ILTA Survey January 2011
2011 Law Department Technology SurveyAnalysis and Results
www.iltanet.org www.hgpresearch.com2011 Law Department Survey2
Hyperion Research and ILTA are
pleased to report the results of the
2011 Law Department Technology
Survey. This biennial survey provides
useful benchmarking and trending
data for understanding the use of technology by
corporate law departments. Conducted in December
2010, the survey was open to all corporate law
departments, both ILTA members and non-members.
The objective of this survey is to gain insight
into the broad range of technologies that support
corporate law department operations. The survey
questionnaire includes baseline topics covered every
year to allow for comparisons and trending on a
year-over-year basis, as well as new topics addressing
emerging trends and technologies.
Note: Not all participants responded to all
questions and some questions allowed for multiple
responses. There may also be immaterial rounding
errors. Accordingly, survey results and analysis may not
add up to 100%.
2011 Law Department Technology Survey
www.hgpresearch.com www.iltanet.org 2011 Law Department Survey 3
SuRvey PARTiciPAnT DemogRAPhicSThe survey was open to any corporate law
department (public or private), nonprofit/charitable
organization, university or government legal office.
The survey was not open to law firms, software
or consulting vendors. We received a total of 54
qualified survey responses; approximately 70% of the
respondents are ILTA members.
Respondents were predominately based in the
United States (88%), with responses also from Canada,
Finland, India, Mexico and the United Kingdom.
Company size, based on revenue, was relatively
distributed across the ranges.
Respondents came from a broad cross section
of industries.
Law Department Peer GroupILTA’s Law Department Peer Group, which includes corporate, governmental, educational and judicial law
departments, connects IT professionals and legal staff in member organizations to facilitate educational
opportunities and networking events. The group strives to deliver educational programming, publications and
other member benefits on topics related to technology and support systems in a law department, including (but not
limited to): contract management; corporate ethics and compliance; risk management; managing outside counsel;
government relations; in-house litigation support; and many more. Its e-group (online community) facilitates
discussions relevant to both the technical and process-related needs of corporate members.
www.iltanet.org www.hgpresearch.com2011 Law Department Survey4
oRgAnizATionAL STRucTuReRespondents were asked a series of questions about
their organization, staff size and the role of IT in their
law departments. With regard to IT leadership roles,
only 34% reported having a senior-level (director) legal
IT position; 63% of those have had the position for
5 years or more and 25% for 2 years or less. Legal IT
committees were reported from about one third of
respondents. Interestingly, there was no noticeable
relationship between having a director of legal IT
position and the use of a legal IT committee.
In terms of staff size, we asked about the number
of attorneys, paralegals and other support staff. As one
might anticipate, the staff size generally correlated to
the size of the organization.
50% of respondents reported that they have a
dedicated legal IT group, while the other 50% reported
that corporate IT provides IT support. For organizations
with 50 or more attorneys, 78% reported having a
dedicated legal IT group. 29% of organizations with less
than 50 attorneys reported having a dedicated legal IT
group, while 71% are supported by corporate IT.
STRATegic PLAnning In the area of planning, respondents were split down
the middle with 55% reporting that they do have
strategic plans and 45% reporting that they do not.
Only 16% reported that they have a dedicated
legal IT budget, 39% submit requests to the
corporate IT budget and 45% have a hybrid legal
department/corporate IT budget. When asked
about their legal IT budget for 2011, 50% reported
the same or reduced budgets, while the other 50%
reported budgets that are generally increasing (43%)
or significantly higher (7%).
Document management was reported as the
highest legal IT priority with 83% reporting it as a
high or medium priority. E-discovery was next with
76% reporting it as a high or medium priority. Office
productivity was rated the lowest legal IT priority.
Number of Attorneys
< 10 11 – 49 50 – 149 150 – 250 > 250
Less than $500M 10
$500M - $1B 2 1
$1B - $10B 2 10 1
$10B - $25B 1 3 6 2
Greater than $25B 2 6 3 5
Number of Paralegals
< 10 11 – 49 50 – 149 150 – 250 > 250
Less than $500M 10
$500M - $1B 2 1
$1B - $10B 9 4
$10B - $25B 3 5 4
Greater than $25B 2 7 5 2
Number of Other Support Staff
< 10 11 – 49 50 – 149 150 – 250 > 250
Less than $500M 10
$500M - $1B 3
$1B - $10B 7 6
$10B - $25B 1 8 3
Greater than $25B 2 8 5 1
50 Attorneys or More 23
Dedicated Legal IT Group 18 78%
Corporate IT Group 5 22%
Less than 50 Attorneys 31
Dedicated Legal IT Group 22 29%
Corporate IT Group 9 71%
www.hgpresearch.com www.iltanet.org 2011 Law Department Survey 5
ILTA’s 2011 LAw DepArTmenT survey
coRe APPLicATionS AnD TooLSA number of key categories were covered in regard to
core applications. In general, we found that, as compared
to other business functions, law departments may be
underutilizing technology. This provides an opportunity
for law departments to extend the use of technology to
improve their operations and performance.
