Breaking Strategic Groups Out of IT [#ILTA11]

The speakers in this session: (i) John Alber (Bryan Cave), (ii) Timothy Corcoran (HubbardOne), (iii) Gerard Neiditsch (Mallesons) and (iv) Jeffrey Rovner (O’Melveny).

[These are my notes from the International Legal Technology Association’s Conference 2011.  Since I’m publishing them as soon as possible after the end of a session, they may contain the occasional typographical or grammatical error.  Please excuse those. To the extent I’ve made any editorial comments, I’ve shown those in brackets.]

NOTES:

  • Why is this Issue Important? Changes in the marketplace, in how infrastructure and applications are managed, changes in staffing models, changes in pricing and client expectations — all of these factors cause firms to consider new ways to achieve a competitive advantage.
  • Consider Two Extremes for Discussion Purposes. One extreme is an enormous IT department that handles everything that has any technology function. The other extreme is an extremely lean IT operation, that keeps the basic operations in order, is reponsible for architecture and basic apps, but many of the specialized functions (e.g., client-facing technology, marketing technology, litigation support, practice support, etc.) are distributed throughout the firm. Which is the better approach, or should your firm aim for a hybrid? The answer lies in the problem you’re trying to solve. Are you trying to achieve the lowest possible cost? For example, a distributed model may lead to overlaps, duplication and inefficiencies. Alternatively, a consolidated group may be monolithic and sluggish. Mallesons is optimizing for agility. This has implications for how they approach legal practice AND technology.They are doing this in order to be able to respond rapidly to changes in their clients and in the environment. As a result, they are focused on specialized initiatives that are technology-enabled. The IT department then imposes discipline to ensure that there is no duplication of effort across the firm.
  • Considerations Applicable to Both Scenarios. Nimbleness, creating/supporting and R&D function, duplicative technology, duplicative personnel, career paths, IT discipline and project management. Gerard Neiditsch reminded the audience that even if you create separate “tiger teams” or skunkworks, be sure to recognize the contributions from the rest of the IT organization (the “performance engine”). Otherwise, you run the risk of losing the best people from your performance engine operations. In a similar vein, Jeffrey Rovner reminded the audience that whether you’re dealing with a skunkworks project or a performance engine project, be sure to recognize every single member of the team who made that possible. Just like the credits at the end of a movie, it’s important to acknowledge everyone who contributed to the success of the project.
  • The Importance of Reintegration. John Alber and Constance Hoffman at Bryan Cave frequently consider whether a group that has been broken out of the IT department should be reintegrated with the main IT department to ensure the overall benefits accrue to the firm and to avoid unnecessary duplication or silos of capability.
  • Consider the Extent to Which a Group is Tied to Revenue.Timothy Cororan noted that being tied to revenue can preserve a group (and give it legitimacy within the firm), but it also changes the expectations of the group. (One panelist noted that fee-earners can go to the golf course because meeting clients on the golf course is supposed to contribute to the top line.) Gerard Neiditsch also observed that if you have a group that you intended to spin out of the firm altogether (perhaps even to sell the technology and the team to another company) you should keep that in mind when you first start planning to create the group.
  • Consider Visibility. Creating a separate team can be a means of providing viability inside and outside the firm with respect to that team and its projects. John Alber noted that when they created a group focused on alternative fee structures, members of those teams started attending client meetings and internal client meetings. Jeffrey Rovner includes IT and library personnel in his KM meetings to ensure transparency of projects across functions. Gerard Neiditsch’s project managers are involved in every project in order to promote efficiency across the firm.
  • Career Path.Gerard noted that it can be hard to attract top specialist talent if they are concerned that they are buried in a large department and won’t have appropriate visibility. Tim suggested that by encouraging personnel to work across teams and departments, you can foster a cross-pollination of good ideas and best practices. John said that when you spin groups out of IT, you create additional opportunities for people to learn how to be better managers. However, Gerard said that you most likely will have to pay more to personnel who assume additional management responsibilities. Jeff and Tim both cautioned against creating new groups just to separate personnel who are having trouble getting along. This is an issue that requires better management. Separating them just perpetuates the problem, but on an inter-departmental basis.
Share

Light Bulbs in Las Vegas [#ILTA10]

How many light bulbs are in Las Vegas casino lights? According to WikiAnswers, 9,000,000 light bulbs per floor. Last week, however, the International Legal Technology Association’s 2010 annual conference resulted in a great deal more light in Vegas as one informative session after another caused “light bulbs to go off in my head.”  There were several “aha” moments in the sessions I attended, but here are some of my favorites that I don’t want to forget:

  • Ron Friedmann, Gerard Neiditsch and Jeffrey Rovner presented a compelling case for analyzing more carefully the business of law as practiced by most firms.  Their session provided a practical way to take some of the provocative ideas presented by Richard Susskind at ILTA 2009 and make them a reality.  The key take away: different business models may require different technology and business processes, and a mismatch can lead to great inefficiencies.  Do you understand the business drivers at your firm? (For more information on this session, see the presentation slides and  a summary by Andrew McLennan-Murray.)
  • Paul Domnick, CIO of Freshfields, described the viral way some of their social media initiatives behind the firewall have taken off.  Most striking is how they have been willing to stretch and experiment to achieve fantastic results.  In one experiment, they replaced their traditional intranet with a wiki.  That wiki now receives an amazing 1,000,000 page impressions per day.  Further, they did this using Atlassian’s Confluence — NOT SharePoint. In explaining his team’s approach, Paul said: “We need to be the broker between the art of the possible and the real needs of the organization.” (For more details on this session, see the presentation slides and  David Hobbie’s terrific notes.)
  • Kingsley Martin’s astonishing KIIAC software is able to analyze precedent documents and generate a form automatically in a matter of hours.  This will transform the creation of model documents and the role of practicing support lawyers. Above all, if this software allows firms to generate an “at market” form of a complex agreement at the push of the button, what will that do to the practice of law?
  • Keynote speaker Jason Jennings reminded conference attendees that “the right [corporate] culture is the ultimate competitive advantage.” His research indicates that companies achieve and sustain success by engaging their employees in a “shared, noble purpose.” This is an interesting litmus test for both companies and law firms.
  • From a fantastic session on  developing a social media policy by Julia Montgomery and Karen Sheehan:  Education is the key to a social media policy. Without education, it’s difficult for employees to understand both the opportunities and dangers presented by social media.
  • In a session on Supporting Alternative Fee Arrangements, Jason Epstein of Baker Donelson said that most firms were already doing AFAs in one form or another, but most likely weren’t doing them well.  As a result, these firms were probably losing money on them.  In his view, AFAs should be “a spur to make the practice of law better.”
  • From my notes on the Matter-Based Budgeting Session: “Budgeting is an iterative process. Once the lawyer puts a draft budget on the table, that opens up an important ongoing conversation with the client.”
  • Major General Clyde Tate (of the US Army’s JAG Corps) on dealing with massive change: Perseverance is key. “Bureaucrats love it when you give up…your job is to wear them down.”

What were your “light bulb moments” at ILTA 2010?

[Photo Credit: Zetson]

Share

Are Law Firms Ready for Transparency? (ILTA09)

If you blinked at ILTA09 last week, you might have missed it. And, even if you saw it, did you understand its implications?  One law firm has found a way to create real transparency in its dealings with its clients.  Are other firms ready to do the same?

During the session on Technologies That Will Disrupt Traditional Legal Practice, Gerard Neiditsch showed us Mallesons‘ new client service tool, Mallesons Connect. As I mentioned in my last ILTA09 post, Help Law Firms Deliver Value, this extranet provides clients with a clear window into Mallesons. And, it does this by presenting information from a truly client-centric perspective.  According to Gerard, most extranets function as black boxes. For many, they are simply archives. By contrast, Mallesons Connect provides Mallesons’ clients with an unimpeded view showing how Mallesons is working rather than just what Mallesons has done. How do they do this?  They provide (or will be providing shortly) the following information via a direct feed from their firm’s various systems:

  • Finances – project estimates, what fees have been incurred to date, aged invoices, etc.
  • Projects – real-time status of projects and resource availability.
  • Personnel – a directory of all Mallesons personnel working on projects for a particular client.  The directory is tailored for each client to show the personnel organized in a manner that reflects that client’s business units rather than Mallesons’ internal organization.
  • Current awareness information – news feeds, client alerts, etc.
  • Deal rooms and Data rooms.
  • E-mail – a complete real-time collection of all e-mail exchanged between the client and the firm.  (Using Recommind’s Decisiv tool.)

Yes, e-mail.  Is this the thin edge of the wedge?  Have law firms ever given clients access to correspondence files before outside of a discovery request?  Once clients can see an organized real-time collection of firm correspondence, what’s next?

The answer to that question may well come from Mallesons.  Gerard told us that Mallesons monitors client usage of the service very closely and then adapts the tool to suit client needs.  As a result, Mallesons will know before anyone else exactly what clients want and will be able to provide it while other firms are debating the merits of increased transparency.

