Community
The legal industry is ripe for an injection of modern technology and that has not gone unnoticed by myriad start-ups all vying to bring the revolution.
Creating better ways of doing things is often the easy part; the culture shift required for adoption is much harder, particularly when dealing with a profession steeped in tradition.
The question becomes not whether the revolution will happen, but how and when it will happen, and what are the interim steps needed to ease the culture change and adoption shift required.
Lets first examine the current state of legal process and technology in banking to understand the ‘gap’.
Current State
People
Currently banks operate their own legal departments, augmented with outside council for specialism, and use process outsourcing and alternative legal providers to deal with peaks created by regulatory burden. Within financial institutions, legal departments are a ‘cost centre’ and cost centres are often under funded and over worked leading to fire-fighting and tactical decisions rather than strategic thinking and long term efficiency.
Process
Much of the work in contract generation and interpretation is reactive and outside of the legal departments control. The catalysts for work are typically new business (such as on boarding new clients) driven by sales and trading, tweaks to existing contracts (often driven by market events – think Brexit, or ratings downgrades), or regulation (loads of examples here – think Mifid II, Uncleared Margin Reform etc.).
Technology
At its most basic, banking legal department technology includes somewhere to store existing contracts (document management system, file share), somewhere to negotiate contracts (phone, email), and some way to create contracts (Microsoft Word review and red-line tools).
Larger organisations will often utilise contract lifecycle management software to help manage the workflow that wraps this, with additional tooling to try and manage risks and obligations under contracts.
The problem
Superficially the technology components should be sufficient, however the reality is problematic:
Current state of Available legal technology
The gap between the available technology and adoption is where much of the problem lies.
A number of solutions already exist to address many of the problems above.
Document management systems allow contracts to be indexed by multiple identifiers and grouped into families, ordered chronologically. E-discovery and search tools incorporating artificial intelligence allow very rapid initial triage across a wide population of contracts.
Tools exist to automate contract creation with everything from questionnaire style workflows and templates that enforce business rules, through to those that provide for full negotiation of industry standard contracts in a cloud hosted environment, tracking approvals and sign offs and enforcing business logic. Risk and operational data, at least for the more standard provisions, can often be captured at point of authoring, reducing the need for extracting data later.
Contract management tools exist that include automated data extraction techniques, using machine learning, algorithmic and natural language processing to improve efficiency and accuracy of data collection for operational, regulatory and risk management purposes, with appropriate data structures to house all the important data elements. Modern contract extraction tools incorporate the relevant standards based application programming interfaces to facilitate efficient data exchange with key banking software such as risk, collateral and trade management platforms.
Current adoption
Adoption of the technologies listed above is sporadic at best. A recent example of this can be seen from the Uncleared Margin Reform regulation affecting derivatives contracts.
The upcoming deadlines were well publicised. The product vendor’s offerings were well thought through and marketed. What happened in practice was a reflection of the fire-fighting reality of understaffed legal departments and a lack of cultural adoption:
Optimal Future state
The good news is that most organisations, burdened with regulation and cost cutting and emerging with the scars from such projects are realising that in the longer term it will be quicker, cheaper and less painful to just do things properly the first time.
To progress efficiently there needs to be recognition that technology alone cannot solve the problems. The people and process elements need addressing too. Given the cross-departmental nature of the stakeholders in legal contracts and their data, it is key to establish ownership for end-to-end process flows. Without this it is too easy to think that someone else is addressing the problems, or end up with operational silos, which create inefficiencies at the ownership boundaries.
Logical Construct’s vision (click to see graphical guide) of how those seeking to move from current state to future state should make this shift – its all available now! In seeking new technologies, beware the glitzy, canned demos – if it looks too much like magic, it probably won’t work that way in practice. Ensure you consider the true complexities of your need when selecting solutions, and remember to address the people and process aspects too…
This content is provided by an external author without editing by Finextra. It expresses the views and opinions of the author.
Oleksandr Strozhemin Co-founder and CEO at Trinetix
13 August
Elaine Mullan Head of Marketing and Business Development at Corlytics
12 August
Abhinav Paliwal CEO at PayNet Systems- A Neo Banking Software Platform
Donica Venter Marketing coordinator at Traderoot
Welcome to Finextra. We use cookies to help us to deliver our services. You may change your preferences at our Cookie Centre.
Please read our Privacy Policy.