“We already work from market templates.” It’s a common response when the topic of document automation based on other templates comes up. And, to be fair, virtually all UK law firms already work from standard precedents – often the same ones as everyone else.
So, if you already have standard documents, what would be the point of changing? Why do so many of your peer firms bother with automated solutions built on other industry standard documents, such as those provided by Clarilis, when their firms are already using templates they trust?
There must be a reason.
Templates are a great start – but only the start
Let’s say you're feeling the pain – as I discussed in the 2nd article in this series, competition is fierce, margins are tight, and firms of all sizes are finding themselves working harder just to maintain their position.
Using standard templates is a great way to start tackling this pain. They provide consistency, help with delegation and reduce drafting times. But templates by themselves won’t transform your delivery model. Whether you're using external content or maintaining your own internal suites of precedents, the more important question is: how are you using them?
Manually drafting from a precedent, especially for complex transactional documents, is time consuming, aka margin sapping. Be it three hours to draft a lease with ancillaries, to nearly two days to draft a complete suite of M&A documents, or three days for a large facilities agreement, manual drafting can take considerable time and effort. This complexity also means increased risk, so it’s also not typically something that can be delegated to your most junior lawyers.
So what can you do instead? Well, this is where document automation, if done right, can truly amplify your templates.
Deep automation vs marginal gains
Deep automation, the kind of automation where a single answer can trigger hundreds or even thousands of changes across an entire suite of documents, can transform how you work. If you can take hours (not minutes) off a drafting process, then you can have a radical impact on how your work is delivered.
By contrast, and as I touched on in Part 3 of my series, if the automation is only ‘surface level’, it’s never going to move the needle. This not only includes the content but even extends to the styling of the documents produced by an automation. If lawyers still need to do extensive manual drafting, or even basic formatting work to get documents into the correct house style, then the automation doesn’t go far enough.
In reality, at some point you will encounter trade-offs between the cost of building a really ‘deep’ automation, and the benefits you expect it to deliver. For larger firms, with innovation teams, finding the right balance takes experience, and it’s something we discuss in detail with our customers when we’re delivering bespoke projects. For the bulk of firms, building their own automation isn’t even an option.
This trade-off is one of the things we get most excited about with our off-the-shelf automated products: because we’re building the product for the market, we can really invest in all the deep, exponentially complex parts of the automation that a single firm, even the large ones, might not be able to address.
Overcoming the resistance
When talking to prospects we often hear, ‘we’ve always done it this way’ or ‘the other firms all use this content’. That isn’t a strategy, it’s a stalemate, or a missed opportunity. It often feels a bit like Stockholm Syndrome.
Today’s clients expect greater efficiency, more transparency, and faster delivery. And the latest generation of lawyers are digital natives. They expect their firms to be equipped with technology that reflects how they work in other parts of their lives. Your commitment to LegalTech sends a powerful signal to both.
However, introducing new ways of working will always trigger some resistance – that’s human nature. Lawyers in particular tend to favour consistency, precision, and precedent. As Catriona Wolfenden at Weightmans recently pointed out in this LexisNexis article, and her recent Leadership Mindset article, change in law firms isn’t easy, but it is essential.
Change doesn’t have to mean a firmwide overhaul
The change doesn’t need to be all or nothing. While some firms make a firmwide strategic commitment to Clarilis, many take a more tactical approach. They start with one practice area, often where there’s pressure on margin, capacity constraints, or where they face stiff competition from other firms.
But automation isn’t just about efficiency. It’s also about growth, risk reduction, client satisfaction, and enabling lawyers to do more, faster.
Final thought: If you could change how you draft, why wouldn’t you?
You’re already using standard templates and precedents. You’ve already made a start. But is your current approach delivering the efficiency, consistency, and ROI it could, or indeed should?
If not, it might be time to start thinking bigger.