One of the key themes of the MLPA project is solicitors’ access to the service. We want to encourage solicitors to use the service by ensuring it integrates into their existing systems.

To help us better understand how we can do this, in May 2021 we met with representatives from the Legal Software Suppliers Association (LSSA) - the UK industry body for legal systems developers and vendors.

The aim for the session was to make sure we had early engagement and awareness of our work, understand the best ways to communicate progress, and to explore some of the early technical questions around practical integration and interoperability

Technical questions

Technical implementation was discussed. In most cases, a law firm collects all the relevant client information and enters it into a database or customer relationship management (CRM) system. This information then populates the relevant form or posts data into the relevant service via API. The CRM is held as the de facto truth for solicitors. They use it regularly to check the progress of cases and to audit or update client records accordingly.

For integration, submitting data via API would be relatively trivial, given MoJ could provide;

• relevant active support channels

• a test sandbox which accurately reflects the live environment

• semantic versioning with release notes and adhered to open, recognised standards

One mentioned it would be easier if authentication methods were the same or similar to what is already in use, and all agreed that OAuth was probably the most favourable.

One noted that a lot of solicitors do not use software as a service and either build their own software or do not have ready access to easily integratable solutions. We agreed that any future service will need to be as inclusive as possible, not just for law firms but also for charities and digital disruptors. It was felt an API-based approach is probably best placed to support this, and that any future GOV.UK hosted citizen journey could use the same API. We also discussed how software suppliers are not the data owners, and have no responsibility for the quality of the submission (or legal advice!) but do take responsibility for providing solicitors with the best tools to enable their work.

We discussed how software is released to law firms and that there was a wide variety of formats, depending on whether the suppliers offer a SaaS, CRM or other solution. Participants impressed there was a need to make sure the right tools are available for release on the right day, and legal software suppliers are under pressure from their clients to support a new process at the point it goes live, and sometimes have to play catch up. Notice periods for updates were discussed and 6 weeks is the absolute minimum needed for suppliers to push out changes, with an ideal notice period being around 3 months.

Experience of other services

Generally, the view from participants was that the private sector tends to do integrations more efficiently than the public sector, and that legislative changes can sometimes catch suppliers unawares, leaving them with a very short time to submit changes to their services. Some particular software vendors were referenced as having a very good process in place for integration with legal software suppliers, because a quick and clean integration route can provide them with a commercial advantage.

The most important aspects of a future relationship are:

• regular communication with an active point of contact (and detailed handover if that PoC changes in the future)

• a sandbox with high availability and an accurate test for any live service

• the ability to have a support team as and when things go wrong

The pain points tend towards lack of communication or historical knowledge of previous decisions, and lead-in times being too short to make the necessary changes and push them out to law firms. Our early engagement in this respect was seen as a positive thing, and appreciated.

It was agreed that if the APIs are clearly defined and documented and the testing platform is good, suppliers would not perceive any issues. Both Slack and a more formalised portal for submitting support requests were considered useful for communication as long as there was someone on our side available to respond in good time.

Costs

We discussed how costs are passed on for development of new services. Again, this varied wildly between suppliers and the packages they offer to their legal clients, but it was generally agreed that most suppliers would not tend to charge for a service such as this, and there is a tendency to include services like this as value added packages to existing subscriptions, or incorporated into standard fees. It is up to individual suppliers whether they choose to charge for an additional service or not.

Not all current software suppliers offer LPA/EPA packages (one estimated maybe a dozen suppliers currently do so). It was also noted again that not all legal firms have software from suppliers and that some have their own developers who may want to build and integrate their own solutions.

As an aside, we discussed how COVID-19 had impacted the legal sector’s adoption of technology, and one commented they have seen an uptake in adoption and greater awareness of paperless and remote working. One estimated they have seen perhaps 5 to 10 years of shift forward in thinking over the past year. It was also mentioned that solicitors can be slow to adopt new processes or change existing ones unless they are required to do so.

Identity assurance

From an identity assurance perspective, again, different suppliers integrate in different ways. Clients often voice concerns about their identity being checked at lots of points across different services, and do not like having to provide the same information multiple times.

There are no other services that attendees were aware of which pass across identity credentials as part of the payload. Most government services accept declarations from the solicitor that they have checked the identity of their client sufficiently, as required by the SRA, to vouch for a service. The Land Registry was given as an example for this.

For solicitor and business identity, API keys distinct to a specific law firm are achievable, as are keys per qualified solicitor in an organisation to audit who is eligible to complete a submission. There is currently no single way or product via which solicitors check identity.

Next steps

It was agreed early and continuous engagement is useful to the LSSA and as and when we are at a position to test more granular technical implementation we will hold further engagement sessions.