The quarterly publication of the International Legal Technology Association
Issue link: https://epubs.iltanet.org/i/11430
a new generation of printers, which were “cloud aware.” Basically, these printers connected to a print server with a cloud service provider and processed print jobs for users of the service provider authorized to use the printer. Legacy printers with network connectivity were also able to use Cloud Print with the addition of an external interface device. Other peripherals for the Google tablet allowed users to connect to larger external displays and keyboards for use in an office setting. This has allowed attorneys to use one tablet device anywhere. Outside Forces of Change The economic downturn, which started in late 2007, accelerated changes that had already begun on the periphery. The clients of more and more firms were frustrated with the ever-rising cost of legal services. Attorney salaries in large firms had risen to a very a high level, compared to salaries in other industries. When one firm raised salaries, other firms felt tremendous pressure to follow suit in order to retain top talent. When one firm had an extraordinary year and paid a higher bonus, inevitably word of this spread and others matched. Clients, ever watchful of our practices, became more and more frustrated, insisting on discounts, fixed fees, and other alternative billing arrangements. The move to alternative fees was neither a surprise nor foreign territory for those of us in information technology, since many of our projects had been billed on fixed bids. Those of us who spent time in the consulting world were very familiar with the concept and knew how to estimate projects and manage to a budget. As a rule, the legal profession wasn’t accustomed to this model at all: the focus was on delivering the best possible legal services to the client, and cost became an issue only if the client voiced concern about the ability to pay the bill. The result was an industry struggling to make a radical change. Profits suffered over a period of several years as many firms struggled to adapt to the changing landscape. There was also continued pressure to reduce costs wherever possible, and the traditional partner/counsel/associate model was broken. The outsourcing of commodity legal work and administrative functions became even more palatable to many firms. Real estate footprints were reduced as firms came to the realization that they could find a way to function with less space, with some firms taking more advantage of “hoteling” and improvements in remote access to allow for greater flexibility in the use of space. Data centers and administrative staff, where possible, were moved to cheaper off site locations. In this era of austerity from 2007-2012, technology spending was targeted toward driving efficiency and providing key tools that firms needed to thrive in the changing market. The Move to the Cloud With firms having become as efficient as they could providing their own infrastructure, in 2015 we started to see a number 74 www.iltanet.org Peer to Peer of firms move many aspects of their core systems to cloud- based providers. The economics proved too attractive to resist. Many core systems — e-mail, document management, and word processing — had become commodities. Firm leadership began to ask the logical question: Why pay a premium for something done in house that could be done less expensively by someone else? After all, information technology was not the core business, it simply enabled the business. Yes, there were some issues and logistical hurdles to address, but those are largely history now and no longer stand in the way. Today, in 2020, most firms use a combination of cloud providers, and some maintain some legacy data internally, though the trend seems to be to move that legacy data to the cloud as well. The Slow Climb to the Cloud The ascent to the cloud was not like turning on a light switch. It has been a gradual process that really started in the 1990s with the Application Service Provider (ASP) model. Many law firms looked to these ASP providers for key services such as human resources and payroll processing. These service providers proved to be trustworthy, and having these key systems offsite also saved those firms from having to worry about them in the event of a disaster. The model was later also used successfully for electronic discovery systems, allowing firms to avoid significant capital expenses for internal systems. These service providers also introduced legal IT and the business to a new model of payment: rent. Firms would not own these systems, but rather, they would pay a bill on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis for use of the service. In exchange, the service provider worried about the details of upgrading hardware, tech support, and the like. This proved to be an attractive offering for many firms, and so the model succeeded for these applications. Years later, a similar model would gain traction with other software vendors, as they discovered that a subscription model yielded greater profit for them. A good deal of packaged software shifted to this model. This was another step in the direction of more predictable costs for legal technology, as it allowed firms to avoid large capital outlays for software. Various Cloud Formations There are two general categories of cloud service providers with some minor variations. The first category is “infrastructure providers.” These service providers simply focus on providing storage and connectivity, nothing more. The other category is “solution providers.” They provide the infrastructure and applications which reside in that infrastructure. As you might imagine, not all solution providers offer a full suite of services. Some, like Google, Amazon and Microsoft, offer a broad range of services, options and price points. These solution providers have partnered with other companies who have built suites of cloud offerings for vertical industries using the