Former GC of L’Oréal: Ask Me Anything

Really that's the essence of how I roll is I see something happen in business and I think why isn't that happening in legal and how do we make that happen.
-Anna Lozynski

Welcome to The Contract Lens Podcast, brought to you by Malbek. In this podcast, we have conversation with contract management thought leaders and practitioners about everything contracts and its ecosystem. Today's episode is part of our Envision Live series during which we explore insights uncovered at our annual user conference. For our opening keynote, we had Anna Lozynski, former GC of L’Oréal, author and thought leader share her best tips, tricks and thoughts on the future of the legal tech world as we know it. So now it's time to relax, grab a glass of wine and let's talk contracts.

Taeler:
Hello everyone. I'm Taeler, product marketing manager at Malbek, and I'm looking forward to a wonderful discussion today. I'm also thrilled to introduce you to the woman of the hour. Please welcome Anna Lozynski all the way from Australia.

Anna:
Absolute pleasure.

Taeler:
We've asked Anna to join us today for a riveting discussion where almost no topic is off limits. We're going to look to her for her thoughts and opinions on legal, hot topics, best practices for accelerating CLM adoption, considerations for today's modern lawyer, the use of AI throughout the contract lifecycle and so much more. Described as a change agent, Anna is a sought after commentator, mindset coach and consultant both domestically and internationally seeking to shift the dialogue in order to propel the corporate world forward. And with all of that being said, we are so happy she's here with us at Envision. Okay, Anna, are you ready to talk contracts?

Anna:
I'm so ready.

Taeler:
Okay. I'm ready too. So, okay, Anna, you are well known for your book, Legally Innovative. Can you tell us a little bit about your legal background and why legal innovation is so important to you?

Anna:
Really what inspired me to write Legally Innovative in 2017 was to put a positive spin on innovation. I was speaking around the world and transforming my own legal team. And there was a lot of fear that I felt in the industry and across the globe and a lot of resistance towards embracing technology. And I really just embraced this concept of not having one to one conversations, which I was still having, but really one wanted to spread the word and spread the positive innovation vibes on a one to many basis.

Anna:
I always had a dream of writing a book. I wrote a book when I was 16 during a summer break, but never did anything with it. And so this was really an opportunity to write something nonfiction and hopefully inspire other lawyers to get onto the transformation bandwagon. So this concept of legal innovation is really, it's an energy, it's a practice, it's a daily attitude and a practice. It's having an open mindset and it's really making that cultural shift where innovation is no longer project, but it's actually core. So it's second nature and it's part of being a lawyer, particularly 2020s. It's just part of the gig.

Anna:
And I talk about this concept of thinking tech first, so that when you are solving a legal problem or a suite of legal problems for the business, as part of the checklist and as part of the legal training, the hardcore legal training that we've all had, there is that top of the list, a box in your head, which says, can this problem or can this suite of problems be solved using technology?

Taeler:
Yeah, no, I love that you said solving legal problems, but also solving business problems. And so being Anna Lozynski, you found myself, in a recent interview, you called yourself chief problem solver in all of your roles. How does this approach guide you in serving as both a legal partner and a strategic business partner in all of your endeavors?

Anna:
Yeah. So I'm a visual thinker. So I see everyone gathering around a virtual table or a real life in person table. And coming together, there's a problem that needs to be solved, whether it's doing something new for the first time or there's a crisis, whichever end of the spectrum, the problem sits. It's really about using the legal expertise, but also the business expertise and the commerciality to just move through the problem, whether it's complex, whether it's simple, whether it's a mix of both, whether it's multidisciplinary.

Anna:
So I guess the chief problem solver, rather than merely a lawyer, the difference is that at as lawyers, we're multifaceted. And particularly as lawyers working within businesses, if we're sitting on the executive, we're effectively business leaders. And so it's really leaning into, again, the energy of having that understanding that you're leading the business, but you are also drawing upon your center of expertise. So that sometimes the conversations aren't just about this is strictly legal and therefore the path is this, it's really taking a whole picture into consideration. And then it invites that risk based approach because really that's the core part of the gig is to provide judgment, but also create a risk framework for the organization if it doesn't have one already and then help the organization play within that risk framework.

