[Image (CC) by Kevin Dooley]
In recent years our formerly robust micro-management movement has come under attack. We have seen business-as-usual nearly destroyed within so-called “forward thinking” companies like Google, with their 20% time and free food and laundry. Sure, you and I know those things are just a ploy to keep their sheep-loyees smiling and in the office for long hours, all the while paying them less than the competition. But let’s face it, 21st century office workers are stupid. I meet lots of mindless cube dwellers who think they would love to work in a Google type of environment. They dream of flexible hours, open spaces, and free communication throughout the enterprise. They just don’t get it. Hello?! Little internet startups, like Google, have to do those things because it’s the only way to get neo-hippy California surfer dudes into the office. BUT REAL BUSINESS DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY!
I’ve been in business a long time. I have lived through the touch-tone revolution, the fax machine revolution, the PC revolution, the Email revolution, and the internet revolution. I am so sick of “revolutions” that don’t amount to any more than just another “thingy” on your desktop to learn. Wake up! It’s not a revolution, people! It’s just NEW technology that helps you do the same OLD things faster. But, with each new “revolution” we have to work harder to keep our workers focused on the business at hand. That’s why we invented micro-management in the first place. How do you keep your employees from making personal phone calls? You stand behind them and tap your foot each time they pick up the phone. Basic MM 101. But now the forces arrayed against us have unleashed their greatest weapon to date, the “social” revolution. This one is sneaky. There’s no particular “thingy” to ban from the office. Defense of the Standard Operating Procedure requires a new kind of management. We must go beyond Micro-, all the way to Nano-management, or Nanagement.
As part of the Nanagement Productivity Initiative in my office we worked closely with the technology nerds to whitelist the internet. Employees are now only able to access the sites that we explicitly allow them to access while in the office. There were some concerns that whitelisting might curtail employee access to information, slow down transfer of knowledge, and inhibit communication, but I am confident that any slowdown will be fully offset by increases in productivity, since employees are no longer able to waste time shopping or talking to friends. Part two of the productivity initiative involves employees relinquishing all Personal Electronic Devices upon entering the building to be returned only at the conclusion of an 8 hour shift. (The lunch hour is time set aside for the employee to eat lunch quietly, not to use PEDs.)
Nanagement is more involved than micro-management. It requires that nanagers control all access to employee knowledge and that every moment of the employee’s time while in the office be supervised. The first steps of nanagement are simple things like whitelisting the internet and banning personal electronics, but the future is bright for nanagers. I foresee a time when every position will have one worker and one nanager who supervises the worker, reporting any lull in activity or non-productive use of the workers’ time to senior nanagement, who will then determine an appropriate punishment for the employee.
There are those who think my vision is draconian and counter-productive. They feel that by limiting my employees access to information and communication, I’m destroying creativity and innovation. And that the true path to worker productivity is through open communication at all levels and freedom to experiment with different technologies and new methods of collaboration.
What a crock of horse crap that is! I pay my people to work not to talk to each other.

In a recent blog post, Jeffrey Brandt makes the point that we should drop legal from legal project management (LPM) because it is driving him batty (or something like that).  In the end, we all agree that project management is a proven discipline that adds a lot of value.  I’d like to thank Jeffrey for continuing the legal project management dialogue.  I find it interesting that he focused on semantics when talking about prefixing legal to project management.  After spending nearly half of my life working in the legal industry, I believe that much time is spent in legal dealing with semantics, so it seems fitting here as well.

Legal project management is a subset of project management, and yes, LPM is a “marketing” ploy to get better adoption within the law firm.  In other industries, we do not see such prefixes.  For example, I’m not aware of a push for the term software design project management (SDPM) in order to gain adoption, because the owners of the software design companies already understand the value of project management and have already embraced it.  In this case, adoption is not optional.  Within the legal space, this is not the case.  We are seeing some adoption, but it is slow. 
LPM is a label we use to describe a defined process.  This is very similar to the way that law firms use areas of practice to market expertise.  This practice is not unique to law firms, it applies to most businesses.  Call it marketing or labeling, in the end it is an effort to distinguish your product or services from others.  If adding legal as a prefix to project management creates a tipping point for adoption, then I’m all for it.
[Ed. Note: This question is the subject of the next Elephant Post. If you have an opinion, then share it with us!!]
photo credit: Travis S.

