Kingsley Martin’s KIIAC KM tool has been highlighted on the 3 Geeks before. The KIIAC tool is a next-generation KM analysis resource, that analyzes a volume of documents to determine the most standard language for each clause within the document set.
The direct value of something like this tool is obvious for a firm. Law firms now spend copious amounts of un-billable time developing and maintaining model document templates for a given practice. KIIAC can do the same in seconds at a fraction of the cost. At a recent conference, I made the point that now a firm can actually know what its standard documents look like. Developing a model, standard template in the old-fashioned way produces what one person or small group of people think the standard should be, not what it actually is.
Now … extend that thinking to the broader market. Think of the power and value of being able to produce standard document templates at the market level?
Well actually … Kingsley was already doing that thinking for you. He recently released his Contract Standards web site, where he is gathering various types of documents, running them through his KIIAC analysis engine, and producing true industry standard models. The site includes checklists, clause libraries and a document assembly engine for compiling standard clauses into usable documents. The site already includes a number of agreements and will grow over time.
Another form site? Not really. Just like the law firm challenge noted above, KIIAC brings the knowledge from very large sets of documents and brings in to focus a true standard. What this means is we now will have Standards with a capital “S” in the legal market. These standards come from documents actually being used on the market, not what some small group of people think should be used. These standards will be knowledge that hasn’t previously existed.
Caveats: Obviously having a true standard will be dependent on having a relatively large set of documents in the system. But the beauty of the system is that it will scale to very large sets. So over time, the standard will become more and more focused as it gets used and continually augmented with new sets of documents.
Imagine what the existence of real market standards could mean for the practice of law?
Yeah I know – my mind just blew up too.

We seemed to have asked about a hot topic issue this week when we wondered if non-lawyers that work at a law firm should be visible through the firm’s website. This actually may be the Elephant Post with the most contributions (18 total), and although most answered “Yes”, it wasn’t even close to a unanimous response. One noticeably missing profession from the contributions, however, were lawyers. Lots of non-lawyers (actually some are lawyers, just not actively practicing for their respective law firms) chimed in to give their votes for or against (and a couple that were very close to “I voted for it, before I voted against it” type of endorsements.

I did get a personal message from one lawyer that claimed that it may actually be a bar violation to present non-lawyers on the firm’s websites. The thought was that it knocks up against the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) issue. I talked with a couple more people that were familiar with various Bar Associations and they assured me that as long as it was clear that the non-lawyers were clearly identified as not being lawyers, that this wouldn’t violate the UPL guidelines. When I brought this answer back to the lawyer, however, she scoffed and said that she wouldn’t want to take the chance. If anyone wants to clarify the UPL issue, please feel free to set all of us straight.

Enjoy the contributions. Thank you, everyone that contributed. Once you’ve digested these, scroll on down and take a look at next week’s post which asks if a two-tiered Associate system will be the make up of law firms in the near future.

Kate
Sales/Marketing
Yes

When my former law firm re-did their website, there was a page for administrative managers with their contact information, and if those people spoke, wrote articles, etc., they received equal promotion on the firm website as the attorneys.

See: http://www.saiber.com.  Under “Publications and Articles” the fourth article listed is written by the Director of Finance.  And on the “Firm News” page, the first item under “October 2010” is from the Executive Director.

Vivian
IT
Yes

It’s more friendly and personal, less imposing and intimidating to prospective clients.

Sarah Mauldin
Librarian
Yes

Absolutely!  If I might appear on your bill, you ought to be able to find out a little more about me and why I am qualified to perform work you should have to pay for.  I think this extends to paralegals, lit support folks, etc.

Elaine Knecht
C-level Librarian
Yes

Particularly in this social networking age, every opportunity that a firm has to make a connection is a good one.

Julie
KM
Yes

Non-lawyers should absolutely be promoted on a law firm’s website.  First, such promotion helps improve morale within the firm, particularly in the case of a substantial administrative staff with a wealth of talent and expertise.  Second, law firms stand to benefit from educating clients and potential clients about their administrative infrastructure.  We are all aware of the dramatic shifts in the legal economy in the last decade.  More than ever, departments such as KM, LPM and Pricing/Finance are actively involved in matter management.  Clients have taken a keen interest in law firm resources extending beyond the capable and talented lawyers that many law firms can claim they can offer.  Promotion of non-lawyers is, I believe, critical to successful law firm business development from now on.

Jason
IT
Yes

It takes more than the lawyers to make a law firm work and so senior non-lawyers should be included. After all a website is as much about selling to customers as providing information to all interested in the company, providing details and CV’s of your CFO and CIO’s can tell you a lot about the running of the firm.