Taeler:
Absolutely. So I do have a question, our first question in the chat, and I better see more of these everyone. So for Anna, why do you hate the term non-lawyer so much?

Anna:
Great question, Becky. Thank you. I think the world particularly today is segregated enough. We are still not as accomplished perhaps as we might be when it comes to diversity and inclusion and all pillars of that across the legal profession globally. So I don't think there's a need to create hierarchy and status within a legal team, particularly in house. When the whole essence of being in house is that it's essentially a flat structure and it's really about coming together and harnessing everyone's skill sets in order to move forward, in order to problem solve, in order to innovate.

Anna:
And so there's a Gartner statistic that says that by 2025, 25% of the team, I think it's 24% if I quote the statistic correctly, will be comprised of other legal professionals. They actually use the term non-lawyer. But as I said, I think the world is complicated and divisive enough sometimes. And I don't think that as a legal profession, we should be emulating that mindset, because as you all know, innovation comes from that openness from having that growth mindset. And so if we start putting people in camps, I'd suggest that probably doesn't help towards getting a really rich, amazing outcome that makes a difference rather than coming at it from a siloed perspective.

Taeler:
Yeah, absolutely. And speaking of a growth mindset, we've all had a lot of change in the last two years. I'm sure we can all relate to that. And throughout this time, you've been running your own business. So I would love to ask, do you have any tips for being an effective leader in this new world that we're living in today?

Anna:
I'll share a couple of tips. That's a great question. Thank you for allowing me to reflect on that. I think the first is looking at your digital behaviors. So it's really thinking about and being conscious about what you might have done in the physical world may not necessarily translate into the digital world, pulling that back into the CLM environment, it's the same thing with automating a process. So your contract in the physical world may work okay, but then when you go to automate it using a CLM platform, it doesn't show up as well. There needs to be some tweaks, there needs to be some streamlining, there needs to be more improvements.

Anna:
So I think existing in this virtual world more than not, well, in my case anyway, is really about having sat back and assessed what works and what doesn't work in a virtual environment, because then that really affects how you show up and therefore that can potentially affect relationships and can really affect the way that you execute and the way that you solve problems day to day.

Anna:
The other thing I want to talk about is social media. So I think if everyone here today, all the smiling faces that I see, talked about their experiences on social media, you can imagine the incredible effect that, that would have, a halo effect for Malbek, but really just spreading that inspiration more widely because whilst all of you on this call have thought about CLM and you're solving that problem for your business and it's evolving, as the platform evolves as your use of the platform evolves, not everyone is where you are at. And so I think it's really important, particularly as females, but particularly as leaders in this space to share those stories, because people in business us do that really well.

Anna:
So senior leaders in business have no hesitation going to social media and talking about various things. And I think lawyers need to get over that hump and follow the same practice. And really that's the essence of how I roll is I see something happen in business and I think, well, why isn't that happening in legal and how do we make that happen.

Taeler:
Yeah. I love that response. And you heard, Anna, everyone, everybody better get on social media and talk all about your experience at Envision today. I have a couple more questions coming in, in the chat, which is good to see.
Anna:
Awesome.

Taeler:
Anna, do you have any suggestions or pointers on handling untenable asks from the counterparty?

Anna:
My answer to that is some tough love. And what I mean by that is it's really fascinating when I step back and I look at a lot of the work that happens in what I'll call that pre-contracting stage. If you analyzed, if you go probe it or if you analyzed it somehow like you analyzed a chess game, you would see so much inefficiency. And a lot of that is posturing. And so sometimes I wonder whether you just call it out lawyer to lawyer and you actually call out the inefficiency. So it helps sometimes when you say this is round nine, we are up to point, whatever in total. These quantitative data points hit your other side with some quantitative data points. And it might just help them realize and ground them, oh, they didn't realize that they were up to round nine at some part of the would. But it just gives a different way of presenting the information rather than saying, this is ridiculous, we're on a deadline, we need to move forward.

