article-time-estimate-icon

4 minute read

ILTACON 2024 Recap

Ab Saraswat

Ab Saraswat

In this article

    ILTACON 2024 transformed Nashville into the epicenter of legal technology, drawing an impressive crowd of over 4,200 registrants from 34 countries. The energy was palpable throughout the event with 1,882 full-week attendees immersing themselves in 84 educational sessions featuring 336 speakers and 211 exhibitors showcasing their latest innovations.

    This is a recap in collaboration with Fringe Legal, who crowd-sourced many of the findings and is reported by our CRO, Abhijat Saraswat.

    As I navigated the bustling vendor hall and engaged in hundreds of conversations, it became clear that while the excitement around new technologies remains high, there’s a notable shift towards practical, value-driven implementation.

    Key Themes: A Year-on-Year Comparison

    2023: The AI Hype Train

    Last year, we witnessed an explosion of AI-related announcements. Vendors scrambled to integrate AI into their offerings, often prioritizing novelty over practical application. The legaltech community was abuzz with both excitement and apprehension about AI’s potential to revolutionize the industry.

    2024: Measured Progress and Practical Applications

    This year, the conversation has matured significantly. The industry has moved from speculative excitement to a more nuanced, pragmatic approach. Firms are now asking not just “Can we use AI?” but “How can GenAI solve our specific challenges?” This shift is reflected in more targeted implementations, a focus on governance, and a growing emphasis on measurable outcomes.

    1. GenAI: From Hype to Pragmatism
      • The focus has shifted from “we need a GenAI tool” to solving specific problems.
      • There is less chasing of hype, though an expectation gap still exists.
      • Most vendors seem more selective about AI integration, focusing on genuine value-add.
    2. Governance, Integration, and Use Cases
      • Emphasis on responsible implementation – this is true of foundational tech and GenAI tools.
      • Integrating new tools and existing systems (think DMS, PMS, Teams, etc. ) was highlighted as a move towards a need rather than convenience.
      • Priority should be placed on addressing identified problems rather than on exploratory implementation.
    3. Cloud Adoption: The Journey Continues
      • Firms are still managing migrating from on-prem to cloud-based systems and wrangling with adoption.
      • “Time recording” systems lead planned cloud migrations.
      • Practice Management Systems (PMS) show the least cloud adoption.

    Insights from the G100/200 Session

    The G100/200 session provided a comprehensive overview of how larger firms approach AI and other emerging technologies. The sentiment was cautiously optimistic, as summoned up nicely with:

    “While we are not ‘whoop whooping’ we are not ‘poop pooping’ GenAI either.”

    Key takeaways from this session align closely with the trends above:

    1. Pragmatic AI Adoption: Firms are moving beyond the initial excitement to focus on practical applications. There’s a growing recognition that AI is not a one-size-fits-all solution but a tool to be applied judiciously to specific challenges.
    2. Integration Challenges: A major focus is on integrating tools with existing systems, particularly document management systems (DMS) and practice management systems (PMS). This aligns with the broader trend of prioritizing integration and governance, particularly in AI implementations.
    3. Cloud Migration Continues: Surprisingly, cloud adoption remains a significant topic of discussion. Firms are at various stages of migration, with time recording systems leading the charge and PMS lagging. This reflects the ongoing journey towards modernizing legal tech infrastructure.
    4. Expectation Management: There’s an acknowledgment of an “expectation gap” between what AI can currently deliver and what some may hope it can do. Firms are working to educate stakeholders and set realistic goals for AI initiatives.
    5. Focus on Use Cases: Rather than implementing tools broadly, firms are identifying specific, high-value use cases where AI can deliver tangible benefits. This approach helps demonstrate ROI and builds confidence in AI technologies.

    The session underscored the need for a strategic, measured approach to AI adoption, echoing the broader shift we’re seeing in the industry toward practical, value-driven innovation.

    From Fringe to Mainstream: Technologies Coming of Age

    It was refreshing to see many of the technologies and categories that were previously fringe tools for early adopters to be cemented as a mainstay or well on their way. Here are three broad categories which came up several times in discussions.

    1. Task Management
      • The focus has shifted to lawyer-centric solutions, moving beyond traditional Legal Project Management (LPM) tools designed for specialists.
      • Key differentiators include seamless integration with firm systems (DMS, PMS, Copilot, etc.) to meet stringent information security requirements and meet users where they spend most of their time (Outlook, Teams, and Copilot)
      • This evolution highlights the industry’s recognition that technology must adapt to lawyers’ workflows, not vice versa, to drive adoption and productivity.
    2. Structure Diagrams
      • Now a defined category with two key players – Jigsaw and Structure Flow.
      • Firms are actively procuring and expanding usage.
      • We first covered this emerging technology in Fringe Legal back in 2021, highlighting its potential to revolutionize how legal professionals visualize and analyze complex corporate structures. Read the original report here.
    3. Work Allocation and Capacity Management
      • This category has seen significant growth, driven by the challenges of managing hybrid work models.
      • Solutions in this space address the critical need for efficient resource allocation and workload balancing in an increasingly flexible work environment.
      • The rise of these tools reflects a broader trend toward data-driven decision-making in law firm management. This space includes large vendors and younger disruptors. Two years ago, I spoke with the co-founder of Capacityaddress, who provided a perspective on the problem to be solved.

