When you’ve looked at all of the great things that the web analytics tool Woopra does, you’ll probably never go back to Google Analytics again (and I really like Google Analytics). I’ve been monitoring the traffic on 3 Geeks for the past few months using Woopra, and I have to tell you that it is very addictive.

Woopra allows you to watch what visitors to your site are currently reading (yes, LIVE STATS!!), as well as how they found you, what links they clicked on while on your site, where they are from, and much, much more. Woopra also allows you to view a live map of where your visitors are from, run reports, set up filters and notifications, conduct live chat with visitors (which I haven’t tried because it sounds a little creepy), and view a calendar of visits and page views.

Woopra is free (for up to 30K page views a month), and there are subscription plans starting at $4.95 a month if you want to track >30K. I’ve embedded a great (and short) video from Trey Ratcliff over at Stuck In Customs where he goes through a few (just a few) of the great things that Woopra does to analyze your website traffic. If you have a website… you have to try Woopra!

One of the comments that I hear tossed around these days is how those entering the workforce now (AKA “new associates”, “new paralegals”, “new project assistants”) will be “computer savvy” or “better equipped” for things like online research, Web 2.0, or the virtual workplace. I try to chime in with my opinion that those that believe this are mistaking “comfort and familiarity” with “skill”. For example, a new associate may have great skills when it comes to driving a six-speed Ferrari on the mean streets of “Need for Speed”, but can he or she transfer those skills to an actual Ferrari on the mean streets of Los Angeles? The skills are not automatically transferable, and you’d probably end up with either a few scratches and dents or a blown transmission than someone that can parallel park the car by sliding it in with a 180 degree slide.

Andrea DiMaio over at the Gartner Blog Network penned a great post on “Why Digital Immigrants May Be Better Off Than Digital Natives” where she eloquently states:

The common wisdom says that they [Digital Natives] are better at socializing and crowdsourcing, but are they? Do they gather their collective intelligence when they realize that they cannot solve problems alone, or do they just do so, outsourcing their individual efforts to the power of the collective, living the dream of a world where nobody is really accountable because everybody else is?
I think that we [Digital Immigrants] have been celebrating and cocooning digital natives for too long. What lies ahead of us are very uncertain times, where the ability, willingness and courage to tackle problems individually is as important as the ability to engage others (the “collective”).

Well said! DiMaio goes on to point out one of the biggest differences between Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives is the fact that we grew up with the understanding that even in the computer and online worlds, there was a scarcity of resources and we had to adapt and deal with the limited resources we had at our disposal. Digital Natives on the other hand do not have the same insights into the scarcity of resources. Digital Natives do not seem to see the shadow of the future where success is determined by what they know and how well they socialize and crowdsource their way to a solution, rather than by the coolness of “how many Facebook friends or Twitter followers they have.”

President Obama deflated the egos of the tech savvy graduates at the University of Virginia when he pointed out skills learned through entertainment do not always transfer to skills needed in the workforce today:

‘With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations – none of which I know how to work – information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.’

 I should point out that Digital Immigrants were told by President Reagan that their PacMan skills could transfer into usable work skills:

‘I recently learned something quite interesting about video games. Many young people have developed incredible hand, eye, and brain coordination in playing these games. The air force believes these kids will be our outstanding pilots should they fly our jets.’ (Aug 8, 1983)

We soon learned that just because we could storm the castle and save Princess Zelda from her dragon captor all day long, but those skills weren’t very useful when learning to fly a jet. It’s nice that the current President doesn’t seem to be confusing technology and entertainment with knowledge and work skills.

