This podcast examines one of the key themes from this year’s The Changing Lawyer report, “Automation is Everywhere.” Litera’s Legal Content and Research Lead, David Curle, interviews Stuart Whittle, Chief Technology and Innovation Officer at Weightmans, a leading UK law firm with roots in Liverpool. They discuss the ubiquitous reach of automation in the legal industry today, with many examples from Whittle’s experience at Weightmans. Read transcript
Meet our Host and Guest
Legal Content and Research Lead, Litera
David Curle provides research, analysis, and thought leadership about the competitive and market environment in the changing legal services industry.
Chief Technology and Innovation Officer, Weightmans
Stuart Whittle has spent his entire legal career with Weightmans, starting as a trainee solicitor but gradually becoming more engaged in using technology to transform how the firm operates and delivers legal services.
Welcome to a special edition of LEGALTECH MATTERS devoted to important topics from Litera’s, The Changing Lawyer Research and Report. In a series of special podcasts. We'll speak with industry experts with insights on the key takeaways from the report.
00;00;20;12 - 00;00;45;25
Hello, Welcome. Today's conversation is part of a series of podcasts based on some of the key findings in Litera’s The Changing Lawyer Report which was released in August at ILTACON. I'm David Curle. Legal Content and Research Lead at Litera and my guest today will be Stuart Whittle, Partner and Chief Technology and Innovation Officer at Weightmans, a leading UK law firm with roots in Liverpool.
Before we dive into the conversation, let me just give you a little background on The Charging Lawyer report. The report was based on a survey of 300 lawyers and 100 allied professionals in law firms, and that includes people working in operations, data management and project management and other roles. Respondents were based in North America, the U.K. and several European countries.
The research consisted of a survey, but also some qualitative interviews with experts and some third-party research sources. The report is available for a full download at litera.com/tcl. So, the topic for today is Automation is Everywhere. That was one of the key takeaways from the report. The idea that automation is becoming a ubiquitous aspect of legal practice today, and we've invited Stewart onto the podcast to discuss some of the ways he sees that trend playing out in his firm and in the industry.
So, Stuart, you've had a long legal career, all of it, with Weightmans. So you have a deep background in the practice and the way the firm is run. But your role has also evolved to one focused on innovation and technology at a firm that's known for innovation. Tell us about the career path and how it's evolved over time.
00;02;18;25 - 00;02;40;03
Okay. Thanks, David, and nice to meet you. And thanks for the opportunity to talk to you today. So I am in my 29th year at Weightmans. I spent ten of those years practicing as a solicitor. If you include the two years as a trainee solicitor, and my career, I don't think I planned It, just kind of happened along the way.
Opportunities arose and I took them as they came up. When I joined Weightmans, it was a pretty small firm with one office, maybe 150 people in Liverpool, small enough that everyone knew everyone. And we did that thing that small firms do. We had an HR partner. We had a marketing partner. My last stint as a trainee was with our IT department, and Frank, whom I still know, was pretty visionary at the time.
And he brought in the first laptop into the firm. It got us connected to the Internet for the first time. We got the first kind of email stuff when I was working for him, but I got into IT through him. We accidentally became involved in a huge bit of litigation that involved two and a half thousand claimants, 40 odd banks and building societies, hundreds of law firms being sued and Weightmans and another London law firm acted for the law firms being sued. The 2500 claimants were being represented by the Clifford Chance even back then were a huge, enormous firm in their response to the volume of litigation was to simply though people at it. We really struggled really, really struggling through the first two to three to six months of litigation. Now the London firm, we didn’t have an IT team, we didn't have an identity and I built an Access database to try and help monitor litigation. And it was beautifully crafted, but the real world wasn't really intersecting with how it was designed.
So, this is in 1995. Frank sends me and a few others on a weeklong Microsoft Access 95 database course, that didn't happen in 1995 that was just a test under a bunch of on an IT course. So, we got that didn't happen anyway. I came back from that. We pulled this database apart and put it back together again. We could see what the guys are trying to do with it, but we put it back together again.
And then I, as a trainee I was running into a small team of people who were populating my database with data. Within about three to six months using that database and running SQL queries and that kind of thing, we started to be able to compete with Clifford Chance’s approach, which was to throw people at it.
