1/7/09

How To - Alternative Bill

Last year I had the opportunity to speak with Ron Baker. I’ve previously mentioned him in relation to alternative billing as he is a guru on the subject for the broader professional services arena. The conversation started with him going in to why large firms need to move away from the billable hour. I interjected and said I was sold on it, but wanted to learn more about How To provide professional services outside the billable hour. Ron’s basic advice was to talk to clients. This is good advice for selling services by value instead of by the hour, but doesn’t address the How To. This week the Principle Partner (which I took to mean managing partner) for Cravath wrote an opinion piece for Forbes - it’s title: Kill the Billable Hour. Mr. Chelser states that it’s not just clients who hate the billable hour – law firms do too. Although a great marketing move, I question whether Cravath knows How To actually function without the billable hour. It appears that firms and clients are ready; they just need to figure How To. From my recent post on the Paradigm of Profitability, Jackie Hutter’s comment included a great statement: "In truth, many lawyers are unable to function in a fixed price environment." In my opinion, this is the challenge. Sitting down and talking with clients about value and price may be a new thing for lawyers, but it is not a particularly daunting task. In contrast, changing the entire way a firm functions will be a monumental challenge. Law firms’ entire structure is built on the billable hour. The way we intake business, the way we manage our knowledge, the way we hire and ‘train’ our people and most importantly the way we compensate our lawyers. The last point is especially important because "you get what you pay for." So my role as the KM Guy is becoming the How To Guy. And where this all comes to a head for me is deciding where to start. I have good idea of the various processes and systems involved, but I am struggling with the question of where to best attack this problem. It may well involve multiple points of attack, but I think choosing wisely will be very telling for success. Perhaps it’s a good time to re-read Sun-Tzu’s The Art of War. Of course ideas, suggestions and thoughts about How To are welcome.

Bookmark and Share

1/6/09

Marketers: Twitter Will Not Make Bad Lawyers Better

Larry Bodine recently blogged about Attorneys Flocking to Twitter listing the the following reasons:
  • Because lawyers don’t have time to update their own bios.
  • They don’t have time to write articles.
  • They don’t have time to update a blog.
I posted the following in the comment section, but I thought it was provocative enough to repost here.

I don't know, Larry... I'm going to play Devil's Advocate on this one. I'm a big Twitter fan myself (@glambert), but if an attorney can't take the time to update a bio, or write a blog or publish something on the legal topic that he or she is the expert in, then I don't see them using Twitter either. 
Twitter is generally a resource of building relationships, that is true, but it is also generally a tool for linking to additional information. So, if the attorney has an old bio, and no blog or publications, what do they gain in 140 characters?  
I'm coming at this with a "BigLaw" perspective (read: AmLaw 100 BIAS) - where we are looking for methods of marketing to legal departments of companies. And, from my experience, I'm not seeing a lot of GC's on Twitter.  
So, how can I tell a Partner or Associate that they need to be using Twitter in order to build relationships with our aspirational audience, when that audience doesn't seem to exist?  
My question is this: If we Tweet, will they come?  
My answer is this: Maybe. But, it would take a leap of faith on the Partner or Associates part to take the chance of spending the time on Twitter (and believe me it is much more than posting a 140 character Tweet.)

Am I way off on my assumptions??

Bookmark and Share

1/5/09

In Search of the "Holy Grail" - Competitive Intelligence, and KM's Role

Since the first day I walked into a large law firm, I have been amazed at the vast amount of information that is compiled within the four walls of each of these firms.  Even more so, I'm am amazed at the normalization of the data that is compiled.  Each office has a specific designation number; as does each employee; each vendor; each client; each matter; each saved document; so on and so on.  This type of information can and should be the Holy Grail when it comes to building a knowledge tool and a competitive intelligence resource that will leverage existing information against the firm's future challenges.  Remember, it sure helps to know where you are going, if you know where you've already been.
However, it seems that all of this normalization gets siloed into its own little database and becomes so compartmentalized that it looks to be almost impossible for one database of information to link to another.  Each piece of information usually begins as a unique process, such as a conflicts check, and it lives and dies within that space.  Even when we buy expensive third-party projects, like CRM tools, we tend to have issues normalizing the data we import into that resource because we tend to not structure our existing data in a way that allows it to play well with the other data (let alone the new information we are compiling.)
Just off the top of my head, here's a list of information that firms compile and normalize:
  • Employees (Employee ID)
  • Offices (Office ID)
  • Clients (Client ID)
  • Matters (Matter ID)
  • Matter Type (Matter Type ID)
  • Practice Groups (Practice Group ID)
  • Adverse Parties (Conflict ID)
  • Vendors (Vendor ID)
  • Filed Cases (Docket ID)
  • Courts (Court ID)
  • Documents (Doc ID)
Now, there are probably a few dozen more specific data points that we compile into the multiple systems we use in the every day life of running a law firm.  
Let's think about the external information that is out there that could also be used as a reference point:
  • Companies (DUNS ID; FEIN;)
  • Attorneys (BAR Number)
  • Individuals (SSN; Drivers License; e-mail)
Then there are more generic, but specific ID information out there:
  • Telephone Numbers
  • Zip Codes
  • Cities
  • States
  • Country
  • URL (abc-law.com)
The moral of this story is simple -- ask yourself this question before you bring on a new database:
How can I link this new information to my existing information?
If there is no "hook" between the new and the old, then are you really serving the needs of your firm by bringing in this new database?  If you cannot tie an individuals information that is housed in your CRM to any of your existing databases, is the CRM really worth the huge investment (both time and money) you are putting into it??
As the old saying goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", Knowledge Management, IT, and Competitive Intelligence professionals within the law firm need to create a strategy of making sure that each piece of data compiled can be connected to other pieces of data, regardless of which database that information resides.  If it cannot, then why purchase it?

Bookmark and Share
 

© 2011, All Rights Reserved.