I am thinking about social networking. I know. You say, aren’t you always thinking about social networking, Lisa? Well, no. I also think about fashion, friends and my latest celebrity crush. (BTW, did you know that there are only 4 degrees of separation between me and @aplusk??? My apologies; I digress. I wonder if he’s on LinkedIn??) But all of that aside, I was wondering: can you cause a mood to pass along a social network? Like trending topics, can we start an online social swell of emotion? For, as you know, the underpinning of any good marketing campaign is the evocation of an emotion, be it fear, covetousness or admiration. Just think iPad and you get what I mean. So just how do you accomplish that feat in a social network? If what Nicholas Christakis says is true during his TedTalk, then we are highly influenced by our social network’s level of happiness, anger, sadness or depression. We saw it happen when Facebook announced its new terms. Angry networks buzzed. We saw it when Michael Jackson died. Memorials were held online. So how can legal marketers manufacture a feeling over an online social network? How can I get that wave going? Say for instance, I want to impress upon my law firm clients and professional colleagues that they should call my firm when the long arm of the law reaches out for them. I must impress upon them long before that event happens that I am ever-ready and ever-vigilant to come to their aid. I want to invoke a feeling of trustworthiness and safety; in a word, Rambo (a nod to my Greek friend, Chris). So for me, it means sending a steady stream of useful information on a daily basis across all social networking channels. It means being engaged in the stream of things, writing strong copy, being responsive. It means re-tweeting info that I might think is helpful to my followers. In these small ways, I am hoping to engender positive feelings. Its not easy; law firms (and I) are natural outliers. So to inject them into a social networking setting is awkward, at best. And lawyers, by the very nature of our business, are reactive so we cannot create legally-charged situations. But as any lawyer knows, a lawyer and his firm become important when the authorities start asking hard questions. They are designed to take the heat for everyone. We can become subject matter authorities, speaking on relevant topics. So law firms may seem like the strong, silent types. But we serve a good purpose. You wouldn’t want your lawyer to act like they are at the law-law-pa-loosa, would ya?

I was discussing some of the issues raised by Craig Ball in his article “Are We Paying Five times too Much for E-Discovery” with some friends of mine when I realized how lucky I was to be in the law firm’s Library/Research department rather than attempting to manage an E-Discovery department. Listening to some of the stories and reading blog posts discussing the reactive strategies that firms adopt when addressing e-discovery projects made my head start to spin (actually, it was more of a slow shaking of disbelief.) Electronic Discovery is not exactly a new phenomenon in the legal industry, but while listening to some of the stories, it was like every attorney that found themselves with an e-discovery case had no idea how to handle it, yet was determined that he or she knew better than the e-discovery experts that were employed by their firm.

Now, I’m sure there are folks out there that have outstanding e-discovery programs, great relationships with their attorneys and clients, and a stable of proficient third-party e-discovery partners they can depend upon for consistent pricing and accurate results. However, from the folks I’ve been talking to, that sounds like the exception and not the rule. What I’m hearing is issues of attorneys submitting data in a hodge-podge fashion; attorneys and clients working out deals with e-discovery vendors on matters without discussing it with those in the firm that are supposed to be the go-to people for e-discovery; vendors charging one price on Monday, and a different price on Tuesday for the same work; pressure to conduct in-house e-discovery work with unobtainable deadlines using inadequate resources, and; the only consistent questions being asked is “how much is this going to cost?” quickly followed by “why does it cost that much?”  It would be like me trying to run a law library and having each attorney negotiate separate Westlaw or Lexis contracts on a per-matter basis.

In fact, just like with research, e-discovery really fits that definition of an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure. When legal research is conducted using improper search queries, or wrong databases, or even wrong research tools, it results in extra costs that are either passed along to the client or eaten by the firm. The same results happen with e-discovery processes. Heading down the wrong path on e-discovery processes results in backtracking and having to start the process over and all the time and money spent turns out to have been wasted. When I conduct orientation for new associates, I stress to them that the research staff in the library has a wealth of knowledge and experience that they need to leverage when conducting research on issues that  the associates are unfamiliar. Same applies with e-discovery experts. It’s not saying that the attorney can’t understand how to do the work… it’s just that we’ve hired experts that can make sure that they are focused on doing what they do best, and that is working as a lawyer and finding legal issues surrounding discovery… not working as a technologist and attempting to figure out the best manner to extract data from hard drives.