So it was really kind of the first time I saw how you could use technology effectively to run, in this case, a bit of litigation. And then so we got more involved. We like accidentally put together what became the forerunner to our intranet, essentially using Microsoft front page, whether you remember that., whom I created the series of linked html pages that acted as a single source of truth for our ISO 9001 level three work instructions.
And previously prior to that, each, each of us in that department had our own lever-arch file and paper as our working instructions. And every time the auditor would come, we have to gather 35,000 people and make sure they're all identical and send it back out again. So it was, it was supposed to be a single source in truth.
And then in 2000 I started a masters in IT at Liverpool University, and as I said at the beginning, an opportunity arose in Weightmans and so the 2003-2004 to become involved in IT. So I tell you it's an opportunity I took that led me to running the IT Department for five years. Until 2010, and then all of the operational functions accept finance for seven years place on the board since 2010, equity partnership in 2013 and then all of which led to my current role of chief technology and innovation officer and in particular that that role has enabled me to set out a new product innovation department of this year.
So there's a lot of history of a 29 year career.
00;06;22;18 - 00;06;47;22
Yeah, it's quite a lot and it's interesting that you, I mean the title encompasses both technology and innovation. And what do you see the relationship between those two things. I mean there's people usually think about technology when they're talking about innovation, but it's also there's innovation in the way legal services are offered, innovation in the way people are deployed in law firms.
How do you see that relationship between technology and innovation?
00;06;53;14 - 00;07;18;17
Yeah, so firstly, I'm just going to brush the chip off my shoulder. But if you think about what lawyers do in their core competency, they innovate all of the time. They take the novel points of law to court. They help clients navigate complex regulatory environments in new ways. They help client structure deals in the most effective way. So what I mean, so in their core competency lawyers to innovate all the time.
That's kind of natural. And I think that the whole innovation thing in terms of law firms for us sort of appeared out of nowhere four or five years ago. All of a sudden we were getting requests from clients about what you're doing to innovate. And pretty much and there was nothing when we started it. And you're right.
Early doors, it was very much synonymous with technology and that's really what people were talking about that said that what we've tried to do in the product innovation, while we've reviewed both of those terms, is innovation. You're absolutely right. Isn't just about technology. Now, ultimately, pretty much everything we do has some technology, somewhere at the end of it.
So even if it's just using your case management system to manage to have all the bits of document automation, it tends to be some sort of technology at the end of it. But fundamentally, innovation is really for me about doing something different that you've done before. And that might be technology, it might be a process, it might be a way, a different way of delivering legal services. I don't know whether you read Casey Flatley, but in a recent article on Three Geeks lawpod, he was talking about the pressure to reduce costs of in-house teams against a background of their increasing workload that they face brought on by increasing complexity in both their business environments and the external macroeconomic environment. And that we get a lot of compliance clients asking us, What are you doing about innovation?
What are you doing by technology? What are you doing about process? And really, it's a thinly veiled code for how are you going to deliver this service for less money because of the pressures we are coming under. So, innovation is for me, it's really starting with the process more often than not. Start with the process.
You start with thinking about how you're going to deliver service and then you have to say what sort of technology solutions are going to be useful for that. Because fundamentally, when you think about technology, if you don't have a process in place, the technology's not necessarily going to help because all computers do is if this then that.
And if it's AI it's if this then probably what. Yeah. And if you don't have your process sorted out and you don't have people following that process in a particular way, and all you do if you throw technology at the problem is get faster, more efficient chaos. Because if it doesn't happen, then it doesn't happen. And actually from the end user perspective, it seems like technology is actually making it much harder rather than easier.
00;09;57;29 - 00;10;30;21
So, do you think of automation as a specific form of innovation or change in the industry? I'm trying to see if there's a particular form of technology development that's all about automation. And if so, what are the things that tend to be the things that can be automated? And specifically, you just mentioned, you know, looking at the whole process, is that typically the approach with automation that you have to take a step back and examine the process before automating something?
Or can you make incremental gains by just automating certain tasks within multiple processes?
00;10;40;17 - 00;11;00;16
A good lawyer answer that is, it's a bit of both and it depends on it forces because it so if you go back to sort of very basic stuff from the perspective of a system, all lawyers do the same ten things that write letters or emails, the draft documents, amend documents and then get a court to go to meetings with clients.
