This framework seeks to define the ALSP market by the services they provide, and will help buyers understandthe services and products available in the Alternative Legal Services (“ALSP”) Market. Evaluation Frameworksare available for each of the framework’s categories and detailed procurement questions are covered in theRequirements Template.

GCs and law firms now have more options than ever for delivering legal work. The range of services and technologies has expanded significantly over the past 10 years, meaning it's no longer a binary choice between handling work in-house or turning to an outside law firm.

This Evaluation Framework will help buyers understand the services and products available in the Alternative Legal Services (“ALSP”) Market.Requirement Templates are available for each of the framework’s categories and detailed procurement questions are covered in the Buying Guides.

LTH Vendor Analysis provides a deep dive on individual solutions in a category to make it easier for buyers to make decisions and find information about a particular product.

LTH Vendor Analysis provides a deep dive on individual solutions in a category to make it easier for buyers to make decisions and find information about a particular product.

Testing out any new technology on a small scale to determine its fit-for-purpose is always valuable for prospective customers. One of the easiest ways to do this is through a pilot. The LTH Pilot guide sets out guidance on how to plan for and run an effective pilot of a particular type of technology.

The LTH Evaluation Framework provides a checklist and list of questions to guide prospective buyers through an assessment of various products in the category, and to inform product demos.

Despite the frequency in which DEI initiatives make headlines, the common expectation that large law firms hire Chief-level diversity leaders, and the brightness of spotlights from legal departments, “diversity and inclusion” is one of the least mature areas of technology in the legal market. Other leaders in law firms have significant budgets, staff, and systems, while diversity leadership does their best with a small team and manual work. The proliferation of manual surveys has benefited benchmarking visibility but, regrettably, has done so on the backs of diversity staff – each year worse than the last.

The LTH Requirements provides a full set of functional requirements for the category that can be used by prospective buyers to evaluate diversity and inclusion solutions according to the relevant use case and business goals

The ROI from a Document Automation Business Case is both tangible and intangible.Your business case will list overall benefits, quanitifable benefits calculations (including cost savings) and costs to consider over time.

The evaluation framework provides guidance for buyers of document automation platforms, including a checklist of questions to ask when they are viewing demos and evaluating the market.

Document automation, also known as document assembly, has been used in the legal industry for more than 30 years. In his book “The Lawyer’s Guide to Working Smarter with Knowledge Tools”, Marc Lauritsen states that “Legal document assembly is an ancient technology, comparatively speaking” and that “it delivers extraordinary benefits”.

Providing a robust ROI in terms of money saved is challenging in connection with a document management system. The Business Case document suggests some arguments that can be used in support of a proposal for licensing this type of robust platform.

An evaluation framework for your document management system incorporating technical efficacy, pricing, data governance & security, and contractual issues.

Document management systems (“DMS”) became mainstream for law firms during the 1990s in line with the evolving digitisation of document production – storage of written materials was moving from hard copies in lever arch files to soft copies in digital folders. Legal tech providers saw an opportunity to develop document management systems which not only allowed electronic storage of documents, but also met another attorney requirement – a way to track and store versions of documents through the drafting process from first draft to final proof, again replicating the traditional solution of keeping hard copies of amended drafts.

Before investing in technology and the associated adoption program that will be required, it is prudent to run a small pilot of the technology or undertake a proof of concept to validate requirements. This document provides expert guidance on how to run an effective pilot or POC of eDiscovery software.

The LTH Requirements provides a full set of functional requirements for the category that can be used by prospective buyers to evaluate eDiscovery software and assess whether the relevant solutions will address the relevant user cases and business needs.

The LTH Business Case provides buyers with a template to use in setting out a business case and provides ROI arguments that can help justify investment in a selected solution in the category.

The LTH Business Case provides buyers with suggested ROI arguments and a framework to help make a business case for investing in a CLM platform.

The LTH Evaluation Framework provides a checklist and list of questions or considerations to assist buyers when they are evaluating CLM products.

The value of conducting a CLM System PilotTesting out any new technology, with CLM technology being no exception, on a small scale to determine its fit-for-purpose, is always valuable for prospective customers. One of the easiest ways to do this is through a pilot.

The LTH Business Case provides a template for making a business case to leadership for investment in a particular type of technology, including suggesting effective ROI arguments.

