Whether you like ‘em, hate ‘em, or just don’t care about ‘em… you have to admit that it has been an exciting week for the folks in Eagan, Minnesota. Let’s just step back and break down what happened this week:
11/16/2010 –  Major outage of Thomson Reuters online products (Westlaw, WestlawNext and more)
11/17/2010 –  Word of layoffs start coming in for members of the West Library Relations Management team.
11/17/2010 –  Turns out not just the West LRM team is effected… 60 total employees are cut.
11/18/2010 –  We get a letter from Chris Cartrett explaining the layoffs and TR Legal’s plans on moving forward.
11/18/2010 –  BARBRI sends out a letter announcing that TR Legal is exploring selling off BAR/BRI.
11/18/2010 –  TR Legal announces that it is buying Pangea3, an Indian Legal Process Outsourcing firm for $35-$40 million.
Now, we’ve been hearing mumblings all this week about the layoffs, and apparently, the 60 mentioned may be some creative accounting on the part of TR Legal. We’ll have to see once the dust has settled if it turns out that more folks were let go that may not technically count as “layoffs.” I also found it interesting that one of the comments that came out of TR Legal’s Scott Augustin, was that TR Legal is going after the one- to three-attorney law firms for its business. I wish my solo and small firm friends the best of luck on that!!
The news about the Pangea3 LPO purchase is one that may not have hit the radar of the mainstream law firm or law library world, but trust me on this… this may be the biggest news of the week, and it may have a ripple effect for months or years to come. Again, we’ll have to see what happens when the dust settles.
A friend of mine that recently returned from Greece, Tottie Keal (you may remember her as Tottie Degaitas) and pointed out a few substantial statements that Thomson Reuters made in its November 6K filing. The areas of concern are that:
1.      Print subscriptions are at historic lows (probably going to get worse)
2.      Law firms are watching expenses and are not using online databases that are outside of their contracts.
3.      It seems that Thomson Reuters had a sizable risk in the foreign currency market, and took a bath from losses in the British Pound and the Euro.
Here’s the section of the 6K:
For the three months ended September 30, 2010, revenues from subscription offerings, which include Westlaw and other businesses, increased 8%. Subscription growth was led by our international businesses which increased 14%, (including contributions from Revista dos Tribunais and Canada Law Book, which we acquired in May and August 2010, respectively), Intellectual Property which increased 7%, and FindLaw which increased 23% (including contributions from Super Lawyers, which we acquired in February 2010). Increases from subscription offerings were offset by lower print and non-subscription revenues, which each decreased 4%. However, the print attrition rate has slowed substantially from the prior year period and is nearing historical levels. The moderate decline in print also reflected that the first half of 2009 benefited from some favorable timing. Within our non-subscription businesses, revenues from trademark searches increased, however, we continued to experience double-digit declines in Westlaw ancillary revenues as customers continue to monitor spending above their base subscription contracts. In the nine-month period, subscription revenues increased 5%, while print and non-subscription revenues declined 10% and 5%, respectively.
Our operations are diverse and global in nature and therefore expose us to foreign exchange risk related to cash flows in currencies other than the U.S. dollar, in particular to the British pound sterling and the Euro.
In 2010, we implemented a program to mitigate our foreign exchange exposure by entering into a series of foreign exchange contracts to purchase or sell certain currencies in the future at fixed amounts. These instruments have not been designated as hedges for accounting purposes. As such, we recognized losses of $32 million and $4 million, reflecting the change in the fair value of these contracts, within “Other finance income (costs)” for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively. The cumulative notional amounts of contracts outstanding at September 30, 2010 were $385 million to sell Euros, $227 million to buy British pounds sterling and $110 million to sell Japanese yen. These arrangements settle at various dates over the next 12 months and represented a net liability at fair value of $10 million at September 30, 2010, which was included within “Other financial assets–current” and “Other financial liabilities-current” in our statement of financial position. We may enter into additional derivative financial instruments in the future in order to mitigate our foreign exchange risk. See note 20 of our 2009 annual financial statements for additional information. (emphasis added)
Thomson Reuters is a huge muti-billion dollar company, so this is a little blip on the radar screen for them. However, for those of us having to deal with Thomson Reuters “Legal” group, these shakeups, layoffs, acquisitions, losses and trends are something that remind us that the days of dealing with our friends at “Westlaw” are long gone. 

