There seems to be universal acceptance that the business model of law firms is broken or needs to be broken (depending on your point of view). But not much has been said about the service model. True – Legal Project Management (LPM) is touted as an effective tool for bringing efficiency and effectiveness to law firms, but from what I have seen LPM is focused on the current model for providing services.
Two conversations following my post on Re-thinking Expenses lead to me a new line of thinking. My comment about “re-tooling and modifying the production process” for automakers was the genesis for this. Many conversations about law firms in the past have included the observation that a lawyer from 1980 could be dropped into today’s firm and function fairly well. They would need to learn email and on-line legal research, but the other basic functions are the same.
Imagine an auto worker in the same scenario. Now you see my point.
Law firms also need to re-think the service model. LPM will help law firms be more efficient, doing things the same basic way. LPM can squeeze out a better margin from the existing service model, but it will not be disruptive and change the approach.
As I see it LPM is critical and necessary in the short-run. But the long-run will need to see some disruptive technologies and new service models. Doing things the same way, only better, will work for a while. But the real game-changers will come when new service models emerge.

It seems that Thomson Reuters isn’t just sending legal jobs overseas, there’s a new website called “Reuters EXPOSED” that is discussing TR’s move of journalist jobs overseas, and the folks at the New York Newspaper guild aren’t happy about it. In addition, they point that TR’s CEO, Tom Glocer, is trying to cut existing pay by 10% while he made a cool $36 million in 2008.

Here’s a couple of the Union members dressed up as Glocer and divisional CEO Devin Wenig, wearing rat suits and explaining how TR took tax breaks from New York to “spruce up several of its office locations.”

I’ve seen a couple of articles on VaporStream’s “Electronic Conversation Software”. The idea is that you can send communications that look a lot like e-mail, but the communication is temporary, exists in the cloud, and resides in your computers RAM (temporary memory). Once the communication is over, it disappears and cannot be recovered, even through e-discovery methods. The product is pitched as a great resource for reducing e-mail server storage, reduce the cost of potential e-discovery litigation, and satisfy the two tenants of HIPPA requirements. I took a quick look at it this morning and found that it is more of an Instant Messaging (IM) replacement than an e-mail replacement, but that it looks to have some good uses.

When I first read about this in itWorldCanda, and then again in ECM Connection, the articles were structured in a way that made me think that this was something that could potentially replace e-mail. I started dreaming of a situation where all those crappy vendor emails that I get ALL DAY LONG, could vanish automatically after I read/skimmed/ignore them. However, I quickly learned that you could only send or receive communicate with others that are also on the VaporStream software. So, my visions of a magic vendor communications fell to the wayside.

So here’s the reader’s digest version of how the product works:

  1. Sign-up for VaporStream’s service (free 60-day trial… $7.50/mth after that).
  2. Get everyone that you want to have confidential, temporary communications with to also sign up.
  3. Use VaporStream’s web or app interface to send and receive communications from other VaporStream users.
  4. The messages are sent and read via SSL (secure) through VaporStream’s interface, and reside in your computers temporary memory (RAM).
  5. When done, the message disappears and cannot be recovered.
VaporStream attempts to electronically recreate a “verbal conversation” using IM or e-mail structure. The only way to “save” the communication would be to take a screenshot of the message, but even that doesn’t get all of the communication because the header and messages are sent separately (thus, you’d have to take two snapshots, and tie them together.) There could be a great advantage to having something like this set up between members of your department or firm, but again, it is more of a compliment to current tools like e-mail or IM, and not necessarily a replacement for either. 
I could see a product like VaporStream being used on internal communications where you want to let others know certain things, but don’t necessarily want to clutter up everyone’s e-mail in-box, or have the issues that surround communicating via IM (if you’re even allowed to do such a thing.) Perhaps there are certain clients that would like a product like this to communicate on sensitive matters that you don’t want to leave any type of communication trail… I’ll let you think about the ethical “slippery slope” that something like that might bring.
VaporStream is definitely worth a look, and should be brought up as a potential secure communications resource that could be used in the right situation.

