In the world of legal technology, one essential resource often goes unnoticed and unaccounted for in project proposals – attorney time.

In this blog, we'll explore why legal tech project proposals frequently exclude the most precious resource, shed light on the importance of attorney involvement, and provide valuable insights into optimizing these projects.

Why Attorney Time Matters

When you delve into most business cases or investment proposals for legal tech projects, you'll quickly notice that the time of your attorneys is often overlooked. The common justification is that staff members will handle the majority of the work, allowing attorneys to focus on client-related tasks. While this may sound reasonable on the surface, it's a short-sighted approach that can hinder the project's success.

The truth is, the success of legal tech and innovation projects hinges on the amount of time attorneys invest in making the project a success. Attorney time isn't just a minor consideration; it can account for a significant portion of the project's costs, ranging from 50% to 70% of the costs for most improvement and automation projects. Additionally, the time available for attorneys to participate in innovation and legal tech projects is finite. In a previous analysis, we demonstrated that, for a firm with 100 attorneys and a 1650-hour billable hour target, approximately 3500 hours are available each year for improvement projects. When utilized effectively, this time can result in the completion of around 10 projects. However, if not managed properly, it can go to waste, with little to show for it.

The Importance of Including Attorney Hours

Excluding attorney hours from project proposals can have detrimental consequences. When attorneys' hours are not considered, you may encounter various challenges during the project's execution, such as difficulty obtaining buy-in and feedback. Without attorney input, you risk creating incomplete and impractical solutions. Moreover, the absence of attorney involvement from the project's inception can lead to adoption challenges.

So, why is it not the default practice to include attorney hours in every proposal? One reason is that not all costs are considered equal in a law firm. Paying for vendors and consultants is considered hard cash out that requires approval. Attorney time is part of the salary budget which is already allocated and therefore does not require approval from management.

The other reason is that typically, these proposals are drafted by staff members, who lack authority over attorneys' hours. Mentioning that a project would require 100 hours of attorney involvement could result in the rejection of the project during the initial review. In reality, most projects necessitate attorney input of 60+ hours. Often it takes at least 5 hours in the early stages, around 10 hours during the business case phase, and over 50 hours during execution, at a minimum. These projects are designed to improve how attorneys practice law, so attorney involvement is a critical component.

While not all costs are equal, not including your most scarce resource in your proposals does not make sense and leads to over-commitment of attorney time.

Especially relevant for AI project proposals

Including attorney hours in the project proposal of an AI project is paramount for AI initiatives because attorneys possess the specialized legal expertise necessary to guide AI customization of their workflows. In addition, they can help ensure ethical and regulatory compliance, validate data quality, and provide the contextual understanding required for accurate legal insights.

Since many AI projects are driven by attorneys, these project proposals will allow your firm to start including attorney time. It will also put some realism into these plans - as attorneys who have never brought an idea to practice may underestimate the commitment that will be required from them.