[Note: I had someone email me this to post, but needed to stay anonymous]

I read a great article in the ABA Journal entitled, Does It Pay to Hire a Law Firm Librarian? by Patrick Lamb.  I though Lamb offered a very pertinent discussion about the future of law librarians and about staying relevant, particularly the points about about knowledge management (internal and external), resource evaluation and finding information and making it pertinent.

Lamb touched on the notion that we have a unique role in that we touch vendors as well as many internal departments and consequently have a deep and unique knowledge base of both internal and external information bases. As this articles suggests, it is important that we spread that message and take advantage of opportunities that may arise.

One point I think Lamb missed was ability to critically analyze and present information  Through experience, education or both, librarians are and can be subject matter experts who take large amounts of data and distill it into relevant summaries of information.  If you send out a newsletter of selected stories and summarize the contents, you are doing this.  If you summarize, however briefly, the results of a research request (yes, even highlighting the pages to review), you are doing this.   As Lamb notes, with more and more data out there, the art of honing in on what is important will be a highly desirable skill.

I was a little surprised to see how “a small group” of librarians allegedly characterized their value to an organization, based on the results of a “recent survey.” Not that the characteristic noted are not important.  I like loyalty as much as the next person! And my cataloging skills are so nonexistent, that I am grateful for anyone who has that ability.  But I am not the audience to impress.  What the comments lack is a tie back to business values and an adequate description of what unique skills librarians have to support those business values.  Those are the sorts of characterizations that make decision makers pay attention.

Let’s face it… sometimes you just skim through those documents, websites, blogs or news articles because you just don’t have the time to digest it all. We all do it, but what if there were something that could help you skim through a document and quickly identify the key sentences for you? I ran across one such tool yesterday and thought I’d share my review with you.

Summarity is a software/website that condenses articles into digestible pieces. Through a “sophisticated yet elegant” process (or, as I like to call it… “Magic”), Summarity culls through the text and finds the sentences that seem most relevant. The result is something that (usually) sums up the article in a way that lets you hit the high-points of what is being discussed.

Summarity produces two types of results – block text of the summary, or a skimmed version that puts the summarized sentences in bold type. You can also use the Summarity bookmarks in your browser to block text or skim the actual website you are reading. As an example, here is Summarity’s version of the letter we got from Thomson Reuters yesterday explaining the field changes going on at TR Legal:

Library Relation Managers are a core part of how we service our clients – as are our reference attorneys, research specialists, account managers and sales executives. 

We remain deeply committed to fostering the library community through innovation, service, product excellence and corporate citizenship.

The changes we made this week are centered in two areas: 1) We have to utilize all of our resources to service our clients, and 2) we must do a better job of servicing the growing branch offices of our clients. This week’s changes aligned our resources across the company to give us greater coverage to more firms and more librarians.

Thank you, Chris Chris Cartrett Vice President, Sales and Account Management Large and Medium Law Firms Thomson Reuters

That’s actually not a bad result in my opinion.

You can also take the same text, through the Summarity website, and it will highlight these sections and allow you to skim through the entire piece.

The other options are to use the Summarity bookmarks to either block text the web page or create a skimmed version of that page. Using the same example as above, here are the links to view what it looks like:

The whole process isn’t perfect, but it seems to do a pretty good job from the tests that I’ve run on it. I’d have to say that I’m more of a fan of the Skimmed Text version than of the block text, but that may just be me being careful that I’m not missing something important in the text.
I actually used this yesterday after I got a long set of “new guidelines” on an upcoming project. Once the guidelines were put through the Summarity sophisticated yet eloquent process, I was actually able to identify the key aspects of the new policy a lot faster through the highlighted sections. 
Give Summarity a try and let us know what you think of it.

As many of you probably know by now, there was a shake-up at the Thomson Reuters Legal (West) Library Relations Team where about half of the team was laid off. The changes at TR Legal went well beyond this specific team, but since many of us personally know some of the team, it was this transition that immediately caught our attention. When something similar happened back in January, Anne Ellis sent me an email explaining the decision and what the plans were going forward. I asked Anne yesterday to let me know about this round of layoffs, and she asked Chris Cartrell, Vice President for Sales and Account Management, to respond to my question. Below is Chris’ email and I am now sharing that with you.

