We participated in the Junction 2017 hackathon in November. Our goal was to find people to help us reinvent how clients interact with law firms. We were amazed at the solutions that our twelve international teams presented and are excited to start validating the ideas with our clients.
7.12.2017
Reinventing Interaction With Business Law Firms
The Best Client Experience – Digitised
Legal advisory will always be the core value of business law services, but the way services are delivered will change. To meet client expectations in a new digital world, we have to actively explore the opportunities technology is providing.
Setting Up The Challenge
We wanted the participants of our Legal Tech track and challenge ‘Accessing the Law’ to help us reinvent how clients interact with law firms and access the law. We provided the hackers with three examples of areas they could focus on to ensure an interesting hack.
In the first area, we asked the hackers to find a solution for both clients and lawyers to track the progress of a project. In the second area, we encouraged the hackers to create a solution that provides a price estimate for a project. The third possible area to focus on was to create a solution to gather the information needed to run a legal project successfully. In addition to these three areas, we encouraged the hackers to be brave and think outside the box to improve our client experience.
The Clients’ Journey
As we were preparing for Junction, it became clear that defining and communicating the scope of the challenge was no easy task. We wanted the guidelines to help the hackers get onto the right track, but not stifle them or discourage them from bringing new ideas to the table.
Given that our hackers were not necessarily familiar with the legal field, we decided to provide few examples of typical client interactions that take place during a legal assignment. We used the picture below to communicate our challenge to the hackers. We felt that any one of these examples could benefit from a hack and were happy to see our hackers tackle many of them.
Experiencing Groundbreaking Innovation
As a first timer at a Hackathon, we didn’t know what to expect. It felt as if we were taking a leap into the unknown, which is always exciting. On the flip side, we weren’t sure what the hackers would think of our challenge.
At first, it seemed as if they weren’t very interested in our track. Luckily, this turned out not to be the case—quite the opposite actually. Our track was fully booked with over 40 participants.
It was amazing to watch the teams work and admire how they radiated energy and innovativeness. It is difficult to describe the atmosphere at the venue over the weekend. Everyone should have a chance to experience something similar.
The thing that impressed us the most during these two days were the people—their motivation and talent. None of us had experienced this kind of innovation event before.
Teamwork
Junction was concrete proof of the power of teamwork. In this case, this applied not only to the competing teams, but to us as well. We brought a team of our own people and people from our business partners Talent Base, CSI Helsinki, Arc Technology and Taival to support the participants and give them the best shot to succeed in our challenge.
We were so happy to see the seamless collaboration between lawyers, business service experts and our business partners’ experts. Everyone’s expertise was put to good use over the weekend, and we also received excellent feedback both from the teams and Junction’s organisers.
And The Winner Is?
The demos started with a demo expo in which every team had the opportunity to present their project to a larger audience and get feedback to encourage them to develop their ideas further.
Every track chose their own judges who picked the winners of the track. The Legal Tech track judge team consisted of Pia Ek and Heikki Ilvessalo from our firm as well as Asko Relas (Talent Base) and Reko Lehti (Taival). The judges went from table to table to listen to each team. Each team had to demo their project in a maximum of four minutes, after which the judges had two minutes for questions.
Photo: Juha Nurmela
We have to admit that it was very hard to choose the winner from the twelve amazing solutions presented to us.
In the end, we chose the team ‘Discover’ as the winner of the Legal Tech track. The team’s solution redefined interaction between lawyer and client in a unique way. The goal of the solution is to connect lawyers and clients using an intuitive and forward-thinking interface, including document management, time management and project budgeting, where transparency is of utmost importance.
The tied second best teams ‘Legal Timer’ and ‘Lexio’ chose to create a solution for price estimates. Legal Timer’s solution uses machine learning to analyse the data from our ERP system to create a quick price estimate in place of time-consuming manual assessment. The solution uses intuitive visualisation, is easy to use and can be integrated into our existing CRM system. Lexio’s solution provides a price estimate of the probable cost of an assignment. The service also uses ERP data to provide insight on how much the client can expect to spend according to the total costs of similar cases. Lexio’s solution gives the lawyer a starting point for pricing the case and provides an easy to use interface to send the estimate to the client.
We look forward to having interesting follow-up discussions with the winning teams. You can explore all the solutions from here.
Designing the Best Client Experience
We have already started to discuss the results of Junction with our experts and clients to identify the value of the new ideas in terms of improved client experience.
