As I posted earlier, I sat in a session on Legal Ethics and Law Firm Websites. Here are few takeaways:
The bar regulators are way behind in figuring out how to regulate lawyers on the internet. Most of the analysis focuses around comparing the web activity to what you would do in print advertising or the phone.
Some bad internet activities such as pop-up ads and spam from lawyers are probably unethical, not just annoying.
You need a disclaimer on the website listing an attorney's email address. I posted about this earlier in the context of the Massachusetts ethics opinion.
Lawyer matching sites are a problem. The law varies from state to state on what is permitted, especially when it comes to charging fees and holding someone out as an expert.
You may also want to look at the materials from a different session on Dennis Kennedy's blog: Handout Materials - Ethical Issues for Law Firm Websites
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Knowledge Management for Inside Counsel
The latest issue of Inside Counsel magazine contains a primer on knowledge management Article(pdf).
They interviewed the right people by including Jack Vinson, Dennis Kennedy, and Sally Gonzalez.
The article laid out a seven step guide to knowledge management:
Those same four objectives apply to a KM system for a law firm. But the cost savings get passed on to the client, not as more revenue to the law firm. That is what makes it hard to determine the value of knowledge management to a law firm and hard to determine what the return on investment may be. The goal is to convert those cost savings and better work product into more business and higher realization on the payment of the bills.
The one situation where it is possible to work knowledge management into the law firm financial equation is for fixed-fee representations. If knowledge management can help the attorneys produce better work product, quicker and more efficiently, then the law firm can increase the time value of the representation. If the client agrees pay $X for each matter which equate to Z hours of attorney time at their billing rate, then the goal is to complete the matter with less than Z hours worth of work.
That is where knowledge management (and legal technology) can help. I would propose using document automation to produce the documents more quickly. I would also institute a post-closing review of the comments to the documents to see which ones should be incorporated going forward to reduce negotiation time. You can see how layering in KM around the practice and the client would make a quantifiable difference.
They interviewed the right people by including Jack Vinson, Dennis Kennedy, and Sally Gonzalez.
The article laid out a seven step guide to knowledge management:
- Create an objective.
- Sell it.
- Appoint a leader.
- Get buy-in
- Leverage existing technology
- Consider other stakeholders
- Maintain it
Those same four objectives apply to a KM system for a law firm. But the cost savings get passed on to the client, not as more revenue to the law firm. That is what makes it hard to determine the value of knowledge management to a law firm and hard to determine what the return on investment may be. The goal is to convert those cost savings and better work product into more business and higher realization on the payment of the bills.
The one situation where it is possible to work knowledge management into the law firm financial equation is for fixed-fee representations. If knowledge management can help the attorneys produce better work product, quicker and more efficiently, then the law firm can increase the time value of the representation. If the client agrees pay $X for each matter which equate to Z hours of attorney time at their billing rate, then the goal is to complete the matter with less than Z hours worth of work.
That is where knowledge management (and legal technology) can help. I would propose using document automation to produce the documents more quickly. I would also institute a post-closing review of the comments to the documents to see which ones should be incorporated going forward to reduce negotiation time. You can see how layering in KM around the practice and the client would make a quantifiable difference.
Data Sharing to Show Experience - Ethical Limitations
Staying on this topic for a little bit longer, but I am currently listening to a webcast from ALI-ABA "Legal Ethics and Lawyer Websites." They brought up the topic of revealing client names and I thought of my post on listing published decisions on a firm's website.
They pointed out that ABA Model Rule 1.6(a) states: "A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b)."
The published decision is a matter of public record so you are not necessarily revealing information. But there are ethical limitations, so as part of the process the law firm should get the consent of the client.
They pointed out that ABA Model Rule 1.6(a) states: "A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b)."
The published decision is a matter of public record so you are not necessarily revealing information. But there are ethical limitations, so as part of the process the law firm should get the consent of the client.
Data Sharing to Show Experience - Can You Show Too Much?
My colleague David Hobbie pointed out in my prior post that providing information on all of the published cases could make too much information available. Nobody wins them all, so there will be losers and winners in the list.
The cases are published and publicly available, so there is no issue with revealing client confidences. But both the client and the law firm would probably not want to display their devastating losses.
I would assume that the listed decision would go through a vetting process with the responsible attorney before it is posted. However, the marketing group could discover the information and initiate the process, rather than waiting on the attorney to provide the information. That removes one of the limitations in the system.
Should a law firm should post all of the decisions? the good and the bad?
There is a growing movement of transparency in the business world. In The Naked Corporation, the authors take the position that a business must make itself visible to its shareholders, employees and customers.
