The Social Network director, David Fincher, may have brought his experience from films like Fight Club and Seven, but you may have wondered what The Social Network would have looked like had someone else taken the director’s reins.

Luckily, CollegeHumor’s production gives us a chance to see it through the eyes of famous directors like Wes Anderson, Michael Bay, Christopher Guest, Quentin Tarantino, Guillermo Del Toro, and Frank Capra. Makes me wonder how M. Night Shyamalan would have messed this one up…

When Reed Elsevier announced the retirement of its current CEO, Andy Prozes, it also outlined a change in how the LexisNexis business will be organized after January 1, 2011. LexisNexis will be split into two different units, each with its own CEO. There will be a “Risk Solutions” group with Jim Peck as CEO, and a “Legal Businesses” group with Mike Walsh as CEO. Both Peck and Walsh will report to Reed Elsevier’s CEO, Erik Engstrom.

A LexisNexis spokesperson told me that more information will be released on the overall objectives of this move following the February 2011 Reed Elsevier annual meeting. At this time, the purpose of the split is to allow each of the units to “focus on their respective priorities and create value for their customers.” Apparently, the Risk Solutions unit will have a much broader market in which products like ChoicePoint will be marketed, while the Legal Businesses unit will narrow in on the legal industry. The LexisNexis spokesman said the idea was that the “risk and legal businesses will continue to leverage each other’s content, technology, sales channels, and other resources.”

According to one report, the move to split off the legal businesses unit is an effort to “help it win back market share lost to Thomson Reuters’ Westlaw in a difficult market.” With Thomson Reuters new initiative to push its product into the one- to three-attorney firms announced last week, and LexisNexis’ push into that same market with its Lexis Advance for Solos product, it should be quite a battle between LexisNexis Legal Businesses and Thomson Reuters Legal in 2011.

This is the third post in an emerging series on law firm profitability. The first was on AFAs and LPM, and the second was on realization’s role. This one explores the role of leverage in profitability.
Traditionally when lawyers spoke of leverage, they were referring to the good ole pyramid. When I talk about leverage, I am focused on two very different things:
  1. Pushing tasks to their lowest cost labor source, and
  2. Improving the profitability of work

Old school leverage is an unsustainable model of growth. This new school leverage is about restructuring a firm for the future.

