Australian Corporate Lawyer - Autumn 2017

theAustraliancorporatelawyer
first step is to be clear about your teams’ and
your clients’ needs. Define the problem and
the challenges you want solved, and very
importantly, consider whether that’s aligned
with your stakeholders’ view of the legal
function. The technological solution should
come after that. I’ve previously invested in
technology solutions not specific to legal
teams but that allow collaborative and agile
workflow management, such as SaaS project
management tools and online ‘kanban’ boards.
D.B.: Rule #1: start with the problem, not the
solution. Every shiny piece of new kit you see
is a solution. It’s sometimes very tempting to
think “How can I use this?” and risk inventing
a problem you don’t actually have, then
investing in technology to solve it! So start
with the problem, then ask: “Is this actually a
process issue; or could technology solve it?” If
technology might be the answer, by all means
research the existing and start-up technology
vendors, but don’t limit yourself to LegalTech
– one or our best investments was a shared
inbox solution for our team called ‘Front.’
V.K.: To decide what we need, we assess
what technology (software and infrastructure)
ResMed already has, how it supports current
and future needs and what value can be
added to help achieve ResMed’s strategy. Key
considerations include:
• What functionalities would we want the
technology to cover
• How would the software be used: From the
desktop, phone, smart device?
• Would the solution integrate with other
systems supported by our IT? Can we
leverage on existing enterprise licenses for
Microsoft for example?
• Who are the users: Would it only be used by
the legal team or should other parts of the
business access it? We would also assess the
security, privacy and cost considerations to
build a suitable user case.
ResMed recently implemented an electronic
signature process via DocuSign for a variety
of contracts. This technology not only speeds
up the signing process, but also supports the
environment, saves costs and increases the
number of signed contracts that are returned
for our records.
L.O.: The best legal technology, and
therefore the technology which is most
deserving of investment, is that which best
supports the core business of the modern
legal department. Cost savings, increased
efficiencies and added capability are all
relevant considerations but the critical
consideration is how much value the
technology can add to the core legal business,
which in turn must always be adding value to
the core business of the organisation in which
it operates.
The technology in which we have invested
allows us to better ensure security and
compliance, have greater visibility over our
data and enable greater efficiency in engaging
with our internal clients in a way that adds
value to their core business.
3. From a risk management
perspective, how do you balance
the risks new technology brings
with the need to innovate and
achieve efficiencies?
C.S.: This can start with a realistic assessment
of the risks, compared to the risks inherent
in our current systems and processes, and
understanding that risks can often not be
eliminated and can actually bring reward
if properly mitigated. More often than not,
we’re already living with current risks, which
may be just a different set of risks but with
equivalent consequences. Any risk assessment
should include a pragmatic assessment of the
likelihood of the risk crystallising and its impact
if it does eventuate. That can often help move
the risk assessment from a generic statement
of risk to one that can be practically mitigated.
D.B.: For years I’ve been more comfortable
with my documents being stored in Google
instead of my own hard drive. I’m way more
likely to lose my laptop then have my data
compromised in the cloud. I still receive
wrongly addressed emails with confidential
documents attached, so using an encrypted
messaging service or reputable contract
management platform substantially reduces
risk in my view. If document automation or
expert systems reduce someone’s workload
by 80%, that’s a good result, but the challenge
is to anticipate and plan for where those legal
skills can be better utilised.
V.K.: In a growing company like ResMed,
automation means efficiencies and not job
elimination. Therefore, we view technology
that can saves costs and assists in providing
a quicker, consistent service as an advantage.
Any new system/application/software needs
to be assessed from a privacy and security
perspective to ensure access, administrative
and technological controls are implemented
together with the new system. As a leader
in connected care, we are well aware of the
implications to our customers and patients
of data breaches and every technology is
carefully assessed to ensure encryption and
other methods of safeguarding data can be
applied. We’ve also implemented a short
privacy training video that gives employees
understanding of what data needs to be
protected and who has a right to access it.
L.O.: Knowledge is the key. It is critical for
counsel to inform themselves. The in-house
lawyer must understand the commercial
and legal drivers of any change, and then
reconcile how the particular technology
operates with the need to manage risk.
Risk is inevitable. It cannot be completely
avoided. Therefore it is also essential to have
the level of understanding of a technology
or transaction that will allow counsel to take
a considered view on what risk is acceptable.
This will vary from matter to matter. From a
counter-party risk perspective, in addition to
understanding the core technology, counsel
and procurement teams need to be aware of
who is providing the particular technology
and conduct due diligence accordingly.
For example, it’s worthless to negotiate a
large wholesale liability cap from a start-up
company when in practice claiming access to
relief under such a cap may be either many
multiples of what the company is actually
worth, or at least what it is able to pay.
4. What process do you undertake
when determining whether to
implement a new technology in
your in-house team?
C.S.: It’s vital to first carefully define the
problem to be solved and what it is that your
team and your stakeholders want to see
improved. From there you can assess what
the solutions are, which may involve both
human and technical solutions. Technology
vendors can then be asked to indicate how
their solutions help solve your needs. I think
the human side of the workflow involved in
any technology is crucial. If for example, the
system is not usable by the full range of its
users it won’t be adopted well.
D.B.: I start with the problem first, something
that’s actually causing pain either to the
business, my team or my own sanity. From
there I list out potential solutions at a high
level then start shortlisting technologies that
look promising on paper, prioritising the
ones that offer instant sign up on a free trial.
It’s critical to be able to touch and feel the
technology through actual hands-on usage.
Vendors asking for demos without disclosing
any sense of price, fall to the bottom of the list.
Test the most promising ones and compare
their features in a table to identify the gaps. I
avoid data lock-ins and long-term contracts;
and prioritise integrations and a good user
interface. Finally, I decide on one or two
winners and run pilots during free trial periods.
V.K.: The first step is to assess what internal
resources or software we have that could be
utilised. For example, we’ve used SharePoint
to create our legal site, company directorship
listing and many other interactive tools.
If there are no internal technologies that can
be used, then the process is:
• Needs – Identifying needs and
functionalities. What problem are we trying
to resolve by implementing a new system?
Is the system going to be used locally or
globally? How many users? Will it be legal
8 VOLUME 27, ISSUE 1 – AUTUMN 2017