Wired Magazine had an article by Clive Thompson on this: The See-Through CEO. "Transparency is a judo move. Your customers are going to poke around in your business anyway, and your workers are going to blab about internal info - so why not make it work for you. . . "
As the authors of The Naked Corporation point out, "Transparency means more than making things visible; it also means taking action on what you see. " It is hard to show what action you have may taken from the problematic result in the final endgame that is a courtroom decision. You could point out that you learn as much from your losses as you do from you victories. Therefore, the law firm has experience in that venue and on that topic.
Are law firms ready for transparency?
I do not think that law firms are far enough into the internet age to be worrying about the spin of bloggers and online postings. A snippet from the Wired article sets the example of a blogger who wrote about terrible treatment by Dell's customer service, their "posts were so gleefully linked to that for a while they appeared as the number one and two search results for "Dell.""
Run a search a search against your law firm's name and see what comes up. The results against my firm were pretty boring. Nothing bad. (Nothing all that good either).
I do not see the need to worry about the spin of bloggers or other online postings about the law firm. Yet.
There are ethical limitations on using a client's name. See this update.
The cases are published and publicly available, so there is no issue with revealing client confidences. But both the client and the law firm would probably not want to display their devastating losses.
I would assume that the listed decision would go through a vetting process with the responsible attorney before it is posted. However, the marketing group could discover the information and initiate the process, rather than waiting on the attorney to provide the information. That removes one of the limitations in the system.
Should a law firm should post all of the decisions? the good and the bad?
There is a growing movement of transparency in the business world. In The Naked Corporation, the authors take the position that a business must make itself visible to its shareholders, employees and customers.
Wired Magazine had an article by Clive Thompson on this: The See-Through CEO. "Transparency is a judo move. Your customers are going to poke around in your business anyway, and your workers are going to blab about internal info - so why not make it work for you. . . "
As the authors of The Naked Corporation point out, "Transparency means more than making things visible; it also means taking action on what you see. " It is hard to show what action you have may taken from the problematic result in the final endgame that is a courtroom decision. You could point out that you learn as much from your losses as you do from you victories. Therefore, the law firm has experience in that venue and on that topic.
Are law firms ready for transparency?
I do not think that law firms are far enough into the internet age to be worrying about the spin of bloggers and online postings. A snippet from the Wired article sets the example of a blogger who wrote about terrible treatment by Dell's customer service, their "posts were so gleefully linked to that for a while they appeared as the number one and two search results for "Dell.""
Run a search a search against your law firm's name and see what comes up. The results against my firm were pretty boring. Nothing bad. (Nothing all that good either).
I do not see the need to worry about the spin of bloggers or other online postings about the law firm. Yet.
There are ethical limitations on using a client's name. See this update.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Data Sharing to Show Experience - Follow Up
In my prior post, I pointed out that the biggest difficulty with implementing a system to display a law firm's experience is extracting the information from the attorneys.
Over the weekend I thought of two areas that law firm can display their experience without relying on the attorneys: litigation and securities.
For a litigation practice, you can pull the published cases in which the law firm represented a party. Lexis and Westlaw can both do this. Then you can categorize them based on the jurisdiction. Sidley Austin LLP did something like this. They show their state court experience for their Products Liability and Mass Torts Experience. The map is short on the details of what they did in each jurisdiction, but it does show that they have handled some sort of case in every state. I could also see this tool providing a detailed list of the decided cases and appeals in each jurisdiction.
For a securities practice, you can pull the filings in which the law firm represented the underwriter or issuer. You will find this capability in Securities Mosaic and LiveEdgar. Then you can categorize the issuance by industry, since that will be listed in the filing. You can also categorize the issuance by whether the firm represented the issuer or underwriter.
These are two ways to provide a rich source of data for an experience system, without relying on the attorneys to provide it.
Update: Can You Share Too Much?
Over the weekend I thought of two areas that law firm can display their experience without relying on the attorneys: litigation and securities.
For a litigation practice, you can pull the published cases in which the law firm represented a party. Lexis and Westlaw can both do this. Then you can categorize them based on the jurisdiction. Sidley Austin LLP did something like this. They show their state court experience for their Products Liability and Mass Torts Experience. The map is short on the details of what they did in each jurisdiction, but it does show that they have handled some sort of case in every state. I could also see this tool providing a detailed list of the decided cases and appeals in each jurisdiction.
For a securities practice, you can pull the filings in which the law firm represented the underwriter or issuer. You will find this capability in Securities Mosaic and LiveEdgar. Then you can categorize the issuance by industry, since that will be listed in the filing. You can also categorize the issuance by whether the firm represented the issuer or underwriter.
These are two ways to provide a rich source of data for an experience system, without relying on the attorneys to provide it.
Update: Can You Share Too Much?