Recently I saw a presentation from David Wilkins, a Harvard law professor specializing in law firms. He drew a simple, yet elegant graph that helps illustrate my point:
[Graphing technique borrowed from ThisIsIndexed]
The previous post on realization mentions the “rule of three.” When firms measure profitability, they apply a cost rate for each timekeeper. In our rule of three, this cost rate covers the two components of comp and overhead. The graph visually displays this rule – at least for non-partners. And it shows that very ‘young’ associates generally don’t generate enough revenue to create profits. The sweet spot for profit comes from experienced associates or other non-partners, whose revenue to cost ratio is high. Looking closer at this rule shown by the graph, what emerges is the understanding that the rule of 3 only applies to non-partners. This is reasonable, since a portion of partners’ incomes come from that profit. In other words, their revenue to cost ratio is negative especially when you account for their own, base comp. In turn this means firms generally don’t make profits on partner hours billed. As with all rules there are exceptions to this one. Very young partners with relatively low comp and high rates can have profitable hours. Or partners who bill (and collect) extremely high numbers of hours can be exceptions. This happens since cost rates are calculated on a per hour basis, and super high numbers of billable hours drop the cost per hour. A benchmark of billable hours per year for this ‘rule’ might be 2600 per partner. As you might guess, this happens infrequently, so the general rule above on the profitability of partner hours holds pretty well.
The graph makes it abundantly clear that law firms profit from associate hours. And the path to profitability becomes clear: leverage your work. Send as much work as possible to higher margin associates.
Seems simple, doesn’t it?
Yet most firms don’t get this. Primarily because comp systems reward a different behavior. They’re not designed to reward profits – they reward hours and revenue. This is the case since these compensation systems were designed under a different model. This was a cost-plus business model, where profit was built into prices (a.k.a. rates). So partners have not focused on the metric of profitability in this fashion.
Once partners understand this, then it becomes quite natural to shift work to its lowest cost, effective labor source. Ron Baker will likely appreciate this statement: Tasks should be performed at their cheapest, most effective, level of timekeeper. This behavior will lead to improved profitability for law firms. But more importantly, this same behavior will lead to lower costs of service for clients. On a simple, illustrative level this means partners should not be performing tasks associates or paralegals can perform sufficiently well. Doing so undermines profits and raises costs for clients.
So why is this not already happening? Why are firms and clients not behaving like economists would expect? IMHO – because they don’t get it. They don’t yet understand how things have shifted at this basic economic level. This underscores the real transition facing law firms right now. They have lived in the cost-plus world for 50 years and now have to figure out the profit margin model.
Oddly, many clients are actually demanding partners perform most of their tasks. They see this as a “hire the lawyer, not the firm” decision. They want the high expertise of the partner and think an associate is less efficient. This approach assumes all or a majority of tasks are best performed by partners, which is not accurate.
When clients figure this out, and they will, law firms have the much bigger task of living in a profit margin world. This will be the subject of the next post in this series.
Conclusions: Leverage is the key factor in law firm profitability. Although realization has an influence, leverage has a much greater impact. In modeling various fee deals, small changes in leverage have measurable impacts on profitability. I always enjoy quoting Karl Marx when lawyers push me on this issue, “You get rich off of the sweat of another’s brow and not your own.” Which is to say, you make money leveraging the work of others. Both law firms and clients alike will do well to understand this. As they come to an awareness of these dynamics, I predict significant shifts in market behavior.

We thought we would have a little fun this week and play off of the “geek” in our contributors. This week’s question is:

Which Fictional (Star Trek, Monty Python, Dr. Who, mythical, etc.) character do you think would be outstanding in your profession?

Off the top of my head, I picked Mr. Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation. I think he would make a great librarian… especially in these days of electronic books, databases and Google searching. Of course, I’d have to teach him a little bit about the “reference interview” technique, but I think he’d catch on after a few months behind the reference desk (especially around 4:50 PM on Friday’s before a three-day weekend.)

We want to “give thanks” to all of the different perspectives we got this week and wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. While you’re on the couch – taking that obligatory nap – think about contributing to next week’s post. We’ll make it an easy one, since I’m sure the tryptophans are probably going to slow you down. So, read all the perspectives, then take a look at next week’s question to see if you want to dive in and add your special perspective. If you do, then simply email me or tweet me and I’ll give you the instructions on how to contribute.

Patent Librarian
Information Junkie
Kristin Whitman

Hermione Granger, no question!  Her nose is always in a book, cross referencing information, double-checking facts, and using logic to put the whole picture together.  She makes full time use of all sources available to her (including the Hogwarts Library restricted section), but won’t be fooled by a honeyed sales pitch (least of all from those Ministry of Magic types!).  She’s got her (extendable) ear to the ground and a mind like a Devil’s Snare, always gathering new information.  She’s the real behind-the-scenes hero!

The Teacher’s Perspective
Instant knowledge
Véronique Abad

The obvious character for me would be Mr Spock!  He would just have to put his hands on the head off his students and they would instantly know the full content  of the course! Or understand what they done wrong! No communications problems! Also it would be fun to see how he would react to the behaviour of the young generation living their virtual lives online while they are supposed to be practising an exercise.

Marketer
Brain Power
Kathryn DeLia

Going with someone new, Megamind would be a good marketer. Lots of brain power, creative, clever, able to be good and bad at the same time, dresses well and able to choose music. Plus he has good delegation skills as his gives tasks to Minion and his brain bots. See the movie and you’ll know what I mean!

