Comments on: Law Firm Transparency – Take Two (ILTA09) http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/2009/09/law-firm-transparency-take-two-ilta09.html A discussion of knowledge management that goes above and beyond technology. Thu, 10 May 2012 17:45:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Dino, Dodo, Extranet | Above and Beyond KM http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/2009/09/law-firm-transparency-take-two-ilta09.html/comment-page-1#comment-1122 Dino, Dodo, Extranet | Above and Beyond KM Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:23:26 +0000 http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/?p=1827#comment-1122 [...] law firm firewall safely.  This could be a wonderful opportunity to provide exactly the level of law firm transparency and support that clients have been asking [...] [...] law firm firewall safely.  This could be a wonderful opportunity to provide exactly the level of law firm transparency and support that clients have been asking [...]

]]> By: VMaryAbraham http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/2009/09/law-firm-transparency-take-two-ilta09.html/comment-page-1#comment-1416 VMaryAbraham Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:41:03 +0000 http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/?p=1827#comment-1416 To be honest, Jason, I wonder if those firms had appropriate business<br>processes and technology to support your request? Until issues of security<br>and ease of access and maintenance are addressed, I expect it would be hard<br>for many firms to think about providing proprietary information outside the<br>firewall. In any event, Mallesons has now proven that the technology<br>exists. So it will be interesting to see which law firms are able to<br>organize their business process sufficiently to support this new era of<br>transparency.<br><br>- Mary To be honest, Jason, I wonder if those firms had appropriate business
processes and technology to support your request? Until issues of security
and ease of access and maintenance are addressed, I expect it would be hard
for many firms to think about providing proprietary information outside the
firewall. In any event, Mallesons has now proven that the technology
exists. So it will be interesting to see which law firms are able to
organize their business process sufficiently to support this new era of
transparency.

- Mary

]]> By: jasonmarkanderman http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/2009/09/law-firm-transparency-take-two-ilta09.html/comment-page-1#comment-1415 jasonmarkanderman Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:54:51 +0000 http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/?p=1827#comment-1415 When I used to be in-house counsel, our General Counsel and I wrote all of our outside counsel law firms and asked them: "(1) Do you have any knowledge management (KM) systems?" and "(2) Would you be willing to allow us to access any of your KM systems?" We thought this would be a good idea because straightforward, small deals and IP prosecution were handled exclusively in-house, while large scale M&A and litigation was given to outside counsel, so helping us to do our internal work better would only make us more enamored of a law firm and make them more likely to get the large scale work in the future. Essentially, there was no risk of them losing business. Surprisingly (to us) no one offered us access. Was this because there were few KM systems in existence? Or because of a lack of interest in transparency? I surmise it was a little of both. What do you think? When I used to be in-house counsel, our General Counsel and I wrote all of our outside counsel law firms and asked them: “(1) Do you have any knowledge management (KM) systems?” and “(2) Would you be willing to allow us to access any of your KM systems?” We thought this would be a good idea because straightforward, small deals and IP prosecution were handled exclusively in-house, while large scale M&A and litigation was given to outside counsel, so helping us to do our internal work better would only make us more enamored of a law firm and make them more likely to get the large scale work in the future. Essentially, there was no risk of them losing business. Surprisingly (to us) no one offered us access. Was this because there were few KM systems in existence? Or because of a lack of interest in transparency? I surmise it was a little of both. What do you think?

]]> By: VMaryAbraham http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/2009/09/law-firm-transparency-take-two-ilta09.html/comment-page-1#comment-969 VMaryAbraham Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:41:03 +0000 http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/?p=1827#comment-969 To be honest, Jason, I wonder if those firms had appropriate business<br>processes and technology to support your request? Until issues of security<br>and ease of access and maintenance are addressed, I expect it would be hard<br>for many firms to think about providing proprietary information outside the<br>firewall. In any event, Mallesons has now proven that the technology<br>exists. So it will be interesting to see which law firms are able to<br>organize their business process sufficiently to support this new era of<br>transparency.<br><br>- Mary To be honest, Jason, I wonder if those firms had appropriate business
processes and technology to support your request? Until issues of security
and ease of access and maintenance are addressed, I expect it would be hard
for many firms to think about providing proprietary information outside the
firewall. In any event, Mallesons has now proven that the technology
exists. So it will be interesting to see which law firms are able to
organize their business process sufficiently to support this new era of
transparency.

- Mary

]]> By: jasonmarkanderman http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/2009/09/law-firm-transparency-take-two-ilta09.html/comment-page-1#comment-967 jasonmarkanderman Fri, 04 Sep 2009 01:54:51 +0000 http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/?p=1827#comment-967 When I used to be in-house counsel, our General Counsel and I wrote all of our outside counsel law firms and asked them: "(1) Do you have any knowledge management (KM) systems?" and "(2) Would you be willing to allow us to access any of your KM systems?" We thought this would be a good idea because straightforward, small deals and IP prosecution were handled exclusively in-house, while large scale M&A and litigation was given to outside counsel, so helping us to do our internal work better would only make us more enamored of a law firm and make them more likely to get the large scale work in the future. Essentially, there was no risk of them losing business. Surprisingly (to us) no one offered us access. Was this because there were few KM systems in existence? Or because of a lack of interest in transparency? I surmise it was a little of both. What do you think? When I used to be in-house counsel, our General Counsel and I wrote all of our outside counsel law firms and asked them: “(1) Do you have any knowledge management (KM) systems?” and “(2) Would you be willing to allow us to access any of your KM systems?” We thought this would be a good idea because straightforward, small deals and IP prosecution were handled exclusively in-house, while large scale M&A and litigation was given to outside counsel, so helping us to do our internal work better would only make us more enamored of a law firm and make them more likely to get the large scale work in the future. Essentially, there was no risk of them losing business. Surprisingly (to us) no one offered us access. Was this because there were few KM systems in existence? Or because of a lack of interest in transparency? I surmise it was a little of both. What do you think?

]]>