For this week’s Elephant Post, we dive into the core issue of how law firms (mainly BigLaw) are starting to split the Associate ranks into a “Partner Track” and a “Permanent Associate” track. Many of us have heard Associates talk about something like this for years… where they want a challenging work life, but they don’t want to necessarily be on a Partner track and wind up with ulcers by the time they are 40. At least some of the big firms seem to be dipping a toe into that water and setting up a non-partner track Associate tier and paying them less than half of their Partner track peers. The trade off seems to be less stress, less hours, but they still end up with highly complex legal work and find the job to be challenging, but not overwhelming.

You don’t have to be an economist to understand that there is a glut of quality lawyers on the market right now, and many of the top jobs that where there when these lawyers were in law school, are simply not there any longer. Should the law firms take advantage of this glut and hire 2 1/2 quality lawyers for what they were previously paying for 1 top lawyer? Well, that’s what we asked for this week.

For next week’s Elephant Post, we’re going to jump back in on the administrative side of the law firm ledger (kind of) and talk about a subject that Jeff Brandt brought up about the issue of Practice Management. Is there such a thing as “Law Practice Management” or is it simply just “Practice Management” in a law firm setting? Scroll on down below this week’s perspectives and share with us your thoughts on LPM… or is it just PM?

NJ lawyer
Government Lawyer

Done deal. This sounds like an expanded, repackaged, and better publicized reiteration of the big firms’ positions of “counsel” or “staff attorney,” which have been around for years.

Toby Brown
AFA
Yes.  Or – only if a law firm wants to remain profitable.  I never understood why firms hire every new lawyer with the intention they will become partners when only a fraction of them do.  It makes more sense to hire some as “staff” lawyers or whatever you want to call them, with that intention up front.  Then you train and reward them in a more appropriate fashion and frankly, you are being more honest with them.

Some firms already have staff lawyers or some variation, but these are people who have fallen off the partner track.  Why ever put them on it?  Too many of these people fall off into other firms.  So after getting them profitable, they leave.  Why set yourself up for that?

Smart firms will look at this idea and any others that allow them to provide good services and competitive prices.

Lihsa
Internet Marketing Manager
Absolutely.

These types of tracks are great for establishing alternative careers for lawyers in the legal industry.

As a lawyer-turned-legal marketer, I can attest to value of this kind of legitimized track.

However, there will always be that hierarchical attitude between the lawyers on the front lines and those that aren’t.

But if a lawyers’ ego can stand it, it is a viable business solution for law firms to ensure that they have quality work from someone who knows how to act, talk and think like a lawyer.

But, hey, I think I just made the case for why NOT to do this.  😉

Ayelette Robinson
Knowledge Management

I completely agree with Toby here. A non-partner track is a win-win for the law firm and the attorney who fits that role.

However, I think a key question is whether the third point in the triangle – the client – will buy it (literally and figuratively), or will they perceive non-partner-track attorneys as providing lower quality work. We, and many clients, may know that not to be true, but I suspect the alternative title could influence some clients’ choices.

Next Week’s Elephant Post:

Is It Legal Project Management or Just Project Management Within a Law Firm?

Toby Brown talked earlier this week about there being “More Progress on the LPM Front” (LPM = Law Project Management), and on the same very day, our good friend, Jeff Brandt, wrote an article claiming “There is not such thing as ‘legal project management.‘” Jeff pointed out that placing “Legal” or “Law” in front of business processes like “Project Management” is essentially the same type of hocus-pocus that you saw on the old Batman television show where everything had “Bat” as a prefix, thus made is somehow more special than its original name.