In response to Mark Medice’s post – Yes, it is past time for law firms to re-think expenses. There have been a lot of discussions about firm’s cutting expenses. And an equal or greater number of discussions on being more efficient (even here on 3 Geeks). What is needed is a re-thinking that merges these two concepts in a thoughtful way.
Using my traditional car analogy – cutting the costs of the landscaping service around the car assembly plant and reducing travel by admin staff will certainly improve the bottom line for Ford. However, that approach does not address the real question of lowering the cost of producing the cars. This challenge requires re-tooling and modifying the production process. It also requires conversations with suppliers about the costs for their component parts of the car (think Westlaw).
Law firms (for the most part) have not dove in on these types of discussions. The way I challenge lawyers on this topic is by asking how they can lower the cost of providing a specific legal service (e.g. a patent prosecution). What would they do differently in order to delver the same or better product at 60% of the current price?
This question changes the nature of the “re-think expenses” question. It’s not about the attorney-to-secretary ratio or the leverage between non-partners and partners. Instead the conversation should focus on doing things differently. This method brings a sharp focus on choice of technologies, number and type of personnel and on how the service is actually performed (think legal project management, ala Hassett, Levy and others).
At the core, law firms are experiencing a shift from a ‘cost plus‘ business model to the ‘profit margin’ model referenced in Mark’s post. The law firm business structure still reflects a ‘cost plus’ world. So I give a resounding YES to the idea of re-thinking expenses.
‘Cost plus’ behavior in a ‘profit margin’ world equals failure.

I bet a lot of you either have Comcast, DirectTV or U-Verse. Me? None of the above. All I’ve got is a laptop, an HDMI cable and flat-screen plasma TV. I can stream my Netflix or my Hulu account from my laptop onto my TV. Or watch a DVD. Or I can surf the web on my big screen. Or I can slideshow my favorite art while I play my iTunes during a party. Just one example how I use technology to save money.

Interesting topic going on over at the Hildebrandt blog on whether it is time to develop new ideas for measuring performance at law firms. In Lisa Smith’s post “Time for New Metrics“, she lays out some interesting new categories that law firms should develop to show how they are managing their business:

  • Firm Performance – what are the relevant measures of firm performance, including the profit margin idea above?
  • Expense Management – how do we measure the impact of changes in staffing models, leveraging technology in delivering services, outsourcing?
  • Practice Management – how do we compare the performance of practices who may have very different profit drivers and pricing models?
  • Partner Performance – how do we move from a billable hours and originations driven approach to measuring partner performance?
  • Client Development/Market Strength – how do measure success in strengthening client relationships?
  • Balance Sheet/Risk – can we assess the strengths and weaknesses of a firm’s financial practices?
  • Management and Leadership – can we measure the effectiveness of strategic, talent management and other initiatives? 
I’ve seen a lot of talk lately about how firms and clients are wanting to find ways to improve overall efficiency effectiveness of how matters are handled, and I’ve seen a lot of charts from consultants on methods to follow to improve efficiency and effectiveness. However, it doesn’t seem that anyone is putting these ideas into motion.
It reminded me of a story that a secretary once told me when I worked at a law school. She said that the people she worked for were very good at “getting their ducks in a row.” Unfortunately, they were not very good at “kicking the last duck in the ass to get them to go into the water.”  When that happened, she took it upon herself to do a little kicking to get things moving. 
Once again, someone has come up with a new method of looking at measuring performance, but it doesn’t look as if anyone is lining up to put this type of tool into action. If law firms don’t kick themselves in the rear and get moving… then they might find their clients putting on their boots and getting ready to do a little kicking in order to get their firms into the water.

I am so excited! I found a way to have someone read my emails, texts and voicemails to me while I am driving 🙂

Last Wednesday, me and @sapreston were discussing how to configure my Outlook to get it to use a voice command. All were too complicated and NOT EASY TO IMPLEMENT.

So me and the two other geeks were discussing this on our way to SBOT. They didn’t have a solution either.

So geeky me spent my Friday evening trolling through all the free Blackberry apps available on my phone.

To my delight, I found drivesafe.ly, a free app available to Blackberry, Android, iPhone and Windows Mobile users.

