Technology Adoption Unleashed: Adoption Jenga with CiteRight
Host Sherry Kappel, speaks with Aaron Wenner, CEO of CiteRight, and Haley Altman, Litera’s Global Head of Corporate Development and author of the Legal Tech Adoption Jenga series of articles at Law.com. Using CiteRight’s experience as an example, they describe the key steps and strategies that are necessary to ensure that legal technology, once acquired, is successfully implemented and adopted by lawyers. Read transcript
Sherry Kappel has over 30 years’ experience in the design, development and change management of content creation technologies. She has written and spoken widely to address the needs, goals and strategies of document-intensive businesses and is an expert in Microsoft Office/365 applications. She was recognized by ILTA as Innovative Thought Leader in in 2017 and Innovative Consultant of the Year in 2014.
Global Head of Corporate Development, Litera
A former transactional lawyer, Haley co-founded Doxly, which was acquired by Litera. She is currently Litera’s Global Head of Corporate Development.
Aaron Wenner is CEO of CiteRight, a a Toronto-based legal technology startup that makes it simple for litigators to find and reuse the work they’ve already done.
Welcome to Legal Tech Matters, a Litera podcast dedicated to creating conversations about trends, technology and innovation for modern law firms and companies big and small.
Welcome to our podcast series! Technology Adoption Unleashed and we are so fortunate to have with us Hayley Altman and Aaron Wenner from CiteRight . Hayley from Litera. And we’re going to talk about the legal tech adoption Jenga series that Hayley’s been reporting on within LegalTech News, the legal tech news portion of Law.com. So let’s go ahead and get started.
Aaron, do want to go ahead and briefly introduce yourself?
Sure. Thank you so much for having me. So my name is Aaron Wenner. I’m the co-founder and CEO of CiteRights, we ’re a legal tech startup based here in Toronto. I’m also a trained litigator. I started my career on Bay Street here in Toronto before transitioning into legal tech The product that we have built and sold is one that comes directly out of my own experience, staying up late many, many nights before submission and filing deadlines and thinking there’s got to be a better way. And we made a better way. So that’s that’s who I am, and that’s really broadly what we do.
And I just want to say thank you to you, especially because you are doing this broadcast like in the midst of a move. And I just think I want to be that good. I want to be that organized. Thank you so much for doing this.
Hey, happy to do it.
Haley how about you?
Yeah, I’m Haley Altman. I am the global head of corporate development at LItera. I’m also a lawyer by training, had my own startup actually in the transactions management space that I sold to Litera, and now I help bring companies into this wonderful Litera family.
So awesome. So my name is Sherry Kappel and I’m an evangelist here at Litera. While I am not a lawyer, I might have played one on TV. And similarly, I too created a product that is a part of the Litera family. And so I loved your comment about empathy, right? The fact that you wanted to get all of the friction out of this process right and create a solution.
Haley, in your case, a whole platform that that solved a lot of pain for a lot of people. So I think, Aaron, you’ve mentioned a bit about your journey into legal tech, but but why don’t you kind of take us from there to building a company? How did you go about building the company and building a solution because that moment had to be…had to be interesting.
Yeah, and it was it was scary. And so I guess the starting point is that just by a background and by a hobby, I’ve always been a coder and I’ve always been interested in thinking about ways that I can automate some of the stuff that I do every day. So that’s a polite way to say and kind of a geek about all of this stuff. But I think my process started here anyway. While I was still in law school when I was at McGill for law school, I was I was one of the editors at the McGill Law Journal and one of the associate editors of the standard guide to the Legal Citation in Canada McGill Guide, which is sort of the Canadian version of the Blue Book. And I had a citation on the brain, I guess, throughout law school, and that helped translate into when I went into practice at the firm where I started at and realizing I was taking a lot of time studying my sources just like I was in law school, and that seemed like a task that maybe I ought not to be doing by hand.
It seemed like if there was ever a job for a robot in law, legal citations seemed like the place to start.
But really, that was the that was the the kernel of the idea. I spent a lot of time just mulling over what it might mean to automate some of the really time consuming tasks that were driven by court and regulatory requirements that added a lot of time to the final stages of the litigation process. So when you think about the distinction between what we do when we do legal research, which is answering a question on behalf of a client or making an argument on behalf of a client and doing so with reference to the facts of the case and what the what the law says, that’s sort of the fundamental piece – writing a cogent and coherent argument. All of those are areas where we, as lawyers, use our lawyer brains that we we worked so hard developing in law school and in practice, but that’s only a part of the actual overall workflow.