What’s your take on this? Is LPM actually the same as PM or is there fundamental difference in how Project Management works in say a Hospital or a factory versus how it works in a law firm? As someone that conducts Competitive Intelligence (CI) within a law firm – notice we don’t call it Law Competitive Intelligence or LCI – I will say that when I talk CI to someone that works at a Fortune 500 company, their response is usually, “That’s not real CI.” I wonder if those conducting PM in law firms get that same response from their Fortune 500 peers as well??

As always, we try to make it easy for you to contribute your perspective by embedding the form on the page, but you can also:

I know, I know.
What’s with the Google +1 ad to the right of the 3Geek blog?
As I so screechingly lamented in my 3/31 post, “So Anyone Out There ‘Liking’ Google’s ‘+1’?” , Google sent out emails advising them of the launch of the +1 buton today.
I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth.
So sue me.
I’m a lawyer. And a marketer. What do you expect?
So. Do you like us? Really, really like us? Then +1 us!

First off, I’m going to come out and say that I think that what the Illinois Supreme Court officially adopting a vendor-neutral citation system is a great thing. In fact, EVERY STATE COURT should adopt a vendor-neutral citation system that allows everyone to access new decisions immediately, and with the ability to have an instant and authoritative method of citing to those decisions. Now, with that out of the way… let me make a couple of suggestions to that same court about some things it really needs to re-evaluate when it comes to a Uniform Citation System. (See the PDF press release… of course, even the press release is in PDF format… see #3 below on this one.)

  1. Go buy and read this book: Universal Citation Guide 2nd Edition
    This will be an invaluable guide to see what type of citations actually make sense and why states should at least attempt to be consistent when they decide to adopt a vendor-neutral citation system. I know that Christopher Bonjean’s post in Illinois Lawyer Now mentions the 1994 AALL edition and the 1995 ABA endorsement  but I’m thinking that someone got a little “fast and loose” with the guidelines when the final format came out from the Illinois court.
  2. Dump the “Year” + IL + “Docket Number” and go with a more standard “Year” + IL + “Decision Sequence Number”. Although the chances may be slim to none, there is a possibility that you could end up with to cases being decided that have the same docket number (because they came up through the court in different years.) Perhaps the Illinois docketing rules are different, but I’m still a big fan of the sequential numbering system over the Docket Number.
  3. Drop the PDF-Only Formatting. Putting the official release in PDF format just means that you’re giving up one proprietary format (Westlaw & Lexis citations) and adopting another. I know that Judges love PDF formatting, but many Judges would still be using WordPerfect 4.1 if they thought they could get away with it (anyone want to be me that there are still some Judges out there that secretly type up their documents in WP 4.1?? I’m thinking there actually may still be a few out there.) – See Elmer Masters’ blog if you need a second opinion on the PDF-Only issue.
  4. Put the documents out on the web, and make them searchable. It’s not like I’m asking for you to create an iPad App. You used to have a website that contained your decisions… time to fire that baby back up!
  5. Look at the Oklahoma Supreme Court as an example. Now, here I’m a little biased because I worked for the Oklahoma Supreme Court on their OSCN.NET project, and I still think they have the best example of what a state court can do to really adopt a vendor-neutral citation system and create a platform to serve the public. 
I was joking around on Twitter about the things that I found to be “silly” when it came to Illinois’ decision to go with their citation and PDF formatted decisions. But in all honesty, I’m really glad that the Illinois Supreme Court has taken a step in the right direction when it comes to breaking the hold of the proprietary citation systems. I really hope that the court can look at this list of five suggestions and really consider tackling a few of them before they get too far down the road and can’t turn around.

