The law firm of White & Case announced yesterday that they are teaming up with Indian law school, Jindal Global School to provide for Executive training as well as Continuing Legal Education training. The amount of involvement from White & Case lawyers appears to be pretty significant, as they will also arrange for visiting and adjunct professors, as well as setting up interactions between the firm’s lawyers and JGS’s law students and faculty including internships, conferences and seminars.

This is quite a bold move on White & Cases’ part, and one that seems to be ripe for the undertaking. In reading the press release, it made me wonder if any law firms in the US were so closely involved with a specific US law school. I’m assuming, no, and thinking that there may be ethical rules of such tight integration of a law firm and a law school (I could be wrong on this, so feel free to tell me so.)

It would be interesting to see if this same type of agreement between a major law firm and a US law school could work. It would certainly shake things up a bit in the old Socratic Method teaching style and expose students that would never get a chance to be a Summer Associate for a major law firm to get a peek inside the way it operates, and what it expects from its attorneys. It might be of even greater importance as the numbers of incoming associates (both Summer and Fall) shrink for this lost generation of law students. Perhaps it would also expose both the firm and the school to new ideas on how to better train students for the profession. Unfortunately, the next opportunity to test this type of collaboration will probably come when another firm makes an agreement with a Chinese law school.

Here’s the press release from White & Case:

New York and Sonipat, Haryana, India May 23, 2011 … Global law firm White & Case LLP and Jindal Global Law School (JGLS) of O.P. Jindal Global University have signed an agreement to develop executive and continuing legal education programs. The agreement, a first between a major US law firm and an Indian law school, calls for visiting faculty arrangements, adjunct professorships, joint conferences and seminars and internships for JGLS students.

“Our collaboration with JGLS is part of the Firm’s long-term commitment to India,” said Hugh Verrier, chairman of White & Case. “Our association with this pioneering global law school will help prepare a new generation of lawyers who can operate effectively in a globalized world.”

“With a very active cross-border India practice, White & Case recognizes the huge role India plays in the global economy,” said Nandan Nelivigi, a partner with White & Case and head of the Firm’s India Practice. “Teaming up with one of the best law schools in India will allow the Firm, through its social responsibility initiative, to make contributions to the further strengthening of India’s legal education system and its legal profession.”

“The agreement with White & Case marks a historic opportunity underscoring the importance of globalization of legal education and the legal profession in India,” said Professor C. Raj Kumar, Vice Chancellor of O.P. Jindal Global University and Dean of Jindal Global Law School. “This collaboration will provide impetus to raising the quality of legal education in India that will transcend jurisdiction-based learning, but also more importantly, help India develop legal knowledge across different sectors.”
About JGLS

JGLS is committed to promoting global legal education through global courses, global curriculum, global programs, global research, and global interaction through a global faculty. It offers a range of full time degree programs – five year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.); three year LL.B., and LL.M. programs with particular specialization in corporate and financial law, international trade law and intellectual property rights. JGLS has established eleven research centers, including a Michigan-Jindal Centre for Global Corporate and Financial Law and Policy jointly instituted with the University of Michigan Law School. In a short span of time, JGLS has established a global reputation due to its extraordinarily qualified faculty members recruited from around the world. JGLS has established international collaborations with Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Columbia Law School, Cornell Law School, New York University School of Law and Indian University’s Maurer School of Law. It recruits students in all its programs through the US-based Law School Admission Test (LSAT-India).

About White & Case
White & Case LLP is a leading global law firm with lawyers in 37 offices in 25 countries. Among the first US-based law firms to establish a truly global presence, we provide counsel and representation in virtually every area of law that affects cross-border business. Our clients value both the breadth of our global network and the depth of our US, English and local law capabilities in each of our regions and rely on us for their complex cross-border transactions, as well as their representation in arbitration and litigation proceedings.

Contacts:
Francine Minadeo
Media Relations Manager
White & Case LLP
+1 646 885 2218
fminadeo@whitecase.com

Professor C. Raj Kumar
Vice Chancellor
O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU) &
Dean, Jindal Global Law School
Tel: (91) 99101222851
vc@jgu.edu.in
crk@jgu.edu.in

Recently, I had a unique experience of being privy to “insider information” on a hot-topic issue that ran on the front pages of major newspapers across the country. In a way, watching news story after news story come out, it was kind of like being in the middle of a sausage factory, watching it all being made, and being a little disappointed in the process. Without going into any details (my blog is my personal endeavor and I try to keep it that way), I have to say that my eyes were opened at some of the laziness of professional reporting, and my experience has made me think twice about accepting what I read in major news sources simply because they are major news sources.