They do note to those meetings the time record the bill they might chase that they might capture some management information. And if they're really desperate, they might do some. They have to be really desperate to do that. But from a system perspective, that's all the same thing. Now, on a work type basis, obviously what goes into those things and how those things are chained together is very different.
But what we do and if you go down to one end of the spectrum in terms of assuming like that recovery would be a classic example where you will have lots of work and lots of automation, but almost every step of the way has some sort of automation with it. And then at the other end of the spectrum, you might not have an idea where there's very little automation possible in terms of the work flow except you still need to, do you know your client.
If you client due diligence, you still got a right to client every three months updating and customer still. So, elements of automation work. And so that one element of automation you may often cross is work in sort of case management workflow where you are stringing tasks together, you know, but it has to be repeatable and predictable. And one of the things we found out hard way almost 20 years ago when we first got it longer than that, when we first got into this sort of automation is even in that debt recovery type work, the world is too complicated for you to automate everything from start to finish because there are always things you haven't anticipated.
There are always things that happen that you need a human being to think, actually, we need to do this slightly differently. So even in those areas where you've got a lot of automation, you still well, my experience is you still can't automate everything You still need people involved. And so, it's a bit of both. And we've done some very.
To your point about incremental gains, one of the things that all case numbers have to do, always have to do is we file incoming email into our case management system. Now we have tens, if not hundreds of thousands of incoming emails every month across our 1000 or so case managers and every email that gets filed and it takes a measurable amount of time to select the client, select the matter and select where that takes, I don't know, 10, 15 seconds.
And one of those things we automated was an email filing solution. So provided on this comes back to the process at the office. Then that provided you incept the email from the case management system. The case management system will stamp it with the client and matter number essentially in the email header when it comes out when it goes when it goes off and then comes back in to the recipient, recipients tend to reply to the email you send out.
So we've got to, we've got to call it a robot, whatever you want to call to help the solution that's sitting, watching exchange for things that are coming back in. And if it recognizes the client a matter number, it'll put it into the right matter in the case management system having checked if it isn't already in there.
So we have to get you to get one copy of it. So, you know, when people send an email to 15 people of all of them, if you still only get one copy of the email in the matter and then it goes back into exchange and flags the email in exchange so that the end user that a lawyer can see that it's being saved into the case manager just so they don't need to take any action.
So I've sold it's a very niche thing. I just want task. But it's done by lawyers tens if not hundreds of times a day. And if you, if you add up all that time savings, multiply that by the 200 working days every year. Yeah. The thousand lawyers that we've got, you get a number of tens of thousands of hours of savings automating something very specific.
So that's a, that's a good example of an incremental gain that you were talking about. Right.
00;14;53;26 - 00;15;16;02
Well, when you see opportunities for gains like that or for opportunities to rework on a bigger scale, process, how do you prioritize those things? You just gave us a good example of a task that was done over and over and over again. It seems like, low hanging fruit.
Are there other sort of criteria that you use to prioritize what kind of enhancements you want to go after?
00;15;25;26 - 00;15;57;02
Inevitably, lots of law firms are driven by their clients that are hugely responsive to their clients, and we're no different. So sometimes through technology, it's something it's simply driven by a client's immediate need. I've got a couple of examples of one of using Kira as it happens. So a while ago when we were first getting into innovation, a client came to us and said they had to review something like 1200 leases in less than ten working days.
So they wanted us to extract certain types of clauses from the leases and then and say that. So, we did the thing with Kira. We taught it the sorts of clauses that the clients were interested in. We fired up the 1200 leases on it, run through them, and then we spent some time checking that it got the right answer and what we were able to show us actually, because I was curious to see is this going to save us time?
Is it going to save us anything? So I actually did an AB test where we took a sample of those leases and timed how long it would take a paralegal to do it in the old fashioned way compared to using Kira we were able to share is, is using that sort of automated thing for that particular solution, save us 50%.
We need a 50% fewer paralegals to do the job in the time that we thought we had. And the other thing that was quite interesting with it, and this comes back to your thinking about what computers are good at, which is repeatable and predictable things at scale. And consistently the client had another law firm doing the same exercise in another 1200 leases, but they did it in a traditional way with an army of paralegals and the client audited in both sets of data and with Kira and all paralegals double checking care.