In the past few of weeks, LegalBizDev announced a couple of noteworthy milestones. These advances are further evidence that Legal Project Management (LPM) continues to evolve and expand in the market
First Certified Legal Project Managers announced.
On May 18th, Jim Hassett announced the the first lawyers achieving certification in his Certified LPM program. Three lawyers from three different firms completed the six month certification. Their firms range in size from eight to 1200 lawyers, so this represents a a healthy range of practitioners. You can see the details of each project the three used in the certification in the blog post.
Good stuff.
Second edition of Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide released.
On May 25th Jim also announced the release of the second edition of this practical LPM publication. I serve on the advisory board for this publication and had the opportunity to preview it and give some input on the content. This updated edition further refines and advances LPM concepts and is a great resource for the beginner and more experienced LPM types.
LPM continues to evolve and will be a critical asset for law firms and practitioners. More and more we see that lawyers need to adopt LPM to drive a more efficient and effective practice of law. We look forward to hearing about the evolution of LPM from Jim and others in the market.

Interested in all things digital? Well, if you didn’t know, for the first time in its history, the 9th annual D: All Things Digital is going to be streaming its sold-out conference. Kicking off the conference will be Google exec Eric Schmidt, who will step up to the mike at 6:15 PDT. Netflix CEO and Founder Reed Hastings will speak tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. PDT. Featured speakers include Hewlett-Packard CEO Léo Apotheker, Nokia CEO Stephen Elop, DARPA director Regina Dugan, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo, Steven Sinofsky, president of Microsoft’s Windows division.

[Please Welcome Guest Blogger – Jeff Ward]



Today my 10-year-old daughter asked once again for a cell phone. “All the other kids have one. I need it for emergencies.” I replied with the obvious answer: if all the kids have one, she’d have plenty of phones to borrow in an emergency. She feels entitled, but I’m waiting until she is mature enough to be responsible.
In the grown-up world, how often do we deny ourselves the latest cool techno-gear when we’re not ready to handle it? I expect my iPad or Android or laptop to do everything I want. If I’m writing a guest blog, it should come off flawlessly, right?
This notion of technology entitlement boils our frog-water so slowly we don’t notice the trouble we’re getting into. How many of the millions of iPad 2 buyers really know how to use it productively? Yes, many are experts at retrieving eggs from evil green pigs, but how many think, mistakenly, that their agile finger-work will ensure quality work product?
Great technology does not equal great work product. Imagine yourself on a golf course with an Adams Speedline 9064LS, one of Golf.com’s best-rated tour drivers of 2011. How will you fair? Pros will do really well. If you’re not a golfer, you may miss the ball. If you play occasionally, you’ll send the ball farther—a much farther slice off the course than before. Just because you have the best technology, you are not automatically a great golfer.
In the legal industry, effectiveness is measured in the quality of legal work and the ability to run the business. Technology greatly enhances efficiency (time- and money-saving aspects), but effectiveness (ability to reach goals) lies in the expertise of the technology user. This expertise cannot be given; it comes from hard work and practice, at which point you know the power and limitations of the tools. Effective technology is not an entitlement.
I offer three rules to avoid an entitlement mindset:
Don’t entirely trust technology. Aside from occasional bugs, your computer doesn’t make mistakes, but it still may not give you what you want. The word judgement is a legitimate alternate spelling and may not be picked up by your spell check. Redline markingss maycan be accuratecorrect yetbut difficult hard to readdigest. When you send your Word document to a printing company, expect the table of contents to be wrong, since a different printer driver changes pagination. Technology can save you hours; take a few minutes to proof your final work.
Don’t let technology control you. Don’t waste time over-manipulating fonts and formatting. Don’t ask for reports you won’t use. Don’t add form fields calling for information you don’t really need. Don’t, under any circumstances, get sucked into browsing for golf clubs when you are supposed to be writing your article. Don’t let technology snafus impede your common sense. The other day, I quickly pulled up some driving directions. I sent them to print and spent 20 minutes troubleshooting printing problems. Needlessly, I was late to my destination. I could have handwritten the six or seven steps and been on my way.
Do become the expert you need, or else find the right expert. We’ve all suffered through bad presentations, but one story illustrates the cost. In Ernst v. Merck, a 2005 Vioxx trial in Texas, the jury awarded $253.4 million to the plaintiff. Several articles attribute the large reward to attorney Mark Lanier’s bullet-free PowerPoint, which helped weave a vivid and emotional tale. It contrasted dramatically with the bullet-filled, dry presentation of defendant’s counsel. Lanier was not a PowerPoint guru; he hired Cliff Atkinson, author of Beyond Bullet Points, to help him pull together a compelling story. (See “Beyond Bullet Points” on Trial and Tap into the power of a PowerPoint storyboard).
Always keep in mind your business goals, and learn to use efficient technology effectively. And don’t let technology lull you away from common sense. A couple of weeks ago, I texted my wife to call me. She texted back, “I can’t right now. I’m driving.”