AFA Perspective
Solution Focused
Toby Brown

Austin Powers.  Cuz he’s the International Man of Mystery.  Talk about a man ready to face any challenge head on ….  For example: A challenging partner-like personality – Dr. Evil.  Aggressive Colleague – Felicity Shagwell.  Unexpected group reaction – The Fembots.  Crazed ego-maniacs – Goldmember.  Hands-on research – directly sampling Fat Ba$tard’s ‘evidence.’  Embracing new technologies – running the DVD on the phonograph.  Setting difficult but achievable goals – the Japanese twins.  Keeping a positive attitude no matter the circumstances – Yeah Baby!

Online Marketing Perspective
The Great and Terrible
Lisa Salazar

Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz: Because there’s no place like home … and don’t look behind the curtain!!

Law Librarian Perspective
Going the Extra Light Year
Janet McKinney

I think Scottie (original Star Trek) would be a good librarian, because of his dedication to his job, co-workers, and organization; his ingenuity when having to resolve problems; and because he’s often “givin’ her all she’s got, Captain.”  And knowing how to operate the transporter could be a desired skill in a law firm.

The IT Perspective
Winning in a no-win situation
Scott Preston

Captain Kirk.
One of my favorite Captain Kirk stories is the Kobayashi Maru story.  The Kobayashi Maru refers to a test that is a no-win test.  It is designed to see how a cadet handles a no-win situation.  Kirk who has taken the test twice already figures out how to reprogram the simulator to make it possible to have a winning outcome.  We are, on occasion, faced with what seems to be a no-win situation.  It would be great to have Captain Kirk reprogram the problem to have a winning outcome.

Knowledge Management Perspective
“Shockproof and can think faster than [a] super computer”
Ayelette Robinson

Stitch, from Disney’s Lilo & Stitch, is described by his creator in the film as “shockproof and can think faster than [a] super computer.” I couldn’t think of a better skill set for knowledge managers — the ability to bounce right back from challenges is key; and as the liaisons between attorneys and technologists, we need to be able to address substantive issues both quickly and correctly. As for Stitch’s “superhuman strength,” well… we can dream, can’t we?

Law Librarian Perspective
“Ford Prefect”
Ellen Quinn

Ford Prefect, the roving researcher from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is my choice for an outstanding library related science fiction character.  The Hitchhiker’s Guide is originally set in 1980s England where Ford, an alien from another planet, meets up with his friend Arthur Dent, just minutes before the earth is destroyed to make way for a hyperspace bypass.  As Ford later explains,  he was sent to earth to research the entry for an encyclopedic electronic book “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.”  While Ford’s work ethic is somewhat lacking, he spent 6 years on earth and his entry in the HHTTG for the earth is:  somewhat harmless.
The books in the series are loaded with odd quirky humor and sarcasm.  My brother once described the books as just too weird, even for him.  I have always found them to be delightfully odd and very funny.  The focus of the books, radio program, the 1981 BBC TV series (highly recommended) and other HHGTTG spinoffs is an e-book called The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.  Please note that at the time these books were written, there were no ebooks, no one had personal computers and there was no internet or world wide web.  Name any other TV show or book about a book.  Ok, maybe you can com up with one or two titles but none with the style and wit of the HHGTTG.  The late Douglas Adams who created the HHGTTG also wrote some episodes of Dr. Who, but it is his love of words, satire and humor combined with a very Dr. Who like science fiction world, that make these book and the character of Ford so appealing.
References to the HHGTTG appear throughout the internet.  Have you ever gone to Yahoo’s Babelfish translator and wondered at the odd name for this service?  It is named after the Babel fish, a creature described in the HHGTTG that provides instant language translations.  Although in the book you have to drop the little fish in your ear and it instantly translates any spoken language into something you can understand.
The very sarcastic references in the book to Megadodo Publications are a welcome bit of comic relief for those of us that have to deal with large publishing companies on a daily basis.
Type the “ultimate answer to life the universe and everything” into Google and you will get an answer straight from the HHGTTG = 42.  You need to read the book to get the joke but it is a widespread bit of humor.  The internet was developed by people who clearly knew and loved Adam’s books.  And his anti-authoritarian style while it was developed in the late 1970’s still rings true today.
Ford is Arthur’s guide through the galaxy and like today’s librarians, he interprets the world around him for others and explains the mysteries of the universe.

