we have been talking about for a long time.
And then I ran into our friend Ron Stout, who when I said that I had first done Document Assembly to wills, trust and powers of attorney back in the late 80s, Ron, who really is one of the first ones in legal tech mentioned that he first did Document Assembly back in 1974.
So it has been around a while, and I think it’s just a great approach. The Document Assembly application I put together, we used it at the firm for 10 years while I was there and I think they might have used it like for another 10 years without much changes after that.
But I still see and I was mentioning this presentation all this hesitation about moving forward on Document Assembly and so people use these other tools that cause more problems than I think lawyers actually expect that they do.
Tom Mighell: Well, and I will ask, I mean the tools that you used back in your firm in the 80s, do those programs exist anymore?
Dennis Kennedy: No, because that would have been DOS tools. .
Tom Mighell: Well, that’s true. But they didn’t evolve to Windows or there wasn’t an analog in the Windows world once everybody moved over to Windows, right?
Dennis Kennedy: Yeah. So I think that you probably would have — the best way to think of those, if you are familiar nowadays of a program called CAPS, which is probably what became a standard after a little while and then HotDocs later became basically the standard, and now you see some more things and people tried some things, they built into Microsoft Office. There are definitely cloud-based things.
So, there’s a number of tools out there, but you really expected that everybody and all legal documents would be Document Assembly by, somewhere about halfway through the 90s.
Tom Mighell: But I think that the reason why — I mean DOS notwithstanding, I think the reason why you haven’t seen sort of this continuous evolution is because nobody is using it, or at least the people — and this is kind of one of the questions that I want us to answer here, which is, why aren’t people using it? Why doesn’t it make sense, because I think, as we have talked about, it makes total sense.
I can’t think of a reason not to use it unless it’s price or complexity, and that to me, I think is one of the main reasons why the tools that you may have used in the past are nowhere in existence anymore. Now we are dealing with new tools that once again not very many firms are using.
Dennis Kennedy: Yeah, but all tools really to me or not, when I look back on them, it was not that different than doing HTML, with a little bit of scripting, so you sort of had these brackets with codes, and you had variables that you put into it, and it took some thinking.
I think it’s one of those technologies where ultimately part of the issue becomes the technology forces, when you go this route, it forces you to think about your processes and think clearly about them, and to think about your documents and to think clearly about them, and to really make some decisions about what kind of intelligence you have into the application that you do and to sort of rethink your practice in a lot of ways, most important of which is that, if you do Document Assembly and you are used to the traditional process of drafting documents, you are just incredibly slashing the amount of time that you spend on the first draft of a document.
Tom Mighell: Okay, so let’s take a step back. We kind of dove in head first and we probably should take a step back and not assume that everybody knows what we are talking about when we talk about Document Assembly. So let’s start out with some standard and familiar definitions.
So I will really start out with mine. I always go and when we talk about defining things I will let everybody peek behind the curtain. I go to Google and I say, what is Document Assembly and I take generally the first definition that it gives me without a whole lot of thought.
And here we go, Wikipedia defines it, and they don’t call it Document Assembly, they call it Document Automation, and they call it the design of systems and workflows that assist in the creation of electronic documents. These include logic-based systems that use segments of preexisting text and/or data to assemble a new document.
And that is so horribly written that I can’t believe that I am actually describing that. I mean I prefer to bring it down to the basics. Document Assembly is using an automated process to create law firm documents using preconfigured text and/or data without actually having to reinvent the wheel every single time. So that’s my easy way to define it.
Dennis, how would you define it beyond what I have talked about?
Dennis Kennedy: I just make it even easier than that. I mean what you are doing is the interface allows the user, who I will call the drafter, to answer a series of questions and then based on the answers to those questions will provide either additional questions or will gather other information, and then as a result of those answers will assemble the document based on what information it has gotten.
So it is going to grab pre-done clauses, it’s going to fill in variables, it’s going to do a number of things, but the idea is the interface for the user just becomes so simple that you are just answering questions and boom, you have a document that comes out at the end.