As our client or business partner, we would like to invite you to help us focus our development initiatives. Feel free to contact us for further information on the Junction challenge and the lessons we learned from it or contact your favorite lawyer to start a dialogue on how we can improve our client experience.
Latest insights
Article published 3.3.2026 – Employment
The threshold for dismissal is lowered: what should be taken into account in practice?
Article published 2.3.2026 – Environment, Energy & Green Transition
Energy security is a matter of investment and competitiveness
Article published 6.2.2026 – Tax & Structuring
Electricity sector Profit Tax Act in conflict with EU law – SAC denied leave to appeal
Article published 2.2.2026 – Data & Technology
Avoid costly risks with well-drafted distribution agreements
Aleksandra Särkelä
Samuli Tarkiainen & Marius af Schultén
Janne Juusela & Mikko Alakare
Topi Lusenius & Samuli Salminen
Latest references
Fingrid – Update of EMTN Programme
We advised Fingrid Oyj on the Finnish law aspects in the update of a EUR 3,000,000 Euro Medium Term Note programme (EMTN). Notes issued under the programme may be listed on the Irish Stock Exchange. Fingrid operates Finland’s main electricity transmission grid and all significant cross-border transmission connections. The main grid is the backbone of the electricity transmission network, to which major power plants, industrial plants and regional electricity distribution networks are connected.
Case published 17.3.2026
Jensen-Group – Acquisition of Vestek
We advised Jensen-Group with its acquisition of Oy Vestek Ab, the long-standing distributor of Jensen solutions in Finland. The strategic step underlines Jensen-Group’s long-term commitment to the Nordic region and its ambition to further expand sustainable and future-oriented laundry automation solutions in Finland. Jensen-Group, listed on Euronext Brussels, is a global leader in heavy‑duty laundry technology, known for designing and manufacturing industrial laundry machines, systems, and turnkey automation solutions. Oy Vestek Ab is a Finnish import company founded in 1961. The company’s main activity is to import supplies and machinery, including providing products and services for the health care and laundry industries, from Europe and the USA and to act as a wholesale dealer on the Finnish market.
Case published 16.3.2026
Fortum – AI workshop
We delivered two AI workshops for Fortum Corporation’s Mergers and Acquisitions team, with both legal and business professionals participating. The sessions combined fundamental AI principles with custom use cases for commercially available AI tools tailored to Fortum’s needs. We also presented a bespoke solution merging AI with a script-based tool developed by our Legal Tech team, enabling a more automated way of working. Our experts conducted the training drawing on their legal background and leading experience in this emerging field of legal technology. Participants particularly appreciated the clarity and relevance of the implementations demonstrated. ‘C&S delivered an excellent, well-structured series of workshops, with directly applicable takeaways,’ says Sabina Hautaviita, Legal Counsel for M&A at Fortum.
Case published 9.3.2026
VR – Supreme Court decision clarifies working time practices
We successfully represented VR Group before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the meal break practice of commuter train drivers. On 6 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in VR’s favour (decision KKO:2026:12), confirming that VR had the right to amend the commuter train drivers’ meal break practice in 2021 by rendering the break unpaid in accordance with the applicable collective agreement. This decision clarifies the interpretation of collective agreements and employment legislation as well as the limits of the employer’s right to direct work. Over 250 commuter train drivers challenged the unpaid meal break practice which VR introduced in April 2021. Before the change, meal breaks had a long history of being paid. The change was based on the train drivers’ collective agreement, which allows for meal breaks to be organised either as paid or unpaid time. The Supreme Court ruled that the scheduling and managing of breaks falls within the core area of the employer’s right to direct work. This increases the threshold for an established practice becoming a binding condition for the parties. Merely following a practice consistently and over a long period of time does not make the practice binding; instead, the employer’s intent to commit to the practice must be clearly evident from the employer’s conduct or other circumstances. As both alternatives – paid and unpaid – for organising meal breaks had been retained in the collective agreement despite other amendments over the years, it could not be considered that VR had intended to commit to the paid break practice and waive its right to direct work as regards break scheduling. It was also significant that the employment contracts explicitly referred only to the collective agreement as regards working time. The Supreme Court deemed that the employees’ paid meal break was not an established term of employment and that VR was entitled to change the practice based on the collective agreement. The employer had the right, by virtue of its right to direct work, to unilaterally change the meal break practice by choosing to apply the other arrangement permitted by the collective agreement.
Case published 3.3.2026