We achieved a 98% accuracy rate on audit, which is much, much higher than the rule of thumb. So it's a good example of sort of automation, decent, repeatable and predictable and actually getting a more consistent approach than simply using human beings. And we've got a similar sort have been going by. And again, it's driven by clients that there's a recent Supreme Court decision that's impacted how holiday pay is calculated in the UK.
It's a mix of technology and services going on. But, but the key thing that we've automated is, is the calculator the thing that enables you to recalculate how the holiday pay should be calculated? So we built an app that enables us to do that. So you get quite a lot of client driven stuff. We get a lot of internal driven stuff.
So, I got an example where we automated, the client never asked for this, but that it was a result of one of our clients really understanding the client and really understanding the sorts of issues they had. And most importantly, they were really understanding some of the capability we have within Weightmans to do things. And so we actually one of the country's largest employers, they have something like 10,000 local sites, all managed locally by an HR manager and in the UK claims involving the Disability Discrimination Act, you have to go through a number of steps to ensure that you've treated the person, the employee fairly and that's both from a procedural basis and a substantive basis.
So you've got both evidence, what you've done and how you do it, the decision that you've taken all along the way. And if you get it wrong, it can be quite expensive and it can be quite challenging claims to deal with. So the client, it's would never have asked for what we did, but the client partner could see that because it's quite a complex process to get right.
The HR managers weren't dealing with it every day, so it was a learning experience each time. They were always getting it right and that was leading to expensive tribunal claims. So what we did was to build an app. And after that steps the local HR manages through the process and provides them with a documentary evidence of the things that I've done as part of that process, so much so that they are able to demonstrate to a tribunal that they were both procedurally and substantively fair to the employee but so again, for the client would never have said, how can you be me?
But this the solution never was going to be HR managers having access to a law firm because the client would never tighten up on economics. So it was a nice solution to an existing problem. And then we have kind of the internal things like the email farming system that was driven by internal got a similar sort of thing with how we react for housing developers and so we purchased a plot of land.
And then as part of that, we then act on the sale of the residential conveyances and residential houses that we build. It's relatively low value, relatively high turnover work and so as a fixed rate, we do a lot of stuff in trying to fix you about 40 or somewhere between 30 or 40% of all work that we do is on a fixed fee basis across the firm.
That's what we do in a fixed way. You want to make this stuff as efficiently as possible. You know, one of the things we discovered was these sales times where we went to have a look at it. It was taking people an hour or so to set up each matter in the case management system. So, what again bit of RPA, bit of Kira again what we did is we have a robot that's watching a folder.
When a document hits that folder which is the instructions from the client to sell plot A of development land B, it sends up to Kira and Kira extracts the data from that sheet, which would be nice if the client can you send us in a spreadsheet because that would be easy. But doesn't we get it as a PDF so we send it up to Kira to extract the data, the person account double checks scheme is going to write because it's mostly right most of the time.
And then we further back down into a case management system and then a robot basically opens the matter on a case management system, on a practice management system and fills the necessary data into bits. And so we've saved probably 35-40 minutes of an hour long process just by automating it. Yeah, with a bit of a bit of Kira and a bit of a robot firing up.
Again, it's, you know, it's those sorts of things that the driver is actually with an hour on this morning opening a file that's probably losing is quite bad money for the sorts of speeds we get. We're getting paid for this and now we can turn it into something that we weren't making any money on, but actually we were probably if not making money, we're not making a loss anymore and that sorts of things.
00;22;17;24 - 00;22;41;23
I want to turn back to the example of the app for a second. I thought that was interesting and you know, it was you built it for a specific client. Is that something that you could commercialize or have you ever commercialized something like that for, you know, something you've built for a specific client? But then maybe you see that legs as a, as a product.
00;22;42;21 - 00;23;18;08
Absolutely. So we deliberately built it in such a way that it is capable of being commercialized. Now, at the moment, the actual app itself references some of the client's specific own policies and procedures that that's easy to swap in and out. So, we can build an app. And yes, we've got a fixed fee employment advice service which is a mix of service and again, automation and workflow.
And for you, I'm one of the bolt-ons that we are going to add into that is a series of these sorts of apps that people can use and commercialize them. So the client will have a choice, you can either have the generic DDA app for you that you just step you through or for an extra fee will tailor it to you.