Tom Mighell: Okay, so sounds simple. I mean we will talk in a little bit that the setup is not simple. The setup can be involved. But it sounds like once you have got it all set up, it’s an ideal situation, so why are most lawyers reusing old templates? Why are they using old documents that they have used before and just doing a find and replace to find a name of the client and replace it? Why aren’t we doing the easier, cleaner, arguably better approach?
Dennis Kennedy: There are many times I ask myself that same question. I think it comes down to a couple of things. So one, there’s a lot of upfront time to do Document Assembly and I think a lot of lawyers don’t want to take that time. It’s considered non-billable, right, and so that can become an issue.
A lot of people attempt to do sort of like the all-inclusive, perfect document and to build everything possible into it, and that’s to me always been the wrong approach.
I mean I started with durable powers of attorney and I learned a lot from those. I took those learnings on to wills. I took those learnings on to revocable trust, to irrevocable trust, and kind of built on that.
But you have got to have support behind that. There’s a lot of upfront. And you also have to have sort of the right documents to do, the right agreements or documents to do, and then some standardization already built in. And so some of these projects break down as people try to do standardization within a firm on documents and you find out everybody has their own particular models that they prefer for whatever reason, and so that becomes a piece of that. So that customization idea.
And then I think it’s just that you get used to doing these things and you say, I just take the last one and I mark it up and it works great, and you don’t take into account how easy that is to introduce errors and to have wrong versions and get a lot of things messed up. And so I think that Find and Replace feels like it’s faster and it’s something that people have been comfortable with, because they have been doing it for years and it makes it harder for them to ask real tough questions about that and then to say let’s move to a different approach. Plus, it cuts down the number of billable hours.
Tom Mighell: Well, and I think that there’s more — I agree with you, it’s easy, it’s familiar and we have some level of trust that the old document we start with is a good document, so we are not starting with something fresh or new. But I think that where you were headed a minute ago, it has to do with the billable hours, I think that once we get in our head that this document, I am going to charge — this is the standard amount that I charge, I charge this amount and that amount works out to this number of hours, and so I am used to working that number of hours and it’s not even going to enter my head that if there’s a way that I could cut that down by 75% that it’s going to make it a lot easier.
I already have it in my head that this is how long it’s going to take and so I don’t think it even enters my head that it’s too complex to use Document Assembly software. I think that the lawyers who don’t use it, either are not aware of it or just don’t pay attention to it because they are used to doing one way and that way is comfortable.
But you are right, the problems that come to that are the issue of leading prior client information to the new document. You may take your document that you had before, you may have highly customized that for a particular client, so it actually has more than what you usually put in that standard form that you use, and then you might forget, leave it in the new document.
So I mean, I think that using old documents, using past work product is I would say sloppy at best, malpractice at worst, depending on the type of information that you may leave in that document.
Dennis Kennedy: Yeah. So there’s the metadata question, so what metadata is being carried with these documents that you have marked up and the story after story of embarrassment. So I think the next approach that people tend to take is they say, well, let’s go to standardized templates. So we don’t need to do Document Assembly, we are just going to have these standardized templates and everybody will use those or we will always work from those things, and well, because you start to lose version control. They don’t get updated as much. They are sort of one size fits all. People start customizing in a lot of ways.
And I think before long you have got your back, especially in a larger group to people having their own templates, and I don’t know what you have gained. And so the template approach for a number of reasons I think causes problems and then people need to get the right template. Is this the landlord-favoring or the tenant-favoring version or is it — this is what we use for the template for certain type of lease but not another.
So I think that the template approach is typically the second thing that keeps people from Document Assembly, and people are — like there is some committee working on a template that has all sorts of provisions that you don’t know whether it — I sometimes go back to when I was doing estate planning, what was great was that you never had to negotiate with anybody, like the terms, what are the terms in a will or trust, but when you are negotiating documents, the template approach can be really tricky.
Tom Mighell: So I am going to argue slightly against that and I am going to say that a good template approach is still better than no approach at all. It’s kind of in the middle there between no approach in Document Assembly. I think some of our law practice management friends talk about having your gold standard forms and templates and establishing them, and I agree with you, all of the same issues come up, if you have issues with version control or if you don’t have a good centralized repository where everybody can get at them or if you don’t have a good naming convention and name them to make sure that everybody understands what the form are, you can fall in to all of those traps.