Hey Greg,
I hope you are well. Anne forwarded your information request on to me. I am sorry that I could not respond yesterday but we were still communicating with individuals that had job changes. I hope you can appreciate our need to communicate with each individual before responding in a public forum.
I believe your specific question was related to our Library Relations team. We made some changes within our sales and account management organization this week which will help us better respond to the changing marketplace. And as you noted, the librarian relations program was not immune to the changes. We did create several new opportunities and positions, but there were also some positions eliminated. Library Relation Managers are a core part of how we service our clients – as are our reference attorneys, research specialists, account managers and sales executives. We have had to adjust our customer-facing roles to address the core changes the legal marketplace has seen in the past several years, while looking broadly at our work with customers to make sure we are providing excellent service and training as efficiently as possible. We remain deeply committed to fostering the library community through innovation, service, product excellence and corporate citizenship. To that extent, all of the recent changes in our service approach are intended to meet the changing needs of librarians.
The changes we made this week are centered in two areas: 
1) We have to utilize all of our resources to service our clients, and 
2) we must do a better job of servicing the growing branch offices of our clients. 
This week’s changes aligned our resources across the company to give us greater coverage to more firms and more librarians. Specifically, we have increased our dedicated coverage to branch offices six-fold. Our librarians have consistently requested that we assist them with more in-house training, e-learning, on-demand virtual support options, and greater support of branch offices. The moves we have taken this week help us achieve these goals.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions. Obviously, these are difficult decisions, but we do feel that these changes allow us the best opportunity to service you better. We are working closely with employees affected by these decisions to help them transition to their next role, either with Thomson Reuters or outside the business.
(Please feel free to post this entire email via your blog.)
Thank you,
Chris
Chris CartrettVice President, Sales and Account Management
Large and Medium Law Firms
Thomson Reuters

Dealing with vendors isn’t always a bad experience… but we all have our horror stories. This week we’ve asked our group of contributors to share a few of those, or to share some positive experiences as examples for other vendors to learn from.

Without Naming Names (unless you want to…) What drives you crazy when dealing with vendors? – And/Or – Have you had positive dealings with a vendor that other vendors could learn from? 

I put this question out on a law library listserv last week, so we have a lot of library vendors stories. I’m sure you can relay these stories over to your own perspective.

Next week, we are having some fun with the Elephant Post, and we are hoping to get a lot of short answers from a lot of different perspectives. So, to make it easy for you, I’m listing the question here in hopes that you will email or tweet me for details on how to contribute to next weeks Elephant Post:

Next Week’s Elephant Post: What Fictional Character (Star Trek, Monty Python, etc) would be outstanding in your profession?

Because next Thursday is Thanksgiving, we’ll post next week’s Elephant Post on Wednesday, November 24th.

The AFA Perspective
Vendor’s “Lack of Homework”
Toby Brown

I appreciate that vendors need to make cold calls to generate business.  That being said, it is very easy to screw these up and hard to get them right.  If you are going to spend the resources on such an effort, make sure you handle them well.  If you don’t, not only have you wasted your time, you have wasted my time, creating a negative impression of your company with me and my firm.

For some reason I have had a recent burst of vendor cold calls.  My advice based on this recent experience:

Before you call me do a little homework to find out what my role is at my firm.  My LinkedIn profile is very easy to find, so this is not asking much.  When you call to pitch a records management product to me (well outside my role), you take your first strike.

The next big mistake I have seen, repeatedly on these calls, is the sales person ask for me to give them the name of the person at the firm that handles records management.  Really?!?!?  You were too lazy to find out my role and now you take that laziness a quantum leap further and ask me to do your job?  And in the process expose a colleague to the same treatment you just gave me?  I think not.  This reminds me of an old Jerry Seinfeld bit.  Next time I should ask for their home number so the “right” contact at the firm (in China) can call them at their convenience … around 2:00 a.m.