By adding in your own policies and procedures. Right. And make it specific and absolutely those sort of things. And that's really how the product innovation was. That was the genesis of the product innovation team that we put together in May, was to actually start to commercialize and turn some of these things into a product and knowing that we were a service product to them, we thought we probably ought to hire a product manager who knew about taking something, turning into product and how we were going to manage those products from idea to commercialization to actually retiring as well, because some of these products have a finite lifetime and.
00;24;19;14 - 00;24;42;10
So that leads me into one of my next questions, which is what does all this do to the makeup of a law firm in terms of the types of skills and roles that have been added because of this activity around innovation and technology? So, you mentioned a product manager. Are there you know, are there other roles that you see increasingly important?
And how are you managing sort of the integration of all of those new roles with a traditional law firm structure.
00;24;53;10 - 00;24;55;12
Well, there's quite a few questions that you want to.
00;24;55;19 - 00;24;55;23
Sorry about that
00;24;56;21 - 00;25;31;11
Of in terms of roles. This isn't an original thought because I've heard others express it, but it comes out and it's when you talk a little bit about allied professionals in the sense that to my mind, certainly from the sort of tenders that we see from clients and the conversations that people are having with clients, the successful law firm of the future is going to be one that can put together multi-disciplinary teams of people.
And I don't mean a real estate lawyer, an employment lawyer and a tax lawyer. I mean a lawyer and a business analyst. And a project manager and a legal engineer and a developer, for example. I've put those groups of people together to solve problems with clients with an example of something that is almost, almost is going to be brilliant.
So where we can exactly where we could see an opportunity. The clients seem really interested in exploring the opportunity. We got a bunch of people in a room lawyers, developers, legal engineers, business analysts, project managers, maybe we got the lawyers to a place where what they thought they were going to have to build was a capability for hundreds of paralegals, or we ended up building was an app that had we been able to commercialize it, it would have been it solved the problem and it did what computers do, which is repeatable, predictable at scale.
Now, as it happens, legislation change faster than we were able to do with it. So, we never, never. But it was it was a beautiful example but it was in August, just as we were starting to get sort of post Covid. It was a first line for two years. You got people in a room together.
We have, you know, the magic paper, moist and sticky and all that kind of stuff and started talking about how we going to do this, how are we going to deliver it. I think it's my kind of saying increasingly you're going to see because if you listen to me, I spent 20 years going to conferences listening to GCs, and I still say the same thing, which begs a question.
But one of the things that I often say is in terms of the things that have to do, the legal advice is just one little bit of it. Yeah, a little bit of the problem they're trying to manage on a day-to-day basis. So actually, if that's the problem they've got, then the successful law firms are the ones are going to be able to solve it, to solve the wider problems, only some of which might be pure legal advice.
00;27;29;15 - 00;27;54;22
You know, continuing on that sort of theme of the sort of the human side of this mean you to discussed the multidisciplinary ness of it. But there's also a lot in the in the report about sort of the human side of the practice of law and how it's changing. Do you see technology as part of that? Is technology making life better for lawyers?
Has it come far enough to do that? Or is it still of maybe a frustration for a lot of people but getting better or how do you how do you see technology fitting in in terms of this sort of sort of new awareness of quality-of-life issues, I think in the industry.
00;28;13;08 - 00;28;41;11
So I think it's very, very mixed. And it would depend on who you ask. If you think about it, a lot of the technology that suddenly became useful in inverted commas, prevalent and what have you, it already existed pre-pandemic. We had Skype. I don't know how many years but I could I could genuinely count on the fingers of one hand the numbers of people who use it for instant messaging, video chat.
It was generally people in writing. So, I don't think it's technology to say that it's changed people's attitude. I think what's happened is there is an attitude change. So prior to the pandemic, I'm pretty sure the prevailing view among a lot of lawyers is that it would be impossible to work from home as a lawyer full time or for any length of time.
And if not actually impossible, just completely impractical. So impractical that it was not doable. And then again in Weightmans 23rd of March, a day stuck in my head. We saw that change very, very quickly. And it went from this is impossible. It's not practical to being actually it's not impossible it just but it did require me to change the way I worked in order to make it possible.
And then over a period of three or four months people started to get to a point where far from being impractical, impractical, it actually had some positive benefits for some of this I think. And what enabled that change and again, I don't think I'm the first person to say this, but what enabled it to change. You got none of the pushback you normally get when you're asking people to change what they do because everybody was in the same boat or at least the same three different boats at the same time, our clients or competitors.