The whole other sort of penumbra of that is all the other friction, repetitive tasks that go into it. So when it comes to delivering a piece of legal research to a court or to a client that that research has to be written and drafted – sure. But it also has to be formatted in a particular way. You have to make sure the citations are accurate, and you have to make sure that your tables of authorities are written are drafted properly in Canada every time you go to court.
You have to submit alongside your written arguments a printout of the cases that you’ve cited with the specific paragraph that you cited visually distinguished. So the judge or the opposing counsel can very quickly cross-reference what I say the law says with what the law actually says, and all of those are areas or things where from a regulatory, from a court organization point of view, it’s a great thing to have, but it’s still put the burden on the profession and the drafters themselves.
And so the idea was what what can we do to automate or speed that process up and through a process of just talking to my colleagues and thinking a lot about it. What developed out of those conversations was the understanding that this is really a collaboration and coordination problem, and that the problem of putting together a book of authorities or writing a citation could be made a lot faster if people saved their cases in a shared library that everybody else had access to, or if people wrote down the citations first before they actually did the drafting. And we recognize that that’s not a thing that people are going to do because that creates even more work for lawyers whose time is constrained. But it also represented a real opportunity for us to think about the distinction between cognitive labor and non-cognitive labor and thinking about how we can factor out all of the form pieces of the work, all the non-cognitive parts so that the entire legal team associates partner is paraprofessionals. Librarians can focus on the work that matters. So that was the idea. It took a big leap from me and also for my wife to support me as we as I decided that this is the thing I have to do. There’s a lot of I spend a lot of time thinking about this and feeling anxious that somebody else is going to come up with this idea before I did, and that was really it.
I kind of had a realization point where I thought, if I don’t do this, somebody else will, and I’ll be bummed if if someone beats me to the punch. And so that was really the factor I could get in my mind. I couldn’t think of doing anything else. And there was a long process from there to here. I mean, I spent a lot of time mocking up what it would look like and showing that off to lawyers individually and in groups, getting their feedback and iterating on what the functionality would be.
I found that this is the product itself was hard to describe, but easy to show. If I could show, here’s how the workflow would go from beginning to end. And there was a lot more that we wanted to build on the product that in conversations with lawyers and firm managers and vendor managers in the conceptual phase, they push back and give really helpful criticism or feedback and said, you know, I love this piece, but this other thing you’re proposing to build doesn’t make any sense or I wouldn’t trust it.
And that was all very helpful because learning early on what the killer app would be, what the mean draw of the product of CiteRight would be, which ended up being you can generate a book of authorities just by helping everybody else before that process saved their citations and organize them.
That was the kernel. Everything else sort of fell by the wayside and we were able to really dove in and focus on a product that mattered. And so for me, the process started with showing this to law firms having them commit in general in very non-binding terms to use this product if it ever became available.
But I got I got five of Canada’s largest law firms to write letters of intent, saying yes. If you built it, we would come. Maybe. And that was and that was what allowed me to get started and say, OK, there’s real validation behind this.
And that also turned into the mockups that I made and the the validation that I developed. The mockups turned into the product and the letters of intent turned into our first batch of customers. So that was kind of how we got started.
So so I have to make a comment and then clearly, I have a question for you, but you have validated something for me and in in in how you describe that. A number of years ago, I participated in a graduate program at Northwestern University and I told our innovation professor when he asked everyone to give them a definition, give him a definition of what’s innovation. I basically called it a haunting. I said all innovation that actually is realized is a haunting because the idea does not go away. And like, literally, you have to move things out of the way to make way for it.
You know, it’s like the sixth Sense, only it’s that you see software products everywhere.
That’s exactly right. I couldn’t. I couldn’t get the idea out of my head. It was everywhere it was. I would talk to everybody about it incessantly.
That was really how I realized I had to make a mark up because I kept talking to people about it and they had no idea what I was talking about. Wow, what is this thing that’s going to do what now? So building it was really helpful. Yeah. And really, I found and this is the advice I give. I’m also, among other things, I’m an entrepreneur in residence with Harvard alumni entrepreneurs. And so I do talks like this where I explain, you know, you have to build something.
It doesn’t cost you a lot of money to build it. I’m not saying you should, you should code it. But if you can show in pictures and tell a story about how things start and how things and people can see, well, what is my end goal?
Here’s how you help me towards my end goal, and here’s the path you’ve you’ve helped me along. And if you’re in if the person you show that you can understand or really believe themselves being part of that path, then that’s how you know you’re on track.