I would argue that actually some of those traps also exist in Document Assembly as well to some extent, but I would say that I would rather have a good gold standard form that we try very hard to keep up than no forms at all.
Dennis Kennedy: Yeah, I agree with that. I mean I think the template approach is definitely the middle ground, but I think it causes its own set of issues.
I guess the other thing I think about Document Assembly is that traditionally it’s sold to people or people think about it on the basis of — that it’s going to make things faster and cheaper, which we know from the whole history of legal technology is actually a harder sell for a lot of lawyers than anybody ever expects.
To me, I always felt that the real value of Document Assembly was — of the faster, better, cheaper was the better factor that really made Document Assembly interesting. And so that way with Document Assembly, you are pulling in the right provisions. They have been vetted. You don’t have to do as much proofreading, things come together and you build learning into that.
For example, when I was doing wills I remember that we — there was a special thing for trust, some special requirements for trust that had S corporation stock. But once we realized that we were running into enough of our clients who ask had S corporation stock, and we were adding the same language, then that just became — we pulled that in to the Document Assembly application and it just became a question, does the client have S corporation stock? And then those provisions went in where they needed to go in to.
And then you could also, as part of those questions, you could have sub-questions that you could add. You could add comments, so somebody who was new to it, you could explain what S corporation stock was and why it needed to be treated differently as just part of the instructions that went along with that question.
So the Document Assembly tool gave you this great standardization and gave you confidence that you had better quality just in terms of proofreading and you had all the provisions that needed to be in, that you weren’t using some weird, old document or a template that somebody had accidentally removed a paragraph, so you had that great consistency.
And then it became also a really good training tool at the same time. And that’s what became the big attraction about Document Assembly to me and I think that’s what sometimes people don’t appreciate when they think about Document Assembly.
Tom Mighell: Well, I mean you say that people are usually arguing that it’s faster and cheaper. I am going to make a money argument, but it’s not either about — well, I mean it’s related to faster, but it’s certainly not about cheaper. It’s about making more money. It’s about realizing more money.
I will go back to my earlier example. If there’s a certain document that you typically charge — let’s say you charge $2,000 to prepare a document or a set of documents and it usually takes you 10 hours to create those documents. Your realization rate is $200 an hour, whereas with Document Assembly, if it only takes you an hour-and-a-half to do that, then you are realization rate has just multiplied by 5. You are well over a $1,000 an hour to get that stuff done.
And so I would think that would be the seller. I mean, I agree with you that Document Assembly is making your documents better, but I mean, I have always thought that the money argument is, how do I make more money, or how do I be more effective about the money that I make and to me that’s the argument for document assembly.
Dennis Kennedy: Right, and that’s why I think you see a lot of the solo — especially at the solo end of the market, because people are more willing to do flat fees. I mean it’s your own business so you don’t have like the same brutal minimum billable hour requirements, where you would say, if this is going to cut my billable hours, that’s a problem. You see people are more innovative.
A lot of clients think that lawyers use Document Assembly all the time. They just think that we press a button and the document comes out, and so if you are able to do something — so same thing, I have the set of documents that come out for a new corporation and I charge $2,000 for the documents. What if I gave those documents away for free and sell a subscription service where the people can call me, they have annual tune up of their corporate documents and minutes and those sort of things, and then they can call with any questions they have, and I charge them $3,000 a year for that? Then I actually earn more money off of that client. And because I have a regular set of calls, then possibly they are reminded that they have other work I can do as well.
And so I think that Document Assembly is both a technology, and as your, I agree, totally convoluted definition you started with, actually because what it does to force you to look at processes can be extraordinarily helpful to you.
Tom Mighell: I think we both agree on pretty much all of these things about Document Assembly. Let me take a minute or two to talk about what’s out there and what you should look at. This segment is probably less about the practical advice on what tools to use, but I wanted to at least talk about it a little bit.