I went back and re-read Toby’s post last week on reducing price and cost, where he presses for a “business goal” when it comes to handling e-discovery. However, this exercise seems to assume that there is some sort of stability in how firms handle their e-discovery matters. The only way to fight the “Wild West” effect, and move toward a stable e-discovery process is through the establishment of best practices. Law firms have to create best practices for their e-discovery processes that:

  • specifically that lay out how  matters are handled each and every time;
  • define exactly who is in charge of processing the data;
  • that clarify to the attorneys and clients the cost involved, and;
  • identify what can be handled in-house versus what has to go to predetermined third-party vendors for processing.  

My suggestion was that regardless of how long the E-Discovery Best Practices guide turns out, that there should be a one to two-page cheat sheet that is distributed to every attorney that works on matters that involve e-discovery. The faster you can get everyone on the same page, the faster you can get away from the Wild West approach and start working toward those e-discovery business goals.

Continuing my exploration of the economics of the practice of law, I listened in on a presentation that included a segment on how law firms may be moving to single providers for primary law access. Although a perennial topic previously noted on 3 Geeks, the rising pressure from clients not to pass on these types of costs is making this decision more of a real option.
Going through a mental exercise of what it likely costs per year, per lawyer for primary law access, I suggest the following math (This excludes the ‘free’ access providers such as Casemaker or Fastcase since they are only available in certain states):

$500 / month: average cost per lawyer for online research services.
$250 / month: 50% of that, to glean out all the high cost, practice specific stuff.
$125 / month: 50% of that, to filter out the secondary resources and editorial content attached to primary law.

The Solution: $125 x 12 months = $1500 in savings per year per lawyer per system for access to primary law.

My experience is that most legal research centers on primary law, so 25% should be a pretty conservative estimate. For a law firm, you could take that number and multiply it by the number of primary law access services you have (minus the one you keep) to come up with the ultimate savings of going to a single provider.
Yes – there are issues with going to a single provider, such as the links between secondary and primary law in a given setting. However, many of those issues can be resolved in negotiations. There will likely be some practice groups who need to retain access to certain primary law services, but it won’t be something the entire firm needs. So a decision to go to a single primary law access service will include a bit of work, but could lead to significant savings.
The real question: How much would your firm save?

I’ve been hearing that there is a new “spooky” website out there called Spokeo that is freaking people out about how much information this site can find about you using just your name or email address. According to the website Smarterware:

Spokeo is the new people search engine that’s freaking users out, because when you “spokeo” yourself there’s a good chance you’ll find your home address, phone number, interests, gender, occupation, wealth level, marital status, photos, and more. 

So, I jumped out there and attempted to search on my name, email, and phone numbers and it was creepy to find how awful the results were. Apparently, I don’t exist on any of these social networks that Spokeo indexes. This really surprised me, because I’m not exactly very protective about my identity on social networks and I expected at least something back. But what I got was NOTHING!! I even tried to see if any of my co-bloggers showed up… again, NOTHING!!

As someone that has written about the wealth of personal and company information that is out there on social networks for competitive intelligence research, I’m highly disappointed in the hype behind Spokeo that doesn’t seem to be warranted. If you want to find information on someone, leave Spokeo off your resources and do a simple Google search instead.

Joe Hodnicki, over at the Law Librarian Blog, pointed out post from Ryan Deschamps blog (The Other Librarian) where Ryan challenges librarians to personally rebut the 10 reasons he lists why librarians cannot claim professional status. Ryan’s list of ten reasons is thought provoking, and meant to be a little over-the-top, but does note some of the challenges that librarians face when defending their profession. He’s received nearly 100 comments on his post (some of which go through a point-by-point rebuttal), so he’s definitely hit a nerve with librarians. As many of you may remember, I recently modified a Will Rogers’ quote and said that “I’m not part of any organized profession… I’m a law librarian.”

