Tips for Delivering CI via Email

Social media advocates predict the end of email but, while it is always interesting to consider new, improved ways to disseminate intelligence, most law firms are not likely to drop email any time soon.

Scenario: A litigation partner is leaving for a lunch with a target client and needs intelligence on the company, person, opportunity, competitors and our relationships within the hour.

It’s nice to imagine that you will have time to conduct an interview to determine the appropriate intelligence topics, perform thorough, in-depth research, develop a complete and insightful analysis, AND format your findings/results into an attractive document.

Or, better yet, you’ll upload your beautiful report to a social, sharable, fully-indexed and dynamic web/portal/SharePoint- or app-based report to distribute to all appropriate members of the practice/industry group or client team. Or, you could do something else even cooler and better..

But, the reality is that it’s all you can do to run the searches, scramble for the necessary analysis and shoot off a quick email for the attorney to read in the back of the cab on her way.

That said, here are some tips to effective intelligence delivery of intelligence via good old-fashioned email.

  • Put important stuff at the top – If you are delivering a handful of answers, put those answers right at top. When laying out your information, just think of a small mobile screen and remember that they won’t get past the first few lines.
  • Keep it short – We learn in school that a paragraph can be between 3 and 5 sentences. But in business emails, you want a double line break between almost every 1-2 sentences, especially if they are longer sentences.
  • Use bullets – In fact, wherever possible, avoid sentences and stick to bullets. Attorneys in particular are very familiar with the outline format and so feel free to group by heading and subheading and keep it very brief. No more than a sentence in length.
  • Double- and triple-proof – Check for common typos, grammar, punctuation etc. The smallest mistakes can undermine your credibility and the entire intelligence product.
  • Attach reports – You can almost assume that most anything attached to the email will be, at best, briefly skimmed and, at worst, completely ignored. If you want the attorney to know something, type it into the email. You might also point out the attachment (“Please see attached…”) and direct them to the page.

I’m sure there are a ton of other good ideas and I hope our commentors will share their tips!

[Guest Blogger Eric Hunter]