Microsoft Office is the leader for office
productivity suites with nearly 100% of responses.
IBM Lotus Symphony, OpenText eDOCs, Coredge
COR:Mail and Google Docs were each reported
once. For document assembly, Microsoft Word (not a
traditional document assembly system) was the most
cited solution at 70%, with HotDocs and Adobe in
second and third, respectively.
We only received 33 responses about the
management of contracts and agreements, which
suggests that 38% do not have a system in place.
The most common responses were that contracts/
agreements are handled outside of the law department
(20%) or by a customized system (20%). Only one
vendor, Ariba, received more than one vote.
Workflow systems were not reported as
common (26% affirmative responses). Most
respondents use custom developed compliance
systems, but EthicsPoint is the top vendor solution.
When asked about document management
systems (DMS), nearly one third (29%) of law
departments indicated that they do not have a
DMS. Of those who do have a DMS, there was
a relatively equal distribution among vendors.
When correlated with the priority ratings from
earlier questions, we expect that law departments
will be making a significant investment in their
DMS in the coming year(s).
Office Productivity Suite 30 59% 14 27% 7 14%
Document Management 9 17% 19 35% 26 48%
Matter Management 17 33% 19 37% 16 31%
E-Billing 24 47% 13 25% 14 27%
Workflow and Automation 16 31% 18 35% 18 35%
Intellectual Property Management 28 53% 8 15% 17 32%
Electronic Discovery Systems 12 23% 21 40% 20 38%
Priority
Low Medium High
Here are unique “other” responses for this question:
• Legal hold, Security, Compliance, Knowledge Management, Microsoft SharePoint, Strategy/Architecture
We do not have a DMS 16 29%
Autonomy iManage / Interwoven 15 27%
Microsoft Sharepoint 14 25%
OpenText Livelink / Hummingbird 11 20%
Documentum 9 16%
IBM Lotus Notes 4 7%
FileNet 1 2%
Worldox 0 0%
www.iltanet.org www.hgpresearch.com2011 Law Department Survey6
For matter management systems, nearly one
third (30%) indicated that they do not have a system;
87% of those respondents fall into the small law
department categories of less than 10 IT staff and
10-49 attorneys. Correspondingly, all large law
departments indicated that they have some type of
matter management system.
We found that 62% of respondents use an
e-billing system. 38% are without an e-billing
system, which appears to contrast with the general
discussions about the importance of managing
spending in law departments.
In the area of intellectual property systems, 40% of
respondents do not have one. Of those with a system
in place, 11% developed a custom system, 16% use
Thomson, 9% use Computer Packages (CPi) and 9 %
use CPA Memotech.
With regard to e-discovery and legal hold,
responses were spread across more than 14 different
We do not have a matter management system 15 30%
We have an in-house custom developed system 10 18%
CT TyMetrix 7 12%
Bridgeway eCounsel 5 9%
Mitratech TeamConnect 3 5%
Bridgeway Law Manager 3 5%
EAG CaseTrack 2 4%
Serengeti Tracker 2 4%
Bottomline LegalXchange 1 2%
Datacert CLD 1 2%
LexisNexis CounselLink 1 2%
LT Online Lawtrac 1 2%
Legal Files 0 0%
Other: Smart Counsel (TriPoint); based on SAP; RightsLogic (RSG Media); Lawbase; CLMS; Pro-Law; Omega
7 16%
E-Billing Systems
We do not have an e-billing system 21 38%
We have an in-house custom developed system 1 2%
CT Tymetrix 11 20%
LexisNexis CounselLink 7 13%
Bridgeway eCounsel 4 7%
Serengeti Tracker 4 7%
Datacert AIMS 2 4%
Mitratech TeamConnect 2 4%
Bottomline LegalXchange 1 2%
Bridgeway Law Manager 0 0%
Other: Direct Invoice; EAG; SAP; IQNavigator 4 7%
Intellectual Property Systems
We do not have an IP System 22 40%
We have an in-house custom developed system 7 11%
Computer Packages (CPI) 5 9%
ThomsonReuters (MDC) IP Manager 5 9%
CPA Global Memotech 5 9%
ThomsonReuters (MDC) IP Master 4 7%
Dennemeyer DIAMS / DIAMS XE 4 7%
Anaqua 3 5%
CPA Global FoundationIP 3 5%
OPSolutions Pattsy 0 0%
Patrix Patricia 0 0%
Other: Lecorpio; RightsLogic; WebTMS 3 5%
Navigant - Sharepoint 2
Daticon 1
Merrill - Lextranet 1
Outsourced 1
Kroll - Hosted 2
Clearwell - Hosted 1
www.hgpresearch.com www.iltanet.org 2011 Law Department Survey 7
ILTA’s 2011 LAw DepArTmenT survey
solutions. More than 20% of respondents reported that
they use hosted solutions.