    The Road Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities

    As the legal tech landscape continues to evolve, firms face both significant challenges and exciting opportunities:

    1. Bridging the Expectation Gap: There’s a growing realization that no single [GenAI] product will solve every problem perfectly. Firms must work to align expectations with realistic outcomes, focusing on specific, high-value use cases.
    2. Data Quality and Management: The effectiveness of AI and analytics tools hinges on the quality and accessibility of data. Firms must invest in robust data management strategies to fully leverage these technologies.
    3. Skill Development: Upskilling lawyers and staff to use new technologies effectively will be crucial. This goes beyond technical training to develop a continuous learning and adaptation mindset.
    4. Ethical AI Use: As AI becomes more prevalent, firms must navigate the ethical considerations of its use, particularly in areas like bias mitigation and client data protection. Something I didn’t hear discussed much at the conference, but I know it is front of mind.
    5. Client-Centric Innovation: Successful firms will focus on innovations that directly enhance client value, whether through improved service delivery, more accurate pricing, or novel legal products.
    6. Balancing Innovation and Security: As cloud adoption continues and new technologies emerge, firms must balance innovation and maintaining robust security measures.

    Two insights from Hannah Fry’s keynote provide food for thought as I wrap up:

    1. Reflecting on the Challenger disaster, Fry noted that “the engineers didn’t even imagine data the charts that needed to be created.” Similarly, we may not yet know the questions to ask to uncover the right use cases. I remain open to unexpected insights and applications as we explore new technologies.
    2. Fry reminded us, quoting Daniel Kahneman, “When faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.” For innovators, this cautions against oversimplifying complex challenges or rushing to implement the next shiny thing without fully understanding the problems we’re trying to solve.

    In this article

      More legal tech insights we think you'll love

      The cost of over-dependence on AI

      AI saves us time, boosts productivity, and lets us do...