Another Librarian
Guts & Savvy
Mark Gediman

For my money, Gowron would make a great law firm librarian.  His wild expression and unpredictable nature hid a shrewd politcal operator.  Not everyone could have manipulated both the Romulans and the Federation into fighting a civil war on his behalf.  Can you imagine what this guy’s budget meetings would look like?  Not mention his reference interview skills.  He may not know the answers but can sure manipulate someone into telling him what they are.  And imagine the consequences for those who have the nerve to question whether he’s “necessary.”

Yet Another Librarian
Gorilla Librarian
Jan Rivers



Next Week’s Elephant Post Question:


What Free (or very low-cost) Product do you use everyday that helps you accomplish your job?


Although the saying of “you get what you pay for” usually applies, there are some products that are out there that don’t cost a dime, yet are extremely useful. I probably should have added the caveat of “with the exception of Google,” but I’ll even keep that option open. I know there is one product that I use a lot that is free (although I have contributed to the developer in the past for his hard work.)

If there is something that you use and you’d like to share the name of the product and how you use it, then send me an email or tweet and I’ll give you the instructions on how to submit your contribution.

Happy Thanksgiving!!

Law firms need libraries and need law firm librarians. There have already been several rebuttals posted in reaction to Mr. Lamb’s article, but mostly from the perspective of the library, who presumably want to keep their spaces and their jobs. I however, as a competitive intelligence practitioner, come at from a different perspective – I couldn’t do my job as effectively if I didn’t have law librarians doing theirs and I know many an associate or partner who would feel the same. The question we should be asking instead, is what is the cost of not hiring a law firm librarian??

As Mr. Lamb mentions in his article, the pace of information creation is accelerating. It is my job to take that mess of information, digest it and provide my lawyers with something tangible, actionable and competitive. And how do I do that? For a start, I employ law firm librarians, to help me at every stage of the process. In addition to being the best keepers of information, law librarians are also the most knowledgeable in respect to what sources are the best. As many people (especially inexperienced associates), I am a creature of habit. When a problem comes across my desk – I turn to the sources I use time and time again whether paid subscription databases (which law librarians also spend time vetting and scrutinizing for useful content), free sources or media searches to answer the question. And every time I run into a wall – I send the question to my law librarians, telling them what I have already done and they, without fail, the librarians (seasoned and new) suggest another several places I should look. I’ve seen many partners, students and associates often doing the same. Moreover, once we’ve strategied about new places to source additional information, they do that looking for me, saving me time – letting me get straight to the analysis. To put it in basic terms without over simplifying what they do, law librarians know stuff and they know how to execute. They know how to look for stuff, where to look for it and most importantly in the billable-hour-is-king environment, they know how to do it efficiently.

Which brings me to the next point of Mr. Lambs article that has had me in a fit for several days, “why would a firm need or want to draw a line between where that information came from?” followed closely by the differentiators of “internally created information” vs. “externally created information”. In the land of law firms, there is and should be a huge difference between these two positions and the two positions need to remain distinct, despite Mr. Lamb’s assertion. After all, it is the internally created information that is both a law firm’s currency by way of product and the service it has to sell. Not to mention that librarians as a general rule are not in habit of sourcing material of their own creation. Law librarians (or any librarian as far as I understand) tend to leave the creating of information for the law makers, the authors and the journalists.