Andy
IT
Yes

Because they provide value to the client.

Scott Jaffee
Controller
No

The purpsose is to attract clients who pay for legal services.  The website should focus only on that.

Anonymous
Marketing
Yes

We post some on our site- we draw the line before paralegals, but those admin folks (almost always billers) which the practice leaders feel give us a competitive advantage get listed. This includes patent agents, admin directors, etc. I think it’s a good policy- if these people make our client service stronger and will come into direct contact with the client, we should list them.

ThatTech
IT
Yes

Look, at the end of the day, Law Firm’s are businesses. Businesses in general have a lot of moving parts to make it successful. It’s almost silly, or unwise to think that it wouldn’t be in the firm’s best interest to show off their talent.  Frankly, if I knew so and so was working at XYZ Firm, I might be more inclined to join. Like any other job, people are attracted to other talent too.

So speaking from an IT perspective only, why not showcase your superstars that back the wheels run smooth?

Dave Rigali
CIO
No

We aren’t the reason why people come to the Firm’s web site.  We don’t provide legal services to clients.  There are obviously exceptions to this, but I think this is generally true.

Law firm web sites need to stop being shrines to the Firm and to their attorneys, let alone administrative staff.  They need to make it easy for clients (or prospective clients) to find information about the specific experience and expertise the Firm and its attorneys have.  I’ve never understood why so many sites have news tickers and profile generators on their home page as if someone has the time to read random blurbs about the Firm.  Promoting administrative staff would simply add to the noise.

I would make an exception for COOs.  They are usually part of the executive board and often bring pertinent background and experience that might influence a general counsel’s decision as to whether to engage the Firm.

This is not to say that staff can’t be promoted on the site at least indirectly.  Staff may be involved in the Firm’s diversity program or community service activities for example, and these are increasingly important factors in hiring decisions.  But I don’t think that individual bios for staff (for example) are necessary or even advisable.

Christopher Fryer
IT Director
Yes

IT expertise is a great marketing tool.

Andrew Collier
CIO
Yes

Of course, the non-attorney staff supports the professional staff; however, is the impact of this support even really acknowledged, other than when it misfires or is unavailable?  In Many cases, the impact of the support staff manifests itself as a force multiplier.  Paralegals and business analysts perform the research that can be the defining aspect of making or breaking a case.  When clients are impressed with the appearance of the office reception or conference rooms, it is pretty clear the partners and associates were not up late with the spit and polish.  When the concessions and catering make a war room remain productive, who ordered the food, presented it, made sure the coffee was hot and plentiful, and soft drinks cold? When the documents that have to be submitted by 5pm on a Friday are dropped on a secretary’s desk at 4pm, who ensures the attorneys work is properly formatted, spell checked and cited before letting it out the door?

We are constantly telling our people that they are the greatest resource the firm has to wield over its competition, yet rarely do we sing their praises in an open forum.  Occasionally, you will see a reference on a website about the “team” that backs up several individually named attorneys.  You may see the occasional reference in a staff meeting or firm “all call”. However, like the names that turn heads among attorneys, in many areas of legal support, there are individuals that stand out as “go to” guys/gals among our peers.  Just look through the ILTA, ARMA or ALA rosters, and many other groups) and you will find those folks that transcend the firm they are currently employed because of their skills, professionalism, experience and personality.  I consider many of these fine people role models and (unbeknownst to them in most cases) mentors that I glean information and guidance with many of these individuals being well below the C-level.  It is in the firm’s best interest to promote these folks to demonstrate their competitive edge and to build the firm’s brand through the achievements of the exceptional support staff.

It is about time that we promote the entire firm, not just the attorneys.  Without doubt, it is the attorney’s names on the door.  They do take the responsibility of face of the firm, there is no denying that.  We all need to remember that we are all under the employ of the billable hour.  When an attorney writes an article for a business journal or gets interviewed as commentary for a national trial, these should be marketed and publicized.  And the same should be so, when your Controller  writes for the ALA Legal Management, your Records Clerk is sourced as an authority on retention in news story or your IT Security Specialist gives a standing room only presentation at the ILTA Conference.  The firm has invested handsomely in the non-legal staff, they should see it as no question when asked to market their single greatest resource.

Shirley Crow
CIO
Yes

We’re professionals who contribute to client service and a law firm’s success.

Anonymous
Librarian
No

How far would this extend – someone mentioned the people who keep the place clean and orderly.  Valuable work indeed but what would the rationale be for putting these people on the website?  Are clients/others going to want to contact anyone other than attorneys?  Would the law firm want people to directly contact professional staff such as the librarians?  Even though we make a substantial contribution as well as do IT people, paralegals, records managers and others whom I am going to offend by not including them here , we never get the recognition we really deserve. I’m not sure what the goal her is but if it is for recognition, the website isn’t really the place for that.