The bottom-line: customer service starts at the beginning – even with a cold call.  Make sure this is a good experience and your success rate will increase.

The IT Perspective
Vendor’s “Lack of CRM”
Scott Preston

What drives me crazy is getting a cold call, email, or a request for an appointment to ‘discover opportunities’ from a company that is already our vendor.

Two weeks ago I received an email that went something like this:
Dear Scott,
We provide long distance call analysis to many law firms similar to Fulbright.  We would like to have a short meeting to discuss how Fulbright can benefit from our services . . .

Here is a list of firms that currently use our services:
ABC Firm
Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.
XYZ Firm.

Come on vendors, stop wasting my time (and yours).
How about a little quality assurance?
The Library Perspective
Vendor’s “TMI”
Greg Lambert

One of my favorite memories of dealing with a vendor was when I worked for the Oklahoma Supreme Court. I sat across the table from a vendor and we announced that we were not accepting the offer that they made. What happened next was surreal. The vendor told us that we had to sign the contract because “My reps have mouths to feed at home.”

Look… I’m a pretty compassionate guy, but I had to basically say “I Don’t Care!” to that.

Negotiations are business decisions, not personal ones. Don’t confuse the fact that I may like you (or not like you) personally, with the value of your product. Those two things are completely separate. When it comes to your product, I only want to know three things:
What It Is
What It Does
How Much It Costs

That’s it. Trying to tie personal feelings to the decision making process is not going to get you anywhere… no matter how many mouths you have to feed at home.

[Note: I had another experience this week that I thought I’d share with you… I really don’t like it when a vendor sets up a phone meeting with you and cannot figure out that the Central Time Zone is only one hour behind the Eastern Zone. When they call an hour late (or two hours early), I usually let it roll over to voicemail.]
The Internet Marketing Perspective
Legal Services Vendors: Friend or Foe?
Lisa Salazar

I have a favorite rep.

She does everything right: right amount of phone calls, right amount of e-mails, right amount of in-person meetings. She’s personable, kind, thoughtful.

In the 6 years that I have known her, she has managed to do what I wish attorneys would do: she’s become a friend.
A Second Library Perspective
7 Ways to be a Strong Vendor/Partner
Jill Strand

Having been a sales rep for a large trade publisher, I see my vendor reps as potential partners who can help my Library (and their company/product) be perceived as a valuable asset to my firm.  While I am quite certain that I didn’t do everything right as a rep, I did learn that my knowledge of products, understanding of my buyers’ needs and willingness to tackle problems would be my strongest selling points.  As such, here are the qualities I value most in my best vendor reps:

  1. Acknowledging my email/voice mail so that I know they have my request.  If they can’t get back to me quickly, they usually at least give me an idea of when they can.
  2. They thoroughly read and note all of my questions in an email.  It can be frustrating to organize and craft careful questions only to have some go unacknowledged.  Again, knowing that the rep is working on it and when they think they can get back to me is most helpful.
  3. They let me know in advance if prices for their product(s) will be increasing if they think I’m interested in making a purchase. NOT: This is not the same as asking me to rush my decision-making process to meet the vendor’s end-of-month or end-of-year sales goals or to take advantage of a “time-sensitive” offer or discount.  My job is to do what is best for my firm, not what is best for the vendor’s bottom line.
  4. They’ll ask me for a start date before initiating a free trial.  We try to schedule trial for when certain groups are most likely to be available to take part and offer their feedback.
  5. They have a thorough grasp of the content, scope and features of their products.  I’m often reviewing a variety of tools for different practice areas and rely on reps to explain what makes their product valuable and unique from the competition.  We certainly do our own testing but I leave it to the rep to do the selling.  The best ones will also pay close attention to attorney’s questions during a demonstration and answer them there or follow up with answers or more detail soon afterwards.
  6. Actively solicit and act upon feedback to improve their products.  While I’m happy to volunteer for beta-testing of new products, it is frustrating to suddenly have a new version or interface pushed out that hasn’t had a proper vetting.  Testing products in a pristine technological environment without exposure to commonly used programs on most of our computers won’t fly.  Gaining buy-in and input from clients and potential customers is more important than unveiling something new by a specific date or at a certain trade show.
  7. They make it easy to understand the pricing and cost increases for individual items and content sets.  Bundling titles, print and electronic, etc. may appear on the surface to save us money but it actually makes it harder to compare apples to apples, much less track costs.  Even if they don’t have control over how pricing is set up, creating a simple spreadsheet with cost breakdowns and projected price increases is a huge help, particularly as I try to budget for new products.  However, if obstrufication is a vendor’s vehicle to profits, then my firm will never be a profitable client. 