Mr. Lamb posits that there is a gap between the way librarians describe themselves and how he would like to see them described. I disagree, law firms and the holy grail of client service are all about relationships, about building trust and being armed with the best possible answer to a problem. Would it not make sense then, for those in the position to broker this information – be it legal research, business development dossiers or client current awareness be imbued with the very same characteristics of loyalty, accuracy, intelligence and friendliness that clients want and expect from their lawyers? Law firm librarians are doing it right – they are meeting the ultimate goal of expert client service and consistency, they are evolving with firms and will continue to do so, as long law firms continue to have information and research needs.

Based on comments from the prior post, “The End of Write-offs?” I thought it would be a good idea to peel back another layer on this onion. The prior post was purposely over-simplified, to focus on the issues of AFAs and LPM. This post will better explore the impact of realization on profitability.
First-off – why is realization important? One comment to the post talked about 50% realization on $2000 per hour is still $1000 per hour. Although $1000 per hour sounds like a high rate, if the timekeeper involved is compensated as if they bill at $2000 per hour, that’s a different matter. The real issue is the relationship between compensation (comp) and billing rates. Rates need to cover comp, overhead and profit. This follows the basic rule of three where rates are broken down into three components: 1) comp + benefits, 2) firm overhead, and 3) profit (a.k.a. partner income). The general rule states that each of the three comprise about one third of the rate.
Functionally this means that every point off of realization means 3 out of profit, since comp and overhead remain the same. This also means that as you approach 67% realization on a timekeeper, a firm’s ability to make a profit disappears. So – $1000 per hour is fine if the timekeeper is compensated at a rate relative to that number. If the timekeeper is compensated relative to the $2000 rate, then 50% realization means the firm is losing money on this person. Since I don’t know many firms who run with rates that high compared to comp, it’s unlikely that $1000 per hour is a profitable rate for a firm in that scenario.
Another point made is that write-offs can come from clients that just don’t pay. This is absolutely true. I focused on write-offs in the prior post, since they are client-identified candidates for no or low value effort. However, write-offs occur for other reasons. It is also true that write-downs occur for multiple reasons. These may be ‘back door’ rate discounts or more likely recognition by the partner of low/no value work by timekeepers on the team. This is yet another prime target for LPM to tackle as it is typically time billed by associates but deemed not worthy of the client bill. LPM would suggest it’s a better idea to direct resources to certain tasks instead of condemning no-value tasks as worthless after the fact.
This was the main point of the prior post. Instead of targeting AFAs, LPM should be focused on eliminating and reducing no and low value efforts by lawyers regardless of the type of fee arrangement.
(The other, actually more important driver of law firm profitability is leverage. But that’s a topic for another post.)
On a final note – Anonymous comments “One additional point, write offs often come from clients that have no money. The client intake process is what needs to be addressed not LPM.” More importantly, I would argue that profitability needs to be addressed. Once that is a firm’s goal (instead of billables/revenue), then LPM, client intake and pretty much every other function at a firm will change. LPM is focused on a symptom – meeting budgets. The better focus is on profitability. That focus will drive real change for firms.

Toby had a chance to sit down with Shy Alter, Peter Krakaur and Andrew Terrett to discuss the practicalities of Legal Project Management. The ILTA TV program discusses the issues surrounding LPM and whether we are attempting to turn attorneys into defacto Project Managers along with the principles and best practices of LPM in law firms.

ILTA TV Roundtable LegalPM from Shay Alter on Vimeo.

We mentioned last week that Thomson Reuters Legal is going to double-down its efforts to sell its products to the one- to three-attorney law firms. From some of the people I’ve talked to, it appears that the majority of these efforts are going to take place through an increase in phone sales focused on these attorneys. So that headline that popped up on the Twin Cities Business website that lead with 60 Eagan, Minnesota jobs going away, but followed up with

“On the flip side, the Eagan campus plans to add an unspecified number of customer-facing sales and marketing positions in order [to] put more of a focus on a growing clientele – one- to three-attorney law firms.” 