I just have the basic plan, which reads the sender’s name, time and 25 words of the message. I did run into problems if the message was formatted in a table and it read the HTML code instead.

But I have been really, really happy with it.

There is about a 30-second delay between delivery and reading but that’s cool.

You can, of course, upgrade to a paid version that will give you Caller ID, more words read, ability to change the voice and the reading speed, plus the creation of an ad-free auto-response. The price is $3.99/mo. or $13.95/yr.

They also have an enterprise solution that gives SSL encryption, allows you to download through mobile browser or push through BES. Plus, multi-user discounts and HIPAA compliant versions are available. The price for this is $7.99/mo. or $79.90/yr.

Like I said, I have been really pleased with drivesafe.ly.

By now you may have heard about the 24-year old “blonde beautician from Essex” who won an appeal against one of England’s largest property developers, Bellway Homes back in November, 2009. Georgina Blackwell, a woman with no legal training, faced down a English courtroom full of barristers, presenting her evidence and cross-examining the Bellway solicitor. At the initial case, Bellway won right of access to the Blackwell property to tear down a wall between the two pieces of land. Blackwell was also ordered to pay five-figures in damages, £22,000 in legal fees as well as cover her own £3,000 in legal costs. Facing bankruptcy, Blackwell’s daughter stepped in. She had just turned down a position to study law at Kingston University, choosing instead to help out in her mother’s salon after her mother broke her wrist. Reviewing the legal documents, Ms. Blackwell discovered that the the right of access pertained to only one wall. She reopened the case, went before the court and won the day, reversing the previous decision and earning a £75,000 judgment. Today, Ms. Blackwell is studying law at BPP Law School after the dean of the school learned about her win and offered her a scholarship. She will continue to work part-time at the salon to cover the cost of transportation between home and school but she is determined to make it. I write this blog to tell any male lawyers out there who still think that “women have no business being lawyers”–a fellow law school classmate said this to me in 1990–that we are here to stay. Do not underestimate us. We may not be able to physically best a man but we can emotionally and intellectually stand shoulder to shoulder. You wonder why the previous generation of female lawyers were called “pitbulls with lipstick” or “bi*ch on wheels”? Because they faced actual and passive discrimination when trying to get a seat at the table: Being called “little lady”, being ogled in the courtroom, being physically threatened, being excluded from the good old boy network. They paved the way for women like me. This a post for all the female lawyers: Illegitimi non carborundum.

Well, the 3 Geeks had a fine time this afternoon. After being up before the crack of dawn, @glambert, @gnawledge and I drove up to Ft. Worth and got there in time to hear Susskind, Jeff Carr and Rocky Dhir.

Then it was our turn.

I have to say I had a great time and I think Toby and Greg would agree–a great crowd. And then to be able to actually have us 3 Geeks really walk into a bar afterward was hilarious …

SIDE NOTE: Joe T. Garcia’s Mexican Restaurant has some awesome margaritas and fajitas. I’m just sayin’.

Here is our presentation if you’d like to take a peek.

Geeks Do Ft. Worth – Texas State Bar 2010 – So What Do I Do Now?

View more presentations from Lisa Salazar.

… Association Meeting.

The “3 Geeks” hit the road tomorrow and head up to Ft. Worth to present at the Texas Bar Association Annual Meeting.  We’ll be part of “The Adaptable Lawyer” program on Thursday discussing how the business of law is in transformation. Lawyers and firms who do not adapt to this changing world risk being left in the dust. Those that embrace creativeways to practice, network, and manage business have a great opportunity to set  themselves apart.

We’ll be following a number of great speakers such as Richard Susskind, Jeffrey Carr, Kevin O’Keefe, Judge Susan Criss, and more (no pressure there!!)

Our presentation, entitled “That’s Great, But What Do I Do Now?”, where we are hoping to share our experiences and give examples and suggestions on how to actually implement some of the ideas presented that day. If you’re not able to attend the meeting in person, you can follow the twitter stream through the Texas Bar Association meeting hashtag “#sbot10“. More importantly, there will be a “Tweet and Greet” from 5:30 PM – 7:30 PM. We hope to see you there — either virtually or in person!