Here are a few things that I saw that I would have thought were questionable tactics from reputable news sources:

  • The same story getting “repackaged” and “re-titled” over and over again within the same week. I noticed this actually came from the same parent company owning a number of different news titles and needing to fill space. Perhaps one benefit from this was that some of these resources were regional in scope, but most, if not all, were Internet resources, so the story was still accessible to everyone with a web browser. The problem really came from the fact that it looked like the story was presented as being somehow different from the initial story, but when you compared them, it was simply a reprint with a different title and publication date.
  • Reporters quoting other reporters as “facts”. This isn’t new, but it was interesting watching one reporter quoting the story written by another as part of their “fact gathering” process. Most of the cross-quoting was taking pieces of the initial reporter’s conjecture and twisting it into an assumed fact. It was like watching a game of “Telephone” and seeing how it morphed over and over again as the next reporter added another layer of conjecture to the story.
  • Research based completely on what was available on the Internet. I know that the days of Woodward and Bernstein meeting with Deep Throat in a car garage are over, but I at least expected reporters to pick up a phone, or meet with a source in person before writing a story. Instead, what I saw was reporters taking press releases, sending out a “can you give me a quote” email to one or two people, and then writing the story without interviewing a single person. For goodness sake, Above the Law does a better job talking with insiders on a story than some of the most respected newspapers in the country. I watched as reporters chimed in on the comments section of their story saying that they sent an email, but are still waiting on a response. However, I guess in this day of being “first to print,” no one really has time to get out and talk with anyone anymore. After all, if that person does respond, that means a follow-up story can be written and a one-day story can turn into a two-day story.
I guess I expected better out of the corp of professional reporters. I know that they constantly complain about the tactics that the blogosphere takes in running with a story without doing any serious research on the issues, and injecting conjecture into the story in such a way that you can’t really tell what parts are facts versus what parts are conjecture. In this case, however, I watched as a number of professional reporters did the very same actions that they despise from bloggers. 
Ethics and solid professional processes of reporting are two of the most important aspects that hold professionally trained reporters and the sources they work for above the fray of the blogosphere. If professional reporters decide to take short-cuts with those two processes, we all suffer the consequences. I expect better, but I fear that I will just continue to be disappointed.

A cross-posting of a past post on Don’t Use PowerPoint, lead to a request for tips on how to give a good presentation. There are multitudes of resources on this subject, so instead of giving 10 Steps to better presentations, I opted to take a crack at an unconventional tip.
My Big Tip: Don’t Prepare
In thinking back on what I considered to be some of my better presentations, the ones that jump to mind as the best of my presentations that were also enjoyable for me were those for which I did the least amount of preparation. I know – this sounds counter-intuitive, but stick with me and I’ll explain, especially before Greg chimes in to agree on how unprepared I usually am.
Example #1 – I presented a 60 Tips session with former Utah State Bar President – now Federal Judge David Nuffer. We agreed on which topics each of us would take so there wouldn’t be any duplication, but then didn’t share our actual tips with each other. When we gave the presentation, we saw each other’s tips from a fresh perspective. This created a very fun and thoughtful dialogue on each other’s tips. The interplay between the two of us drew the audience in, getting them very involved in the dialogue as well.
Example #2 – At TECHSHOW 2010, I had the pleasure of co-presenting with Kingsley Martin (genius extraordinaire and founder of KIIAC) on the evolution of knowledge management. At that point in time we knew of each other, but hadn’t met. On our planning call Kingsley made an observation that the best thinking and dialogue for a presentation usually occurs on the planning call. So we agreed not to discuss our ideas and perspectives until the presentation. Like the one with Judge Nuffer, we divided up the list of potential topics. On the day of the presentation we very briefly went down our list to insure non-duplication. The result was much the same as #1.
Example #3 –I gave a presentation last Wednesday at the Harvard Club in New York on AFAs and KM. Since I had already seen the comment from the blog post and had been thinking about this unconventional post, I decided to put it into action. The presentation was actually a repeat of one I had done month’s before, only this time with a different panel of presenters. Instead of reviewing my slides (I did use a few this time) and focusing on what I would say, I listened to the other panelists and took notes. When my turn came up, I used the notes as a spring-board for the topics as they came up on the slides. This challenged me to tie my thinking into the broader theme of the panel from an audience perspective. The result was a more coherent whole for the program. I deemed this a success based on the overwhelming number of good question we received during Q&A.
OK – so technically in these three examples I wasn’t completely un-prepared and did know my topic. But my point here is that becoming overly focused on the slides and/or outline for your presentation can drive a one-way experience for your presentations. When I approach a presentation I view it as a dialogue with the audience. I maintain a clear focus on the audience and their level of engagement. If I see too many blank stares or heads-down on the blackberry, I change things up. Being tied to a practiced set of slides doesn’t fit with this approach.
Bottom-line: Treat your presentations like a personal conversation with the audience. The more involved they are, the more they retain and take away from the presentation. And frankly – the more fun and fulfilling it will be for you.