Anna:
So if you tackled it, harnessing some data, it might have a little bit of shock value to present it that way, but numbers don't lie. We all know that. Whereas lawyers are really clever with words. We read into words when we read a response the way that we want to hear them or the way that perhaps our insecurities hear them. But data is that transversal point that is quite powerful if it's used correctly. So when I say tough love, I do also say shut it down, because sometimes you just need to have that conversation rather than making a concession, but it's having a conversation about the way the negotiations are going rather than the certain points in the contract.

Anna:
So it's stepping out big picture in the same way that you would in a business partnership or with your business colleagues. You basically get to a point where you'd say, listen, we're at a juncture, what are we doing? And how are we going to do it? So it's having those conversations from a place of let's move forward, perhaps rather than a place of being adversarial. So I hope that answers your question.

Taeler:
Yeah, no, that's great. And the next question we have in the chat goes along with the next topic I wanted to bring up, which is that we're hearing time and time again that in order for legal teams to be more strategic, they really need to have more resources and bandwidth to focus on those larger business initiatives, which means that contracts are no longer solely being owned by legal. So in your opinion, what do contracts represent for each stakeholder in an organization? And why do you think this shift is happening?

Anna:
Another really great question. If you apply to Aroxy to a contract, it's not the legal team that's responsible and accountable for the contents of the contract, they're not responsible for affecting the relationship, for nurturing it, for building it, they're really just important part of the transaction. But what I really want to stress is the start of that relationship is the contract often. And so if that's not easy, if that's not streamlined, then it obviously makes it really difficult because there starts to get unproductive emotion potentially between the parties just on the documents. And so then it takes a lot of energy to pick up and move on and get back to perhaps that excitement and that curiosity that led to the relationship in the first place.

Anna:
So I think a contract is really important, but also there's all those lawyer jokes when you look on the internet that say, "Oh gosh, you need to work on that second sentence, because it's still too clear." So I think there's some power in using human English as much as possible in the drafting because if the aim of the game is to our earlier point, handle the untenable tasks, it's also incumbent on each side not to create that untenable situation potentially in the position that's presented up front. So I know it's a bit of a step change, but my challenge is if you know and you do some analysis that you are always going to position number three or four, say, in your playbook, why don't you automate that position, because the rest is just creating an efficiency.

Anna:
I know it may look good and it may feel good as a lawyer to say, well, we're not going to accept this, we're not going to accept that, we're not going to do this, but then if you're going to three or four or maybe 10 conversations later, you actually are going to accept and do those things. You could have saved the business and yourself a lot of heartache and time. And in today's age, you can't buy time, but you can buy speed. And so I think it's important for lawyers to literally make that choice around risk, speed, efficiency, getting the job done, because that's the success for the business. The business isn't going to understand, they're not going to ever appreciate. It will feel like a mystery to them for the most part around all that magic that we think as lawyers that we are leaving in the background. When really they don't really see it as magic, they just see it as an annoyance or as stopping a business in its tracks or killing their competitive advantage, whatever it may be.

Anna:
So I think in order to add value, we've really got to run with the business and make the contracting process as smooth as possible, which a platform such as yours certainly does that

Taeler:
Yeah. Thank you. And it's funny that you mentioned that you can buy speed. If there's anyone at an organization has a need for speed, it's the sales team. And we hear that legal teams and sales teams often clash a lot during the contract process. So what advice, this is coming from the chat, what advice would you have for sales and legal teams working better together to manage contracts?

Anna:
So it's really about having empathy and thinking about, okay, what is it like to walk in a salesperson shoes, because if they're driven and motivated by KPIs around revenue, then they're not going to necessarily get and value qualitative conversations that you are trying to have. So the key is what is going to be the return on investment for a salesperson to take contract seriously or to follow the contract process, whatever it may be, to work collaboratively. And I think you need to come at it from a place of ROI. If you know that their KPId on revenue, well, how do you bring a contract conversation onto that level, because then they'll pay attention. It'll be very obvious then that as a lawyer, you're coming at it from a place of wanting to support them, but you also need to speak their language. And I think the that's where the clash happens.