I guess “customer-facing” was more figurative than literal in this case.

I know how much we all love sales calls, so I thought I’d point out a few things that my solo and small firm friends might want to do before they head out for the Thanksgiving weekend.

Do Not Call List
Most of the companies you’ll deal with should comply with national Do-Not-Call (DNC) requirements and honor opt-out requests through that service. To add your name to the national DNC list, you may register at www.donotcall.gov. Check with your local state to see if it has also created DNC lists for their residents.


Company Privacy Statements
If you wish to be removed from specific company direct sales lists, you should check out the privacy pages that most (if not all) of the legal publishers post on their websites. I have to give some recognition to LexisNexis for having a very straight-forward opt-out page that isn’t hidden like some of the other publishers seemed to have done. Here is a list of the privacy/opt-out pages that I could find:

Westlaw Online Privacy Policy
LexisNexis Direct Marketing Services Opt-Out
Aspen Publishers Internet Privacy Policy (w/Opt-Out) [note: I did not find one that covered all of Wolters Kluwer Publishers]

Personal Relationships Trump Phone Sales
The key message that I want to spread here is that most of us are turned off by phone sales. Most of the folks I’ve talked to really like dealing with their local representatives (even if we don’t agree with how they are pressured by the regional, national or international managers they work for.) We would much rather sit down with them and go over the new or existing products that may help us in our work. I didn’t talk to a single person that said that they would prefer having direct marketing via phone sales over their local representative. Well… I did have a couple mention that they know the area codes that these calls come in from, and tend to ignore those calls.

We may poke fun at the vendors, but don’t think that a faceless voice on a phone is going to be a better option when it comes to sales and building relationships with your customers.

[Guest Blogger – Deborah McMurray]
I spoke last week at the San Francisco ILTA lunch meeting, held in Littler’s offices. There was a great bit of interest in the topic: “Website and Intranet Best Practices and Highlights of the 2010 Amlaw 100 Websites Research” – so much so that the Albuquerque ILTA chapter joined in by LiveMeeting.
I first launched the study of AmLaw 100 websites in 2005 after realizing that law firms were spending millions and millions of dollars (collectively) on websites, but visitors weren’t getting any happier. Those sites then were not answering fundamental questions of buyers of legal services – what have you done? For whom have you done it? What can you do for me?
My company, Content Pilot, sponsored the research, and in 2005, 2006, 2007 and now 2010, hired industry specialists in key areas to conduct the evaluations. We have just completed the analysis of the 2010 research, and I am now writing and speaking about the findings.
Certain of the Ten Foundational Best Practices and attributes have evolved over the years. The broad web industry has changed, visitor expectations of all websites have changed, and buyers of legal services have told us in client interviews what they are looking for in a law firm website. The 2010 list reflects these changes:
1. Communicating your message
2. Graphics and design
3. Navigation
4. Lawyer biographies
5. Narrative content
6. Web site interactivity and outreach
7. Site search
8. Site optimization for online awareness
9. Firm citizenship
10. Site “hygiene”
Scoring for each of the Ten Foundational Best Practice attributes is on a 100-point scale, and each of the Ten FBPs has 4-8 attributes. It’s important to note that there are no subjective criteria – it’s not our opinion about what’s good or working well, and it has nothing to do with what we like and don’t like. The criteria were all measured objectively. And remember, these are “foundational” best practices – the must-have features and functionality for today’s law firm website. The attributes are quite basic, the antithesis of “out there.” Every major law firm could conceivably earn a perfect score of 100.
There were five industry professionals conducting the research: Jeff Yerkey, Right Hat/Charette Design; John Toth, an experienced freelance legal industry writer; and Blake Davis, Keith Wewe and me, from Content Pilot. We were each assigned one or more of the Foundational Best Practices.
Here is my slide deck, so take a look and contact me with any questions.
Briefly, there is great room for website improvement among the United States’ largest law firms. In 2010, only one law firm earned a score of “excellent,” which was 86-100. Davis Wright Tremaine (www.dwt.com) ranked at the top of the AmLaw 100 list with a score of 87.8. The Top 25 firms all scored above 70.6. “Good” is from 71-85 on a 100-point scale. Interestingly, even though the Ten FBPs were slightly changed from our 2007 research, the total scores in 2007 were surprisingly close to those in 2010. In 2007, only one firm scored excellent (WilmerHale – www.wilmerhale.com), but the Top 25 firms all scored 77.0 or better.
What brought the 2010 scores down? Lawyer biographies (the 4th FBP), the most important section of a law firm website (more than one-half of all visitors to a law firm website go to the lawyer bios, and often that’s the only place they go), ranked only “Fair” with a score of 65.5. One of the attributes is, “Includes links to social media profiles and pages.” Only one AmLaw 100 firm included them – Winston & Strawn (www.winston.com). Only 30 firms organized the bios in a way to accommodate long lists of experience or news/articles – i.e. displaying 5-10, with a “view more” (or all).
Another FBP that should have received higher scores was Foundational Best Practice #6 – Website Interactivity and Outreach. These criteria relate to how dynamic, interactive and “Web 2.0” the sites are. Only 14 sites include social media links – “Effectively uses LinkedIn, Facebook or Twitter on Careers pages or other pages of the site.” Only 34.7% include links to blogs from practice, industry and bio pages. And only 28.5% “Effectively use video on site to further messaging.”
I have a White Paper coming soon that will include the Top 25 firms for each of the Foundational Best Practices, plus additional findings and comparison between the 2007 and 2010 research. I will alert you when it’s ready!
Stay tuned for an upcoming blog post about the other part of my presentation “2011 Intranet Best Practices.”