In my last post, I made a particularly provocative assertion that the Legal KM community was primarily made up of lawyers and that their being lawyers clouded their interpretation of KM in a legal environment so that they were missing the KM needs of at least 50% of the firm, specifically, the staff. I was sure that would get the words flying fast and furious. There would be emergency meetings and conventions. I would cause a great schism in the Legal KM community. The vast majority of Legal KMers would close ranks against my radical ideas, while a select few passionate revolutionaries rallied to my side. Together, we would call on the greater (non-legal) KM community to support our just cause and stand with us against the mighty horde of attorney-centric Knowledge Managers.

As it happened, I got some very lovely polite comments on the blog, a couple of emails and a tweet or two. Not exactly a revolution in the making. However, I did get one response from a good friend of this blog, a prominent Legal KMer, and a lawyer, which has confounded me ever since. He said, “In my opinion you should focus your legal Knowledge Management initiatives on the attorneys because they generate the revenue.” Actually, it was on Twitter, so it was more like, “imo, focus KM where revenue is”, but I interpreted it as the former.

As I have said before, I’m new to KM, my background is in IT, and I’m not an authority in either field. On the other hand, the tweeter is an acknowledged authority in Legal KM and I would absolutely defer to his judgment in just about anything KM related. However, the more I thought about his statement, the less sense it made to me. In fact, I can’t imagine a KMer in any other industry saying to focus Knowledge Management on the areas of revenue generation. (To be clear, the rest of this post is not about the tweeter’s position. I only have a 140 character tweet to go by, it wouldn’t be fair to write several hundred words in response. Following are the thoughts that his tweet inspired in me.)

I appreciate that there may be many good reasons to focus KM on the revenue generators, but I don’t believe any of them have to do with actually improving or increasing knowledge flow within the firm. Self-Preservation is a good place to start. The concept is pretty high on my list and I get it. The attorneys pay the bills, so focus on their perceived needs, look like you’re making an effort to improve things specifically for them, they will appreciate you, big raise, bonus, get to keep your job. That makes sense, but does it lead to better communication, or does it lead to attorneys with rarely used, shiny new tools that do little to nothing to make things better as a whole?

Another possible reason to focus KM on the revenue generators is to show that your initiatives are affecting the bottom line. Go ahead and add Economist to the long list of things I am not, but the connection between KM and ROI seems tenuous at best. It may exist, but I’m not sure it’s quantifiable in a way that would meet Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. David Griffiths over at The Knowledge Core blog made this case in an article called KM: The ROI Myth last March. And even if you could show KM initiatives had a measurable ROI, would a profitable KM initiative be indicative of a successful KM initiative? Or conversely, would a KM initiative that lost money, indicate a failure? I really don’t know. I’d love to hear thoughts on that.

KM is about efficiency and effectiveness, ultimately those things should lead to increased profitability, but I would argue that by focusing KM solely on the points of revenue generation you will never see the improved efficiency at the wider firm level. Law Firms are dysfunctional franchises. Partners may share resources, but they are largely in competition with each other. Sharing knowledge is not their default condition and probably never will be. You have to focus KM on the attorneys for the reasons above and many more, but in order to improve communication and knowledge flow across a firm, you need to strengthen the ties between the attorneys. That means making sure the staff know who, what, where, when, why, and how to find the information that they need to support their attorneys and that they have the ability to share their own lessons learned and best practices. I’m not arguing that a majority of KM resources in a law firm should be devoted to staff, just that we can’t ignore the conduits between the attorneys all together. In many cases, the shortest distance between two attorneys who need to communicate, might actually be through their secretaries.

After a few weeks of being serious with the Elephant Post questions, we decided to tone it down a little bit this week and let you stretch your Pop-Culture muscles and tell us what movie or television show, that features lawyers, you think is the greatest of all time. I mentioned last week that Joss Whedon’s show, Angel, is one of my favorites. A show where the Senior Partners of the law firm of Wolfram and Hart are all Demons from Hell… you’d kind of expect to see that as a documentary on PBS, now wouldn’t you??