      # Lupl Workstream Design Principles: A Practical Guide to Legal Project Management for Lawyers Legal project management works when your setup is simple, ownership is clear, and statuses are unambiguous. This guide shows how to turn existing processes and checklists into a lean, reliable Workstream. Lupl is the legal project management platform for law firms, making it easy and intuitive to apply these principles. It also supports moving your work from Excel, Word tables, or if you are transitioning from Microsoft Planner, Smartsheet, or Monday. You will learn what belongs in a Workstream, a Task, or a Step, and which columns to use. If you want practical project management for lawyers, start here. **Excerpt:** Legal project management works when ownership, dates, and statuses are clear. This guide shows lawyers how to turn checklists into Lupl Workstreams with the right columns, Tasks, and Steps. Use it to standardize project management for lawyers, reduce follow ups, and move matters to done. --- ## How to organize your work with Workstreams, Tasks, and Steps Workstreams, Tasks, and Steps are three different types of objects in Lupl. They form a simple hierarchy. Workstreams contain Tasks. Tasks may contain optional Steps. This hierarchy aligns with standard project management. In project management, you break work into projects, deliverables, and subtasks. Lupl adapts this for lawyers by using Workstreams, Tasks, and Steps. This makes it easier to map legal processes to a structure that teams can track and manage. * **Workstream.** Use when you have many similar or related items to track over time. Think of the Workstream as the table. * Examples: closing checklist, court deadlines, pretrial preparation, regulatory obligations, due diligence, local counsel management. * **Task.** A high level unit of legal work. A key deliverable with an owner and a due date. Tasks are the rows. * Examples: File motion. Prepare Shareholder Agreement. Submit Q3 report. * **Step.** An optional short checklist inside a single Task. Steps roll up to the parent Task. * Examples: Draft. QC. Partner review. E file. Serve. ### Quick test * If it can be overdue by itself, make it a Task. * If it only helps complete a Task, make it a Step. * If you need different columns or owners, create a separate Workstream. --- ## Do you need to track everything in Lupl Not every detail needs to be tracked in a project management system. The principle is to capture what drives accountability and progress. In Lupl, that means focusing on deliverables, not every micro action. * Use the level of detail you would bring to a weekly team meeting agenda. * Position Tasks as key deliverables. Treat Steps as optional micro tasks to show progress. * Example: You need client instructions. Do not add a Task for "Email client to request a call." Just make the call. If the client approves a key deliverable on the call, mark that item Approved in Lupl so the team has visibility. --- ## Start with the Core 5 columns Columns are the backbone of a Workstream. They define what information is tracked for each Task. In project management terms, these are your core metadata fields. They keep everyone aligned without overcomplicating the table. Keep the table narrow. You can add later. These five work across most legal project management use cases. 1. **Title.** Start with a verb. Example: File answer to complaint. 2. **Status.** Five to seven clear choices. Example: Not started, In progress, For review, For approval, Done. 3. **Assignee.** One named owner per row. If you add multiple assignees for collaboration, still name a primary owner. 4. **Due date.** One date per row. 5. **Type or Category.** Show different kinds of work in one table. Example: Filing, Discovery, Signature, Approval. **Priority.** Add only if you actively triage by priority each week. If added, keep it simple: High, Medium, Low. --- ## Add up to three Helper columns Lupl includes a set of pre made columns you can use out of the box. These allow you to customize Workstreams around different phases or stages of a matter. They also let you map how you already track transactional work, litigation, or other processes. Helper columns are optional fields that add context. In task management, these are similar to tags or attributes you use to sort and filter work. The key is to only add what you will update and use. Pick only what you will use. Stop when you reach three. * Party or Counterparty * Jurisdiction or Court * Phase * Approver * Approval, status or yes or no * Signature status * Risk, RAG * Amount or Number * External ID or Client ID * Document or Link * Docket number * Client entity **Guidance** * For Task Workstreams, prefer Approver, Approval, Risk. The rest are more common in Custom Workstreams. * Aim for eight columns or fewer in your main table. Put detail in the Task description, attachments, or Steps. --- ## Simple rules that keep your table clean Consistency is critical in project management. A cluttered or inconsistent table slows teams down. These rules ensure your Workstream remains usable and clear. * Only add a column people will update during the matter. If it never changes, set a default at the Workstream level or set a default value in the column. * Only add a column you will sort or filter on. If you will not use it to find or group work, leave it out. * If a value changes inside one Task, use Steps. Steps show progress without widening the table. * Keep columns short and structured. Use Description for brief context or instructions. Use Task comments for discussion and decisions. Link to work product in your DMS as the source of truth. * One accountable owner per Task and one due date. You can add collaborators, but always name a primary owner who moves the Task. If different people or dates apply to different parts, split into separate Tasks or capture the handoff as Steps. * Add automations after you lock the design. Finalize columns and status definitions first. Then add simple reminders and escalations that read those fields. --- ## Status hygiene that everyone understands Status is the single most important column in project management. It tells the team where the work stands. Too many options cause confusion. Too few cause misalignment. In Lupl, keep it simple and consistent. * Five to seven statuses are enough. * Use one review gate, For review or For approval. Use both only if your process needs two gates. * One terminal status, Done. This is the end state of the Task. Use Archived only if you report on it or need it for retention workflows. --- ## When to split into multiple Workstreams In project management, it is best practice to separate workstreams when workflows, owners, or audiences diverge. Lupl makes this easy by letting you create multiple Workstreams for one matter. Create a new Workstream if any of the following are true. * You need a different set of columns for a chunk of work. * Ownership or cadence is different, for example daily docketing vs monthly reporting. * The audience or confidentiality needs are different. **Signal** * If half your rows leave several columns blank, you are mixing processes. Split the table. --- ## Decision tree, three quick questions Use this quick framework to decide where an item belongs. This is the same principle used in task management software, adapted for legal workflows. 1. Is this a list of similar items over time, or a discrete phase of the matter * Yes. Create a Workstream. 2. Can it be overdue by itself, and does it need an owner * Yes. Create a Task. 3. Is it a step to finish a Task and not tracked on its own * Yes. Create a Step. --- ## Common mistakes to avoid Many project management failures come from overdesigning or misusing the structure. Avoid these mistakes to keep your Workstreams lean and effective. * Wide tables with many optional columns. Keep it to eight or fewer. * Two columns for the same idea, for example Status and Phase that overlap. Merge or define clearly. * More than one approval gate when one would do. It slows work and confuses owners. * Mixing unrelated processes in one table, for example signatures and invoice approvals. --- ## Build your first Workstream Building a Workstream is like setting up a project board. Keep it light, pilot it, then refine. Lupl is designed to let you do this quickly without heavy admin work. 1. Write the Workstream purpose in one sentence. 2. Add the Core 5 columns. 3. Add at most three Helpers you will use. 4. Define clear Status meanings in plain words. 5. Set defaults for any value that repeats on most rows, for example Jurisdiction. 6. Add two light automations, a due soon reminder and an overdue nudge. 7. Pilot for one week and adjust. --- ## Where this fits in legal project management Use these principles to standardize project management for lawyers across matters. Keep structures consistent. Reuse column sets and status definitions. Your team will find work faster, reduce follow ups, and close loops on time. --- ### On page SEO helpers * Suggested title tag. Lupl Workstream Design Principles, Practical Legal Project Management for Lawyers * Suggested meta description. Learn how to design lean Lupl Workstreams for legal project management. Get clear rules for Tasks, Steps, statuses, and columns to run matters with confidence. * Suggested URL slug. legal-project-management-for-lawyers-workstream-design

      Lupl Workstream Design Principles: A Practical Guide to Legal Project Management for Lawyers

      Learn why large‑firm lawyers are ditching Excel checklists for dynamic,...

      Do AI Agents Have An Identity? Notes from InfoSec Discussions

      Agentic AI is in its early phases but advancing fast....