With reps, colleagues and clients, I’ve always tried to be straightforward about any concerns or issues.  We all drop the ball once in a while and appreciate a chance to improve.  So if I need something more from my rep, I will ask them for it first before speaking with their manager.  That said, many thanks to all those vendor reps who go out of their way to make my job easier because they understand that, in the long run, a happy client will make their job easier.

The Competitive Intelligence Perspective
The Hard Sell
Zena Applebaum

We recently had a vendor arrange for a demo of the product to a wide variety of lawyers.  The product came with rave reviews from a  number of lateral hires who claimed to not be able to live without it.  The demo started well and everyone was enjoying the products ease of use and search capability from research staff to associates and partners, everyone of the 20+ people in the room could see a use for the product. Then, without warning, the mood turned aggressive.  When asked if there any questions in the room, no one spoke. So the vendor did, asking the entire room full of people what he needed to do to get us to buy the product, he pushed further, asking if it was a issue of money or licenses or competitor products.  Details and processes for purchase that fly well over the heads of most firm users.   I finally had to break the awkward round of questioning and point out that a product demo to a room full of lawyers who don’t manage research budgets was likely not the appropriate place for this type of conversation.  Needless to say, the partners in the room were not to pleased that they had spent their “billable” time being sold to.

I beg and plead with all vendors  of legal products and services out there to save the heavy sales talk for the appropriate stakeholders (if you have to use it at all) and not anyone who may one day come in contact with the product.  We’ve since subscribed to the product because it is a good one but based on the sales savvy of the organization, I would have ended our relationship right then and there during the hard sell demo.  Let your products do the talking and the selling for you.

The Knowledge Management Perspective
“No” is Not the Right Answer
Ayelette Robinson

If you’re working with a customer who makes a request, don’t say “no.” And certainly don’t say “no” followed by a litany of reasons why it’s a ridiculous request. This does not mean that you have to accommodate every request; it means that the customer has a need that you’re not addressing. As the product designer/developer/customizer, it’s your job to ask more questions and listen to what the customer really needs. It may be that the solution the customer offered was not the best one, but it’s part of your role to understand what the underlying need is and to find the right solution – i.e. get to “yes.” What will win you points is not your ability to describe a product’s existing features, but rather your ability to design creative and elegant solutions to a customer’s needs.
Another Library Perspective
Vendor Shout Out
Karen Lasnick

I probably have the same countless horror stories that everyone else has, but I have to give a shout out to our West inside rep, Paul Baranek, who handles all our offices in the U.S. He does a great job for us, no matter how bad the situation is and always with a great attitude. I’ve never felt like I was being mollified or give a load of b.s. from him, even when what he tells me it isn’t what I want to hear. I would be much less inclined to grumble if all our vendors were like Paul.

Another Library Perspective
Database Vendors Who Don’t Believe Me When I Say:
Ellen Quinn
Don’t go around me to the attorneys.  I will find out and then I will have a bad opinion of you and the product you are trying to sell.
Price matters.
Quality matters.
Reliability matters.
Customer support is critical.
Down time is unacceptable.  Don’t tell me why your database is down, I don’t care.  Just tell me when it will be back up and that this will never happen again.  I am keeping track so you can’t fool me.
No means no.
If your product does not meet my user’s needs,  I will find one that will.  

Another Library Perspective
Be a Boy Scout
Janet McKinney

A couple of years ago we were looking to add some current awareness tools to our intranet.  One vendor in particular (most of you would recognize the name) had solutions that looked very promising.  We decided to make a push for getting some budget allocations for the product in the next fiscal year and arranged for a demo with the CIO and a couple of other stakeholders.  The person giving the presentation simply wasn’t prepared.  It was obvious that he didn’t know his audience, seemed to have no clue about the positions some of them held, and he didn’t really focus on our interests.  This information was supplied to the sales rep., but either didn’t get to person doing the demo or he forgot it, so the demo went off like a disastrous cold call.  I think it will take a turnover in administration for this vendor to be considered any time in the future.