We got some great answers, but strangely, it wasn’t until the last minute that someone wrote about To Kill a Mockingbird. I was hoping someone would do that so that I could give it to my daughter who has to read the book for the first time this summer for her High School class. A few others that didn’t make the cut were, Matlock, Boston Legal, absolutely none of the Law & Order franchise made the cut, and recent movie, The Lincoln Lawyer must not have stuck in anyone’s head either. I don’t think anyone will mind that they didn’t make the cut.

Enjoy this week’s perspectives on great lawyer movies and television shows. We’ve placed next week’s question below (along with a handy web form for you to fill out). We’ll be going back to a more serious tone next week where we’ll play on the idea of “Lawyers vs. Non-Lawyers” within a firm, and whether the “non-lawyers” should be leveraged by their firms on their websites… if at all.

Tracy Thompson-Przylucki
Consortium Champion
LA Law

Definitely this Bochco creation was the best of the breed. What casting!  You had all of the quintessential legal personas covered. Remember the lecherous divorce lawyer, Arnie Becker played by Corbin Bernsen? And cute and quirky couple,  Ann and Stuart? The young up and comers Victor Sufuentes and Jonathan Rollins. And sweet and reliable Benny Stulwicz.  Leland and Douglas as the founding partners, always trying to manage the troops and struggle with the eternal battle between good and evil that is always at play when profit is king?  Plus, LA Law answered the question, “What ever happened to Susan Dey?” A homerun in my book! Thanks for the chance to reminisce.

Brian P. Craig
Competitive Intelligence Librarian
Night Court

I never learned anything about the law by watching this show, but I always enjoyed its mix of Theater of the Absurd and the Marx Brothers.  Judge Harry’s Stone’s obsession with Mel Tormé was a nice touch (especially when the Velvet Fog himself finally appeared).  And life on “”Night Court”” was no more absured or anarchic than some of the firms I’ve worked at.

mglickman
Not yet lawyer
My Cousin Vinny

Nothing need be said. We’ve all seen it (if you haven’t, I don’t want to know you.) and love it.

Balika
Law student, married to a lawyer, also avid watcher of American TV shows
Damages

It’s great because it’s a more accurate depiction of a law firm, lawyers and court cases in general. Lawyers aren’t nice people, partners at law firms even more so. They love to smile and be nice to you to your face but really, deep down, they’re actually plotting to kill your fiance because they’d much rather you spend that extra time at the office.
Also, cases CANNOT be wrapped up in just one episode. They would ordinarily stretch out over a few weeks, or say, one season.

Tami S Cunningham
Research Consultant
Ally McBeal

Caveat – just the first few seasons of Ally, before it jumped the shark.
I was in law school at the time. It was a funny departure from all the serious John Grisham movies and books.

Simon
Information supplier
Murder One

Twists and turns; personalities; Teddy Hoffman’s irrepressible “don’t worry, I am in control” attitude. Okay, the chicks are cute too.

Karin
Former Law Library Asst
Damages

Great sets; they really got the interior design of aesthetic of top-tier, AmLaw100 firms.  Watching Glenn Close’s character’s mannerisms, queenly mien, and air of disdain for everyone around her was like being back in the offices of Blank, Blank, Blank and Blank.

Tony Fioretti
Law Student
My Cousin Vinny

Procedurally accurate, hilarious, and Marisa Tomei (Won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress)

Ken Hirsh
Law librarian, former attorney
L.A. Law

From Steven Bochco and David E. Kelley, this series struck just the right balance of courtroom action, office politics, and soap opera.  The actors were perfectly cast, the writing spot on for the first several years, and the books and computers furnished by West, in exchange for the promotional credit, helped dress a terrific set.  It tackled current controversies in a less heavy-handed way than Law and Order would.  Leading off every episode was the terrific theme by the legendary Mike Post.  Arguably it jumped the shark when Roz fell to her death in the elevator shaft, but nobody really missed her.  Perfect fare for a lawyer giving up the practice and starting library school.

Brigid
Litigation Support
Gideon’s Trumpet

Not flashy or preachy but I always remember this movie and Henry Fonda’s performance.