Anna:
So you see, again, all those jokes around a salesperson gives a lawyer half an hour to put together a contract so they can seal the deal before the end of the weekend. Well, actually with technology that's now possible. So we used to laugh at that, we used to balk at that and we used to frown at that, how dare they, they're not respectful, again, all those kinds of things, but really from a transaction perspective, if you've got the right technology, you can make that happen. In fact, you can make it happen within a few minutes. And so therefore it takes all that kind of we are different and all of a sudden you are very the same.

Taeler:
Yeah, no, I love that. And leading with empathy is so important, especially today. So in your opinion, this is from Alice, what are the traits every modern day lawyer needs? You've touched on this a little bit, but if you had to give a few ingredients for today's modern lawyer, what would they be?

Anna:
My motto is to be bold, curious and disruptive. So I would encourage other lawyers to do the same. I think innovation, I call it IQ 2.0, so having innovation intelligence and looking at the products that you are using through a lens of, okay, what's next? Because I think that partnership that we have with legal tech vendors is really important to nurture. And also, it lends itself to a feedback cycle that perhaps we don't experience as much when we're working with traditional vendors. And so I think keeping your finger on the pulse is really important. Having that tech first mindset, leaning into tech saying, how can this make us more efficient, how can we solve this problem is really important.

Anna:
I think social media is really important in terms of connecting with people, sharing insights. And I think as I've mentioned, being data led. So finding data to either confirm or tell your story is really important for a lawyer. It's not something we're taught in law school, it's perhaps not something we're taught in a law firm when we first start out or wherever we start out, but I think that's what technology ultimately enables. And to be able to use that data to tell different stories to showcase the team's value, to showcase the team's high performance is really important. So I think that probably is all that I'm going to say on that.

Taeler:
No, that's very helpful, very insightful. And this next question also ties into the next thing I wanted to go over, which is, in many ways you're viewed as a technology trailblazer. Even before being a technology trailblazer was cool, you were doing it. And you've implemented a CLM yourself and led a team through that transition. And so from, Brian, he says, if you had to provide a few key ingredients for a successful CLM implementation, what would they be? And what advice would you give to a friend who is just starting the implementation process?

Anna:
Great questions, Brian. So implementation's a bit of a discipline of itself. So I work with legal teams in my consulting capacity and there's so much energy and pre-work that needs to happen to even get to the point of being able to buy a CLM platform. And then at some point, teams can run out of a bit of steam when it comes to implementation, perhaps because they don't know what they're in for, perhaps they don't quite understand or didn't ask enough questions. And that's perfectly normal, because it's all new. The first time you're doing it's all new.

Anna:
I think what's really important is really three ingredients. The first is communication. So it's all about taking your stakeholders on a journey. If you want this to be viewed not only is it legal tool, but a business tool, it means that you almost need to sell it in as that and make sure that your marketing and the way that you talk about it, whether that's at the digital water cooler or peer to peer or in a group setting or if someone asks you, it's almost like you are all singing to the same tune, because then there's no way that a business person can say, oh, well, go to that person because I reckon they'll be happy to go around the CLM system, because I don't feel like changing the way I'm doing things.

Anna:
If you really stick together and unite as a front as a legal team and almost come up with some speaking points, if that's what you need to do, so then you are creating hype in the way that you communicate. I also recommend to teams that they communicate differently about technology to the way that they communicate when they're giving legal advice, because it doesn't have to follow a formula, it doesn't have to be formal. There's perhaps less of that risk around, well, if it's presented in court, that's privileged advice. Let loose a little bit. Let your head on as a team.

Anna:
And that really leads me into my second point, which is creativity. So taking your stakeholders on a journey, being transparent, communicating more than you ever have before around anything else, really important. But then creativity gives it life. And so there are so many lawyers that are creative. It's just that over time that sparkle somehow gets dulled, because we need to be serious, we need to show that we're experts. And that then means we make lawyering our identity. If you think about it, I am a lawyer. Well, actually I'm not a lawyer. I'm a human, I love certain things, I have passions, I have emotions. Lawyering is just a skillset. It's not my identity. And so I think if you separate that, it might help you take things less seriously if you're already not taking yourself seriously, but it also just invites some creativity into the way that you do things. So create a brand around how you implement. That again, is separate to your legal brand or compliments your legal brand.