Perhaps the biggest challenge that librarians face is that we are such a diverse profession that it makes it very difficult to throw a rope around what we do and how we are defined. The term “librarian” has been watered down so much that it could mean one hundred different things to one hundred different people. It would be like defining the term “teacher” and placing everyone from “Sunday School Teacher” to “College Professor” under that term and asking everyone to justify “teaching” as a profession. I almost hate to reprint the list of ten reasons here, but here they are…. I’ll discuss a few of the “professional librarian” issues following the list:

  1. Librarians Have No Monopoly on the Activities They Claim
  2. There are No Consequences For Failing to Adhere to Ethical Practices
  3. Librarianship is Too Generalized to Claim Any Expertise
  4. ’Librarian’ Assumes a Place of Work, Rather than the Work Itself
  5. Peer Review in Librarianship Does Not Work Because There is No Competitive Process to Go With It
  6. Values Are Not Enough
  7. The Primary Motivation for Professionalization is the Monopoly of Labor
  8. Accredited Library Schools Do Not Adequately Prepare Students for Library Work
  9. Competing Professions Are Offering Different Paradigms to Achieve the Same Goals
  10. Nobody Can Name a ‘Great’ Librarian

When Ryan says “Professional Librarian”, that narrows the field down, at least in my opinion, to those who have a Masters’ Degree in Library Science (MLS, MLIS, etc.) and work in a specific area of librarianship. I’ll take specific issue with reason number three above that Librarianship is too generalized to claim expertise. My expertise is “law librarianship”; I have a MLIS and a JD (as do about 1/2 of those who are members of the American Association of Law Libraries – AALL); I work as a law librarian in a law firm, and; my expertise is in legal research and knowledge management. However, all of these are ‘voluntary’ skills and accomplishments, as there are no laws, regulations, or ethical requirements that prevent anyone that happens to work in a library, regardless of qualifications, to hold themselves out as a librarian.

Perhaps one of the greatest examples of this discrepancy is the fact that the Librarian of Congress, James H. Billington does not have a Library Degree, nor was he ever trained as a professional librarian. Billington has done wonders for the Library of Congress since his appointment in 1987, but the fact that he’s done great things does not diminish the fact that the highest post in the country with “Librarian” in the title is held by someone that is not a professional librarian. This would be like appointed someone that has never been a lawyer to the US Supreme Court. There’s no law preventing a non-lawyer from becoming a US Supreme Court Justice, but it has never happened. I could be wrong here, so correct me if I am, but I believe that the Librarian of Congress has always been a “political” position and has never been held by someone with a library degree.

I’m being a little unfair in this example, as Billington’s position is primarily one of obtaining funding and essentially being the equivalent to a Chief Operating Officer (COO) of a large organization. To be a COO in a law firm or accounting firm does not require you to be a lawyer or accountant. But on the other hand, COO’s of law firms or accounting firms don’t take on the title of ‘lawyer’ or ‘accountant’ either. Therefore, this tends to advance reason number four above that ‘librarians’ assume a place of work (the library), rather than a profession.

There are a number of valid issues raised by Ryan and his list of ten reasons, so I’m only scratching the surface with this post. I’m pretty confident that I could personally defend why I hold myself out as a professional librarian while admitting that the profession (especially through its professional organizations) needs to do more to enhance the reputation of the profession. Although it is frustrating to work in a profession that is constantly being asked to defend why it is still relevant in the age of Google, I still love being a law librarian and continue to do my part to keep the professional relevant and vibrant in this exciting time of ever expanding access to information.

Today’s my last day in New York and I’m ready to get back to Houston where the bathtubs don’t sit in the middle of my living room, surrounded by two walls of plate glass windows, overlooking a park full of joggers. As I mentioned earlier this week, a few bloggers were asked to come to NYC to take a fresh look at Wolters Kluwer (WK) IntelliConnect product and give them some feedback about what we thought about it. I’ll give a more in-depth review later, but I did want to make some comments of what I thought about the people I met with yesterday. 

The meeting was held on the WK training floor, there were four bloggers including me, and about eight or nine WK folks. After a short introduction and an overview of the product, we started having a real conversation about what was good, what needed fixing, and where the product and market were heading in the future. All of us seeded to have had some lightbulb moments throughout the day where some of our preconceived notions were challenged and most of us walked away at the end of the day a little better understanding of each other. 