Friday, June 8, 2007
Real-Time Document Collaboration
Are lawyers ready for real-time document collaboration? Brett Burney thinks they are: Time for Lawyers to Collaborate in Real Time.
I do not agree. Drafting documents in a transaction is much more about negotiation than collaboration. I want to control drafting and control a negotiation posture.
Mr. Burney mentions using WebEx and other online meetings as a way to collaborate. I have done that a few times, but it is hard to find the right situation. For a big document, nobody wants to be going through the document line by line.
The situation is a little different when trying draft forms and templates. A collaboration model would fit better for an internal discussion or drafting session without the need for a negotiation stance. The collaboration software puts an artificial amount of technology in the way of a thoughtful discussion about the document.
Ken Adams had an interesting analysis on this Wiki, Anyone? on using a wiki and other software to draft contracts. He concludes that a wiki is not likely to be a factor in contract drafting. I agree.
AdamsDrafting: Real-Time Document Collaboration
I do not agree. Drafting documents in a transaction is much more about negotiation than collaboration. I want to control drafting and control a negotiation posture.
Mr. Burney mentions using WebEx and other online meetings as a way to collaborate. I have done that a few times, but it is hard to find the right situation. For a big document, nobody wants to be going through the document line by line.
The situation is a little different when trying draft forms and templates. A collaboration model would fit better for an internal discussion or drafting session without the need for a negotiation stance. The collaboration software puts an artificial amount of technology in the way of a thoughtful discussion about the document.
Ken Adams had an interesting analysis on this Wiki, Anyone? on using a wiki and other software to draft contracts. He concludes that a wiki is not likely to be a factor in contract drafting. I agree.
AdamsDrafting: Real-Time Document Collaboration
Blogs and Wikis in Sharepoint
From the Microsoft SharePoint Products and Technologies Team Blog comes: Answers to FAQs about SharePoint Blogs and Wikis.
We are moving our intranet to the Sharepoint 2007 platform. The ability to use blogs and wikis has been a feature that I have been looking at closely. In particular, how to use them as a better communications tool. [see Here and Here.]
We are moving our intranet to the Sharepoint 2007 platform. The ability to use blogs and wikis has been a feature that I have been looking at closely. In particular, how to use them as a better communications tool. [see Here and Here.]
Physical Environment and Knowledge Management
Erica Driver of Forrester research, described some of the steps Microsoft is using in its physical environment to foster innovation and productivity: Microsoft Is Using Workplace Design And Layout To Encourage A Collaborative Culture.
The Collaboration Room provides integrated communications software, telephony, and audio/video technology.
The "Mixer" is a kitchen / bar-like hangout area that encourages serendipitous, unplanned interactions.
The "Situation Room" is an enclosed space with flexible, open workspaces and mobile storage – and a wall covering suitable for being written on with dry erase pens – is a flexible area that supports a group of people who need to work for a predetermined period of time.
The "Think Tank” is a living room-style, informal team discussion area.
As I sit in my office, I wonder if the physical layout of a law firm could be set up to increase the collaboration and sharing that is essential to knowledge management. The best knowledge sharing and collaboration is between colleagues face-to-face.
The Collaboration Room provides integrated communications software, telephony, and audio/video technology.
The "Mixer" is a kitchen / bar-like hangout area that encourages serendipitous, unplanned interactions.
The "Situation Room" is an enclosed space with flexible, open workspaces and mobile storage – and a wall covering suitable for being written on with dry erase pens – is a flexible area that supports a group of people who need to work for a predetermined period of time.
The "Think Tank” is a living room-style, informal team discussion area.
As I sit in my office, I wonder if the physical layout of a law firm could be set up to increase the collaboration and sharing that is essential to knowledge management. The best knowledge sharing and collaboration is between colleagues face-to-face.
Personalized Search
Peter Fleischer, global privacy counsel for Google, wrote an opinion piece in the Financial Times: Google's search policy puts the user in charge.
He points out how personalization can help make a better search for the user. Using his example of Paris, you can see the disparate results in the Google [Google Results]. I find is useful to run the same search on Clusty.com, where the search results are organized by topic [Clusty Results]. Are you searching for Paris Hilton or Paris France?
The question that arises is whether personalized search belongs should be used in the enterprise?
Google's method of personalizing the search is based on prior searches that you run (once you have elected to have them track your searches). Presumably, they could also customize the search based on user profile information that you provide. For example, if I search for Toyota, the search results should have more websites from Boston (where I am) than Kansas.
Of course personalized search on the internet raises privacy concerns. And since many user profiles are fictitious, leveraging the user profile may be of less value than tracking search results.
The same concerns are not as true for a search inside the enterprise. User profile information is generally detailed and verified. However the search history is generally much more scarce. (I find users much prefer to browse on the intranet and search on the internet).