Anna:
Do some quirky, fun things, because you've already established who you are as a lawyer. So showing this human different side to being a legal practitioner will actually allow you to communicate human to human. And if the business thinks, oh, wow, they put legal on a pedestal or whatever they think about legal, it just helps break down some of those barriers and humanize things. So creativity is the second point.

Anna:
And I think the third key ingredient is, and there's many more ingredients to the recipe, but I think the third key ingredient is to have fun. So if the business can see that the legal team is genuinely enjoying the ride, then that energy's infectious. So if the legal team's having fun with it, then it's likely that your business colleagues will go, wow, they're having so much fun, I want in, because I don't think sometimes things are serious, we're solving serious problems, they're high risk problems, they may be low risk problems, but still a headache. And so I see innovation as almost this shining light as part of legal practice to be able to draw on some of these skills that we all have, but perhaps had the place to shine before. So I think it's communication on steroids. It's creativity to the extent that you feel comfortable and then some more and certainly have some fun with it.

Taeler:
I love that response. And even though you were giving CLM advice, you gave us all, some good life advice, which is have fun, be a human first. And I think we can all be reminded of that. So this one is from, Matt, and it's a really great thought. So he says, "I always will wonder why many of the legal processes are still so unique in each organization. Even a simple NDA is so different at every company. CLM technology tries to standardize on best practices, but it's difficult if common contracting processes are still so unique. So what advice do you have for creating really solid templates and playbooks that can help standardize contracts with the CLM?"

Anna:
I really think standardization is such a mindset shift. And I'm really pro standardization. And I love some of the movements that are happening in the legal profession around that. It's a big question in many ways, because it's this part of the game, if I call it that, that really leans on the lawyers, because the lawyers need to show up and push themselves to their maximum comfort zone to therefore inspire the business and to almost coach the business to say, this is okay because it sits within our risk framework or because this type of contracting is low risk. So whatever the re reason is, I think the business really looks to legal on this one to say, can we change the process? The other tip I have around that is if you feel that it's really locked and loaded and customization like that really full on customization is the only way forward, perhaps try and find an example where you can completely flip that on its head.

Anna:
So if you know that a particular contract type may be a no go zone, choose a contract type where you can disrupt some of that thinking and disrupt some of the process and make it more standardized, try and have the same stakeholders that are part of that almost experiment. And then it's almost proving that concept out that it didn't cause more errors, it didn't cause as a compliance risk, it didn't lead to the contract not being signed or litigation or whatever it is. Because I think, like with anything, if you are trying to take things away from people, then that can feel quite grating. So you almost need to be strategic on the contract type and the particular part of the business to get that proof of concept. And it may be going right up to the top.

Anna:
So if you know your pain points really well and not as in your legal team, when it comes to pain points, I put the legal team second. It's really what are the business pain points, because I think that has a natural flow on effect. Find the people in your organization and influence the people in your organization about finding a different way, because I suspect that they won't question it in the same way a lawyer might question why you have five types of NDAs. So it's like, okay, well, can we make it three? And then eventually, can we make it one? And so it might be progressive rather than a rip off the bandaid and go from five to one. That can feel quite risk a for some people.

Anna:
So again, you could have a plan around that where you say, "Okay, let's cut it down to this, then let's cut it down to this." And then over time, you're standardizing rather than getting a sledgehammer out and chopping up the complete process and chopping up the contract from the get go. So I think you've really got to feeling to what's going on, who your audience is, how can you pitch it in a way that really resonates with them. And that might be telling a slightly different story. A CFO's going to want to hear more data and numbers. Someone else might want you to explain it to them in detail.

Anna:
So I think it's being armed with, okay, what's the story we're trying to tell, what's the end goal, and maybe having more steps than you want to initially in order to get to where you ultimately land and where you get the maximum efficiency.

