Here at the DiligenceEngine Blog, we ususally restrict ourselves to discusssing (1) legal tech and efficiency and (2) what we’re up to.
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog recently ran a piece on Debevoise & Plimpton and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom’s moves to have a significant number of their junior associates complete four weeks of business training put on by Fullbridge.
Get the latest legal tech insights sent straight to your inbox.
Law firms can increase profits by being more efficient. Sure, this is obvious for firms that bill fixed fee: lower production costs (or the less time time spent on matters) mean greater profits, all other things equal.
Anyone interested in the future of legal practice should read Richard Susskind’s “The End of Lawyers?: Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services”.
Clients are increasingly pushing back on passed-on fees for disbursements, according to an Administrative Director in an AMLaw 100 firm (who I was fortunate to speak with recently).
DiligenceEngine is focused on a specific problem: improving legal due diligence. But our work fits into a broader issue: making lawyers more efficient and effective.
In line with previous posts explaining the background to what we do (make legal due diligence better, faster and cheaper), this post will focus on some of the issues considered in legal due diligence.
The Wall Street Journal ran a piece on the expanding use of contract attorneys. For the unfamiliar, contract attorneys are lawyers hired to work on a temporary basis, frequently on document review projects as part of large litigation matters.