By Mark Gediman In his recent post on the ABA Journal’s The New Normal Blog (“Does it Pay to Hire a Law Firm Librarian”), Patrick Lamb posits that only those firms that need a resident expert for online research would need a Librarian. In fact, Mr. Lamb doesn’t think a library is necessary. Needless to say, this post has created some waves in the Law Library Community. In my mind, I agree with John DiGilio that this post is a consequence of the “they know what I do and where to find me if they need me” mindset that we find all too often in law firm libraries. How to change this dynamic?

  • Sell your services.
  • Posts both here and elsewhere have discussed in detail the value of continually marketing both yourself and the library to the firm.
  • Provide simple user interfaces to facilitate access to firm resources.
  • See my previous post on this topic.
  • Create products and services customized for practices and departments.

Something as simple as a daily news sheet, offering customized resource training or meet with each practice group. Create specialized products for Competitive intelligence. In short, only you can raise your profile. Now, I do think Mr. Lamb is wrong about a few things:

  • Print is not obsolete for four reasons (at least):
  1. Some specialty treatises are only available in print;
  2. It is more efficient to use the print materials in some cases (such as the Rutter Guides);
  3. Attorneys still prefer to use the codes they reference daily in print;
  4. It’s easier to bring book when a visiting a client than going online.
  • Librarians are not only research consultants.
  1. We may not know the answer but we do know how to find the answer, quickly and efficiently.
  2. We can identify opportunities for savings through elimination of redundant resources and contract expertise
  3. We know how the firm works as a whole as well as its parts. We can tell you who knows what or where to find what.

My feeling is that Librarians and Libraries are morphing beyond just keepers and repositories of knowledge. They are becoming high-speed retrieval and analysis specialists that leverage the vast knowledge base of the firm, both internal and external, online and print. Without our expertise (yes, full disclosure, I’m a Law Firm Librarian), firms would waste time and money-wait…those are the same thing. Mr. Lamb does not appear to be very well informed when it comes to the role of both Libraries and Librarians in the Modern law firm. Librarians are not a holdover of a bygone age. We have evolved into necessary navigators through the hybrid (both digital and print) world of legal research.