Taeler:
Absolutely. And once again, I love that you're bringing in that creativity piece. And really looking at it as what story are we trying to tell it, even if we are just coming up with common contracting processes. I think that's such an important lens and it ties in really nicely to Mandy's question here. So what would you recommend for those last few resistant users that think it's easier to just store theirs in a repository? So we're talking Google Drive, folders, anything that is manual that we're storing files in.

Anna:
I think it's just having a really honest conversation. So a bit of tough love again is really coming up. So sometimes we've got to lean into not necessarily our legal skills, but just into the psychology of what's at play, because if you look at what's underneath for that person, it may just be actually that they're saying to you that they understand how the system works, but they actually may not understand how the system works. It's just it's too far gone for them to say that at that point, because they've attended all your training sessions, they've attended your cool parties around some product innovations or a new process launch or whatever it is. And so everyone thinks that they're getting it, but they actually may not. It may be a fear through a lack of knowledge that stops them from truly adopting. But I think it's really about having an honest one to one safe conversation around what's going on for you. Like talk to me about this. How can we help you? Do you need us to sit here and guide you through this point for the first few weeks while you do it?

Anna:
Talking through perhaps some of the successes of people in their team, again, perhaps anonymously, but just showcasing some of the success that's been enjoyed by their peers. And then there's obviously some more, I guess. And if that doesn't work, it's perhaps doing things like going to their line manager and saying, "Hey, look, we've tried all these things, can you explain, has there been any feedback given around why this is going on? How can we partner together to help this person get over the line and start adopting?"

Anna:
And I think the other tactic, customer testimonials work really well for a legal tech vendor, but they also work really well internally. So one of the things that we did at an internal conference is that we created a video around our innovation journey and we had representatives from the CEO down and across give their genuine testimonials about how this new process, how this digitized process has enhanced the way that they work. And so I think sometimes when you play a video like that or they hear it from various parts of the organization, then they're less likely to start thinking I can keep getting away with this.

Taeler:
Yeah, no, I think-

Anna:
So there's no one single response. Again, it's leaning into all those influencing and persuasion skills. It's probably just doing it differently because you're not coming at it from a place of, well, here are your options because here's what the law says. It's more around this takes a village, so let's work together on it.

Taeler:
Yeah, I love that. And Mandy says she loves that idea and thank you for your response.

Anna:
Thank you.

Taeler:
We're almost at a time and I do want to cover just... I would love to ask you to look into your hypothetical crystal ball, if you have that ready, and tell me where you see the CLM industry headed next.

Anna:
Yeah. So I just joined the session early and I heard things about the artificial intelligence modules. So I think that's definitely a hot space that everyone's watching. And it's just been actually incredible. I've been watching the space from the get go just because I'm a bit of a sci-fi movie geek. So I watched Free Guy on the weekend and absolutely loved it. It's on Disney+ if anyone wants a bit of a fun movie to watch. But from how does legal interface with AI, I've been watching that closely. And it's just been fantastic to see the acceleration and the quality of, I guess, the quality of the tech, which still is in its infancy, but there's some really cool stuff happening in that space. And so I was excited to see what Malbek is doing as well. So I think that's a big one which exists to an extent.

Anna:
The one that doesn't exist yet and I think is really exciting and again, feeds off a data strategy for companies is this concept of the future is predictive. So how can we actually make CLM more predictive, because there's so much data in a CLM platform, but what I'm not seeing any CLM do at the moment is spit out and forecast to help a legal team say, "Right, this is the time spent or this is the effort or here are the numbers, here are the data points, here are the insights." I know that you can do that yourself manually by extrapolating some of that data and creating a story, but if you think every year, every quarter, every fortnight, a legal team has to meet with the finance department and see what's happening with their budget, how they're tracking what's happening, having constant meetings with HR around head count, so it's really being able to be predictive to say, all right, this is coming in, what does our quarter look like? The team's braced for what it might look like. And then obviously interesting to say, okay, does that play out or not?