When Google announced it would be accepting requests for testers for its new cloud-based Music Beta platform, I immediately sent in my request. After a couple of weeks of waiting… and assuming that I wouldn’t be invited… I finally got my invite and jumped in with both feet. After a couple of days of testing it on a few computers, my Android phone, and even my iPad, I think there is a lot of potential here, and there’s also a lot that can be improved. I’ll be pointing out both in my review. Perhaps the most impressive thing about the Music Beta project is the amount of space Google gives you for your music. I expected to see a limit of 2-10 Gb like you would see from services like Amazon’s Cloud Drive, or from services like Dropbox. Instead, Music Beta gives you the ability to upload up to 20,000 songs in either mp3 or AAC format. I did some quick calculations based on the size of my music collection on my iPad (@3200 songs = @12 Gb of space) and estimated that 20K of songs would end up being around 75 Gb of space. That’s a lot of space, and a lot of music.

Google Music Beta uploads your music using a PC or Mac based program called Music Manager. With the Music Manager, you can sync your music files from either your iTunes library, your Windows Media library, your My Music folders on your PC, or from any other folders you select (and you can select multiple folders if you have a unique way you store your music on your computer.) The upload speed will vary depending upon the speed of your Internet provider, but I was able to upload all of my music from my PC over one night. You can change some of the options on the uploading procedures and limit the uploads based upon if you want to do it all at once, or if you want to only upload a few at a time, or if you want to upload the songs manually. You can also set how you want the Music Manager to use your Bandwidth. You can also have Music Manager start when your computer is restarted, and it will upload any new music you add to your collection automatically. During the install of the Music Manager, you are also given an opportunity to select the type of music you like, and Google Music Beta will add some free songs to your collection based upon those preferences. I checked off a couple of music selections, and ended up having over 100 free songs added to my collection. Now, I have to say that some of those freebies were really good (a couple of Cheap Trick, Live at Budokan songs are awesome), and some were… well, I just got to say that I personally wouldn’t have picked David Cassidy’s cover of I Think I Love You as one of my choices. But, they were free, and as many of you know, I like free, so I’ll put up with a little Partridge Family to get to the Cheap Trick stuff. Once the music is uploaded, you can play it through just about any Internet connected device. I’ve tried it on my PCs, my laptops, my iPad, and multiple mobile devices that have Internet browsers. So far, the music service worked on everything I tried (with the exception of my Kindle, first-generation device.) The only real annoyance I discovered on any of the mobile devices is that on the iPad you have to use the two-finger scroll method to move the music lists up and down. But, considering I had access to my music collection from pretty much any device with an Internet connection, I could put up with a few individual device quirks.

Google’s Music Beta interface is similar to the iTunes, but not nearly as flexible as iTunes is with how the artists, albums and songs are displayed. Visually, iTunes is much better, especially with the way you can set up the Cover Flow visualization. With Google Music Beta, you can see the album covers, but only if they are embedded in the MP3 files. There is no “Get Album Cover Art” option on Google Music like there is on iTunes. If you want to add the missing album covers, you can do so manually through the edit options for each of the individual albums. I hope that Google works with someone on this to make it easier to get the album artwork automatically, rather than having to do so on a one-on-one basis.

