Strategic Legal Technology

More consolidation in the e-discovery (EDD) market. 

Iron Mountain today announced it will acquire Stratify. Between acquisitions and start-ups, it’s hard to track exactly, but I think the number of free-standing review platforms is going down.

For reference, from my The Best Home for an E-Discovery Vendor (another acquisition) post in June 2006, here are some acquisitions that I’ve tracked, separated pre- and post that date:

June 2006 or earlier:
- Xerox acquired Amici Xerox press release
- The Phillipine phone company acquired SPI Tech
- Pitney Bowes acquired Ibis, and Compulit before that
- Integron acquired Bowne’s EED services
- Xiotech acquired Daticon
- Epiq acquired nMatrix
- FTI Consulting acquired Ringtail
- Marsh & McLennan acquired Kroll
- LexisNexis acquired Applied Discovery

Since June 2006:
7/25/06: LexisNexis announced yesterday (7/24/06) that it is acquiring DataFlight, maker of Concordance software. See the press release
8/1/06: Huron Consulting announces acquisition of Aaxis Technologies and of Nextra
9/27/06: Techbooks announces (9/18) acquisition of Whitmont Legal Technologies.
9/28/06: Thomson acquires LiveNote
10/6/06: Océ Business Services acquires CaseData (press release, PDF)
11/20/06: Kroll Ontrack acquires e-discovery software provider Engenium (press release, PDF)
3/1/07: Merrill Corporation Announces Acquisition of Lextranet
5/31/07: Anacomp acquires CaseLogistix
6/4/07: Syngence acuired by private investors
7/16/07: Autonomy and Zantaz merge July 3, 2007
10/31/07: Iron Mountain today announced it will acquire Stratify
12/9/07: Seagate Acquires MetaLINCS E-Discovery Software
1/14/08: Deloitte Acquires Barrasso Consulting
6/10/08: FTI Consulting, Inc. to Acquire Attenex Corporation
7/24/08: Interwoven to Acquire eDiscovery Innovator Discovery Mining, Inc.
8/29/08: Access Litigation acquired by Edmond Scientific Company per Washington Business Journal in Edmond Scientific buys Access Litigation

Well-known legal commentator Richard Susskind again predicts the end of law practice. I respectfully disagree. 

The TimesOnline is publishing extracts of Susskind’s forthcoming book. The kick-off article, Will lawyers exist in 100 years? (10/22/07), links to landing page The End of Lawyers, which in turns links to book excerpts - the first is Legal profession is on the brink of fundamental change) - and comments from two well-known managing partners. The article aptly summarizes Susskind’s key point:

“The driving force towards the end of lawyers as we know them is twofold: information technology and what Susskind calls the market pull towards commoditisation – carving up a lawyer’s job into identifiable and discreet pieces that can be outsourced and done more cheaply by others. As a result, the jobs of many traditional lawyers will be substantially eroded and often eliminated.”

After two decades in the legal market working for and with large law firms and with extensive experience in legal technology, online systems, and legal outsourcing, I do not share this view:

• Information Technology. Robust infrastructure and a myriad of applications do make lawyers more productive and efficient (at least those who have taken the time to learn). It’s not, however, revolutionary and developments to date have not endangered lawyers. As for sophisticated interactive advisory or document drafting systems, no one has yet developed an effective economic model to support more than niche use, at least not in the business-to-business market. I am among the handful who tried creating this market: I left a large law firm in 1998 to join expert systems platform developer Jnana. I wrote several articles articulating the business case for interactive advisory legal systems. I also track this market via my online legal systems blog posts and my list of online legal services. The list is a bit dated but that’s because not that much visible has happened since my last update.
• Legal Outsourcing and Offshoring. Joy London and I have documented the growth in “legal process outsourcers” (LPO) in our list of legal outsourcing and our November 2006 LLRX article, Developments in Legal Outsourcing and Offshoring. Personally, I voted with my feet this year and now work for Integreon, a company that provides legal and knowledge outsourced services. The legal market is adopting outsourcing and offshoring. For example, substantive tasks such as contract drafting / management, due diligence, business development research, and document review in litigation are easily moved offshore; similarly, administrative tasks such as word processing and finance & accounting support are easily outsourced. This outsourcing, however, substitutes neither for high-end lawyering nor for the “hand-holding” that many clients need and want.
• Where is the Empirical Evidence? Many, Susskind and myself included, have previously predicted all types of changes in the legal market. Yet the market is not so different now than 20 years ago. Large law firms serving the business market continue to grow in size and profitability. In the US, many ethical barriers continue to make providing alternate services to consumers difficult or impossible. In the UK, simple assertions that UK legal reforms will transform the market do not suffice. Where is the empirical evidence? What percent of High Street (Main Street) legal services can realistically be automated or outsourced? Of that slice, how many consumers will choose self-service over traditional hand-holding? And will there be new matters that keep High Street lawyers busy, taking the place of whatever may in the future be commoditized, outsourced, or handled by technology? Are there any data to support predictions of demise? The ultimate indicator will be a drop in the number of lawyers per capita.

One of the related commentaries is by former Clifford Chance managing partner Tony Williams. His Ten trends that will shape the legal market offers what I consider a more balanced and realistic view of the future.

In this Roundup: e-discovery updates, consolidation in contract management software, Microsoft as a BigLaw CRM, some legal market news of general interest. 

E-Discovery
Jeff Beard has a nice blog posts of highlights from a recent IPQC EDD conference, Key Issues Covered at the 4th E-Discovery Conference. Among other topics, he discusses potential issues with over-use of “attorney work product” label.

Contract Management
I’ve previously posted about contract management savings opportunities, driven by software. IACCM, in its November newsletter article Is contract management software already a thing of the past, reports on two recent contract management software acquisitions and, the article title notwithstanding, suggests that the software has a strong future.

CRM
Legal Technology Insider blog reports that Reed Smith will adopt “a CRM platform based on Microsoft Dynamics CRM.” The posts quotes managing partner Gregory Jordan: “We are partnering with Microsoft and Client Profiles on a firm-wide, global CRM initiative to use technology to help us identify new opportunities for strengthening, broadening and deepening our existing client relationships.” So, will MS give Interaction a run for the money? Will a different platform really address the deeper process and cultural issues of CRM?

Legal Market News of General Interest
Many legal market publications have reported on the war among BigLaw for law school grads, including stratospheric salaries. Two unrelated riffs on this theme:
1. Hard Case: Job Market Wanes for U.S. Lawyers (Wall Street Journal, 9/24/07, $) suggests what we are seeing in BigLaw is another instance of winner-take-all. It reports that “For graduates of elite law schools, prospects have never been better. Big law firms this year boosted their starting salaries to as high as $160,000. But the majority of law-school graduates are suffering from a supply-and-demand imbalance that’s suppressing pay and job growth. The result: Graduates who don’t score at the top of their class are struggling to find well-paying jobs to make payments on law-school debts that can exceed $100,000″
2. Midsize Law Firms Go for Big Changes (National Law Journal, 10/23/07) reports that mid-size firms are developing more flexible models for billing and compensation in reaction to the BigLaw salary wars. If smaller firms continue to develop alternative models, it will be interesting to see how they fare in recruiting.

More from the Ark Knowledge Management Conference in Chicago. A real time report on “The Evolution and Impact of the PSL Model”  

John Worall, a Practice Support Lawyer at White & Case, presents on “The Evolution and Impact of the PSL Model.”

The London office has 400 lawyers and 12 PSLs. The PSL program at W&C London started in London in 2000 and now has PSLs in multiple offices around the world. PSL role emerged as a way to stop re-inventing the wheel. “Law firms need to realise that knowledge and experience are the core and rationale of their very existence.” (Stephen Mayson book).