As part of the next phase in our ongoing Google evolution revolution at Bradford & Barthel, I have it on good authority that Google is currently researching an inter dimensional time portal. This allows attorneys to work their product through the space time continuum enabling clients to receive product at a fraction of our current AFA’s, while also ensuring that attorneys employed through this space time continuum are immune from international law. The result, of course is they can be employed at slave wages ensuring maximum profitability for the firm! (Enter Dr. Evil chuckle).
Well, okay so I’ve just been told that’s a ways off yet, but how about the Evolution Revolution potential in social media driven technology and how it can potentially integrate within our industry? Take Google+ now as a tangible example. The integration potential within our industry is compelling indeed. But before we get there, let’s get back to Google Apps and why we should still be talking about it, and dare I say rather loudly.
It’s really all about Business Solutions and Law2020
I think of Google Apps not as an ‘apps’ interface but as a business solutions driven interface. In legal, we look to future-focused initiatives like Law2020 and are continually struck with the reality that law firms must change the way they run their business. At Bradford & Barthel, as at other firms, an evolutionary restructuring is already taking place … alternative fee arrangements for firm clients, alternative staffing arrangements, project management, our take on six sigma, and a shift to a culture that integrates rather than interacts with clients.
As part of our competitive strategy moving forward at B&B, our goal is to integrate components of the platform – video, voice, unified messaging with social media(the usual external kind), business and competitive intelligence. But that’s the easy stuff (not really, but relatively speaking). The challenge lies in continual behavioral change and re-shaping the business to expand in multiple markets and move past law2020 before we get to 2020. Hopefully we’ll achieve it by 2014 instead (remember the space time continuum), but I digress.
Actually, it’s really all about Integration and 2020
Keep in mind Google’s consumer line tends to be integrated in one way or another with their Apps platform over time. In addition to a business solutions platform, think of Google as an integration platform. The platform is built to integrate and evolve with the organization and competitive industries at large. In legal, we integrate areas of practice, client/matter integration, project management, business case, the list goes on. The platform is not only built to be intuitive, flexible and adaptable to third party platforms and vendor integration, but to anticipate where these industries are moving and innovate appropriately. Why? Remember, by choosing a hosted platform, you’re choosing to integrate a portion of your business model with your hosted platform, and Google in it’s current form continually innovates. 
But how can large complex third party applications specific and essential to law firms hope to successfully interface (timely) with an organization like Google that is continually innovating? As a firm, we’re currently working on a portion of this concept through Doc Automation/Assembly. The larger and more applicable answer to that question though, is through the marketplace.
The Marketplace
Vendors looking for seamless interfacing capabilities interface through the Google Apps Marketplace. Part of their model is enhancing the products to seamlessly integrate within the platform. It’s a business model shift for vendors, with impacts on licensing, development and integration. In essence though, is it truly any different than developing apps interfaces for mobile? How fast do mobile apps evolve? As we move towards law2020 legal vendors will also need to evolve and innovate their path forward… or go the way of the newspaper industry.  When attending conferences like ILTA in Nashville this year, walk through vendor hall, check out all of the legal vertical specific vendors that benefit our industry. Then think of those that will need to transform their business models to successfully integrate within a model that integrates monthly, that no longer demands license upgrades, but instead provides annual license fees while continually innovating. The sooner our vendor partners rethink their integration business models, the more they’ll be able to shape the game.
I believe success in this rapidly evolving realm is based on flexibility and intuition. Could Facebook have permeated cultures across the globe through social media in any other way? Consequently, law firms have to find ways to channel this social media driven intuition as everyone is using it, in fact for younger generations it’s simply already there. Be it Twitter, Search, Maps, mobile apps… we’re already channeling the consumer flow through business. This concept begins to challenge our traditional concepts of identity. The identity of the individual(consumer) and the business is truly merging. Now let’s bring Google+ back in.
Google+ and the Evolution Revolution
Google+ as an alternative to Facebook or Twitter is not a case I’m going to make here. But I am going to make the case for Google+ integrated through Google’s business solutions platform. This is where the concept of the merging of identity becomes quite literal. One of the biggest challenges my organization faces is not the third party application integration described above. That will happen; it takes development, vendor cooperation, coordination development, and will. What about Google+ integrated throughout every aspect of daily business?
That’s a game changer… where do the circles stop? Where does the individual begin and the business end? How is a business re-organized using a social media technology that re-organizes the individuals’ sharing preferences on a continually evolving basis? How do we re-organize our AFA arrangements with the time saving potential both the firm and the clients have within this new medium? When extranets are shared with clients through circles, or email correspondence as announcements through limited circles, and video chats within our project teams handled in chat forums; do we care where our offices are spread, which countries we live in, how large we consider our organizations?
Social media is built to reach and bridge together millions and millions, Google’s platform is designed to support organizations in the 10s of thousands to 100 thousand plus; global, local, whatever. In legal, from strictly a size standpoint we’re mostly small to mid-market in comparison. Multiple cultures, countries, global offices are a given in this day in age; and certainly within our client’s organizations. If the world is getting smaller through social media, what about our industry, and what are the ramifications? There is no reason this type of business evolution could not, and should not permeate our industry. In my opinion, the potential of Google+ integrated within the business has the potential for an evolution in the way we approach business, connectivity and touch within our industry.
So what’s actually going to happen though, really…
Now, is Google going to integrate any of the above? I have no idea, but I certainly hope so, and if Google does not, I hope emerging competitors will. To reach 2020, our industry needs a kick in the pants to re-shape our vendors to meet our competitive strategy needs. As the next few years go by I would love to see vendors begin to integrate this kind of technology within their platforms, and seamlessly integrate with others that do. I’d love to see competitors to Google with this model, as the competition would only benefit our industry. [2] Behavioral and organizational change are tied to these emerging technologies, but so is change management, project workflow and the merging workplace and consumer identities.
Search, advertising revenue and innovations in knowledge sharing, behavioral change and connectivity seem to be at the heart of Google’s, Facebook’s and Microsoft’s vision moving forward. We call it the ‘cloud’, but it’s truly hosted integration with the innovations and movements of the marketplace. Bottom line, the competition between all three is good for business.
I write a lot about Google, but my main focus in doing so is to hopefully communicate and debate emerging concepts that may resonate regardless of vendor. As an industry, emerging concepts will drive us towards law2020, whether we’re on board or not. We will argue over the legality of hosted systems, where data resides, what is appropriate to outsource or share, and what is not. But these conversations truly miss the mark of how we can integrate business, workflow, emerging social media technologies, organizational management, knowledge sharing, merging identity and competitive strategy. Either we move first, or our clients will. These trends will affect our industry, but they are not industry specific.
If you’re nervous about any of the potential trends discussed here, just remember: “Don’t Panic!” – Some friendly advice from the Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy 🙂
—————————-
About the author: Eric Hunter is the Director of Knowledge Management and Technology at Bradford & Barthel, LLP, where he is currently integrating a Google driven collaboration platform within the firm’s 12 office environment. Eric speaks and writes on competitive strategy and collaborative cloud solutions globally. He is the recipient of ILTA’s 2010 Knowledge Management Champion Distinguished Peer Award. Eric can be reached at ehunter@bradfordbarthel.com.

The saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. The same could be said of information/media/current awareness in a law firm. We can lead our lawyers to the content but there is no way to ensure they read …or is there?

We are currently in the process of evaluating media and social media aggregators, some of which include very savvy dashboard platforms and delivery mechanisms. Others of which, include sophisticated social media analysis tools. Some of the products that we or others I have spoken to are considering include:

The evaluation criteria we have mashed-up includes but is not limited to:

  1. Easy to use interface for publishing/editing 
  2. Users (or their proxy) can manage own profiles
  3. Content can be pushed to email, RSS or Microsoft SharePoint
  4. Content is archived and searchable for later use
  5. Aggregators incorporate public info, paid subscriptions, social media and internal commentary
  6. Provides free content or access to content 
  7. Offers a trial 
  8. Price – is it by topic, by firm size, # of curator or another other mechanism 
  9. Provides training 
  10. Has a good industry reputation 
  11. Has other law firm clients 
  12. Provides on going support 

Firm needs will determine the weighting of these criteria but is there anything we’ve left out? Are there other products or issues to consider? And if we provide it, will they read it??

I have a friend that noticed that one of the products she was using to pull company information was giving her some bad results. The data was either out-of-date, or was just flat out wrong. When she notified the vendor of the error, she got a little bit of the run around on why it happened and a vague statement of that they were looking into it and would make the necessary corrections at some point. Within a few days, however, she did get a basket full of SWAG delivered to her office. I’m guessing this was the vendor’s way of saying “Sorry our data sucked… but here’s some gifts so that we can still be friends!!”

I understand what the vendor’s representative was doing here… trying to keep a relationship going between my friend and her company, but it seems a little sad that the company’s response to the error was trying to patch things up with a few trinkets. Maybe by now you are wondering just exactly what kind of trinkets make up for bad data? Well, here’s what she got:

  • A few hats
  • a water bottle
  • a Frisbee
  • a soccer ball
  • a football
  • some antibacterial hand lotion, and 
  • a yo-yo…. 
What kind of message does this project?? “Hey, while we are fixing our data, you can go down to the city park and play hacky-sack with some of the local unemployed hipsters!!” Or, as another of my friends put it, this was the basic conversation between vendor and client:

Client: “Your product is crap. Here’s why and what I think you should do to fix it.”
Vendor: “Here, have a messenger tote/ t-shirt/ stress ball/ travel mug/ Frisbee!”
Client: “Er, thanks, but your product’s still crap.”
Vendor: “Oh, well, here’s a Starbucks card, too.”

I’m not against SWAG, by the way… I love my double-insulated “Starbucks-like” drink glass with screw-on lid and loss-resistant straw that I got from Priority Solutions at the PLL Summit in Philly a few weeks ago. But, that is conference SWAG… not “sorry we screwed up” SWAG. For “sorry we screwed up SWAG” the vendors really need to think about what would really distract the client from the mistake. I think I’ve come up with a good answer. How about a gift card to the local liquor store chain. (For example, we have Spec’s here in Houston.) It’s small, convenient, effective, gets around the “you can’t mail liquor into Texas laws,” and eventually it makes me forget why I don’t like your product… at least while I’m drinking away my misery… 

