 |
| Image [cc] Topsy |
Based on a delightful and wide-ranging conversation with Pratik Patel from Elevate about Legal Project Management (LPM), we were able to boil the LPM Challenge down to a single phrase. We were talking about what clients are demanding in terms of pricing and transparency. And how clients are pushing for more project
 |
| Image [cc] außerirdische sind |
A recent question about implementing Legal Project Management (LPM) at law firms brought my thinking into focus. Although I had generally been approaching LPM this way, I had not articulated quite as clearly … until now.
The usual questions I get center on my advice for how a firm should roll
Reading about big data seems to be a daily exercise. So lately I have been putting a few brain cells on the subject of new ways of applying data analytics to the legal market.
And here’s today’s idea: The Analytics of What Clients Reject.
What if you take the emerging tools for analyzing billing
 |
| Image [cc] Gail |
A recent post on how law schools need to embrace technology (#1), along with a recent overblown debate on the law firm business model (#2), combined with a conversation with a colleague on “disruptive” technology for law firms (#3), got me thinking. So this time, it was three events instead of three
Being chastised for using the apparently un-Texan term “nincompoop” I have switched to the more general “Ninnies” in an attempt to keep this dialog above board. So now we can dive into my attack of Susan’s response, to Ryan’s ramblings on Susan’s reply to Jordan’s retort to my critique of Jordan’s original
Puzzle me this: If a lawyer conversed with a client in front of a law enforcement representative, would the conversation be privileged?
Answer: No.
Conversations held in the presence of any third party, let alone one representing the government, would constitute a waiver of privilege.
Previously on 3Geeks (and perhaps too many times) we have
Jordan and I will need to add Susan Hackett to our traveling road show as she has now entered the fray. Below Susan responds to Jordan’s critique of my critique of his original post. (Just writing that makes me kind of dizzy).
See if you can follow the bouncing ball in this interesting debate.
Thanks to Susan for adding to
 |
| Image [cc] Shane Trueblood |
Jordan Furlong and I need to take our show on the road. In our usual “Dan & Jane” fashion, we inadvertently tackled another topic. My original post threw down the gauntlet and Jordan, in his always well-stated fashion, answered the call. Below is his response – with a promise of more to come.
Thanks Jordan!
Update 11-4-13: Jordan
 |
| Image [cc] Grand Canyon NPS |
My posts have subsided a bit lately as I felt an echo chamber growing and started questioning a lot of stuff I was reading as either echoes or reiterations of prior statements. Some of these echoes are new angles on old subjects, but they merely restate the basic premise: BigLaw
 |
| Image [cc] fbpa.wayne |
In the 19th century one of the big business revolutions was the adoption of a new technology called “Railroads.” Of course when railroads were first proposed, two things happened. The first was a general uprising from the establishment about why this was a bad idea. This push-back came from those you would