Anna:
And it starts shifting the dial from a legal team that's potentially reactive to being really proactive. And so then as an executive, if you sit on the executive or even if you sit in the rungs underneath, you can start having these kinds of conversations with your peers, which show that the legal team's just not sitting there waiting for the next task. They don't have that task by task approach. They're really thinking big picture and they're on it. And I think that's a conversation that I don't hear happening enough, but I think it's a really powerful conversation because it's exactly what business is trying to do. They're trying to anticipate what's the volume, what's going to be the consumer reaction, what's going to be the reaction to the service, and so it's really being able to automate that rather than it being manual, which is how we sit today.

Anna:
The third thing I think is having more women in legal tech. So women in tech generally is obviously not a great story at the moment. I did a poll actually on LinkedIn recently saying when you hear the word tech Titan, which gender do you think of? Male, female or non-binary? And something like 60% of, I think there were almost 500 votes, said male. And I think we need to change that. We need to have more women in legal tech, because it's so interesting for me. There's such a juxtaposition of tech being so advanced and innovative, but then we are starting right back to square one when it comes to gender diversity, let alone any other diversity and inclusion issues being covered off.

Anna:
So I think that's definitely something that I think is going to start bubbling to the surface. And you'll certainly see me writing more about that. And that's in a climate where 58% of our legal ops directors are female. In Australia here, but also in the US, we're seeing growing trends in there being more female GCs. And they're the teams exactly that are hungry for innovation and are driving change. So I think legal tech and tech generally needs to transform around that. So I think that's a really important one.

Anna:
And the fourth thing I'm going to say is APIs. So I love what Malbek has done with the Salesforce integration. I think you're best in class around that. But really when you think about the pain point for an in-house team and having to manage multiple single point solutions, at some point, that's also going to self combust, because whilst you can have a few resources in your team to manage your technology, perhaps it shouldn't get to the point where you need so many humans in order to streamline all the various technologies. And then how do you get your data set? How do you get your dashboard? Again, it's becoming very manual.

Anna:
And I think some people don't think about that future of you can have multiple point of technology. And there's a drive to have more technology because we know that it generates efficiency, but a bit like electric cars and sustainability or crypto and sustainability, there's a tipping point, because the innovation's great, but is it actually sustainable? Is it good for the environment? So same thing with having all this technology in a legal team, does it actually become good for the environment, the environment not necessarily being what we think it is, but in terms of managing it all, because it tips the scales and can become inefficient if the systems don't start talking together.

Anna:
So in my book, I talk about a concept of synergies not silos. And I think that really was speaking when we think about as a profession, we're quite siloed. But I really look to legal tech to change the game around that, because that's what traditional law firms, vendors aren't good at. They don't necessarily think about and don't have the empathy of what it's like to be a client walking in their shoes. Whereas I think legal tech, there's just that different working relationship. Perhaps they just get inside a little bit more into what happens for a legal team. So there is that I think next frontier of how do we get the tech more connected? How can the legal tech vendors work together more? And we're seeing a little bit more of that around compatibility, but I think, again, it's like what's that next frontier look like?

Taeler:
Absolutely. And you said something very interesting about AI that I just have to comment on. And a lot of people say AI is the future. And here at Malbek, we're always talking about how it does help you propel your systems forward, but at the same time, it's helping you learn from your history to build better systems, better processes and ultimately better contracts. So technology is not just for the future, like you said, it's definitely for learning from the past as well.

Taeler:
And Scott, actually, he has a great question that's been on my mind all day. So it's like he read my mind. What you say to lawyers who fear CLM technology, especially with AI enabled? We hear a lot that AI will replace lawyers and there seems to be... I don't know that it's a widespread fear, but we hear that a lot. So what would you say to those lawyers about that?

