There has been a lot of talk about integration in the legal tech world for many years now, and lately it has become more of a buzzword for legal service suppliers when discussing a link between their services and the client’s existing software. The importance of integration is obvious, and when done well, the benefits are many and varied, but it has become clear that there is some confusion around what a proper integration looks like. In my years as a legal IT director and visiting clients in my current role, it has become clear that integration is a loose term that often means different things to different people.

Law firm managers are well versed in carrying out risk assessments to justify and make decisions around IT spend. However, from May next year, risk assessments become more complex when the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) comes into force. Previously, risk assessments focused on risk to the business, for example the financial and reputational impact of a potential security breach. Now, firms must assess risk to the rights and freedoms of their data subjects. This includes respect for private and family life, freedom of expression and information, freedom to conduct a business and the right to a fair trial. This crucial change means that your risk assessments are now likely to be incorrect and will need to be re-examined.

If you write a blog on civil procedure, it is not hard to steer a course away from the issues of the day. However, there is one issue of the day that is hard to ignore. The criticisms of the appointment of Sir Martin Moore-Bick to chair the inquiry into the Grenfell Tower disaster. I have looked at the criticisms of the appointment of Sir Martin with exasperation. No-one, but no-one, has asked the central question that everyone affected by this tragedy needs to know – is this judge a good fact finder? The role of a judge as fact finder is one that is often overlooked by academics and practitioners alike. However, it is often the central part of a judge’s job in the civil courts.

Like beauty, risk is in the eye of the beholder. A key business decision can be seen through one person’s eyes as a clever entrepreneurial market move and, through another’s, as a reckless bet-the-house punt. It also depends on the point in time at which you view a decision. As Evel Knievel put it: “Anybody can jump a motorbike. The trouble starts when you try to land it.” Most business decisions end up being codified in some form of contract. This might be a simple letter with limited future consequences, such as buying stationery or booking a conference room. Or it might be a more complex document with long-term and significant consequences for the future, such as a strategic partnership with a key business introducer or the procurement of a new practice management system.

It’s easy to get sucked into a price war. It’s easier to change price than anything else. Brand, market position, value proposition etc all require considerable time and thought. Changing a number doesn’t. Clients who begin their relationship with you based on price will simply switch when a cheaper alternative is available, harming the long-term profitability of your firm. They simply don’t place a high value on your service. Do you really want that type of client? If you are reputable firm with expert staff (paid accordingly), then a price war doesn’t suit you. For one, you know it won’t give you the opportunity to properly deal with the client and any issues that may arise. You know you probably won’t be able to do your very best. So, how can you avoid getting drawn into a price war?