And that’s how you know, there’s where it’s really worth building something oftentimes people won’t know they won’t believe you or they won’t understand how the product works. And that mean are your concept works. And that means it’s time to go back and iterate more and really get it to the point where somebody does understand.
And I think to to to visualize it, you know, we’re not all in the same category of pain about these topics, right? So Haley, was that similarly your journey to legal tech, to forming a company, you were haunted like like us all?
Yeah, no. I mean, it was and there’s actually some really funny similarities that I had not heard on. I was doing this too, but so I was practicing. I was on my way to partnership. I had had the idea when I was a senior associate, actually made partner and was like, OK, I still have to do this. I told the firm that I was working on this or like, OK, they introduced me to High Alpha, which is a venture studio in Indianapolis that was looking to consider something in legal. And so I brought the idea and we worked together to build those mockups of what this could look like.
And during Sprint Week, you pitch against three other ideas. And so this was all like the other founders ideas. So Scott Dorsey, who created ExactTarget and sold for 2.1 billion. I was competing against his idea as well, and it was like a little daunting and overwhelming.
But Christian Anderson, who was leading my team, he’s one of the four general partners for the for the venture studio – he was like Haley, this is a real idea. This is a real pain point. He’s like, Go get slides. And so I went out and got letters of intent and four letters of intent that we presented. And so our last slide in our presentation to when to go for the pitch was the Steve Jobs. One more thing.
So we did the presentation, the whole thing and then we did the one more thing slide and they were like, You know, and I will I will not forget, Christian said. If you have a product, but you don’t have a customer, if you don’t have a business, you have a hobby. If you have customers, even if you don’t have a product, you have a business, and what we have is. That’s right. And we write for letters of intent up and someone from the back goes, you’ll need a lawyer. Oh crap. And I did just them myself and I did, and I drafted them and I called the law firms and we got it. And that was our first customers, too, and and it was one of those things. And then then we raised capital and but it was something you have to do. If the pain point is real and then there’s a lot of pain points we experienced as attorneys or associates and different points in time across our journey.
And and there are times where we’ll go and say, let’s build a company around this idea. But there is like a small pain point that’s felt by a subset of people in a not a profound enough way that the law firm. So to like to move forward with an idea to leave your practice to lead partnership, understanding that that idea is a pain point that people will pay for it. That is a different thing and that it also leads you to a better part with on the adoption journey, which is something I still remain totally passionate about because legal tech is important, but getting people to use it is more important.
Yeah, and that’s why Hayley, I think that was kind of my next question. What exactly gave you the, you know, the idea to then, you know, launched this series Legal Tech Adoption and Jenga? Where did that come from?
So I was doing and talk for Legal Geek London, and I was doing it with Alma Asay who as a former founder or lawyer turned founder and we had all these conversations about how the struggles we had getting people to adopt technology, and even when they see the pain point, they understand it, getting them past that curve of really wanting to take the time because it’s sometimes it’s painful to learn technology, even if the ultimate result is that your life will be better. You don’t have the time you’re so busy to devote to that. So we’re really starting to think about it and there’s all these articles about it. So we’re doing this talk, and I really likened it to like a set of Jenga. A lot of times you come in and they have a preconceived notion of how this is going to go here. It’s all the pieces are there, but no one’s actually put time into thinking about what the components are. And then you realize, Oh, you know what? No one knew what the problem was. They were really trying to solve.
It wasn’t clearly defined what they were hoping to achieve. So we took that out. Then it’s like, OK, but you don’t actually have like, set up champions. You don’t have a feedback loop. And as you start to take these different pieces out, like your adoption journey like crumbles.
So we said it was then that was that part. Then I said, OK, what if you build things the right way and you set things up and you identified what the pain point was? And so we looked at what do you need to do?
But what was important and what we thought was important, what led to the article is that what works for adoption for a transaction management platform that is very, you know, lawyer user focus. But, you know, associates, paralegals, not necessarily partners, is different for a technology that’s focused on a law firm back office, and it’s different from a technology that’s focused or engages with the end customer, as a law firm from the client. And so we really said, you know what? Like, if we look at adoption from one perspective, our lived experience, we aren’t necessarily providing a whole picture as to what law firms need to think about for each of their innovation projects.