Lihsa
Internet Marketing Manager
To Kill a Mockingbird / Perry Mason / Wizard of Oz

TKAMB: Come on!!! I really had to be the first one to put this down? Seriously.
PM: Perry was the MAN! He always broke the witness on cross and WON. And he always made mincemeat out of Hamilton Burger.
WOZ: I just like Glenda. And nearly any real world situation analogizes beautifully to WOZ.  🙂

Zena Applebaum
Manager, Intelligence and Intranet
Billable Hours

The show’s description on Showcase.ca says it all “They’re smart, they’re trapped and they’ re really bored.”  A an independant Canadian show about the all mighty billable hour, set and filmed in the offices of a Bay Street firm.  If you haven’t seen the show, do yourself a favour and watch an episode online.  Real life can’t get much more like this kind of fiction.

Scott Preston
Technologist
To Kill a Mockingbird

Loved the book, loved the movie.  Atticus Finch, the consummate lawyer who understands racial equality at a time when such an idea was very uncommon.  A strong father who understands the importance of sharing his views with his family.  Harper Lee uses Atticus’ country charm and dry wit to tell this powerful story in a meaningful way.

Mark Gediman
Librarian & Trekkie
Star Trek-The Original Series

Samuel T. Cogley from the episode “Court Martial” Mr.Cogley defends Cpt. Kirk and uses real, physicals books to research his defense.  He gives an impassioned speech about the value of case law books vs.  an “”homogenized,pasteurized, synthesized”” computer system.  I can understand his feelings.  While not a luddite (I don’t think), I view with suspicion any research that does not allow me to use my powers of reason.  Telling me what is relevent and what isn’t intrudes on the areas where I add the unique reasoning and experience that give my research value and diffferentiate from the online noise.  And now I’ll step off my soapbox…
Amazing how this 1960’s show still resonates today.

Ayelette Robinson
Knowledge Management
The Whole Truth

The Whole Truth was a short-lived TV show from the fall of 2010, with Maura Tierney and Rob Morrow playing, respectively, a prosecutor and a defense attorney. While the show may not trump classics as far as overall quality goes, it did something very refreshing — it presented every case equally weighted from both the prosecution’s and the defense’s perspectives, so that the audience truly did not know which side was right. Unlike other lawyer shows and movies, and unlike the media’s portrayal of most real-life cases, the show conveyed to the American public that every story has two sides, nothing is black and white, and in real life it’s often difficult to tell who should prevail.

Next Week’s Elephant Post Question:

Should Non-Lawyers Be Promoted On Law Firm Web Pages?

With the exception of the C-Level staff, almost all law firm websites do not list the “Non-Lawyers” they employ. In addition to that, almost all of the news and back-patting that a law firm promotes focuses almost entirely on things that they Lawyers do, and ignore what accomplishments that non-lawyers perform. Granted, there may be the occasional exception, but when it comes to law firm websites, you’d almost think there was no administrative staff at all… because they are never mentioned.

So, this week’s question comes right out and asks if this is a good policy to have. Should the law firm’s website only promote the work (both professionally and personally) that the lawyers do, or should it be expanded to show the non-lawyers as well? Why or Why Not??

As always, we try to make this easy for you, and we’ll also allow you to post anonymously if you want. Fill out the form below and let us know what you think.

A group of lawyers from Gibson Dunn’s Electronic Discovery and Information Law practice group launched the first publication in a planned ten-part series entitled “E-Discovery Basics.” The first publication, “Why Should I Care About E-Discovery?” went out yesterday and discussed how, despite the fact that most lawyers have little interest in learning anything about the topic, e-discovery has become too important and too intertwined in the legal process, that it is simply an area that in-house and outside lawyers need to understand. The trio of Gareth Evans (Partner, Los Angeles), Jennifer H. Rearden (Partner, New York) and Farrah Pepper (Of Counsel, New York) kick off the series by advising in-house and outside lawyers that just like death and taxes, “electronic discovery is unavoidable in an era in which virtually all business information and communications are digital.”

I contacted Gareth Evans by email and asked what the genesis was behind creating a series on e-discovery basics. Evans responded that he had discussions with in-house lawyers who wanted to learn more about e-discovery, but most simply “do not have a lot of time available” to devote to learning the topic, “and in many cases do not know where to start.” Gibson Dunn has published numerous mid-year and year-end reports, and client alerts that discuss e-discovery topics, but those seemed to focus on changes in the overall e-discovery topic, but didn’t create a good starting point for someone that may not have a solid grasp of the subject. Evans told me that his team “had not seen anywhere an easily accessible and comprehensive overview of all aspects of e-discovery” could be found, “so we decided to put together this series.”