Just like the iTunes “Genius” tool, Google Music Beta allows you to create Instant Mixes by selecting one song, and it will then find 25 similar songs based upon “a combination of metadata and audio analysis to create playlists that match the mood and style of your selection.” Just like the “Genius” mix, however, these Instant Mix lists can be hit-or-miss, but usually aren’t too bad on how they select other songs. My suggestion for both iTunes and Google Music is that they give the user the ability to help in the selection process. So, for example, let’s say I pick a song by the Hard-Rock, Girl vocals, Spain-based but sings in English band, named Dover, and want a mix. In iTunes, the Genius program selects all of my Spanish songs for the mix. Whereas Google Music selects a bunch of girl vocal, pop songs. Neither of those really fit what I’m looking for, so perhaps adding an option for me to exclude, or include certain categories would make it work better. A few other features of the Google Music Beta is the ability to rate songs with a simple ‘thumbs-up’ or ‘thumbs-down’ option. Of course, I immediately thought about why would you upload songs you would want to give a thumb-down to in the first place?? Other features include grouping songs by genre (based upon the metadata from the songs), sorting by the number of times the song has played, or sorting by the ratings you’ve assigned to the songs. Speaking of sorting, there is one major flaw in the sorting by Artists that would drive most librarians crazy. Artists with “The” as the first word in their names get sorted in the “T’s”. So, groups like The Decemberists, The Dollyrots, and The Donnas show up in the wrong place when you sort by artists. This is not the case in iTunes, and I’m hoping that Google fixes this during the beta phase. Perhaps the biggest short-fall of the Google Music Beta is the “Shop this Artist” option which simply links out to Google Shopping page for a hodge-podge of different places to buy additional material. Unlike the Amazon or iTunes Store, the shopping options are very disorganized and lack the integration that you get from the Amazon and iTunes services. Overall, the Google Music Beta is pretty good for Beta, but still needs a little improvement with its interface, its sorting and selection processes, and its integration with online services to purchase and download new music. All of these issues aside, the basic idea of being able to access your music on most Internet enabled devices, and to do so for free, is something that is worthwhile. If you want to test it out for yourself, Google is still accepting requests for the Music Beta.

Yesterday Google announced the release of its Google Wallet app.

Taking advantage of near-field communications (NFC) technology, Google’s android now comes equiped with a app and an NFC chip that allows consumers to pay for goods and services with a quick swipe of their phone.

Different from Jack Dorsey’s Square technology, the phone does not require any additional hardware in order to complete transactions.

Reports are that Sprint, Citibank, MasterCard, Subway, Macy’s, Walgreens, Toys ‘R Us, and First Data are partnering with Google. And with Mastercard’s backing, Google Wallet will be fully compatible with their already existing PayPass system.

And to entice consumer usage, Google is implementing their own take on Groupon with Google Offers. Tallying loyalty cards, coupons and purchase points, Google hopes to capitalize on their strong suit: advertising.

Right now, Google’s Sprint Nexus S 4G works with this technology but other Androids will be rolling in. RIM’s already commited to implementing this technology in future Blackberry releases. Alternatively, phones without built-in NFC could add an NFC sticker ($36), which will need to be implemented on any iPhone device due to Apple’s reticence to “buy in” to NFC technology. Check out this definitive list of NFC phones if you want to know if which phones are or will be NFC.

Notably, Hong Kong and Japan implemented NFC technology a number of years ago and it continues to be a success.

So what’s in it for the lawyers, you ask?
Imagine this if you will: a new client comes to you to lay out the facts of his fantastic claims of his wife’s/partner’s/competitor’s flagrant breach, evidenced by text messages that he shows on his phone. You agree: the evidence is solid.

Then you ask him for a retainer. He pulls out the same phone, you push forward your NFC chip reading device (I’ve seen them sell for anywhere from $50-$250) and, VOILA! His money is now your money.

So, you ask, what’s in it for Google? Surely, they are getting a cut or fee? Nope. What they are, and always have been banking on, is data.
Yep, once again, privacy rears its nosy little head.
Google’s gonna know what I bought, where I bought it, who I bought it from … you get my drift.
So you see, there will always be a market for cash …