I mean we talk to some extent about the better than nothing practice of having gold standard forms and templates. I will go one step maybe slightly up from that or maybe it’s slightly below that. I like to talk about in my job saying let’s start with tools you already have, tools you already use, and I know a lot of law practice management experts also talk about that as well.
And frankly, just looking at Microsoft Word and using the Quick Parts feature in Microsoft Word, you can basically create your own Document Assembly within Word. It’s a little primitive. It’s not as smart as some of the other tools that Dennis has talked about and that I am going to mention by name here in a minute, but you can certainly put pre-canned language into the Quick Parts and easily assemble a document in much faster time using the Quick Parts feature in Microsoft Word.
There are a number of Document Assembly tools that are out there. I am really only going to mention three or four of them. HotDocs has been the big 800-pound gorilla in the room and they have been around forever. They have a good tool. I am not sure exactly what the pricing is. Probably not very cheap for solo and small firm lawyers to use, but it’s something that lawyers are using and using a lot.
The tool that I see being used a lot more often these days and kind of a strong contender recently to HotDocs is the FormTool or Doxserá® is their other tool that they have, which creates Smart Documents is what they call them, or Smart Forms, and they have an interesting way of putting together information.
Pathagoras is another tool that’s out there. That’s been out there actually for a while now that is, I think, well regarded among lawyers.
I would say that for those of you who have law practice management software, those tools may be out there. Some of the law practice management suites offer some form of Document Assembly. I will admit I have never used them, but I have got to believe that the careful coding and algorithms and almost artificial intelligence like way that some of these other programs go about creating documents is something that these law practice management tools just don’t have, so I think that any Document Assembly that you get with a law practice management suite like a cloud tool would be more basic and wouldn’t be as full featured as some of these others.
So those are just some of the options that you have. The great thing about these tools is that you are not really using their templates. They don’t necessarily — and I guess they come with some templates that you could use, but you are actually using your templates and that’s really where a lot of lawyers kind of fall down on is that you are doing some work on the front end to get those templates customized, but once they are uploaded into the system, and once you have them ready to go, you are set and creating those documents is really, like we mentioned, a matter of just answering questions and pressing print. Maybe I am oversimplifying it, but it’s pretty simple.
Dennis Kennedy: For me, I always look at a couple of things, and so one thing is, you are always looking for something where there is a lot of volume and it’s something where it makes sense to push it down to a paralegal or an associate level, especially paralegal level, to at least do the first drafts, enter the information.
So volume. I think starting simply with documents that are simple to do, small number of variables, very repeatable, that gets you to learn how to use the system, and whether you need to go to — and you may start simply and then move up to a more elaborate tool.
So I think a lot of people buy HotDocs and it overwhelms them. So you might look at like a web-based tool, like an XRE or some of the tools that Tom named.
The other thing is that I think a lot of people who go into Document Assembly really would like to jump to the end at the beginning, so they would love to have the Document Assembly application all set up and ready to go so that paralegals and others can generate documents, but they would also like the paralegals and others to set up the application from the beginning. And that’s actually the place where you have to have the lawyer involved to make good decisions, because you can simplify documents, you can do all sorts of things, improve processes and make judgment calls on these things.
And so I think that sometimes Document Assembly projects really get slowed down because the lawyer sees that it’s going to require a lot more time than they ever expected. So I have a thought on that, which is kind of interesting to me because you have a lot of students in law schools really kind of focused on technology and legal technology, and it seems to me that you could bring in a law student for summer internship and make the project for the summer or one of their projects Document Assembly, putting that all together. So that gives you somebody who has some legal skills, at least a law school level, who can kind of help with that and learn to do the right questions and get involved in the project with the time and the enthusiasm that you as a busy practicing lawyer might not have.
And Tom alluded to this other thing that I think is really cool about Document Assembly is it is not artificial intelligence. I mean, there are some ways that you can use machine learning and other tools, I think, potentially to draft documents, but your experience is going feel like artificial intelligence. You answer some questions and then boom, you have a document that in some cases can be ready to go, or at worst, a really nice first draft and that’s the cool thing about Document Assembly.