The series is scheduled to go out on a regular basis over the next few months and cover the following topics:

  • The E-Discovery Life Cycle
  • Litigation Preparedness
  • Legal Holds
  • Preservation
  • Collection
  • Processing and Review
  • Production
  • Admissibility
  • Cross-Border Discovery Challenges

Evans said that the “intended audience is primarily in-house lawyers and compliance personnel,” but they are hoping that it will have a much wider appeal. “[W]e hope that these pieces will be valuable to anyone interested in learning about e-discovery.” The Marketing team at Gibson Dunn will be sending out the “E-Discovery Basics” updates to their clients and others as well as posting them on the practice group’s web page.

For those of you that have been asking for a primer on e-discovery, it looks like the E-Discovery practice group at Gibson Dunn is stepping up to fill that need. If you want to sign up to receive future installments of the “E-Discovery Basics” publications, you can send an email to clients@gibsondunn.com, with the subject line “SUBSCRIBE to E-Discovery Updates”.

I’m going to give everyone a chance to make fun of me on this one as I try to explain how I thought of some change management issues that we fight all the time in law firms by referencing similar issues that happened in last weekend’s NASCAR race in Dover, Delaware. First of all, yes, I watch NASCAR… as the saying goes, you can take the boy out of Mississippi, but you can’t take Mississippi out of the boy. Although, that’s not where I gained my love of automobile racing, that actually happened while I was growing up in Rockford, Illinois and my Dad would take me to the local races at the ¼ mile Rockford Speedway. Alright, enough of me making excuses of why I watch NASCAR and on to my analogy.

The “Monster Mile” as they call it, is a mile long, concrete racetrack in Delaware that tends to eat up tires so much that pit stops aren’t normally based upon the need to refuel, but rather they are based on the need to get new tires. One of the benefits of the fact that the track eats up tires is that it causes the rubber from those used-up tires to stick in the grooves of the concrete. After a while, that rubber gets sticky and is kind of like contact cement. What that means to the driver of the car is that they can use that stickiness to help them maintain grip with the track, and drive a lower line around the curves. After all, the shortest way around the track is done by staying low around the corners. When the corners get “rubbered-up,” everyone tries to stay in that one lane where the rubber helps them grip around the corner. The problem comes when there is too much of a good thing, and the conditions start to change.

When you get too much rubber in the corners, because everyone is riding around in the same lane, that rubber eventually runs out of crevices to fill, and it starts building up on top of the existing rubber. Think about running one of those pink pencil erasers (coincidentally, the Brits call those “rubbers”) back and forth on your desktop. It starts out smooth, but after you go back and forth over it a few times, all of a sudden it starts to break apart and turns into little beads of eraser which cause your eraser to start bouncing up and down as it goes over these little pieces. Same thing with the rubber on the track. After a while, that sticky rubber begins to bead-up and that groove that was perfect a few minutes ago is suddenly no longer as good as it was just a few laps ago.

So, the conditions have changed… easy enough you say… just start driving in another groove and start putting the rubber down there, right?? Yes, you’d think so, but that’s not what most of the drivers did. You know what they did?? Nothing. They stayed in that same lane because it was such a good thing, that they were pretty sure that this change in conditions was simply temporary, and that their crew chief could do something in the pits that would make the car work in that lane again, and everything would go back to normal. The crew chiefs understood what was going on and were all trying to tell their drivers to start looking around the track and start trying out new lanes to see which ones would work for them now that the bottom lane wasn’t working any more. Most of the drivers, however, wouldn’t listen to that advice, and I’m guess there were three reasons for this irrational behavior.

  1. None of the other ways around the track were as fast as that bottom lane was when it was at its best. Although that benchmark was no longer obtainable, most of the drivers felt that it would eventually come back if they just kept trying it for a little bit longer.
  2. Moving to a different lane around the track would cause the drivers to get out of their comfort zones. Most of the drivers didn’t want to be taking the risk of picking the wrong lane, so they stuck with the lane they knew, although it wasn’t working very well. Think of it as the “Devil You Know” scenario.
  3. No one wanted to be the first to try something different. Everyone on that track wants to be the ‘leader’ but almost none of them want to be the first to try something new. Instead, they’ll call up to their spotters (the guys that sit way up on the racetrack stands and guide them around the track through radio communications), and they start asking them to see what everyone else is doing, and if anyone else is trying something new that is working. 

All three of these situations run parallel to situations that many of us face when the conditions within our law firms start to change. And, many of the reactions that the drivers had – wanting things to go back to the way it was; not wanting to try something different because it moved them outside of their comfort zone; and, waiting for someone else to do something, and then copying that in hopes that it will also work for them – the ‘drivers’ of the firm also have.

