Category: Business Process Management

“Eventually everything connects – people, ideas, objects. The quality of the connections is the key to quality per se.”
– Charles Eames

Life used to be lot easier, right? Well, that depends on who you ask. One thing is for sure – computers were a lot simpler. Databases and other application software usually served their purpose and we would just switch from one application to another when we needed to. But in most cases these programs were virtually separate and were not able to exchange data. We’ve all heard of ‘working in a silos.’ Well, those applications were basically information silos. Connections between programs, if any, were simple point-to-point and set up on an as-needed basis. After a while, this collection of connections would become very difficult to maintain and not very efficient. Essentially, what was missing was unrestricted and seamless sharing of data and business processes among all the application or data sources in the enterprise.

Nowadays, complex systems and programs need to interact with each other even more than in the past. Ideally, we want to connect applications in order to simplify business processes and avoid having to make extensive changes to existing applications. Processing data, requests, confirmations, and messages are just some of the interactions that are happening every second of the day, and it just makes sense to have applications that can share large amounts of data for processing or organization.

Let’s say a company has implemented a new legal technology solution for legal service requests, legal holds, contract management or a complex enterprise legal management system. In addition to their new technology, the company will continue using their existing applications such as AdobeSign, DocuSign, Microsoft Active Directory, ILM, iManage, Salesforce, PeopleSoft, One IBM or a myriad of other applications. All of these can be integrated with their newest technology solution but it needs to be done the right way.

As you’re shopping around for new process automation technology, you may hear fancy terms describing various integration methods. Flat-file integration allows data to be passed between different systems without necessarily connecting directly to them. API integration uses a protocol such as REST or SOAP and is the more modern method of integrating, but not always the best solution. For example, not all applications have available APIs for integration. Native actions are built by the technology provider are another method used. Every customer has a unique integration situation, so it’s extremely important to get it right the first time.

One thing many people overlook when looking for new process automation technology, is the importance of looking at the provider’s ability to use the best integration method for your particular situation. Partnering with a provider who is proficient with more than one integration method is also a big advantage. It’s all too easy to get caught up in all the great features of the new product and what it will do for your company. Just remember to look at how the provider will integrate it. You can implement the best technology available, but without proper and solid integration you won’t be getting the best out of it.

“A successful lawsuit is the one worn by a policeman.”
― Robert Frost

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(e) states that when “electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery,” the court may take certain actions. Unfortunately, the actions may include sanctions or fines totaling millions of dollars for companies who fail to act.

A legal hold, or litigation hold, is a notification to a company or individuals that material or data regarding an active or be anticipated legal proceeding shouldn’t be destroyed. However, it doesn’t guarantee that the material will be preserved. Actual preservation is the responsibility of the notified organization’s leadership and employees involved. We’d like to illustrate a recent case where some bad things happened, but the company did the right thing by issuing a legal hold.

A large corporation recently ran into a situation where they felt it in their best interest to issue an internal legal hold. Earlier, one of their employees had filed a federal and state class action concerning compensation issues. In addition to the company’s resultant legal hold notification, the company instructed the plaintiff and other employees not to discuss the lawsuit. In response, the plaintiff filed charges against the company, alleging that the company’s actions coerced him and his fellow employees in violation of their rights to discuss compensation.

The legal hold itself informed employees of their obligation to preserve any information related to the case, including all documents related to the plaintiff’s allegations and all communication with or concerning the plaintiff. After careful consideration, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concluded that it was unlawful for the company to issue the directive not to comment or converse about the lawsuit. But wait – the ending of the story isn’t quite so bleak.

The NLRB also concluded that the company’s legal hold was not unlawful. Equally important was the Board’s conclusion that the company had significant interests in issuing the legal hold. “Like all parties to a lawsuit, it is legally compelled to preserve evidence.  Adherence to this duty is key to avoiding liability for damages for spoliation of evidence… it is appropriate for the employer to err on the side of caution in complying with its legal obligation to preserve all documents that may constitute evidence in the ongoing litigation. Moreover, broad litigation holds serve not just employers’ interest in avoiding penalization for spoliation of evidence, but also the interests of plaintiffs, intervenors, and the courts.”¹

Keeping employees trained up and aware of their responsibility in the protection and preservation of data is a must. Last but not least, legal hold software should be an integral part of the equation. A powerful, state-of-the-art legal hold solution offers a quick and highly cost-effective way to reduce the ever-present risk of costly court cases.

¹Mark Theodore: Employer’s Litigation Hold Not Unlawful, NLRB Division of Advice Concludes. National Law Review, December 21, 2018

“I think one key part of doing more with less is to be more strategic, to realize what the objectives you’re truly trying to accomplish are and then to drive with greater focus towards those objectives.”
– Risa Lavizzo-Mourey

Doing more with less money and resources is not something most people want to hear from their bosses at the staff meeting. But it’s becoming more and more prevalent in the workplace, and legal departments share in the angst. “Lean legal” has been raising its ugly head for some time now, but it doesn’t need to be “ugly” at all. We invite you to read on and you’ll see what we mean.

Cost control and cost management have, and continue to be, one of legal’s biggest challenges. How have legal departments been handling this? Increasing the workload of existing resources, bringing on more in-house lawyers, and implementing more technology. Increasing the workload? Something else employees don’t want to hear. Hiring more in-house lawyers? That’s not really making things “leaner,” is it? That leaves technology. Let’s investigate this one a little more.

According to HBR Consulting’s 2018 Law Department Survey:

“Law departments also continue in their efforts to streamline operations, not only to control costs but also continue to increase efficiency. Legal technology continues to be a focus of many departments and plan implementation of next generation technologies to increase productivity. Law departments continue to be interested in data-related technologies, with 28 percent indicating they plan to implement artificial intelligence technology in the next one to two years, and 26 percent planning to implement legal spend analytics. These were topped, however, by contract management solutions, which 29 percent plan to implement in the next one to two years. These new legal technologies help automate manual workflows and create visibility into workload and spending, allowing organizations to improve operating efficiency and facilitate decision making.”

Topping the list of most implemented technology are e-billing and matter management, with legal holds and contract management following closely on their heels. Interestingly, the top two areas where customers are moving out of their existing systems are e-billing and matter management. This points to even greater demand for cutting-edge companies who provide the crème de la crème of technology solutions.

So if technology is so good at helping these legal departments, what were the barriers to using it in the first place? A lean budget is often cited as one of the major reasons. Resistance to change also places on the list. But one of the other major reasons is integrating new technology with existing systems. Nowadays, resistance to change is really the only thing that should be holding up progress – the other issues of budget and integration have changed considerably in favor of organizations seeking new technology. There are technology solutions out there for practically every budget. Stop dreading the words, “Do more with less.” We challenge you to thrive on it and explore the technology solutions out there that will help you do that.