A typical user would not be as shocked by the intranet recognizing who they were and displaying information personalized for them. I actually think it is good intranet design to have some of the content, especially the starting page, personalized for the user.
That personalized content is easy to explain why they may see different content (You are in the Boston office so you see the Boston weather, while someone in the San Diego office sees the San Diego weather).
With the search results personalized, it is harder to explain to a user why they may see one set of results and someone else sees a different set of results.
I prefer the clustering of results around topics over personalization of the search. Putting the extra context around the results makes it easier to focus on what you are looking for. You can then replicate the findings from user to user making it easy to share content across the enterprise.
He points out how personalization can help make a better search for the user. Using his example of Paris, you can see the disparate results in the Google [Google Results]. I find is useful to run the same search on Clusty.com, where the search results are organized by topic [Clusty Results]. Are you searching for Paris Hilton or Paris France?
The question that arises is whether personalized search belongs should be used in the enterprise?
Google's method of personalizing the search is based on prior searches that you run (once you have elected to have them track your searches). Presumably, they could also customize the search based on user profile information that you provide. For example, if I search for Toyota, the search results should have more websites from Boston (where I am) than Kansas.
Of course personalized search on the internet raises privacy concerns. And since many user profiles are fictitious, leveraging the user profile may be of less value than tracking search results.
The same concerns are not as true for a search inside the enterprise. User profile information is generally detailed and verified. However the search history is generally much more scarce. (I find users much prefer to browse on the intranet and search on the internet).
A typical user would not be as shocked by the intranet recognizing who they were and displaying information personalized for them. I actually think it is good intranet design to have some of the content, especially the starting page, personalized for the user.
That personalized content is easy to explain why they may see different content (You are in the Boston office so you see the Boston weather, while someone in the San Diego office sees the San Diego weather).
With the search results personalized, it is harder to explain to a user why they may see one set of results and someone else sees a different set of results.
I prefer the clustering of results around topics over personalization of the search. Putting the extra context around the results makes it easier to focus on what you are looking for. You can then replicate the findings from user to user making it easy to share content across the enterprise.
Data Sharing to Promote Your Experience
Law.com's Legal Technology section has an article by Nancy Manzo: Data Sharing to Promote Your Law Firm's Experience.
I put together a Google Maps mashup to highlight some of my real estate practice experience: Transaction Map. It is more about showing geographic diversity than a depth of skill. I had proposed a similar Google Maps mashup for all of the firm's real estate experience to the marketing group.
I looked at the Hubbard One Experience Management Solution mentioned in the article several months ago. I was very impressed with what it could do.
Take a look at the Jones Day experience search. It gives you a great look at some of the firm's experience. The only problem is that the results are very exact. If you run a detailed search with lots of criteria, you often get no results. It should return a longer list based on relevancy.
The key to an experience management system, as with any knowledge management system, is getting meaningful, up-to-date content. You need a flow of post-action information from the lawyers to populate the experience management system.
Lawyers are not very good at dealing with post-action reviews. Law firms typically demand a lot of information at the onset of a matter. But typically, there is no requirement across the firm for getting information at the end of the matter.
We have been slowly pushing a closed transaction notification process across the business law department. The real estate group instituted a policy of sending a closed deal email to the group. A team of KM administrators harvest that information into our matter information database. There are currently over 1700 closed matter descriptions in the system.
This would be a great feed for an experience search like Jones Day or even to combine with a Google map mashup.
Update: A follow up thought on providing information for a litigation practice or a securities practice.
I put together a Google Maps mashup to highlight some of my real estate practice experience: Transaction Map. It is more about showing geographic diversity than a depth of skill. I had proposed a similar Google Maps mashup for all of the firm's real estate experience to the marketing group.
I looked at the Hubbard One Experience Management Solution mentioned in the article several months ago. I was very impressed with what it could do.
Take a look at the Jones Day experience search. It gives you a great look at some of the firm's experience. The only problem is that the results are very exact. If you run a detailed search with lots of criteria, you often get no results. It should return a longer list based on relevancy.
The key to an experience management system, as with any knowledge management system, is getting meaningful, up-to-date content. You need a flow of post-action information from the lawyers to populate the experience management system.
Lawyers are not very good at dealing with post-action reviews. Law firms typically demand a lot of information at the onset of a matter. But typically, there is no requirement across the firm for getting information at the end of the matter.
We have been slowly pushing a closed transaction notification process across the business law department. The real estate group instituted a policy of sending a closed deal email to the group. A team of KM administrators harvest that information into our matter information database. There are currently over 1700 closed matter descriptions in the system.
This would be a great feed for an experience search like Jones Day or even to combine with a Google map mashup.
Update: A follow up thought on providing information for a litigation practice or a securities practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)