And One More Library Perspective
How About A Little Respect?
Jan Rivers

Maybe it’s just me, but I really wish vendors would stop with the “sales-speak” and would just talk to me like a normal person. Spare me the jargon and buzzwords and let’s just have a conversation. Everyone uses the same descriptors for their products, so they are meaningless to me as a way of making your product stand out from the others. In fact, the more “salesy” the speech, the less substance I feel it has regarding actual information.

Vendors seem to travel in groups, which is fine if you are expecting more than one person for your meeting. If I’ve set-up a meeting with one person, I am highly irritated if they show up with two or three others in tow. If you plan on bringing more people with you, tell me in advance so that I not only can ensure having a conference room big enough to accommodate everyone vs. meeting in my office, but I also am better prepared to have a meaningful dialogue with the additional people. Also, please be on time or let me know you are running late.

Sometimes I just want some basic information about a new resource. Don’t assume that every inquiry for information means that I want a price proposal for it. Please give me the information I ask for and if I want a trial of the product or pricing information, I will be back in touch with you.

Please do not contact my managing partner or my firm’s attorneys directly. It not only is discourteous to me, but they will also just refer you back to me. It does nothing but waste their time and yours and generate irritation with me and others in my group.

Finally, the trend by some vendors of transitioning their product to a new platform which they only offer via enterprise-wide subscriptions is doing all of us a disservice. Budgets are tight and where previously we may have had a few people with access to the product, now we are being asked to pay many, many times more for the revised product since it’s now only available as an enterprise-wide service. Tough choices have to be made- disenfranchise a small group of people who really need the resource or disenfranchise others via cancelling other products so that we have the funds to cover the increased costs of the new product. Budgets aren’t going up in proportion to the cost increases imposed by vendors. The more vendors who move to this kind of model, the fewer products all of us will be able to afford.
Just Kidding… One More Library Perspective
You Didn’t Get My Business… Ask Me Why
Elaine Dockens

What continues to amaze me is that a vendor on the losing end of a  head-to-head competition for our business,  never makes an appointment to find out why they lost.    This bothers me because I don’t feel it’s my place to call up the vendor and say – this is why you lost and if you do x, y, and z next  time, you might win.   However, if asked, I would make comments that would be general enough to share with both sides equally, but still be helpful.
When vendors compete for our business, it benefits the law firm if they both are at the top of their game.  I’ve seen a vendor win a contract, not because they were so good, but because the other side was so bad at reading what the firm actually needed.  By doing a post-game review, the losing vendor  could  improve their chances for next time.
As for other things that bother me about vendors,  I pretty much exhausted my list in the article I wrote for LLRX last year [Vendor Pitfalls in Negotiating Large Multi-Year Contracts – or How to Lose a Million Dollar Contract.]

Seriously… This is the last Librarian Perspective (for now…)
Half-Baked Sale – Vendor’s Lack of Product Development
Nancy Warren

One of my greatest frustrations with vendors is being pitched a product that is half-baked.

Two examples:

  1. One of the major legal content providers wanted to sell us a suite for transactional attorneys.  After reviewing the product for less than an hour, I found content that was mislabeled and out of order, navigation that was redundant, navigation that was missing, a complete lack of scope notes for the content areas, and category labels that were so vague, it was impossible to anticipate how to accomplish any research using the product. 
  2. Another one of the major legal vendors wanted to sell us an additional content library.  Since the other content we have from this vendor is satisfactory, we invited a handful of attorneys to the initial presentation.  This was a huge mistake as the sales representative had almost no knowledge of the new content library and thus, no awareness that it was utterly insufficient to be a viable resource for that area of law. 