And of course, you mean everyone having to do it. So there's this kind of force competence that the pandemic engendered, I think really did help open people's eyes to actually this is possible. And an emphasis is at least for some people, it has some benefits. So again, this isn't a particularly novel observation, but if you're 51 in a nice house got you got your own little bit of space to do the office. I've got the garden I can sit outside and I don't have to commute anymore.
I've been doing the job for 29 years. I'm relatively comfortable in what I do. Do you know what? I don't mind not commuting. I quite like not commuting. The commute has a bit of a waste of time. Frankly, I'm more productive in terms of if you think about my job, in terms of the tasks that I have to do at home and I'm, you know, like a lot of lawyers Card-Carrying introvert, I can do more of those tasks more quickly in less time at home than I can in the office.
But that's a very narrow view of what my job is, if that devalues my attitude. Because actually, as a senior individual in the organization, on the board, my job is more than just doing my task. My job is to mentoring, to be seen, all that kind of stuff. So we've lost a bit of but I definitely see that.
I think in terms of the more junior people you know, if you're stuck in a house share, if your top part of going to work is a social life, part of the part of all of that is in my twenties, I spend as much time playing as I did working. So that was part of going to work. It wasn't just about doing the task and I think all junior people, it's probably not making their life easier in that respect.
And the other thing I really noticed is, again, I've stolen this phrase from one of our associates. You don't get the swivel chair moments in that you don't pick up on the fact the person next to you finished that phone call. They haven't quite started the next thing where you can just say, do you mind?
Can you just show me this? What do you think about that? If you're a junior, I don't think pre-pandemic anyone would ever have articulated that as a thing. But now it's not that I think it makes life a bit harder for them because if you don't know who you're going to ask because you sell at home or you are in, you haven't to come in on Tuesday, but actually most of your team came in on Monday.
So all of those things, I think that for some people, I think probably it's made it harder and that human element technology doesn't have, I don't think.
00;32;47;10 - 00;33;14;04
Right and speaking of the sort of the younger associates coming in are you finding …. some of the findings in the report talk about how, you know, they consider technology infrastructure to be important to them as they choose employers. Do you see technology and innovation as a sort of a competitive resource as you're trying to retain and hire new lawyers?
00;33;15;02 - 00;33;43;27
Yeah, I'm absolutely certainly we have invested quite heavily in apprentices and apprentice solicitors. And you can see them coming in and they are sort of looking to technologies to help them. That technology, I mean, I guess you don't mind me saying very similar to me that they've never lived in a world where the Internet didn't exist, they've never lived in a world where they didn't have a smartphone.
And so they all coming into organizations looking to replicate. Thanks very much. I have to say that's really tough for enterprise software because you are getting judged by the looking feel of Apple and the speed of Google. And that's a real challenge in enterprise software where, you know, the sorts of organizations from Microsoft and the sorts of organizations that suppliers don't have billions of dollars to spend.
And, you know, getting the UI right that my UX model, that can be quite a challenge. But yeah, I mean, their expectations are very different in terms of technology. They are looking at a starting point because I think again, what you can generalization, but the starting point is that must be an easy way of doing this.
Yeah. Which is, which is actually quite a good thing because that's the first question you have to ask if you're doing something stupid and think that must be an easy or even if it's just Excel, you know, Excel was an underrated tool, I think in law firms for doing so. And again, repeatable, predictable tasks.
00;34;51;02 - 00;35;13;16
Exactly. And that really ties back to the whole theme of automation and the idea that, you know, just taking on those using technology to take on those things that can be repeatable and done at scale. This has been very, very interesting. Great to hear some of your examples of how you've implemented these things in your firm.
So I want to thank you, Stuart and I want to remind our listeners that the The Changing Lawyer Report is available for download at the www.Litera.com/tcl Thanks very much.
00;35;28;15 - 00;35;29;01
Thank you, David.
Thank you for listening to LEGALTECH MATTERS. Be sure to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
- Litera Desktop
- Litera Create
- Litera Check
- Contract Companion
- Litigation Companion
- DocXtools Companion
- Litera Review
- Litera SecureShare
- Litera Compare
- Litera Transact
- Kira Systems
- Litera Litigate
- Foundation Firm Intelligence
- Objective Manager