小型企业与大型企业技术应用
Tech for Small vs. Big Firms

原始链接: https://lexifina.com/blog/technology-for-firms-big-and-small

尽管法律工作的核心内容保持不变,但其实践正随着技术快速发展。 律师们常常抵制自动化,但律所——特别是小型律所——认识到需要适应。 大型律所将技术采用视为未来保障和提升客户声望的关键,旨在增强其竞争性投标能力。 小型律所则优先减少行政负担和扩大客户容量。 两者都优先考虑数据安全,要求“隔离”的供应商环境。 一个关键的区别在于采用速度:小型律所受益于更快的采购周期,避免了可能使大型律所受限于过时技术的冗长合同。 它们简化的工作流程和集中的所有权也促进了更轻松的实施和工作流程改进。 然而,由于律师们不愿接受流程设计以及传统计费模式(这种模式不利于提高效率)的阻力仍然存在。 最终,投资法律科技具有显著价值,小型律所最能通过拥抱这些进步有效地扩大其业务。

一个黑客新闻的讨论集中在lexifina.com网站上,该网站似乎在推广面向小型和大型公司的技术解决方案。 几位用户报告说,在各种浏览器(Safari、Chromium、Brave、Firefox)和操作系统(macOS、Windows、移动设备)上无法播放首页视频。 网站所有者alansaber承认并尝试修复Safari编解码器问题。 除了技术故障外,一位评论员对网站列出主要的“CLOUD Act”公司作为其生态系统的一部分表示担忧,质疑数据隐私。 Alansaber以一种略带幽默的解释回应,暗示替代方案的基础设施更令人不安。 最后,用户质疑这是否是一则广告,alansaber承认这是一个商业网站,但没有明确定义的产品。
相关文章

原文

While the fundamental nature of legal work has remained consistent throughout recent history, the processes, pace, and scale of practice have evolved dramatically.

The bulk of transactional and litigation work is performed by lawyers, who are often resistant to utilising automation for legal work. Yet, firms are relatively small organisations, especially compared to entities like banks, and there is a perceived need for lawyers to “keep up” by adopting technology at a comparative rate.

The motivation for tech adoption differs depending on the size of the firm. Large firms tend to approach technology from the perspective of future-proofing their organisation, as well as impressing clients. Technology can help to improve a larger firm's prestige, which can enhance their ability to successfully bid for client work.

In comparison, smaller firms tend to focus their use of technology to cut their non-billable administrative workload, and to expand the volume of clients they are able to take on. In both cases, adoption is treated cautiously, with firms preferring vendors who can provide a ringfenced environment for their firm and client data.

Notably, when smaller firms adopt legal tech, they benefit from far shorter procurement cycles compared to their larger competitors. This is partly because legal vendors tend to lock large partners into multi-year contracts, handcuffing them to a specific innovation cycle, whilst the wider tech landscape moves on.

Larger firms often segment work for a single client across multiple lawyers, while smaller practices usually keep matters with one owner. That tighter ownership makes it easier for one person to understand the entire workflow and spot holistic improvements.

Ultimately, tech adoption is still contested: many lawyers resist seeing themselves as process designers, are skeptical or exhausted by tech, and the traditional billing model reduces the incentive to streamline billable work. Regardless, we are at a point in time where practitioners can extract more value from investing in their technology than ever before. Smaller firms, with shorter workflows, closer client contact, and greater autonomy, have the most potential to amplify their practice by embracing legal tech.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com