The ratio of lawyers to PSLs in London is 1:26 (PLC 2003 survey). London offices of US firms have hired PSLs because London-based lawyers expect this. The typical PSL is quite experienced (minimum of 4 or 5 years, often much more). PSLs are practice group based, internal facing, 100% non fee-earning, work fixed hours (some part-time), are paid less than fee-earning lawyers (typically 10 to 20% less), and report to local partners and central resources. Achieving work-life balance is one motivator to become a PSL. But its important to make sure that candidates will enjoy the work.

Activities of PSLs:
- standard forms ("models")
- create, capture, store, and deliver know-how
- training
- current awareness / legal updates
- research
- attend professional meetings
- business development and marketing

Specific KM initiatives at W&C:
- Intranet
- International law firm directory
- Knowledge bank

In knowledge bank, auto-summary from software is not that useful. So paralegals work aside PSLs to produce document descriptions that make finding and re-using documents easier. The know-how search system ONLY includes vetted and described documents. The PSLs are gate keepers for what goes in the system.

How PSLs make KM happen:
- Active presence in practice
- Credibility with practicing lawyers
- Create as well as manage knowledge
- Assess IT from lawyer perspective

KM Benefits:
- Recruitment and retention
- Capture expertise
- Consistent work product
- Efficiency
- Risk mangement
- Cheaper than using equivalent associates
- Lets fee-earners be more billable
- Increases profits on fixed fee work
- Reduce time written off
- Leverage

PSL success requires institutional support. An element of lawyer evaluations focuses on contributions. This makes KM a part of a lawyer’s job.

Future challenges:
- Outsourced professional support (e.g., Practical Law Company)
- Automation and IT challenges
- Career development
- Meeting client expectations that firms will share know-how for free

More from the Ark Knowledge Management Conference in Chicago. A real time report on “KM: In the Crosshairs Between lawyers and Technology”  

Scott Rechtschaffen, managing shareholder at Littler Mendelson, presents on the “KM: In the Crosshairs Between lawyers and Technology.”

KM group at Littler consists of 8 full-time lawyers, all experienced employment lawyers in 5 offices, plus2 technologists and content administrators. The KM lawyer is a serious career path. One KM lawyer became a shareholder (partner) last year. KM is distinct from but works closely with IT.

What does KM mean to lawyers? In Scott’s experience, most lawyers do not know. They may value outputs but don’t always know who does the work. The danger is that lawyers really don’t care. Will KM be like electricity - at one time, there was a “VP of Electricity”. That position no longer exits.

Some critical distinctions about KM at Littler:
- KM did not stem from IT at Littler. The firm, as part of its strategic plan, created some ancillary businesses. In considering how to take this initiative forward, KM grew out of the strategy. It was a top-down initiative. The firm views KM as a new form of client service, a competitive advantage, a marketing opportunity, and a way to help bring in laterals. It is part of the glue that holds together 46 offices.
- KM is someone’s job: The firm realized that to do KM, it had to be someone’s “real” job. The firm has other experienced lawyers in non-billable positions who have specialized jobs. One focuses on e-discovery, another on class actions. Both focus on these specialized areas. The firm defines the job and measures results.
- Top firm management believes strongly in KM. They talk it up with clients, with the press, and within the firm. Managing Shareholder said “KM is the Cornerstone of the Littler Value Proposition.”
- KM is attorney focused, not staff focused.
- Not focused on technology. We are tech-interested, not tech-focused
- We have revenue goals (direct and indirect). (For example, library will adopt the help desk tracking system. This will enable demonstrating value without tying service to revenue.

The firm talks about the “Knowledge Concierge.” Lawyers can just call KM attorneys - like a help desk. KM lawyers will also use the help desk tracking system to track the work they do and value they add. KM is also serving as a more general practice support service (though this does not include litigation support or e-discovery). The practice support element serves both practice groups and internal function such as marketing and business development.