For data leak and security, 52% reported that
they do have policies and solutions. The solutions
reported were rather complex –– encryption and laptop
security were the most cited solutions, with generally
sophisticated data security and encryption policies.
We also asked respondents to identify other
applications and tools that they consider critical to
their operations. Document comparison (Workshare,
specifically) was the most common response, followed
by Secretariat/Corporate Entity solutions.
In the area of outside counsel collaboration
and the sharing of systems, we asked whether
respondents provide outside counsel access to
their systems; 39% report that they do provide
some access and 61% do not.
Likewise, in terms of respondents accessing
their outside counsels’ systems, only 20%
YES 29 (52%)
NO 27 (48%)
Smartphone standard policy and technology
Key vendors TLS links
Formal DLP program
Legal department standard
Unknown
Laptops require encryption
Corporate encryption standard
Area Vendor
Document Comparison Workshare 8
Secretariat / Corporate Entity ComputerShare - GEMS 4
ICSA - Blueprint 1
NetSuite - OneWorld 1
CLE Tracking ReqWired 1
Compliance Paisley 1
Dictation WinScribe 1
Dragon Naturally Speaking 1
Employment LawLogix 1
Enterprise Search dtSearch 1
Intellectual Property Thomson Innovation 1
LexisNexis - PatBase 1
Templates Esquire Innovations - iCreate 1
Trial Management Thomson - CaseMap 1
NO 34 (61%)
YES 22 (39%)
Catalyst Selectia
Dennemeyer CT TyMetrix
LT Online Matter System
Serengeti eRooms
iManage Foundation IP
Extranet Sharepoint
Catalyst Selectia
Dennemeyer CT TyMetrix
LT Online Matter System
Serengeti eRooms
iManage Foundation IP
Extranet Sharepoint
www.iltanet.org www.hgpresearch.com2011 Law Department Survey8
reported that they do, while 80% do not. These are
interesting, nearly inverse, correlations.
mobiLiTy AnD coLLAboRATionIn this section, we explored the adoption and use of
technologies that meet the on-the-go and distributed
work environments that are an increasingly important
part of law department operations. 81% of respondents
reported that all attorneys are issued laptops. Only one
respondent indicated that they do not use laptops at
all. When asked about the iPad, only 5% of respondents
indicated that iPad devices are supported, 36%
reported that iPad devices are not allowed and 27%
indicated that iPad support is being considered.
As for smartphones, while not generally
mandated, 93% reported that they support
smartphone access to email and applications; 33%
reported that they are mandatory. RIM/BlackBerry
was reported as the top platform and 33% reported
that they support multiple platforms.
In the area of collaboration, 100% of respondents
indicated that they are using web-based meetings,
either through a service or internal system. SharePoint
and electronic work rooms (sometimes considered
interchangeable) were also common at 66% and 45%,
respectively. Wikis and blogs, relatively new tools in
collaboration, are reported to be used by nearly half of
respondents. For outside counsel collaboration tools,
38% reported that they have implemented such tools,
but the vast majority (62%) have not.
emeRging TRenDSTo survey emerging trends in law department
technology, we asked respondents about their
adoption of technologies based on new deployment
and application use.
NO 45 (80%)
YES 11 (20%) Compliance
Lit / E-Discovery
Extranets
IPM Software
Compliance
Lit / E-Discovery
Extranets
IPM Software
YES 51 (93%)
NO 4 (7%)
Other: Nokia (1)
Android
Microsoft
iPhone
BlackBerry
Other: Nokia (1)
Android
Microsoft
iPhone
BlackBerry
Other: Nokia (1)
Android
Microsoft
iPhone
BlackBerry
Web meetings – external provider 43
Web meetings – internal provider 13
Instant Messaging 31
SharePoint sites 35
E-Rooms or shared folders 24
Wikis 15
Blogs 9
www.hgpresearch.com www.iltanet.org 2011 Law Department Survey 9
ILTA’s 2011 LAw DepArTmenT survey
In the area of social media, we surveyed the use of
Facebook and Twitter. 91% of respondents indicated that
they do not use either tool. Of those who do use social
media, 5% indicated that their department uses both.