So we said, look, let’s take a look at some of these amazing companies looking at adoption and users from different perspectives. We’ll interview them. But true adoption requires the buy in of the customers. And so we wanted to say – every person that’s company that’s highlighted in the article series has to bring to customers that will are willing to talk about the adoption journey so we can see that adoption journey from their lens as well. What worked, what didn’t, what they how they how it’s changed their look on an innovation. And so we want to bring those stories to everyone so that they can really understand the different things that so we can all continue to learn and advance how we go for adoption programs.
So I’m assuming aspects of that are what led you to CiteRight?
I mean, we were really impressed with everything they’ve done here. You’ve got you are interacting with the user at really discrete, important points in time in their journey, and it’s important to be able to say like, like, we really liked how they were interacting with people, the importance of where they were going. And so we really wanted to understand more about their process and how they engage these users so quickly to kind of change processes and bring in these different resources.
So it was exciting for us. To really get a chance to learn more about what they were doing.
So in the article, you raise the fact that there were four adoption, themes that that became very clear to you when you spoke with their customers: managing expectations from the onset; prioritizing and tailoring the training sessions; widening the net when you cast it for champions; and then gathering and sharing success stories and insights with clients. Now we’re going to talk with Aaron about this specifically, but Hayley, is there anything in summary that you would like to say about about this and maybe specifically the customers you talked to about CiteRight
Well, I think what we and what was really interesting on is, I mean, these are we we found it really easy to come up with these four themes and they were all really great and really important. And I think, you know, some things that we’ve incorporated into different things with the products as we have. When you think about prioritizing and tailoring your training sessions like it, I mean, it is such an important nuance. The users are different, their workflows, their experiences are different and like really thinking about it from a legal tech perspective of who are like, especially if you’re going to cast a wide net for a first champions like that.
All these things really kind of come together because if you’re going to having more people that try your solution, that can buy into it, that can give you more success stories that you can tell, you can’t do that unless you start with like that understanding of how those individual people work.
So I really thought that it was interesting to see about how all of these different things like really built on each other and like they were really important frameworks that actually allowed their law firms to achieve the level of success because they kind of started with some of these really foundational efforts.
Thanks. So Aaron, you know, as Hayley was sharing that again, it it just really begs the question, you know, adoption and adoption success I feel in in your products case, it sort of began with the product development and yes, the messaging and the visualization. But but tell us where in the in the process of either implementation or even going out in and and selling the application, where exactly does adoption begin? That’s kind of the thing I want to know.
Sure. And the thing that I would point out, even even before that is that legal tech is still pretty new. And there are some established categories of software where there are enough competitors out there and people understand how to use the software.
You know, if you do legal research, you kind of know how to how to use the tool and adoption and your adoption challenges are different. So if you want to kind of come up with a Westlaw killer, you know, people know it West law is supposed to do.
eDiscovery is the same thing. It’s been around long enough that people can understand, OK, this is the tool that I use, and here is kind of when I would use it. But for so many other tools, us included, we are approaching a problem that has existed in legal for a long time. So much so that it’s almost people have sort of built up calluses around it. They they it’s painful, but maybe they sort of live with that pain and that the adoption challenge starts with educating people about what exactly the problem is. And so much of what we need to do as vendors is work with our customers, as consultants and as partners in helping them push forward the idea from really the very beginning. And so the implementation that needs to begin with, and with even before selling the product, helping educate people that this might actually be a problem or this thing that you do that you just sort of took as a given, oh, you know, in our instance, it was litigation will take you another five to ten hours of labor that’s going to happen at the very, very end of the process, when things are most crazy, that has nothing to do with making sure that you’ve got. You’re getting a better argument or written or a more coherent or elegant drafting or language in place. It’s only to do with that final assemble all the pieces and send them out. As long as people sort of assume that was the cost of doing business as status quo, you know, people will go on doing the same thing that they’ve always done. So it begins with educating and training, educating people and understanding, you know, not only that, there’s got to be a better way, there is a better way.
And if you start thinking about, well, how much time do I spend doing this and is this value added for the client? Why am I spending as much time? Or will the courts require me to do it? Well, maybe there’s a way that I can do it faster. That’s where things begin. But the people who you need to convince also are they are quite diverse within a law firm, and it depends on the size of the law firm. In the largest firms, the person who buys the software and evaluates it is going to be different than the person who uses it and the person who ultimately implements and is responsible for owning the implementation? And all of those people need to be aligned and educated, and it will happen, you know, with any kind of software was included that one group might buy the software and, you know, a deal might go through, but it hasn’t been communicated to the rest of the organization what this thing is supposed to do and what the benefits are. And so we recognize that if we’re going to be successful and if our customer and more importantly, if our customers are going to be successful, you have to start from the ground up and explain what the benefit of the software is, who is going to apply to you and then walk through: OK, here’s here’s what a your 123 year window looks like. Here’s the level of adoption you can expect, and here’s how we’re going to help you with that adoption. Because it’s not – I think that firms are certainly on their way towards building up their own capacity to roll out and apply roll up software and really develop skills and change management. But we can help because the more that we, the more that we do this, the more that we know, the more that we see and the more insight that we can provide. And so that’s where we develop things like customized training modules or expectation setting at the beginning about who the different people are. And here’s a pool of users to pick first, who might become evangelists within the organization within the firm about how to use this, recognizing that people value their colleagues and their colleagues’ perspective.