Example of project - Arbitrator Database - and lessons learned It lists a couple of hundred arbitrators. Firm lawyers can rate arbitrators, track wins and losses. This database pulls info from CCH service that has bios on arbitrators. The firm let the lawyers guide this project too much - they asked for a design that asks for too much information. With the number of fields they requested, few complete them. So KM lawyers now do the work. On the next database like this, KM team will pare back the number of fields. Lesson learned: get lawyer input but don’t let them drive completely. [editorial comment: lawyers are subject to the “be careful of what you ask for, you may get it."]

Example of a project - Collective Bargaining Agreement Online System. These agreements have traditionally not been computerized. The firm invested to custom-build a system to present these complex agreements in an easy-to-use online system. This has been very popular with the client for which it was built. The firm is considering extending this service to other clients.

Example of a project - Overtime Exemption Compliance Audit. Twenty firm lawyers interview 6000 client employees. Needed software to track all the survey results. Built a custom app for this in 3 weeks. System has scripts that drive lawyer interviews. Ensures consistency and that data is captured and re-usable. The firm is now rolling out a similar system to track bulk interviews in class action matters.

Example of a project - Guide to Policies by State. This is a guide to state employment law for 50 states. Firm lawyers use this system and the firm sells it to clients. Did a version for one company where the company white labels it from the law department to the HR department. It is kept up to date by a KM lawyer who keeps on top of it; plus spidering state web sties and using multiple commercial databases. Research librarians contribute. A similar product monitors Recent Legislation by State.

None of the examples require huge tech resources. The development time is person-weeks, NOT person-months.

Other KM functions at Littler:
- Organize the content for an annual conference that 500 clients attend and some 300 shareholders attend. KM does not create the content - it finds it across the firm and organizes it and negotiates sessions among the shareholders.
- Manager publishing and content distribution. (Manage some 6000 pages of content published each year.) The KM department rationalized the publishing process, reducing costs by 50%. More importantly, KM attorneys changed how lawyers contribute updates, reducing lawyer time required by 50%. KM department contracted with Lexis for publishing distribution, which means more copies are now sold instead of given away.
- Generate newsletters for in-house counsel to send to their inhouse clients (white labeled). Clients love this and it generates revenue for the firm
- Created a firm-branded privacy law blog
- Participating in Legal On Ramp (from LOR web site: “Legal OnRamp provides content, connectivity and execution services to help legal professionals deliver higher quality work in less time and lower cost. We’re working with leading professionals from major corporations and leading law firms to provide technology and services that will meet the business imperatives of the future.")

More from the Ark Knowledge Management Conference in Chicago. A real time report on the non-traditional notions of knowledge management….  

Brent Kidwell, a partner at Jenner & Block, presents on the “Changing Landscape of KM in the Law Firm.”

One definition of KM (Wikipedia) is to “identify, create, represent, and distribute knowledge for re-use and learning across the organization.” Wikipedia also states that there is no agreed upon definition of KM. At Jenner, the definition is
1. Identify and extract existing data
2. Collect new data
3. Manage or manipulate the data
4. Deliver back the results in meaningful manner
5. Refresh and update.

Example of KM at Jenner: One challenge at the firm was to give partners more visibility into what associates were doing and their utilization. A key goal was to optimize lawyer deployment / allocation. The firm had to extract data, then manage and manipulate it. The data came from finance system but needed to be massaged and presented via a web interface so that it was meaningful. The system also needed to be refreshed regularly based on constant stream of daily timekeeping. It is being extended now to include information and analysis that will help match associate professional development interests to new projects. Brent considers this an example a KM project.

Brent’s issues and thoughts about KM:
- Is KM a distinct function in the firm?
- Automated vs. manual KM processes
- Lightweight KM ("KM 2.0″)
- Migrating from overhead (cost) to revenue
- Finding insertion points in every case.