Two requests for vendors:

  1. Please understand that the library staff are specialists in reviewing resources.  We will scrutinize the content, compare it to resources we already have and to potential purchases, and will weigh its value against our needs and budget.  We are also very familiar with a variety of user interfaces and understand which ones are more intuitive for our users.  Don’t insult us and don’t waste our time by showing us half-baked products.
  2. If you want to show us half-baked products, get us involved earlier in the development  process.  I realize that this takes money and time and that there is pressure to release products as soon as possible because the competition is tight but we are willing to provide feedback when doing so will benefit our institution.  Our expertise and time are valuable and a coffee gift card isn’t enough. 

Doing it right:

Recently, I was pleasantly surprised during a demonstration of a legal services product.  We had seen the product about 7 months ago and at that time, expressed some interest but said that it was missing some key features.  Not only did they implement the one item that we said was a deal-breaker but they added some of the other features we recommended to their development schedule.  While it is possible that current customers were also asking for these features, it was a pleasant surprise to see that the product was noticeably improved and that the vendor specifically addressed the feedback we had provided.  Needless to say, we are considering making the move to this vendor.

Remember that next week’s Elephant Post on What Fictional Character Would Be Great In Your Profession, will go out on Wednesday!!
Email or Tweet me for information on how you can contribute to this fun post!!

When it comes to solving a problem, do you color inside or outside the lines? Do you fall back on how similar problems have been treated before, or do you take a fresh look at what might prevent it from happening again?

All of us encounter the same types of problems over and over again — a user not adopting a system, a project running longer than anticipated, an application that just can’t do what you need it to. But how many times do we take a step back to assess if there’s a way to address the issue that might just be better than the way we’ve dealt with it before? Innovation should never be an end in itself, but solving problems in better ways than we have in the past should be.
As a knowledge manager, part of my role is to make sure that the practitioners at my firm have access to all the ways other practitioners at my firm have handled similar issues before. But I’d hate for that to be the end of the line. As Toby recently pointed out, modeling future choices on past behavior is not always possible, nor is it even necessarily reliable. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing that we should never rely on the past; when like equals like, reinventing the wheel is the epitome of foolishness. But relying on the past solely because it was done in the past is not good enough. Each time we face a challenge or a puzzle to solve, we need to evaluate not just the problem but also the past solutions, and assess if there’s a better way.
I remember when a good friend of mine got the latest toy on the market for her birthday — she immediately put the headphones on, found her favorite cassette to put into the yellow box clipped to her belt, and began dancing around the living room while no one else could hear the music she was playing. I’ll always have fond memories of that yellow box (which, to be sure, was itself a true innovation). But something tells me there’s an even better way.

Greg and I were talking over lunch recently about the role of Legal Project Management (LPM). The more I have dug into this topic, the more skeptical I have become about its role with AFAs. The common wisdom is that the fixed fee aspect of AFAs will drive the need for LPM. On its face, this common wisdom makes sense. But after facing the issue head-on in recent dialogues, I have come to a different conclusion.
LPM should be directed at unprofitable work, regardless of the type of billing arrangement. Pointing LPM at all AFAs is like saying all oil leaks come from cracked engine blocks, therefore all oil leaks require engine replacements. Having seen 100’s of AFAs, I can tell you most of them will not benefit that much from LPM.
But LPM does have value. The real question is where is LPM best deployed? To answer that question, let’s talk law firm econ 101. Two primary factors impact law firm profitability: Realization and Leverage. For this discussion, we will focus on realization. Realization is the difference between standard rates billed and money collected. So if 10 hours of work is done, but a firm only collects on 80% of that fee – realization is 80%. Three things impact realization: 1) Discounts, 2) Write downs (before the client sees the bill), and 3) Write-offs. Of the three, write-offs become an obvious place to start, because that is time billed that the client saw on the bill but obviously found no value in. Or in other words, the client is saying that work should not have been done.
Bingo! That is one of the primary roles of LPM – making sure only the right tasks are done.
My advice for getting the most out of LPM efforts: Large and consistent write-offs are strong indicators of cracked engine blocks, so pick your large matters with the biggest write offs and point LPM at those.

[Guest Blogger – Janice Henderson]

Shocking news has occurred with the West Librarian Relations Management (LRM) team with major layoffs.  This was the second round of layoffs for the West LRM in less than a year. According to insiders, long time colleagues: Mark Schwartz (Director), Elaine Lee, Craig Griffith, Michelle Lucero and Erika Beck have been given their walking papers.  Anne Ellis and Lori Headstrom have missed this new development and are still employees of Thomson Reuters.  But for how long?