Making sure that you’ve got people trained on the software that is possible beforehand. Because when when you’re in a crisis situation or when you only have an hour to get a thing done, you’re not going to spend an hour learning that technology. It’s already too late. So you need to make sure that people have understood here is when they would use this tool. And here’s how I’m going to use it. So there’s a lot of things that go into it, but ultimately it’s about working with our customers side by side and saying we are both invested in achieving a successful outcome, and here’s how we can provide our value and our insights into that process.
And Aaron, and I have to comment. And Haley, I don’t even know if you know this, but Aaron and I presented together. Well, well, actually, we were sitting together. We we presented separately, but we presented together in Toronto at a KM roundtable hosted there. And and I just have to tell you, Aaron, maybe the proximity had had an amplification to the whole thing, but I literally felt all the pain of putting together this book of citations. I felt it sitting there as you described what the process is like, and I loved that you did that because again, otherwise the technology doesn’t necessarily have something to connect to unless you’re just again, a technology geek. And so it’s such a really great call out you’ve had there to say, we have to state the problem. We have to make people feel the pain who aren’t necessarily in it. But but but secondly, if they are in it, they do not even know that there’s a better way. They can’t even imagine it.
And that’s important, right? Because when one of the one of the quirks of the legal profession is that it’s hierarchical and a lot of it is about paying your dues early on and doing work that you’d rather not be doing because someone has to do it. And eventually, you graduate beyond that and maybe you do more interesting or different work. The nature of the work that you do changes with your level of seniority in the profession. And so oftentimes what we found is it was not always easy for the people we were presenting to you, if they were more senior, if they were partners and if it had been a long time since they had to do this to recognize the pain. And sometimes they would say, well, I had to do that. And so some I had to do it.
So other people are going to have to take their lumps as well. And what we found that was it was very helpful throughout those conversations to make sure that they were people junior enough in the room to see their eyes light up so that the partners could see this thing actually is making a difference. Are people that the the associates are in Canada, the articling students can say, How come I don’t have this right now? I’m going to go back down to my office and do this thing, and I’m feeling regret that I don’t have it right now.
Not very helpful. You need to be able to show people who are not who are stakeholders that may not be directly involved in the process that’s affected to see what impact that effect will have and then help them understand what your team is has now has more capacity to do the things you need them to do if they’re not spending all their time doing this one piece.
And it is important, though, to bring them in as champions. Though, for the adoption part, because if the if the younger associates or don’t feel like they have permission to use it, the even in them every time, even if the firm has bought it, if they don’t feel like there’s buy in from above for them to use these type of tools, even though they know it will be a benefit, sometimes you can actually you can have them bought in. They’re trained on it. They want to use it desperately. But if they don’t feel that there’s that buy in, then it can actually stop a really successful journey. So helping them understand the capacity it gives, the accuracy that it adds the, you know, all of the other components and then seeing how it the just the feeling it generates with the users of the product, I think that turning them into champions from that perspective, even if they can’t remember the pain is important.
I think it’s up to their mission, really, isn’t it? It’s the permission and and frankly, the support. You know, if they if they don’t sense that in a very real way, then they feel like it’s kind of taboo.And it’s it’s not something they’re going to d ive into, regardless of whether it would solve the pain or not.
And and that’s a thing that happens. You know, a colleague of mine was in a similarly large law firm that brought in a very expensive and fancy chat system so that everybody could chat with each other. And they said, Great, now you can chat. So it’s going to be awesome. And so much more knowledge is going to be shared.
And what that firm didn’t appreciate was that it was taboo to text the partners. You can text people who are lateral to you, but not senior to you. And so people didn’t use it because they didn’t feel like they had permission. Because when you talk to a partner, you email them or call them, but you don’t, you know, you wouldn’t text them. That would be that would be preposterous.