There’s another important element that should not go unremarked.  Law firms rightly believe that they should bring only their very best work to their clients.  Since this work rarely springs into life fully formed, this means firms hide behind the curtain all the preparatory measures necessary to generate excellent work product.  However, once you introduce real-time transparency into your relationship with your client, it will be much harder to hide the behind-the-scenes work.  And, that transparency will provide clients an opportunity to comment on our work and working methods behind that curtain.  Are law firms ready for this level of oversight?

To give them credit, Mallesons “put its money where its mouth is” by providing an extraordinary level of transparency into the process of developing the Mallesons Connect tool itself.  They created a prototype and took it to their clients, only to discover that it wasn’t what their clients needed.  Rather than retreating behind the curtain to try another approach, they worked closely with their clients to develop the tool to meet client needs.    This is definitely a departure from the way most law firm technologists and knowledge management personnel are used to working.  And, it will require a change in the way lawyers have come to view the process of developing practice support tools.

No more little man behind the curtain.  Now, we really need to be the Wizard of Oz.

*** Update (3 Sept 09):

The good folks at Mallesons provided a bit more information on Mallesons Connect that might be helpful to other law firms considering entering this brave new world of transparency:

  • Work in progress information is an optional feature that is provided as a composite rather than in detail.  (I’m assuming this ensures that proper internal firm procedures can be followed in preparing  bills.)    Their clients understand that the financial information is indicative rather than final, and is intended to help clients avoid  surprises.
  • Mallesons is intending to expand Mallesons Connect from its current primarily financial data focus to providing collaborative work spaces shared by clients and the firm.   It is these work spaces (e.g., project wikis) that will house the personnel directory (using Mallesons’ superb People Finder tool) and the e-mail.  As mentioned above, the e-mail displayed will consistent of e-mail exchanged between the firm and the client.  It will not include any internal firm conversations regarding the client or the matter.
  • Their over-arching goal is to create a useful information site for clients that can be populated automatically in real-time.  (It seems to me that aside from ensuring that the feeds from the firm’s systems work, it’s important to understand what firm information can be displayed automatically without editing or explanation.  If there is a danger that a reasonable person might misunderstand the information presented, the firm should think twice about including that information.   The point of the exercise is to introduce transparency and clarity, not confusion.  And, by automating the delivery of information, the firm is hoping to achieve this transparency and clarity without imposing additional ongoing work on the client or the firm.)

Stepping back from the detail, the key to making this work culturally and politically within a law firm is to start by providing noncontroversial information such as prior invoices, completed and current work product, and e-mail the client has already seen.  Once this is automated and functioning well, the firm and client can think about what other information would be useful to both parties to make their relationship more effective and to help both manage the work.  Taken from this perspective, it’s a win-win situation for client and firm.

[Photo Credit:  Just Jefa]

Share

Help Law Firms Deliver Value (ILTA09)

Shift happens — even in law firms. Are you ready? That’s the question that kept surfacing at the ILTA09 conference last week.

You’d have to be living under a rock not to have noticed the impact of the economy on law firms and their clients alike.  Thankfully, ILTA09 didn’t just remind us of the bad news all around.  The conference did something more helpful — it provided information and real examples of how lawyers and technologists around the world are rising to the challenges of the shifting landscape.

While I’ve provided some fairly detailed reporting of several ILTA09 sessions during the course of the past week,  I want now to take a step back and try to convey some general themes that emerged across sessions.  My first focus is on delivering value.  This theme was launched officially with a keynote address by Richard Susskind entitled, “The End of Lawyering?”.  Over the course of his keynote address and panel presentation, he made the following points:

  • If law firms are serious about addressing client concerns regarding the rising cost of legal services, those firms will have to increase efficiency radically.  In order to manage costs, clients are going to have to consider collaboration with other clients and thereby share costs.
  • The best way to reduce costs intelligently is to start by analyzing your current costs of delivering services.  Once firms break down service into its component parts and price those parts, firms can then experiment with finding cheaper ways to provide those components.  This may mean sub-contracting the work or moving it offshore, for example.
  • One way to reduce costs is to standardize services (e.g., creating model or standard form documents). Going further, you can systematize or automate those services (e.g., by using document assembly tools).  Once automation is complete, a firm can then package these services and make them available online to clients, who can use the packaged services as and when needed.  The example Susskind cited was Wilson Sonsini’s contract generator for start ups.  He described packaged services like this as a means for firms to “make money while you sleep.”
  • Central to rethinking how we deliver services more efficiently is disrupting the current business model and deploying disruptive technologies in our firms.  However, while these disruptive technologies will give a firm competitive advantage, Susskind believes that most firms don’t seek this.  In his experience, firms are more concerned about suffering a competitive DISadvantage rather than having a competitive advantage.  In other words, they are more worried about being left behind than blazing a new trail.
  • Here are the top 10 disruptive technologies  Richard Susskind identified:
    • Automated document assembly.
    • Relentless Connectivity.  (Clients expect 24/7 availability, so lawyers need to use online tools to provide a continuous online presence.)
    • Electronic legal marketplace.  (Like on ebay, clients will have better pricing information and will be able to auction/bid for legal services.)
    • e-Learning.  (Laws schools are beginning to use online simulation tools train students for modern legal practice circa 2009 not 1980.)
    • Online Legal Service. (There are many English public sector websites that offer online legal guidance, so you don’t have to hire a lawyer.)
    • Legal Open-Sourcing. (Some legal resources are now gathered and offered free of charge.  This trend will grow like wikipedia.)
    • Closed Legal Communities. (More clients will form online communities to collect and share legal know-how.)
    • Workflow & Project Management. (Automation and enhanced project management can improve margins on high volume, low value work.)
    • Embedded Legal Knowledge. (More systems will embed compliance requirements, thus removing the need for separate legal advice.)
    • Online Dispute Resolution. (Moving dispute resolution online eliminates the expense of having to meet in a physical location.)

At a later session, Fred Krebs (President  of the Association of Corporate Counsel in Washington, D.C.) spoke about the ACC’s Value Challenge, which is based on the premise that it is the clients that define what constitutes “value” in legal services.  He started by pointing out that while overall costs to corporations have increased by 20% during the past 10 years, their legal costs have risen by 75%.  In order to address this imbalance, the members of the ACC have issued the Value Challenge to counteract what they describe as the “perverse incentives of the billable hour.” The Value Challenge aims to help corporate counsel manage costs by increasing transparency in the process for setting prices for law firm services.  Their hope is that this will bring about more efficiency and cost predictability.

Moving from theory to action, we then heard from some firms that were taking concrete steps to address the new economic realities.  One firm that has moved significantly down this path is Bryan Cave.  As John Alber and Connie Hoffman told us over the course of two sessions, they have spent significant time analyzing their services and business processes and now believe they know what it really costs to deliver services to clients.  With this data in hand, Bryan Cave can model the impact on price by changing the components of service (e.g., what happens if you change the staffing?).  Along the way, they created an online tool to help with this analysis and then licensed that tool to Redwood Analytics, who now provides it to other firms.  (This is another example of what Susskind calls “making money while you sleep.”)  Bryan Cave has also rethought how to conduct a due diligence review and created an online tool that streamlines the due diligence process.  They have been able to push due diligence work down to less expensive personnel while ensuring quality through a training component embedded in the tool.  In addition, they are providing transparency by allowing clients to obtain reports on demand regarding the process and cost of the due diligence effort.

On the subject of transparency, Mallesons in Australia has blazed a new trail with Mallesons Connect.  As described by Gerard Neiditsch, this new extranet application gives clients real-time information regarding lawyer activity, progress against project goals, and fees incurred.   It also provides information on billing history and outstanding invoices.  In the process, Mallesons learned that this transparency can have unexpected benefits.  Besides keeping everyone accountable, Mallesons discovered that once their law department clients saw the invoice information, they were able to expedite payments.

If your firm would like to rethink how it delivers value to its clients, the panelists advise you to start by analyzing your business processes.  Using a simple Gantt chart,  identify the components and dependencies of your process.  Once you really understand the workflow, introduce simple technology to help automate parts of the process.  If it works, extend it.  If it doesn’t work, learn from it.  Throughout this process, however, don’t forget the advice of Steven Levy, as quoted by one of the panelists:  “Technology cannot replace thinking. Automating broken processes won’t make us smarter; it can make us stupider faster.”

****************************

For more information on delivering value to clients, see the following resources:

My post on a prior talk given by Richard Susskind and its implications for law firm knowledge management.

David Hobbie’s Caselines posts on Richard Susskind’s keynote address and the related panel presentation.

Andrew McLennan-Murray’s summary of Richard Susskind’s keynote and panel presentation.

Susan Jacobsen’s post on the the ACC Value Challenge session at ILTA09.

ACC’s resources on Leveraging Knowledge, including specific measures taken by various law firms.

[Photo Credit:  dasmart]

Share