Tom Mighell: Yeah, so let’s wrap up this up. I think that we have kind of covered most of the angles about Document Assembly today. I do want to say one thing, as I was researching this it occurred to me that maybe the future for Document Assembly is something that lawyers probably are even less prepared to do than adopt Document Assembly is what I would see to be the next step, which is becoming your own LegalZoom and creating client facing Document Assembly, giving your clients the templates that they can fill out themselves, they can answer the questions and they are presented with some documents.
Why not join the LegalZooms and compete against them and charge a small fee so that a client can get a legally correct document that they can use on their own. I think that’s an interesting way to look at the future of Document Assembly. I don’t think we are there yet, but I think that’s going to be a great option for competing with the LegalZooms of this world.
Dennis Kennedy: I think you are right and that data entry thing is key, because I will say one thing that the odds that your client is going to type his or her name correctly are much higher than you or somebody at your office are going to spell correctly every time.
Tom Mighell: That’s true. That’s it for Document Assembly. Before we move on to our next segment, let’s take a quick break for a message from our sponsor.
Advertiser: Looking for a process server you can trust, ServeNow.com is a nationwide network of local prescreened process servers. ServeNow works with the most professional process servers in the industry, connecting your firm with process servers who embrace technology, have experience with high volume serves, and understand the litigation process and rules of properly effectuating service. Find a prescreened process server today. Visit www.serve-now.com.
Dennis Kennedy: And now let’s get back to The Kennedy-Mighell Report. I am Dennis Kennedy.
Tom Mighell: And I am Tom Mighell. We have got a number for a special voicemail box for you to leave audio questions or to make suggestions for topics. That number is 720-441-6820. I will say it again, that’s 720-441-6820. We would love to use your questions in our B Segment in a future episode.
For this episode however I am actually going to turn the microphone on Dennis. I am going to ask him about the recent Fin (Legal) Tech Conference he attended and spoke at, at Chicago-Kent Law School.
Dennis, my first question really should be, aren’t you attending a lot of conferences lately, but actually I am going to start with this one. Can you tell us exactly what Fin (Legal) Tech is?
Dennis Kennedy: Well, I actually struggled throughout today trying to figure out what it was, but I think that I really call it a legal innovation conference with the focus on quantitative tools and the business of law. So there’s financial, legal innovation in technology.
And it was a great conference because it ran the whole range from lien approaches, lien management approaches, to new technologies like blockchain and smart contracts, to new old technologies like Document Assembly, lots of different people doing very cool things, some access to justice, some really leading thinkers in where the practice of law is going.
And it comes I would say with more of a business approach, but it combined business and technology approach with the focus on evidence-based decision making, data-driven decisions, and really going into looking at the data and not just going by the seat of the pants feel that lawyers are really notorious for when looking at what might or might not work in their practices.
Tom Mighell: Well, I have to say when I looked at the agenda and looked at all the sessions, my poor liberal arts brain just kind of exploded, because I just didn’t really understand a lot of the topics that they talked about, and I think you have helped describe it a little bit there. But I think that from what I could tell and from what you told me, the conference used maybe a kind of a TED Talks format to introduce and have the speakers talk to the audience. How did that work out?
Dennis Kennedy: I really liked it. It’s tough, Tom, as you know as a speaker when you are told that you only have 10 minutes or 15, in this case it is 15 minutes, so – because it goes by really fast. But I think what it made was, like the TED Talks themselves that you see, a lot of people really personalized things and kind of picked a few key issues.
So, like I was talking about lawyering in the platform era, so I was talking about platforms and how they work together and how you can move from being like the transactional lawyer, to product lawyer, to a lawyer for — who considers the platforms of the whole ecosystem, and that’s changing the approach and that applies to Internet of Things and other stuff that’s going on, but you learned about a lot of really interesting products. We have people like Eddie Hartman of LegalZoom, Gillian Hadfield, who just wrote a book about rules for — I wish I had the name of it in front of me, but rules of Flat World, which is again a notion of platforms and focusing on the bottom of the pyramid and trying new things in access to justice, and then their stuff just looking at — what we were learning from data and machine learning which — there’s sort of talk of AI, but it was like a great quick introduction on a lot of topics, really great speakers, and I actually grew to like the approach because it’s one of those things where you going like, well, it’s really interesting, it gives me something to think about or if it’s not that interesting or not really up my alley, it’s only 15 minutes.