So you have to build up that culture and say, OK, you know, here’s why it might be a good idea to have people text you or perhaps do an evaluation and help the customers recognize, well, is this a thing that would actually become adopted? There’s a lot that we would want to do at the beginning to help our customers and make sure that this is a product that is appropriate for them.
I, we have a few more minutes here, and I think what I wanted to ask, you know, it’s been a number of months, Aaron, since the article was published. And to call it to our audience, there’s a particular story about the loss of a champion and how that how that impacted your process. What I wanted to do is to just say to all of you, you know, go read the article because it’s just it’s really brilliant. But then I also wanted to say I would imagine Aaron, since then, you haven’t stopped coding or improving all of this. So what? What do you have up coming? That’s either directly came from adoption challenges or if not like cool new features? What should you look forward to?
So a couple of things that we’ve got in the works right now. The first is recognizing that for our national customers, there’s a real need to standard to to centralize their tools across all their branches.
And in Canada, that means making sure that the national firms have tools that operate and function in Quebec. You know, Canada has two official languages. It has two systems of law common and a civil law. Different sources of law and firms that are truly national in scope need a single tool that can operate with everybody. That’s an important piece for stakeholders. It’s an important piece for making sure that the firm that all officers of the firm feel like they’re being treated fairly and equally. And so I’m very proud to announce that we are our next release version 4.0, which I think by the time this show airs will already have been released. We’re releasing it this week. It is now the first ever Canadian legal tech product to be a truly cross-Canada tool. We are now compatible with Quebec and with the unique practice needs of practitioners in Quebec. The other thing to mention, of course, is that this is an ongoing process, and so there’s much more that we’re continuing to build out to support those users in Quebec , of course, to recognizing that what we do for Quebec and we can extend to other jurisdictions in the future. And so we’d love to bring our tool globally and say, you know, in the same way that we help lawyers in Ontario or in Toronto and Montreal, you should be able to operate in Sao Paulo in the same way. And to that end, the other major piece that we’ve seen is something which is really a global trend towards, I should say, as a result of COVID, a transition towards digital hearings and courts. And that’s the thing you know, in 2019 was on a 20 year trajectory. And somehow, in March of 2020, that 28 year adoption trajectory of moving courts toward digital processes condensed into a couple of months.
And as courts digitized that represented another administrative challenge for the profession, how do you get your materials into court in a way that you can present them effectively and efficiently do to a judge? And so we’ve been working closely with CaseLines, one of the preeminent court presentation tools to make our product compatible with their software so that with a single click, you can export material from CiteRight and get it to court. And and that’s going to be our focus for the next year, moving beyond just citation into document litigation document assembly, making it possible for you to build not just a compilation of legal authorities of cases and other materials like that, but also being able to build your evidence record in the same way. And that is a tool that is truly global in scope. Lawyers all over the world have that problem and one that I think at the time is right for.
So we’ve listened to our customers. We’ve heard where their pain points are. There’s a lot more for us to do our process for working on this. These these bundling tools resembles a whole lot of what we’ve been doing so far. What we did when we initially developed CiteRight at mockups, understanding what the what the deliverable needs to be and working backwards from there. But that is a tremendous opportunity for us. We’ve already gotten the first piece out of the way with this case line’s integration, but there’s still some really great stuff to come.
And and that’s so exciting because what I heard in that too, Haley was the inclusivity of it all. And I just think that’s a great theme, right to to just continue to be inclusive of in your country. And then equally, across the globe.
So I think, Hayley, we would love for you to wrap this up here. Is there anything else you’d like to comment on about CiteRight’s, adoption approach and what they have planned for the future?
No, I think it’s great. I mean, I think it hits on a lot of the points that are really important in terms of in terms of adoption. The journey is not just like one block, it’s not one Jenga piece. You have to build the whole kind of tower. And so thinking about that foundational, do you understand the problem and do you understand how people experience it? How do you kind of build those champions? I think when you’re thinking about adoption for your specific product set, there are there is not one thing, one piece that leads to successful adoption.
So you need to kind of figure out the pieces that work to take you forward. And I think at the end of the day, being inclusive of all of your users, you know, wherever they sit within the firm and what their style or what their role is within the firm or, as you know, from a geographical perspective, that inclusivity and making things accessible, I think that that’s super important and a great and a great note to end on.
And exactly, I want to thank you, Hayley. I want to thank you, Erin. These are really exciting things and and thank you for sharing it with us. Thank you so much for having me. Have a great rest of your day, everyone.
Thank you for listening to legal tech matters. Be sure to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.