Lawtech enables firms to sell “invisible” legal services

Hook: UK lags on consumer solutions

A key aspect of lawtech is its potential to help lawyers sell to consumers as part of a multi-disciplinary package that includes unrelated services, where the ‘legal’ part is invisible to the purchaser, according to a high-level analysis.

In the first of a series of podcasts from the Legal Services Board (LSB) looking at legal technology and regulation around the world, Alison Hook, a leading international legal consultant, suggested the UK market was lagging behind some other jurisdictions in consumer law.

Also, in an accompanying research paper on the impact of technology and what it might mean for regulation, Ms Hook advised regulators to intervene “proactively” in the sector and that taking a hesitant approach was probably a mistake.

Ms Hook, former director of international at the Law Society, is co-founder of international legal consultancy Hook Tangaza.

Speaking on the take-up of technology in Europe, she highlighted services available to consumers in France and Germany, and to some extent the US, in which they “don’t start out thinking ‘I need a lawyer’”, but rather have a consumer problem, such as wanting a refund on a delayed flight.

The numbers taking up such services were “really impressive”, so much so they had rattled “traditional lawyers and their regulators” there, she said.

She said the development of similar services in the UK was less than she expected, given the general openness of law firms to technology.

However, she added: “There is real potential I think to see the market develop in such a way that consumers can access services which don’t take the legal bit in isolation from other needs they might have.”

Their problems might involve “a bit of financial services, a bit of therapy [and maybe] some medical help”, she said.

“So the more that legal services are permitted to operate in a multi-disciplinary environment and a multi-functional environment [where] law is simply something that’s embedded – that’s almost invisible to people that ‘this is the boundary’, that ‘now I’m getting a lawyer’ – the more accessible people will find it and the more legal services will be used.”

She continued that the challenge for the “next stage” was whether “artificial intelligence can take us to the next level where [law firms] are actually providing a more bespoke service”.

“It’s less about ‘we can commoditise this’ – it’s about how technology can provide people with a bespoke service but do it at a sufficiently low cost that it keeps the cost to them low.”

Elsewhere in the podcast, Ms Hook observed that technology adoption in the legal sector was “not very advanced” compared to other sectors, apart from in “pockets”.

In the US, legal tech was used by law firms primarily in relation to the courts and in the UK in relation to documents, such as contracts. However, in some areas it was “becoming much more innovative” and she could see this being extended “given the right conditions”.

In the research paper, among various recommendations to the LSB and regulators, Ms Hook urged that regulators “should… not assume that standing aside from legal tech to avoid interfering unhelpfully in a world of which they are uncertain, is necessarily the right answer”.

The LSB’s chair, Dr Helen Phillips, said: “As technology takes a greater role in the delivery of services to consumers, there are clearly huge benefits to be had in terms of access to justice, efficiency and consumer satisfaction.

“Chatbots, blockchain, smart contracts – all of these technologies have the potential to revolutionise the practice of law and make it easier for consumers to access and use legal services.

“As with all new developments, however, technology brings the challenge of how regulators should respond, along with questions of responsibility and ethics. As one of its… policy objectives, the [LSB] will work to ensure that access to legal services is increased through the promotion of responsible technological innovation that carries public trust.”

    Readers Comments

  • Sam says:

    One of the key aspects of integrating tech effectively is the customer/client experience. Not something that too many law firms are particularly amazing at. As Dr Phillips notes – ‘consumer satisfaction’ is an area that can benefit from tech but tech isn’t a panacea for good customer service, a law firm needs to understand how to do good customer service and provide a positive user experience, *before* adding in tech solutions.

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.


4 June 2020

Reflecting on the spring PII renewal season

I reported last year that the October PII market was a challenging environment and many practices paid more for their cover. This trend of increased premiums continued into this spring.

Read More

Loading animation