The firm is rolling out a new SharePoint Intranet / portal now. Each practice group will have a blog, wiki, and document library. We see the blog and wiki as a key way to disseminate administrative information throughout the firm. The blog will be for daily, short-half-life information; the wiki will be for information with longer shelf-life. For example, firm policies have all been re-built as wikis; this makes it much easier to update wikis. The firm sees a role for KM functions across almost all firm operations.

On automated vs. manual approaches…. Brent’s informal survey found that most lawyers in his firm and at other’s in the US want automated approaches. Lawyers have trouble sustaining efforts actively to contribute to systems. So interest in automated approaches is much higher, though there are frequent short-lived manual efforts.

On overhead vs. revenue…. Historically, it’s been hard to show ROI on KM efforts. So we end up saying KM can make lawyers’ lives easier, let them work faster. Monetizing KM in a clear way is very hard. But if you like at e-discovery, there are more clearly direct impacts on the bottom line. More generally, consider the continuum of KM to practice support: there are many touch points for helping: marketing, client development, conflicts and new business intake, case management, workflow management, accounting /finance, discovery management, work product retrieval, trial support, records management (RM). Brent sees opportunities for applying KM perspectives to all these areas.

A case study of the “KM continuum” notion… litigation support and e-discovery. Lit supp attributes:
- Challenging and broad collection efforts
- Large data volume (terabytes)
- Processing to usable formats
- “Mining” for knowledge
- Providing robust review environment
- Potentially complex workflow managment
- Risk management and quality assurance
We can view all of the above as KM-related problems to solve.

Question: What are implications of above perspective.
Answer: Brent manages an applied technology group of 12 technologists and data managers. Is very involved in risk management issues. His staff are all fee-earners - they work on specific matters. So they cannot always take on non-billable projects.

More from the Ark Knowledge Management Conference in Chicago. A real time report on the role of tech in KM….  

This is a debate between Stuart Kay (SK) of Baker McKenzie and Joshua Fireman (JF) of ii3:

SK: Technology is just an enabler. It’s one thing to find a document, another thing to understand what it means and how to use it. You still need the human connection.
JF: US firms have not invested in practice support lawyers. Yet with technology they are finding what they need. Realistically, lawyers do not willingly contribute to systems - there are simply no incentives to do so. One-half dozen years ago, technology did not exist to make sense of the mass of data. Now, however, with an array of enterprise search tools, software can yield the right information. So the human element is less and less necessary.

SK: In a firm the size of Baker McKenzie, even with the best search system, we have so many documents, the results list will be way to long. So we need PSLs to identify the highest value documents. The PSLs go to lawyers and ask for precedents. With the personal interactions, lawyers will give documents to a central system. PSLs just don’t have bandwidth to visit enough lawyers and to collect enough documents. So you are missing a lot of valuable work product.
JF: Sure, if you have the bodies, PSLs can seek out contributions. But this is still a sub-opitimal level of contribution. Your repository can never be complete. The “good documents” exist in digital form somewhere - the technology can seek it out and bring it forward. The search technology can narrow the filed sufficiently to provide value and provides a far bigger trove than you can hope to develop manually.

SK: This is a Utopian view of what tech can achieve. There are too many ways of working and too many variations for technology to deal with it. Plus, when PSLs are involved, the value of what you capture is so much higher. The views of PSLs vary tremendously by geography. Our surveys show that lawyers in Europe, Asia, and Australia value PSLs much more than in North America. Plus, experience shows that once you put PSLs in place, lawyers will use them effectively. Lawyers who were skeptical about PSLs became big believers and supporters once PSLs were brought on board an integrated. (Stuart shows survey data from his firm to support these statements.)
JF: What is the role of your new portal in supporting this work?
SK: PSLs were very important in the design and roll out of the portal. In old portal, lawyers complained that content was not useful. With new system, value of docs was much higher because of the higher value of docs identified by PSLs (and they regularly promote the system).