Expert systems have been discussed at length in academic literature dating back to the 1950s and before. At their simplest, an expert system is simply a way for an expert to share their expertise in a declarative, systematic manner that allows it to be reproduced or reused by non-experts. As a concept, expert systems are technology agnostic as one could ostensibly develop an expert system with a simple checklist. However, expert systems platforms are a class of technologies in the legal industry that have evolved to simplify and expedite the creation of expert systems.

Before investing in an expensive technology license, it is prudent to run a small pilot of the technology or undertake a proof of concept to validate (1) that the technology works as the vendor proclaims it does, (2) that there are no unanticipated internal obstacles that prevent the technology from working properly, and (3) that the technology does in fact have the capabilities to address the use cases you’re anticipating.

Business Case ROI for a Judicial or Litigation Analytics Solution. Such a solution to users:1. The ability to draft more successful arguments based on citations and arguments presented by judges2. Access to evidence based decision-making for selection of jurisdiction based on type of action and Plaintiff/Defendant resolution3. Evidence to determine the appropriate motion practice4. Ability to evaluate judicial and opposing counsel experience for litigation strategy

Judicial Analytics: Evaluation FrameworkTechnical Efficacy1. What jurisdictions are covered and how comprehensively? What are the unique considerations in terms of content entry for various jurisdictions and how were they identified? How does your platform accommodate and normalize unique content entry?2. How does your system address abnormalities in content entry by the courts?3. Do you make the information addressed in Questions 1-2 public on your site?4. Does the search make it easy for the user to see if there are abnormalities potentially impacting the search results?

The category of judicial analytics has a few major players, with more coming into play. Lex Machina, the granddaddy of judicial analytics began with patent and trademark analytics and moved into federal, bankruptcy, appeals and states. Others such as Thomson Reuters Litigation Monitor followed. The focus for several years was on developing analytics for federal courts, with Courtlink being one exception. Lex Machina, Gavelytics and Docket Alarm began exploring state coverage. Acquisitions have played a role in shaping the judicial analytics landscape, in particular, Lexis’ acquisition of Lex Machina and FastCase’s acquisition of Docket Alarm. More recently, Westlaw Edge has come out with a comprehensive platform and substantial state court coverage and new player Trellis has made a significant impact into state court coverage.

Most of the current generation of aggregation and curation products help lawyers tame the firehose of newscontained in the firms warehouse of premium subscriptions, as well as the explosion of social media resources.Each vendor’s goal is to deliver only highly relevant, actionable insights tailored to the needs of the individuallawyer or practice group.

This guidance document provides a checklist of features and negotiation issues for news aggregators. Aggregation platforms are so varied and law firm priorities are so unique that I recommend a formal RFP process in order to select the one that best fits in your organization. Here is a checklist of features and issues to consider when evaluating aggregation platforms.

Search, and retrieval more generally, is a wicked problem (ie. "messy and reactive, and with no single solution" as per Roger Martin). If you're involved in search and retrieval in any way and you're finding it easy and simple then you're doing it wrong. Yes, it's that messy. And particularly at law firms.

Proof of Concept > Pilot > Deployment for Enterprise SearchDeployment and adoption of Enterprise Search technology does not necessarily follow a standard Proof of Concept > Pilot > Broader Deployment approach as with other legal technologies. Deciding which enterprise search system to implement and partner with at your firm is almost always taken before the system is installed and linked up to any of your data. It is a huge job to clear Security, get the environment installed, and your content indexed, so a proof of concept or 'mini-pilot' can be difficult for either party to agree to.

Use the below to structure your initial requirements and evaluation 'proof-of-concept' before you begin your Pilot (see Pilot Guide), or what is most likely to become your first phase in the ongoing deployment plan. Below are several considerations that should form the basis of your vendor discussions when evaluating their products.

Timekeeping software is widely used in the legal profession as the business of law is, with some exceptions, typically conducted via an hourly billing model. In recent years this model has been scrutinized as the enemy of innovation, efficiency and attorney wellness, but it is likely here to stay for many areas of legal practice.

Below are several general questions to pose to vendors when evaluating their products.*This list is not exhaustive as every organization will have different requirements. The below should help as a guide as to the types of questions you will want to consider for your organization.