ARCHIVED CONTENT
You are viewing ARCHIVED CONTENT released online between 1 April 2010 and 24 August 2018 or content that has been selectively archived and is no longer active. Content in this archive is NOT UPDATED, and links may not function.Throughout its history, Legaltech has been an excellent event that orients, energizes, and focuses legal technologists at the beginning of each new year on the issues, opportunities, and players in the arena of legal technology. Legaltech 2017 continued this fine tradition and delivered a combination of content and community that will positively impact attendees and the industry in 2017. Much will be written on the excellence of this year’s event, and I will be in strong agreement with most of the kind and deserving comments. However, provided below are several sharp observations associated with legal technology’s most well-known and well-attended event that might be worthy of consideration.
Comparing Attendee Access Approaches
This year’s approach to Legaltech attendee access by ALM appears to track with some of the elements initiated during last year’s event. In 2017 ALM began charging all attendees for access to limited events and vendor exhibits. Based on anecdotal comments from all types of participants, this change seems to have eroded some of the goodwill gained by ALM in past years through the provision of low-to-no cost limited attendee access to sessions and vendor exhibits. This new revenue stream approach follows on the heels of last year’s sudden exclusion of some members of the vendor community from the event by canceling previously approved passes because those providers did not participate as a sponsor in Legaltech and chose to host meetings outside the Legaltech venue. Through the lens of some exclusions in 2016, the charges for all attendees in 2017 seems consistent with a trajectory change in how ALM engages with the community that ultimately makes the event possible.
Cost recovery may be a sound financial business model for ALM, but charging attendees a fee to learn more about exhibitors who have already paid for the opportunity to share their information and offerings with attendees seemed overreaching. As an event’s success is directly related to the quality and quantity of its attendees, it might be beneficial for ALM to deeply consider the impact of future access cost changes on not only finances but on perception. Said in a different way, perception is reality, so appearances matter.
Considering the Narrative of eDiscovery
This year’s event provided a great forum to learn from some of the leading authorities on how discovery technologies, international events, and individual communication patterns will impact the eDiscovery ecosystem. Having participated in some way in Legaltech since 2006, it is always fascinating to see how many authors and reporters parachute into the information stream of Legaltech in early January and then add their icing to the cake of content being shared by industry experts. This reporting serves the purpose of highlighting topics but many times falls short of the investigative and educational journalism that could benefit industry professionals. Instead of just providing a mouthpiece and distribution network for the comments of individuals and company’s that pay for access, it would be incredibly refreshing and beneficial to see these authors and reporters also focus on how technologies can benefit end users. Investment and company stories are important, but without the balance of investigative and educational journalism, these payment-driven approaches contribute to reinforcing a sound bite approach to thinking about discovery instead of encouraging deep thinking and intellectual rigor. They also limit access to some of the newer and unique technologies and companies as they constrain coverage based on payment or potential payment in return for articles and mentions. Said in a different way, the industry would benefit if the bright minds of its journalists not only covered the obvious, but also employed their acumen to investigate, compare, and contrast new ideas, innovative techniques, and emerging technologies in eDiscovery.
Contrasting eDiscovery Institute and Association Approaches
The announcement cycle before Legalweek 2017 was interesting as it highlighted the differing approaches used by industry institutes and associations to help eDiscovery professionals in the execution of their duties. One approach included the release of detailed and insightful content to help in the execution of data management and legal discovery. Another approach was manifested in one announcement that shared research responses without the context necessary to understand whether assertions were representative of the eDiscovery ecosystem. These two approaches represented the range of differing ways that industry institutes and associations focus on creating value. One approach focused on creating value for end users, and the other approach appeared to concentrate on creating value for the organization.
When member supported entities begin to focus on awareness, sponsorships, and community before tools, techniques, and expertise, that entity-centric instead of end-user-centric focus may lead to the deterioration of value provided by an institute or association. Said in a different way, what one focuses on impacts what one delivers.
Considering Legaltech and eDiscovery
Legaltech is an important event that annually impacts the fabric of eDiscovery. It helps to form and shape opinion. It helps to form and shape understanding. It also helps to form and shape relationships and partnerships. By focusing its considerable influence on the eDiscovery ecosystem by challenging itself, industry support organizations, and industry authors and reporters to refocus on the people and problems of eDiscovery instead of the promotion and profits of eDiscovery, Legaltech should not only be able to maintain its place as the leading event in eDiscovery, but it might also be able to position itself as one of the leading influencers and educators in eDiscovery.