Audience Member 1: Once PSLs are on-board, it’s likely lawyers will say they are useful. That does not prove very much. Any help is welcome and no one wants to see colleagues’ jobs disappear.
Audience Member 2: Large US firms will never persuade senior management to hire PSLs. In our London office, we do have PSLs because that’s what lawyers there expect.
Audience Member 3: What about the Richard Susskind thesis of commoditizing knowledge and selling. Shouldn’t we be combining knowledge and tech and selling it.
Audience Member 4: I’m from London, a PSL. We’ve had PSLs for almost 10 years. The role is expanding so far beyond its original concept. It’s the bridge between IT and lawyers and marketing. Not just precedents. ROI
Audience Member 5: Firms are not punished for being late adopters - so why rush with hiring PSLs? Plus look at rapid growth of marketing relative to KM. What do we make of that?
JF: Marketers are better at selling themselves.
SK: US clients are less willing to change outside counsel than elsewhere in the world
Audience Member 6: KM is like a help desk for attorneys. Look at the growth of help desks. KM can become like help desks.

Just finished a session on cultural change and social networks at the Ark Knowledge Management conference in Chicago. 

A few interesting points:
- Technology has caused the collapse of more traditional in-person social connections and mentoring.
- KM has emerged as a substitute for the sharing that used to happen naturally.
- A few firms are trying to design physical spaces (e.g., library - cafe combos) that encourage old-fashioned in-person interaction.
- Sharing may occur as readily across firms as within firms at the associate level. (Many raised eyebrows at this; one participant countered “how much original work is really done anyway?")
- Examples of Linkedin, FaceBook, and MySpace for business uses cited: recruiting and biz dev but not much for substantive work.
- One firm uses IM and has determined associates really use it for collaboration and know-how sharing.
- Some: It’s not realistic for KM to drive cultural changes in large law firms. Others: You have to ride existing trends / opportunities and steer those trends.

Two current articles raise some interesting questions about law firms and outsourcing. 

Small World in Law Firm Inc. (10/07) is an interview with White & Case CFO Greg Dolan. The firm outsources some word processing to a legal process outsourcer (LPO) in Chennai. It has also opened its own “captive” or “insourced” center in Manila to handle accounting, finance, and some tech. Asked why outsource, Dolan says “we decided to do both and see which one we like over the longer term.”

Now that I work for an LPO, I am not dis-interested, but I think that captive centers are unlikely to prevail long term. Scale, focus, and specialization are key reasons to outsource; running a captive does not capture these benefits. (That said, I applaud W&C’s empirical testing; my Best Practices posts argue that firms should manage based on real evidence, not myth.)

Look at legal technology as an example: large law firms increasingly outsource. The reasons range from business continuity, to eliminating headache, to reducing cost, to improving service levels. The decision is not all or nothing. For example, Good chemistry in Legal Technology Journal (Issue 6, fall 2007) describes in excellent detail Eversheds‘ decision to outsource significant aspects of its information technology. The firm is keeping “a relatively large IT team” but shifting its focus “from day-to-day service delviery to strategic development and innovation.”

My sense is that firms that once would have only considered “captive” IT solutions now readily consider outsourcing. I suspect that this same trend will apply to other law firm functions (as it has to everything from the mail room to food service to e-discovery processing).

Captive Carve Outs (Global Services magazine, 9/20/07) is a more general take on challenges captives face. It examines IT and business process outsourcing operations that were started as captives of single multinationals but have since been “carved out,” that is, spun out and taken private or sold to a specialist outsourcer.

This is the fourth in an occasional series of “maxims” on managing legal technology. Each one is a bit edgy - you have to decide where the line is on just how true it is!  

Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom – Not! Two decades ago, legal technology proponents advocated, after Chairman Mao, letting a thousand flowers bloom. That is, they wanted lawyers to be able to do whatever they wanted with their PCs. At one time, I too was a Maoist (in that regard only).

Today, the complexity of IT operations, networks, and running help desks is much greater than in the early PC days. Letting users do whatever they want supports innovation and productivity but can mean chaos, extraordinary support costs, and real IT risks. Yet locking down desk tops and complete standardization has its down sides. So, how to keep both the IT gurus and the adventurous lawyers happy?