Just think of some of the changes that are happening in the legal industry that effect law firms, and think of how much of how firms react to them mirror the actions taken by the NASCAR drivers:

  1. Billable hours – clients beginning to question this tradition and asking firms to start looking at alternative methods.
  2. Westlaw/Lexis charging back to the client – we all know that this process is going to eventually go away, but it seems that many firms are instead trying to find a way to make it work again. It was such a good thing when it worked, surely it will work again, right??
  3. Being the first to try something new – One of the most common things that you’ll hear if you suggest trying out something new to law firm leaders is “Who else has already tried this? How did it work for them?” We live in a world where one firm will chase the tail of another firm all day long, but almost none of the firms are wanting to be the first dog in line.

Many of the leaders of law firms want the conditions to go back to what they used to be. For, us that means a pre-2008 world. Problem is, that’s not very likely to happen. Many of us know that this type of reaction is irrational, but that doesn’t stop us from wishing it so. Real leaders understand that conditions change, and new “lanes” need to be tried to see what works the best under these new conditions. Those that understand how to adapt to changing conditions, and work with all of their resources to find the best way around the track will end up as the leaders and will find that everyone else will be playing catch-up trying to figure out how you developed your winning strategy.

So, will connecting Bing to your Facebook account make your search result better? The folks at Bing seem to think so. Here’s a 2:35 video that explains what Bing is trying to do:

Thoughts??

  • Are you comfortable connecting your Facebook account to Bing?
  • Are your Facebook connections really smart enough to improve the Collective IQ? (I’ve got some friends from high school that may actually dumb down my results.)
  • What about this “Universal ‘Like’ Button”? 
  • Perhaps the best thing I like about this is that if I’m going to a city, having Bing point out which of my Facebook friends lives in that city may make it easier for me to remember who to avoid while I’m there!!