The question you may ask is why is this happening.  Is the answer purely economic?  I think the bigger question is what Thomson Reuters and to a lesser extent LexisNexis thinks about the librarian community.  The firing of the Librarian Relations Managers indicates that the companies feel that contacting librarians to purchase their products or maintaining a robust librarian relationship is no longer of value to them.

We are seeing this in Thomson Reuters sales strategies for WestlawNext. They are bypassing the librarians and going directly to the CEOs and COOs.  The best way to counteract this strategy is to have our executives push back and have the companies contact us as their experts in negotiating contracts.  If you don’t have this relationship with your COOs and Managing Partners, you need to start creating that relationship now or find your self looking in from the outside instead of being a vital part of management.

It took us years to earn the respect of our management teams.  But we seem to be sliding back to where we were pre-1990s. We have been steadily losing ground.  We lost ground in the 1990s when firms started putting IT Directors in charge of the library.  We’re losing ground in this decade as the Marketing Department is overshadowing us with business research.  In law schools Library Director positions are being filled by  non-librarians.  If we want to go the way of the Librarian Relations Managers, then sit back and do nothing.  But if you want to remain a viable member of the management team, you need to get up and remind them of your value.

Seeing Lisa’s post last night discussing lawyers being timid about putting their contacts on LinkedIn made me think of another story that I’ve heard lately. In fact, I’ve heard it so often, from different people, that I think it may  actually qualify as an “urban legend.” Okay… stop me if you’ve already heard this one:

“Did you hear that one of the attorneys in the firm got pulled off a case by a client? Yeah… Apparently the attorney joined a [LinkedIn and/or Facebook] group that was [pro / anti] – [gun control / environment / GLBT] and one of the clients saw it and got angry. Yeah… I know… So, the client told the Partner in charge to pull this attorney off of all of their matters. I hear that the firm is going to ban all social media that can be linked back to the firm because of this. Makes you want to shutdown your [Facebook/LinkedIn/Twitter] account, doesn’t it?”

Have you heard one of these stories? (I told you to stop me!!)

It reminds me of the urban legends like the choking dog, only to find out the dog was choking on the fingers of a robber that was still in the house… or the “don’t flash your lights” at cars that are driving with no lights on because it may be a gang initiation and they will kill you. Stories that play on a combination of fear and ignorance – not necessarily reality.

If you have a client that is that sensitive to what their attorney’s personal “likes” are… then you might want to stop putting out press releases where you did pro-bono work for Katrina victims, or abused women, or anything that might offend a client. Don’t accept those awards for Top Lawyers Under 40 (because your client may not want those young-un’s working on their matters). Don’t boast about the diversity in your firm, because your client may be a closeted bigot. Perhaps you just shouldn’t say anything at all… would that be a good marketing policy? Well, it probably wouldn’t be a great social media policy either.

Instead of making social media policy based on fear and ignorance, train your attorneys and staff about the benefits and the pitfalls that come with potentially exposing personal information to the world. Having people that understand the good and the bad of social media will make them smarter in the way they use it. I usually tell attorneys that the golden rule of social media is pretty simple – “just don’t say anything stupid.”

If I had a quarter for every time a lawyer asks me, “How can I hide my contacts on LinkedIn? Won’t everyone steal my contacts if I post them,” I’d be … well, I will save that discussion when ever you ask me out for drinks …
That said, lawyers are TERRIFIED that if they post their contacts on LinkedIn that everyone will swarm their contact list and steal their clients.
Let me assure you, Dear Lawyer, that will only happen if you have a really cruddy relationship with the people on your contact list.
There I said it.
If someone can simply steal your contact by going on LinkedIn, then you, Dear Lawyer, have much bigger worries.
Your contact list is based upon your relationships with the people with whom you do business. Hopefully, over the years, you have developed meaningful relationships with these people. And, I hate to break it to you, but your contacts do have other relationships. Yes, its true. They are not monogamous. Your clients are seeing other people.
If you are that worried about your relationship with your significant other–err, client–then perhaps you should be spending more time alone together.