Wolters Kluwer is going through a transition right now where it is attempting to move away from being a ‘holding company’, to one that is integrating all of its different acquisitions into one platform.  As many of us remember, WK’s IntelliConnect had a number of problems on its initial launch last year, and has been scrambling to regain its footing after stumbling out of the gate. I specifically  asked them if they understood the image problem they had from some of its users, and they all said that they do understand that, and that was one of the reasons they asked us to be there.

One of the notions I had to overcome was the fact that IntelliConnect is not a legal research tool in the same way that Westlaw or Lexis is designed. IntelliConnect is designed for ‘power users’ in specific legal practices. It was interesting listening to the conversations between the bloggers telling WK that they need to make changes in the interface to work in a way that younger associates expect their online research to look and feel. At the same time, WK kept coming back at us with the fact that the product was developed to work the way that their advanced users wanted… And that was to make it more like using the books than using online research. That brought up the question that none of us could find a simple answer to, and that was how do you balance the needs of researchers that on one end of the spectrum are traditional treatise-in-the-books kind of researchers versus the incoming Google ‘give me a search box and let me go’ type researchers? That seems to be the $64,000 question… Which is probably how much this bathtub in my hotel room costs.

Tom O’s post on “Proportionality” solidified an idea I’ve been contemplating. Tom’s post is on reducing the cost of ED. He quotes from Craig Ball, who says the market may be paying 5 times too much for ED.
So here’s where my idea comes in. What if you went to a law firm or ED company and said, “How can you deliver a service for X% less?” First off, the answer can not be “We Can’t.” This is an exercise to see how you can. Of course, there’s a chance you might not be be able to, but the point is going through the exercise.
Further to my idea – what if a law firm asked the same question about one or more of their services. I think the exercise would be very enlightening. It goes to Bruce M’s post on Quality and what is “good enough.” The exercise will highlight 1) What doesn’t need to be done, 2) What needs to be done “good enough,” and 3) What still needs to be done the same way (e.g. excellent or superior). Another consequence of this effort will be the focusing of technology resources towards a business goal (versus addressing yet another tech need). Ultimately this approach should reduce the price to the client and the cost to the law firm. If done right, it will also improve the margin for the law firm.
This exercise – IMHO – will lead to the hard questions about law firms restructuring. Instead of talking about leverage, billables, alternative fees and compensation as if they are the ends, they will become the means to a successful business model.
It’s way past time for law firms to engage in this exercise. What have we been waiting for?

A year and a half ago, I wrote a post that discussed all the benefits that Twitter had over traditional listservs. I’m still a big advocate of Twitter and how much information I can gather in a short period of time, but listservs still may be the King of social networks when it comes to communicating with a professional network. I learned this first-hand this week when I asked for some help from my fellow law firm librarians.

I’m flying up to New York this afternoon to meet with the programmers, sales reps, and marketers for CCH’s IntelliConnect product. CCH, part of the mega-legal-vendor Wolters Kluwer (WK), has asked a few law bloggers to come meet with them, review the product, give them some feedback about their product. [note: WK is paying for the flight and hotel room, and six-months subscription to a couple of IntelliConnect databases … and hopefully dinner!!] I’ll blog about the experience next week and let you know about my meeting with this group, and what I think about the product. The biggest problem that I had was the fact that I’m really not a power-user of IntelliConnect (although I do use it, and my firm has a significant subscription with the product in the Health Care area). In order to bone up on my ability to come to New York prepared to ask the tough questions, I turned to the Private Law Librarians listserv for help… and the help poured in!!

Within minutes of my sending an email to the list explaining what I was doing, I received about a dozen or more responses listing out problems and suggestions that my peers would like me to bring up while I’m there. Some of the issues were simple requests, while others pointed out significant issues that they had encountered with the product. Thanks to the folks on the listserv, I go to New York better prepared to discuss the product as a representative of not just a blog… but as a representative of a community of professionals that still monitor the 20th Century social networking tool called a listserv.

The experience reminded me of why I loved listservs years ago, and why they are still very relevant today. So listservs, please accept my apology for thinking that your importance in the professional social community was coming to an end. Although other social networks may try to replace you, you are still one of the best resources out there for gathering feedback from a network of people with a common interest.