When it comes to internally deployed applications,
there remains a mix of thin, browser-based applications
and client-based applications, with a preference
for thin-client (45%). Interestingly, five respondents
indicated that they require thin-client applications,
while none indicated that they continue to purchase
new client-server applications.
With regard to policies on externally hosted
applications, only 14% indicated that all applications
must be internally implemented, while nearly the same
number of respondents (11%) indicated a preference
for external hosting or cloud-based applications.
When asked about cloud-based applications
(software as a service or SaaS), 33% indicated that they
have deployed SaaS applications.
Another emerging area we surveyed was
Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO). The current
use of LPO services appears relatively low; 61%
of respondents are not familiar with LPO, haven’t considered it or have considered and aren’t using it. At the other end of the spectrum, 11%
reported that they use LPO services extensively.
Given the newness of the model and the as
yet immature business offerings, we may in fact
conclude this to be a rather optimistic statistical
set. The types of LPO services used included:
E-Discovery / Litigation Support (4), Intellectual
Property (3), Document Review (2).
concLuSionThere are a number of factors that influence the role
of technology in the law department, including:
• A law department’s culture and its leadership’s
view of technology –– and the corporate IT priority
in investing in technology for the law department
All hardware and applications are internally hosted, no external hosting or cloud based applications
8 14%
Our strong preference is for internal hosting, but exceptions can be made with special approval
23 41%
We are agnostic as to internal hosting versus external hosting or cloud based applications or hardware
19 34%
We have a preference for external hosting or cloud based applications and hardware
6 11%
Yes - we have tried, but not deployed
Yes - we have deployed
No - we have not tried or deployed
27 (49%)
10 (18%)
18 (33%)
No – not familiar with term 8 14%
No – not considered 11 20%
No – considered but not yet used 15 27%
Yes – have used on a project or limited basis 16 29%
Yes – have used extensively 6 11%
E-Discovery; Litigation Suport 4
Intellectual Property 3
Document Review 2
Compliance 1
NDA 1
Claims Management 1
www.iltanet.org www.hgpresearch.com2011 Law Department Survey10
• The type of work and direct applicability or benefit of
technology
• The unique rules of a practice that necessitate or
encourage technology
• The influence of court- or agency-mandated technology
Legal departments rely on technology to enable efficient
processes and drive practice effectiveness in almost every
facet of their work. The application of technology to the
practice of law is in a formative stage of adoption compared
to other business functions.
As found in our survey, law departments have made
significant strides in advancing their skills and capabilities;
however, additional opportunities exist for technology
to impact performance. Core areas such as document
management, matter management and workflow continue to
be underutilized when compared to their potential to impact
work quality and operational performance. iLTA
ABOUT ILTA
Providing technology solutions to law firms and
legal departments gets more complex every day.
Connecting with your peers to exchange ideas with
those who have “been there done that” has never
been more valuable. For over three decades, the
International Legal Technology Association has led
the way in sharing knowledge and experience for
those faced with challenges in their firms and legal
departments. ILTA members come from firms of all
sizes and all areas of practice, all sharing a common
need to have access to the latest information about
products and support services that impact the legal
profession.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
ILTA is the premier peer networking organization,
providing information to members to maximize the
value of technology in support of the legal profession.
DISCLAIMER
This report is designed for use as a general guide
and is not intended to serve as a recommendation or
to replace the advice of experienced professionals.
If expert assistance is desired, the services of a
competent professional should be sought. Neither
ILTA nor any author or contributor shall have liability for
any person’s reliance on the content of or any errors or
omissions in this publication.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Copyright © Hyperion Global Partners, Inc. and ILTA
2011. All rights reserved. Published by ILTA. c/o Editor,
9701 Brodie Lane, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78748.
ABOUT HYPERION RESEARCH
Hyperion Research is the leading provider of legal technology
market research and advisory services to corporate law departments,
law firms and solution providers. We offer our clients unparalleled
insight to the leading trends, best practices and market defining
issues that are driving success in technology and legal operations.
We bring senior industry experience and thought leadership gained
from working with the world’s leading legal organizations and
solution providers. For additional information about this survey or
Hyperion Research, please contact Ralph Schroeder, Managing
Director, at [email protected].