A friend recently gave me a copy of Blue Ocean Strategy, a business management book from 2005. The concept is very compelling, create new markets rather than struggle with increased competition for existing, shrinking markets. The authors call these new markets Blue Oceans. The competitive markets are Red Oceans, for all the blood in the water from cutthroat competition. Some of the examples they use are Cirque de Soleil and Yellow Tail Wines. These companies chose not to compete with the existing players using the established methods in their respective industries, and instead created new markets, by changing aspects of their businesses that kept customers away. Faced with a circus market focused on animal acts that were expensive and controversial, and on a standard circus model which wasn’t captivating audiences like it once had, and on market forces which were decreasing ticket prices in an attempt to compete with other regional circuses, Cirque de Soleil, ditched the conventional circus model all together. They dropped animal acts, they gave their performances themes, and artistic flourish, and they raised ticket prices to compete with theater, rather than with other circuses. Yellow Tail wines recognized that people were put off by standard wine terminology, and that most people weren’t willing to take the time to understand the complexity of wines, so they created simple, drinkable wines, removed all the fancy oenology gobbledy-gook from the label, and marketed their wine to beer and cocktail drinkers. The result in each case was phenomenal success in industries previously seen as completely saturated and shrinking. They created Blue Oceans by choosing to not compete directly with their competitors in the Red Oceans. This got me thinking about our ongoing Law Factory vs. Bet the Farm discussion. It seems to me, that whether we choose Law Factory or Bet The Farm, we’re still talking about a standard law firm competing for standard law firm customers in the same old way. We’re just segmenting the market and focusing on our chosen segment. But what if we imagined a Blue Ocean Law Firm. One that ditched the conventional wisdom, and set out on a new path building the law firm from scratch. Our Blue Ocean firm wouldn’t bill by the hour and it wouldn’t incentivize the attorneys by encouraging long hours. Instead it would bill based on the work completed, in a clear itemized manner. It would drop the Partner / non-Partner tracks and court attorneys who were interested in making a very good salary while practicing their profession for 40+ hours a week and having a life outside of the firm, rather than working young associates to death with the promise of potentially making ungodly amounts of money in the future. And most importantly, the Blue Ocean firm would actively write their legal documents in English rather than legalese, and would strive to minimize the length of those documents whenever possible. Rather than making attorneys unnecessary, this would make them more approachable. While we’re at it, let’s reconsider the staid, stale, law office. Let’s make it inviting and welcoming. Let’s drop the hard wood, and marble, and introduce couches and carpeting. We’ll cut the long list of Partner names in the firm name and go with a simple catchy name like Blue Ocean Legal. In short, let’s get rid of everything that makes people hate attorneys and start providing services which are simply defined, easy to understand, and affordable. That’s the firm I would go to if I needed to create a will, set up a trust, or create a contract. That’s the firm I would seek out to advise my small business. That’s the firm and the attorneys that I would want to build a long-term relationship with. But before you write this off as just another vision for a discount law factory, everything I’ve described would be welcome to big businesses as well. Simple billing for work completed and services rendered; pleasant, happy, well-rounded attorneys who are not motivated by profit at my expense; and legal documents written in a language that I, as a non-attorney, can understand without hiring another attorney to translate them. I’m not often called a naive optimist, though I suspect I may be after this post. Still, I would bet that a firm like I’ve described would be hugely profitable and would avoid the Red Ocean of the current legal services market. We’ll probably have to wait to find out until the law changes and I can own my own firm. In the meantime, maybe I’ll go get my JD.

For many of us that use the many products of the Thomson Reuters Legal stable, we can thank TR Legal’s Chief Scientist and head of R&D for many of the great features that make our research results better. Sadly, that giant of the industry died suddenly this morning at the age of 62. The announcement of Jackson’s death was posted on the International Association for Artificial Intelligence and Law group on LinkedIn.

Peter Jackson had a hand in the development of many of the products you use within Westlaw, WestlawNext, PeopleMap, CaRE, Concord and Research Plus. In addition to this part of his contribution, Jackson was always thinking of what the future of search, technology and AI. Those ideas were present in his 2010 interview with Jason Wilson, as well as on his own blog and website. Peter’s greatness wasn’t just with technology, however, apparently, he was an awesome guitar player as well.

The legal research and technology industry lost a giant today.