An admitted failing of the legal industry is a lack of effort on understanding the client’s pain. Previously we have noted on 3 Geeks the need to listen to clients to construct the best AFA. Now that lawyers and firms are becoming aware of the need to understand more about clients beyond “they’ve been served,” lawyers are looking in new places for ideas and resources to get client feedback.
Enter the third party survey provider. These service providers contact clients directly and ask a series of pre-defined questions about how satisfied they are with a law firm’s services and can even inquire as to how that compares against other firms. What can emerge is a relatively complete picture of where a firm stands with its clients.
Before you rush off to hire one of these services, you should considered where you already stand in knowing your clients’ business and pain, a.k.a. what keeps them up a night. Jeff Carr, well-known AFA guru, makes the point in his presentations about the need for a life-cycle of engagement with law firms, ending in a review of each matter. A main point he makes is the need for clients to give feedback to their law firm partners. Historically, clients have not given feedback, but instead would stop sending work to firms that may not always hit the mark on service. Jeff realized this conflict-avoidance approach was not constructive and lead to higher costs every time he had to educate a new firm on his business.
In such a conflict-avoidance atmosphere, a third party provider can too easily be used as yet another avoidance tool. Instead of having a direct conversation with a client about their satisfaction, a firm is side-stepping an importantly opportunity and handing it off to someone else who doesn’t even know the client.
Third party satisfaction surveys can provide a very valuable service. However, lawyers should make sure they have already engaged in service quality conversations with their clients before they introduce an unknown player to the mix. Going straight to a third party, is like tagging third base before you have touched first and second, thinking you are on your way to a home run.
Bottom-line: Take the first steps, first. You should be embracing your own relationship building efforts as the first and most basic step, especially in a relationship driven business like law.
I got a chance to have a telephone conversation with SLA President, Cindy Romaine, this week to discuss her brainchild of the Future Ready 365 blog. Romaine’s idea was that the association would run a blog for one year with the theme of “Future Ready” and would compile 365 blog posts from members and though leaders on different perspectives of what you need to do today in order to be Future Ready for the challenges that are coming over the horizon. Romaine’s enthusiasm for the project is quite contagious and has received a lot of attention from both within SLA and beyond. However, Romaine’s first comment shows that something like this cannot be taken without serious consideration of the amount of time and effort it takes to make it successful.
“It’s a lot of work!! I’ve got a fantastic team that takes it further, faster, and they have great ideas. But, it’s still a freakin’ lot of work!!” Romaine mentioned that there are days that the person who does a lot of the work is up until midnight getting everything prepared for the next day. Fortunately, it sounds like she has put together a team that is passionate about the project and committed to making it a success. Romaine commented that there are a number of things that are being learned as the project goes on. “One is the fantastic content. Two was the actions that took place behind the scenes and how we tried to connect and how effective different techniques were.”
I asked her what her goals are for such an ambitious project. She mentioned a number of goals, such as “you like to think that you’re getting traction, and you like to think you’re making a difference, and that people are exposed to ideas that they wouldn’t be otherwise, and you like to think you’re doing something for the association.”
So, how is she accomplishing any of those goals? “Everything that I hear, is positive,” Romaine told me. Not that they haven’t received criticism from time to time on specific topics, but she said that most responses about the Future Ready 365 blog has been positive and the reaction from the association, and those not even in the association has been overwhelmingly positive.
Are people paying attention to FR365? According to Romaine, they sure are. “We have great traffic. More than a million hits through the first three months of the year. Just in March, we had over 37,000 unique visits. Those are good numbers.” Although no benchmarks were set for the project, it is clear that the amount of traffic exceeds the number of SLA Members, so it seems the message is getting out beyond the confines of the Association members. In looking over the stats, Romaine says she immediately thinks, “Really?? Who are these people?? Can we send them a membership note??”
In attracting people to write for the blog, Romaine take a couple approaches. “We try to send the email blasts to reach out, but what really works is the one-on-one requests. When I go and talk to chapters, I requests posts from them or I go shake hands and talk to people.” The process is constant, and the push for getting people to post is an ongoing process and she stressed that “there has to be buzz about that!” So, the “tweets” go out everyday, and there are updates on listservs letting people know about new content that is important to their profession. She stressed that you have to drive interest in these types of project just like you would with any marketing process.
Whether it is long-time members of the organization, freshly minted Deans of University libraries, or the CEO’s of library/info pro recruiting services, Romaine tries to diversify the types of writers that post on FR365 by “trying to get a mix of all our members and then maybe a few people that are opinion leaders.” There are a number of “Themes” that get pushed out, usually a theme for the week, and this has helped motivate everyone behind the scenes to find the right people for those themes. This week’s theme on employment has focused on getting CEO’s from library recruiting services to discuss what students need to do to prepare for an environment where they seem to be thrown to the wolves. Last week FR365’s theme was on the Future Ready Toolkit. “We were thinking that we could do a whole week on Competitive Intelligence,” Romaine told me. “I’d like to talk about legal and do a whole week with that. Or, maybe it’s something that’s going on in New York, or one thing I was thinking of was ‘Past Presidents’ because these people have a certain perspective.” Romaine said that the “themes” approach works very well because the writers understand that their contribution fits within a certain group which she labeled a “scalable niche.”
Of course, it’s not all about the writers… it’s really about the audience and how they are reacting to the content. There are a number of people that comment consistently, and those comments seem to be driving additional conversations beyond what’s in the initial post. It also helps SLA candidates with getting a feel for how the association is reacting to certain issues. One area that Romaine said she would actually like to see more interaction is that of the vendors. She thinks that the vendors should really step up and answer the question of “How are you making your clients Future Ready?” The elephant in the room on this discussion is that vendors need to be honest and let librarians know that if they are not doing that, they will step over you and deal with those in your organization that will. So far, no vendor seems to be ready to tackle that issue.
I asked if the FR365 would end on post number 365 or if the project will continue after Romaine steps down as SLA President. “That’s what I’m thinking. The real wonderful part will be putting some visualization together to see how the words connect to each other.” Romaine envisions that all of the information that is collected from these posts can be leveraged in a Web 3.0 way in which the words can connect to each other and help identify the trends that appear. “That way we can kind of see the ‘Hot Spots’ in the conversation.” We discussed how she could do this, and Romaine thought that something like IBM’s ManyEyes product would be a great way to visualize how the conversations are connected. Just for fun, I tested this out on the 3 Geeks’ post for 2011 and found it to be a very interesting approach to seeing what words seem to be constantly connecting to each other in our posts. (See below)
I think that Cindy Romaine has really shown that member organizations can take on new approaches to how they serve their members. She mentioned that she has seen situations where holding on to the “old model” can bring down an operation (be it a small library department or a giant organization.) Her favorite quote at the moment is from Jeff De Cagna, who she quotes as saying that member associations “will need to embrace a genuinely different point of view on the nature of value creation in a more digital, more social, and more interconnected world.” It looks like Cindy Romaine has taken this suggestion to heart with her Future Ready 365 project. I’m sure she’s still looking for contributors, so feel free to submit your posts to futureready365@sla.org.

Visualization of 3 Geeks' 2011 Posts (so far...) Many Eyes