Tom Mighell: Well, Dennis, that sounds great. I can’t wait till the next podcast where I can ask you questions about the next legal technology conference you’re going to attend.
Dennis Kennedy: This is probably my turn to ask you about your next legal technology conference. I’m sure you have something coming up one of these days.
So now it’s time for our parting shots, that one tip, website, or observation that you can use the second despite cast ends. Tom, take it away.
Tom Mighell: So this would not be a Tom Mighell parting shot without something about speakers or headphones or something like that and I will not disappoint you again. I have been trying out a new set of, I’m trying to find kind of the nirvana in wireless headphones. Since I’m not in a world of Apple, the Apple EarPods are not my style, I still think they look a little weird to me, they are just not what I want, so I’ve been looking for something that’s pure Bluetooth that you can use, no matter what platform you’re on, and I have lately been trying out the Bose SoundSport Free wireless headphones. They’re just little earbuds that they pop in. They have no wires between them, so they are truly wireless. I have in the past talked about using the Bragi headphones that I’ve really liked.
Well, I now have new favorite wireless headphones. The Bose really did give terrific sound, and the best part is, there’s no connection problems. The Bragi didn’t always have the best connection, sometimes it broke, sometimes I had to reconnect. The minute that I hit the button on the Bose, they turn on. It really does work well. If I had any complaints about it, it will be, one, little bit pricey, it’s I think — I forgot how much, it’s over $200 for them. It’s a little pricey, but that’s a Bose for you, so if you’re used to buying Bose and that’s what you get. And the other one is, they are a little bit big. They look a little strange, sticking out of my ears, but I would argue, they look no more strange than somebody wearing EarPuds. So the Bose SoundSport Free wireless, definitely a thumbs up for me.
Dennis Kennedy: Are those noise cancelling?
Tom Mighell: They do not do noise cancelling. No, they don’t do that. There are other wireless ones that will do noise cancelling. These don’t do that.
Dennis Kennedy: And just as know the parting shots wouldn’t be complete without Tom talking about some audio speaker or a headphone. It wouldn’t be complete if I wasn’t going way out on the edge of new technology trends, and so, Gartner has released their top 10 strategic technology trends for 2018, and I don’t know that there is, if you’re in this area, that there are any great surprises, but I think it’s one of those things I recommend to people, because this is what’s coming and this is what a lot of people are thinking about and it will give you a sense of how things might go. So things like AI, intelligence things, analytics, conversational platforms, virtual reality, augmented reality, an immersive experience as they call it Blockchain, of course, and something called continuous adaptive risk and trust, which I actually think is something that lawyers will run into over the next few years as people look at risk, in risk management and the whole notion of trust and identity and look for new ways to handle those issues that may have impact on the traditional legal approaches.
Tom Mighell: And so that wraps it up for this edition of The Kennedy-Mighell Report. Thanks for joining us on the podcast.
You can find show notes for this episode at tkmreport.com. If you like what you hear, please subscribe to our podcast in iTunes or on the Legal Talk Network site, where you can find archives of all of our previous podcasts.
If you like to get in touch with us, please email us at [email protected]. You can find us on LinkedIn, or again, our number for voicemail questions is 720-441-6820.
So, until the next podcast. I’m Tom Mighell.
Dennis Kennedy: And I am Dennis Kennedy and you have been listening to The Kennedy-Mighell Report, a podcast on legal technology with an Internet focus on Legal Talk Network. If you like what you heard today, please rate us on Apple Podcast and we’ll see you next time for another episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report.
Outro: Thanks for listening to The Kennedy-Mighell Report. Check out Dennis and Tom’s book, ‘The Lawyer’s Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies: Smart Ways to Work Together’ from ABA Books or Amazon, and join us every other week for another edition of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, only on the Legal Talk Network.