[Photo (CC) Enokson] 

Believe it or not, next week will be the one-year anniversary of the first Elephant Post. A year ago last night, Scott Preston, Toby Brown and I sat down to a curry dinner (and a few pints of beer) at the Red Lion in Houston and hatched this crazy idea of leveraging our diverse audience by asking them a single question and seeing how they answered it. Actually, it was pretty much Scott’s idea… Toby and I just take credit when things work well, and then blame Scott for when they don’t. In a run up to this anniversary, we asked what Elephant Post question did you almost answer this year. I know that many more of you out there should have answered this question because when I run into you at conferences or at speaking engagements, this is one of the first things that many of you tell me. So, if you missed your chance here, just add it to the comments this week and we’ll call it even.

Thanks to all of those that did take advantage of this second chance. There are some great answers, and one contributor went through a list of questions that he didn’t answer the first time around. For the 52nd Elephant Post question, we are going to have a little fun and let you test your skills at adding a caption to a couple of pictures. Read on through this week’s perspectives, and then take a look at next week and see if you can be clever in explaining what Mark Gediman and I are discussing in the two photos. I really look forward to seeing if you can keep it (somewhat) clean.

Cheryl Niemeier
How Did “The Great Recession” Change the Way You Do Your Job?

I lost my library assistant during the recession and had to become much more efficient in how the daily clerical tasks in the library got done, reduced the library budget (had to) and overall made the library a more time efficient and cost effective department for the firm. I am however happy to report that I do now have a library clerk again and the efficiencies created during the downturn are still serving the library well!!

John Gillies
Elephant Post: What Will the Law Firm of 2021 Look Like?

I think Richard Susskind has it right, namely that there will be a continuous (and inevitable) movement of legal services from bespoke to commoditized. That will mean fewer lawyers are more support professionals whose job is to ensure that the firm lawyers are able to deliver their services as effectively and efficiently as possible.   Those support professionals will include lawyers but will also include project managers, legal editors, law clerks, who have specialized expertise that is mobilized in the most effective way possible. Ultimately, the goal will be to do everything to ensure that the client gets the “best” service, but based on criteria defined by the client, not the firm.

Scott Bailey
How do you make sense of all the information in this overloaded universe?

I didn’t answer because Greg Lambert took my answer!  🙂  I use Tweetdeck columns too.

Bail Bonds Las Vegas
How Did “The Great Recession” Change the Way You Do Your Job?

We have definitely changed our ways of doing business in this tough economy. Working in the bail bond business, people don’t have much for collateral anymore since their houses are getting taken away and cars are being repossessed so bonds are getting written. We have had to search ads to find the cheapest office supplies, turn to cheaper forms of advertising and cut all credit! We now use only cash for purchases and if the cash isn’t available, then we don’t buy it!  It actually makes things a little less stressful because there are less bills to worry about!

Jeff Ward
So many, here’s a few…

Should Non-Lawyers Be Promoted On Law Firm Web Pages?
Yes, at top management levels. What Has Really Changed In Legal Education in the Past 20 Years? The students.
What Will the Law Firm of 2021 Look Like?
Each worker will be hidden behind three 40″ monitors, but they’ll be using their iPad7s instead of their Win10 desktops.
The Last 10 Years Have Really Changed _________!!
The rate of change and the acceptance of change. We still say that people don’t like change, and that is true, but compare it to ten years ago when people would cry (and some quit) at the prospect of a new application.
What Software Do You Wish You COULD Use At Work?
Social media for conveying information that affects IT. In IT, we have a difficult time conveying information, including tips, workarounds, discussions on problems, etc. E-mail doesn’t cut it.
What Software Do You Use That You Wish You Didn’t Have To?
Metadata cleaning software. It’s annoying to everyone. Although documents contain some risk, the riskiest stuff such as tracked changes and comments would not be in documents if people still proofed their work before they sent it out.
What Non-Traditional Conference Would You Like To Attend?
Any of several conferences offered by Chief Learning Officer magazine. It’s one of the best free mags out there, and the conferences always sound fascinating to me.
What Blog Do You Read That Others Should Be Reading?
http://www.businesswritingblog.com
What Do You Absolutely Love About Your Profession?
The people who I work with. I never imagined I’d be surrounded by such brilliant people.
What Are Your “Other” Predictions for 2011?
That I will finally answer an Elephant post.
Who Is Your Professional Hero? Tell Us Why.
Scott Preston. He’s influenced my ways of thinking for many many years.
What SNL Quote Have You Used At Work?
Makin’ copies…
How Is Social Media Changing Your Profession… Or, How Should It Be Changing Your Profession?
See above.
Which Fictional Character Would Be Outstanding In Your Profession?
Speed Racer (and crew)–imagine if the Mach 5 technology could be translated into businessware. Everything would happen at the click of a button, and when someone disturbs you, you push the button that brings out the radial saws.
What Drives You Crazy When Dealing With Vendors?
When, no matter what you throw at them, they say their software can do it. Yeah, if you give them 5 years and 50 developers.
“I think you need to look up the meaning of ________. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
The backslash (): I’ve seen so many instances where someone uses it where a slash should be used. It’s not a real punctuation mark.
What Would You Tell a Law Student Before They Enter the ‘Real World?’
You are no longer writing just for yourself and your teachers. Learn to use the tools and procedures developed by the firm you’re with. Others may have to work in your documents, and it can be extremely difficult when you use weird options for formatting your text. (This was fun!)
Next Week’s Elephant Post:

What Are Mark and Greg Discussing in these Photos? (Add your own caption!)

Mark Gediman and I presented at this year’s AALL conference in Philadelphia. Here is a couple of photos of us talking to a room full of bloggers. Add a caption on what you think we are saying in each photo.

[Photo (CC) tracie7779]

<p><p><p>Loading…</p></p></p>

I watched a video called “How Thomson Reuters Redefined an Industry” last night, and found it to be an interesting account of the ideas and structure behind their WestlawNext project. Although the video is pretty much a “feel-good” piece for WestlawNext and its data structure built on NetApp, there was one specific part that I felt wasn’t just a problem with WestlawNext, but rather a problem with modern legal research itself.

In the video, at about the 42 second mark, Rick King, the CTO of Thomson Reuters, says the following:

One page from one jurisdiction may be exactly what that attorney is looking for that allows them to win the case. And, if they can’t find it, you haven’t done your job.

This is not an uncommon view of legal research. At the AALL Vendor Colloquium, Law Librarian of Congress, Roberta Shaffer, talked about this shift away from legal research that builds upon legal concepts, and instead is built upon finding needles in haystacks:

Law today is much more data driven as more of the disputes center around finance and science. And it is much more fact focused. Legal research used to be more rooted in theory or legal concepts; where we found the concepts and then placed the facts within that theory or concept. Today we look much more at the facts and try to pinpoint the law to that exact fact pattern. Much of the tools we have these days very much foster a fact based inquiry and process. As a result of finding and following facts, we tend to rely less upon scholarly pursuits and output. And so less people read or follow law reviews, treatises or scholarly articles than they have in the past. Mainly because they don’t “fit the bill” of the exact fact based pattern and are therefore irrelevant to the process of research today.

Many of us talk about the “dumbing down” of legal research, and I usually don’t agree with some of the arguments given on that topic. However, the thing that does worry me about fact-based inquiries and processes is the idea that if you don’t find that “one page” in that “one jurisdiction” then the idea is that “you haven’t done your job.” That just seems like a very high-bar to hold up for the legal profession. If we are teaching our law students, Summer and Fall Associates, our Paralegals, and our Legal Research Professionals the idea that they must find that one case in that one jurisdiction, then we are setting them up for failure.

Not every fact pattern can be answered by a previous court decision. In fact, it is usually the attorney that takes a blending of statutes, case decisions, and the ability to interpret the intention of the law within the community’s setting that wins the day. Fact-based, “one case in one jurisdiction,” is valuable, but the research process is far greater than that idea. Admitting failure by not finding that “one case in one jurisdiction” is selling yourself and the legal research process short.

“‘Is it making all of us uncomfortable? Yes. Especially when you start to move away from the more routine sort of work,’ says Toby Brown, the director of pricing at Vinson & Elkins LLP.”

Pricing Tactic Spooks Lawyers

Companies Use of Reverse Auctions to Negotiate Legal Services Is Accelerating

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904292504576482243557793536.html#ixzz1TsgujGyd