I’m not sure there is a perfect answer. One is that IT gives power users rights to install local software and some personal support. If the desktop “blows up,” however, the answer is to restore it back to the firm standard (you are backing up data, aren’t you?)

Any other answers that keeps both power users and CIOs happy? What will happen as/if more firms adopt thin client computing (meaning your desktop really is running centrally)?

The American Lawyer October 2007 “Global Issue” focuses on the recent success of leading UK law firms, especially the Magic Circle. Many factors contribute to their success; I’ll focus on two that I follow closely: outsourcing and law firm management. 

Magic Touch notes that leading UK firms “have taken better control of their global costs, introducing tighter management of their back-office functions and starting to explore savings from outsourcing support services.”

Touched by an Angel reports that Linklaters’ managing partner “relies on legions of nonlawyer managers, including 14 on the firm’s ’strategy team,’ several recruited from elite consultancies and paid on a profit basis.”

Both these trends also apply in the US. On outsourcing, Hildebrandt’s 2007 Client Advisory, (3/07) notes that “a number of [US] firms have begun to experiment with ‘outsourcing’ as a means of controlling costs.” On management, many large US firms have hired professionals with years of industry experience for roles such as the CIO, CFO, CMO, and CSO.

Quantifying whether the Brits or the Yanks are ahead on either front is hard. But the impressive gains in London make these articles worth reading. And perhaps emulating some of the success factors.

[There is only one passing and uninteresting reference to technology in these two articles. Hmmm!]

Knowledge managers frequently discuss the number of document categories (types) in the document management system. 

The accepted wisdom is that about a dozen types is right. Even then, lawyers often will not select the appropriate type. Some firms started with 100+ types and pay the price of confusion and mis-use. I’m at a conference now and a speaker just told a great story illustrating this. His firm has 100+ types, including one called “Quit” which was created for a T&E practice that wanted quitclaims categorized. When the KM department looked at the documents in this category, they found 40 letters of resignation!

This is the third in an occasional series of “maxims” on managing legal technology. Each one is a bit edgy - you have to decide where the line is on just how true it is! 

Better to Seek Forgiveness than Ask for Permission. Getting lawyers to agree is hard. Management is often prone to hand-wringing. Just do something new and if management doesn’t like it, ask forgiveness. Of course, you need to know where to draw the line if you value your job. But remember, never doing anything new or useful may also be a recipe for job loss.

This is the second in an occasional series of “maxims” on managing legal technology. Each one is a bit edgy - you have to decide where the line is on just how true it is!  

Less is More. When trying to persuade law firm management or technology committees about doing something new, don’t write a long report or provide too much detail to start. Remember, lawyers love to find fault with proposals. The more detail, the easier it is for them to find fault. Also, more is a bore. Stick to concepts and business value initially; drop the detail. With this approach, the discussion is more likely to focus on the big picture and business benefit. Tell your audience that if they like the idea, you can develop supporting detail later. They can always nix the idea then. But if they buy into a concept to start, they will be less likely to find fault with the details later. (And if someone asks for answers to details at the outset, ask them how the answer would change their decision. This can get testy but it helps point out that without knowing the big picture, the details may not much matter.)

Social networking (e.g., Facebook or MySpace) is the rage. Can it support knowledge management efforts? 

The Water Cooler Is Now On The Web (Business Week, 10/1/07) reports that the software “turns out to be an efficient way to mine for in-house expertise, discover new recruits, and share information within their own walls.” Ok, I admit it. I don’t have much hands-on experience with social networking. And therein lies a problem. I’m more techie and adventurous than the typical BigLaw lawyer. I have a hard time imagining lawyers creating profiles and using social networking (whether public or behind the firewall) to describe their experience. So I am skeptical that social networking will solve any KM problems in the near term. Granted many lawyers are on Linkedin, but I would hardly call that a serious experience location system. Am I missing something?