Anna:
I need to watch Free Guy. No, I'm joking. It's so fascinating this rumor that's become like fact. It is such fake news. It's the biggest lot of fake news I've ever read, which is really, again, going back to the start why I wanted to write an ebook about this, because I just wanted to put a positive spin on some of these media frenzy, if I call it that. The reality is right here right now, a Malbek doesn't happen without a lot of human effort. So it's not that your job is going to be replaced, it's just that your job is going to evolve and be different. And I think sometimes because lawyers are grounded in tradition, it's the way that we're trained, we're used to approaching things in a different way. It's not about being less of a lawyer. In fact, it's being the lawyer that you need to be, to be successful in today's digital age.

Anna:
So as I said at the start, it's part of the gig. And if people resist that, it's a bit like business people, unfortunately, they may become redundant because they're not evolving with the times. I worked with lawyers who in the days where Blackberries were around, and I remember working for a particular partner and he refused to learn... He was young, but he refused to learn how to email. So then he relied on everyone around him, which was incredibly inefficient, including me late at night when his secretary had gone home to type emails. He refused to be contactable through the Blackberry because he didn't want to learn how to use a Blackberry. So he just hit it in his bottom drawer and hoped that the thing would just die, the battery would die and we never have to look at it.

Anna:
So you either want to be really good at what you do, which means evolving your skillset or you can keep doing things traditionally knowing that eventually that mindset will have its limitations. So it's really about being conscious that just like the law changes and evolves all the time, and you've got to keep up with that as a lawyer, this is no different, this is just another tool in the kit around, okay, if there's a legislative change, there's a tech change, I better learn about that. It's that same level of diligence and sense of importance around those things.

Anna:
So I think if that lawyer is the perfect person to put front and center in terms of being part of a transformation team, so that they can see the sheer and huge human effort that's required not only to select, but to learn and customize to then keep that adoption level, because what's the point of launching technology if you don't keep your adoption. Your adoption rate should be going up and up and up and up. And so humans need to be involved in those conversations. We've just answered many questions about stakeholder engagement, communication on steroids, all those kinds of things.

Anna:
A platform in and of itself is not going to do all those incredible human things that still need to happen. So it's really a partnership. That's how the magic happens. And it's really maximizing the skills we have as a lawyer and maximizing then the technology to really get that right value in that effect. So I think having a conversation around what's underneath that fear is sometimes really important because it may not actually be the platform. It may be something else that's being triggered in us. And it's really important to sit with that and understand with that and find out exactly where that's coming from. And I know that, again, they're not the conversations we're used to having, but they're really important ones.

Taeler:
Absolutely. So we have a funny story in the chat. I just have to share from what you said about the one that was averse to emails.

Anna:
Yes.

Taeler:
So Allison had a manager who would print an email, hand write the reply on it, then hand it to her.

Anna:
Allison I'm with you. I hear you sister. That also happened to me. So I feel your pain. Yeah.

Taeler:
Yeah. My manager's on the call today. Becky, please don't do that to me. I just have to ask. And then just a comment here. Thank you from Gary. He said, "In my limited circle, the diversity of legal ops professionals is starting to change already, which is an awesome sign. So much talent not only for open roles, but strategic roles is right in front of us." And he just thanks you for your voice on this issue. So that's great.

Anna:
Thanks, Gary.

Taeler:
So we have very limited time left, but I want to do something fun to close this out. Are you ready?

Anna:
I'm so ready.

Taeler:
Okay. So I want to do a hot topic speed round. So I'm just going to say four statements or items that tend to be legal, hot topics. And I just want you to respond telling us how you feel about them in five words or less. You can be really brief, but I think this is a great way to say a lot by saying very little. So first one is billable hours.

Anna:
Should be the exception, not the rule.

Taeler:
Okay. Going paperless.

Anna:
No brainer.

Taeler:
That's so good. Legal is the sales prevention department.

Anna:
Only if you let it be that way.

Taeler:
Very true. And then our last one is lawyers who won't use AI will be replaced.

Anna:
Maybe.

Taeler:
Maybe. Just maybe. Well, Anna, thank you so much for being with us today. It's been such a pleasant hour with you. And I wish we had more time to talk all things L'Oreal. But we are going to conclude this session and take our first 10 minute break. Thanks again, Anna.

Anna:
Thank you so much. Thanks everyone. Have a really fabulous conference.