Anonymous
IT
Yes

Won’t really matter, no one reads law firm websites anyway.

Clare Brown
librarian
Yes

1. We are as professional and as qualified as lawyers
2. Networking opportunities – It is good for other librarians to find out where friends/ex-colleagues are
3. Demonstrates that law firms care about/ respect their business support staff

Ayelette Robinson

KM
Yes/No/Maybe

To be honest, I wish Greg had given a ‘maybe’ option. A part of me feels strongly that all the hard-working and skilled professionals who support a business should be promoted on a website — for all of the reasons already mentioned above. But when I asked myself what I look for on a company’s website, I had to admit that I wouldn’t really care about seeing the people who make the business run. To be honest, I just assume that any good business has good people running it.

And my question to everyone who said “yes” on this post is: when you go to gap.com, cnn.com, or ey.com, would seeing the biographies of the IT, accounting, and marketing professionals truly affect your decision about whether to purchase or use the company’s services? Or in your heart of hearts do you feel the same way I do, that – unless proven otherwise – you assume the company is providing its employees with appropriate IT equipment, managing its financial strategy soundly, and marketing itself well to ensure future business? Even (perhaps especially?) if you don’t make that assumption, would seeing the biographies of those professionals on the company’s own website really make a difference or would you assume that those biographies are spun to sound great regardless of whether or not the professionals are strong?

In other words, if you don’t question how the business is run, you don’t need to see the biographies. If you do, you’re probably going to do research in places other than the company’s own site.

Next Week’s Elephant Post Question:

Is a Two-Tiered Associate Track the way of the Future for Law Firms?

Most of us have read the New York Times article on how firms like Orrick, WilmerHale and McDermott Will & Emery are experimenting with creating positions of “career associates” or “permanent associates” and starting them out at around $60,000 per year. I found it interesting that some of the people I know that gasped when newly minted Associates’ pay jumped to $160,000 a few years back, and now are gasping at the non-partner track Associates’ pay of $60K.

So, what are your thoughts? Good idea? Bad idea? Done deal?? I’m sure that in this time of law students coming out of school with no prospects and $100K + in loans, maybe this is exactly what they need. Could it be a win-win for both those students and the law firm, or is this second-tier system going to diminish the prestige of the law firm and the associates that take these positions?

Note: Guest Blogger, Ian Nelson

It was fascinating to read about BigLaw exploring new, more efficient ways to practice on the front page of the NY Times Business section.  If this doesn’t demonstrate how mainstream and “ready for prime time” this issue is then I don’t know what does. I certainly agree with the author of the article in that this movement is certainly in response to a “fundamental shift” in the law firm business model.

It’s also interesting to note that this “non-partner track” or “career associate” role being described is essentially that of the professional support lawyer, a role that I wrote a few posts on earlier this year and which Toby wrote about last year.

The issue that was not addressed by this article and one that merits further analysis is how to best structure this role so that the firms and clients realize maximum value.

Since the idea behind this role is to allow firms to operate more efficiently, offer services at lower prices and still grow profits, I wonder how efficient it will be if each firm hires large teams of support lawyers that, in many cases, are tasked with almost identical responsibilities.

Of course, each practice group and firm is different but it is safe to say that in this era every firm should have updated standard templates and clauses, practice and how-to guides, checklists, etc.  To not have them at all times is putting a firm at a competitive disadvantage, but the document itself is not why a client is hiring a firm.  In other words, IBM is not hiring a firm due to their form of asset purchase agreement or standard board minutes.

Should we now have every large firm essentially creating the same materials?

It is an interesting question and one the UK had to deal with as their own PSL industry developed.  The UK firms certainly started down a path of large teams of PSLs each doing the same things, but then the firms started to realize that outsourcing the generic materials and using their PSLs for firm-specific and client-facing work (the “crown jewels”) was a much more cost-effective way to proceed.  As I pointed out in my earlier posts and for full disclosure, the company I work for, Practical Law Company, is a provider of these materials to law firms and legal departments.

As the NYT article points out, this model is indeed one of outsourcing, but at a much higher level.  Firms need to take a look the economics and decide whether they are truly looking to the best value source.  30 people at $60,000 a year is $1.8 million – a rather hefty investment.  In most cases, the people filling these roles are experienced practitioners.  I would argue that focusing their time onto high level, firm specific work and outsourcing the generic work to trusted providers is a combination that truly reflects innovation and efficiency.

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.