Category: Business Process Management

5 Things to Consider When Evaluating Legal Process Management Tools

Process management is inevitable when it comes to managing companies of all sizes. Consider all the processes that your employees deal with on a daily basis – accident/incident reports, contract review, employee termination, ethics violations, service mark/trademark registration, IP infringement, etc.

Process matters and process management tools can reduce costs, drive efficiently and enhance overall performance. Selecting the right legal process management tool requires evaluating several criteria. Careful analysis of these following 5 factors will ensure you select the optimal tool(s) for your company’s needs.

1. Deployment Selection: There are two basic models to consider; the traditional or enterprise model, or Software as a Service (SaaS) also known as the cloud model. Both have advantages and drawbacks to consider. Enterprise systems are customizable, have a high degree of complexity, while SaaS systems are ready made, and thus are much simpler to deploy. The complexity of an enterprise solution requires dedicated or virtual server space, and annual upgrades. SaaS solutions come with upgrades and maintenance included in the subscription, so there is no need to involve the IT department.

2. Cost: Enterprise solutions carry higher costs; they are purchased with licenses and require annual upgrades and maintenance which averages between 18-22% of the initial cost of the solution. SaaS subscriptions are much less expensive to purchase and maintain. Long term cost analysis should be conducted to determine the best fit.

3. Company Requirements: Assuming that your company recognizes the need for a legal process management tool, and has committed to the purchase, it needs to determine its requirements. At the very least, an automated solution needs to support process and workflow management across various departments and stakeholders with attention to deadlines and budget.

4. Integration Process: Carefully consider your company’s IT structure and area(s) of practice to ensure that the solution or combination of solutions you are considering are compatible with what is currently in place. Any good enterprise or cloud solution should offer availability, reliability, and security.

5. Consistency of Your Selected Solution: Process management involves numerous steps so it’s best to tie in with a reliable legal project management tool. This consistency ensures the scope of the project is clearly defined and the expectations are transparent. As part of this process, it is critical to have a centralized repository for documents, notes and relevant conversations related to the project. Your tool should be capable of managing all these aspects along with managing legal governance, risk and compliance.

An effective legal process management tool keeps everything flowing in a coherent, manner so companies can run smoothly and efficiently. Budget constraints and security concerns can be a roadblock to implement this type of tool but the benefits far out weight the cost. The right automated solution can drive costs, increase efficiency, and improve your company’s performance by streamlining workflow and increasing your legal team’s accessibility to information.

Doing More With Less: Why You Need Legal Process Management Tools

Businesses are clamoring to cut spending in the post-2008 economy, particularly in their legal departments. With the rising cost of litigation and decreased revenues, cost savings have become a priority for general counsel in blue chip companies, including Citi, BP, Goldman Sachs, Shell, and Sony. A recent report from Oxford University’s Said Business School interviewed 52 general counsel and found that a key component of trimming the fat from legal spending will come from a “production line” approach. Part of those spending cuts can come in the form of legal process management.

While it’s true that in-house legal departments have grown in the past few years as companies shift their legal work from pricey outside counsel to their in-house lawyers, the hiring hasn’t remained at pace with the work generated in corporate legal departments. Legal process management helps legal departments deal with the increased workload generated by the “do more with less” mentality by automating some tasks and streamlining others.

For example, in-house counsel in large companies may find themselves sifting through emails to keep abreast of outstanding requests like litigation and contracts for new customers. With a strong legal process management system, these kinds of requests can be generated through a company-wide portal that routes the request to the correct person, eliminating wasted time sifting through emails.

Automating requests is just the first part. Being able to tag projects and documents to provide a faster way to find information, managing documents, and managing tasks certainly increases efficiency. Part of doing more with less is increasing efficiency to a point where each mouse click is meaningful, eliminating the time spent searching for documents or figuring out who is working on what part of the project.

And a good legal process management system also includes legal department budgeting that allows in-house counsel to see all the legal department’s expenses with just a few clicks. Legal departments can create budgets for each project and then view where the spend is, as well as electronically approve invoices to speed payment and reduce paperwork that can get buried on a busy lawyer’s or paralegal’s desk. Creating budgets defines the expectations and allows legal departments to more effectively choose vendors for the services needed outside their department’s abilities.

The post-2008 economy has left in-house legal departments doing more with less, but if they’re willing to invest a little time and money into a package that automates processes and allows them to budget more effectively, they really will be able to meet corporate goals and exceed expectations. The delivery of legal services doesn’t have to suffer with budget cuts, as long as legal departments make the small jump from paper-based process management to an electronic legal process management that wraps everything into a tidy package.

Legal Project Management is What Legal Matter Management “Should” Have Always Been

I have sold a lot of legal matter management (and light matter tracking) software over the last 12 years for lots of money to corporations.

 

I also spent a lot of money buying a leading legal matter management company in 2006 while CEO of the last company I founded.

 

Senator, I served with matter management, I knew matter management, matter management was a friend of mine. Senator, matter management is not what you need! (If you understand the reference here, you’re welcome for my brilliance. If you don’t, please forgive my clumsy attempt at humor).

 

So, the truth about matter management is that it has evolved as a big container for stuff; fields and tables and labels and such. It is a big database application. And, it does a good job at collecting stuff, as long as a corporation requires it to be done and there are sufficient administrative people to accomplish it. Where matter management has squarely fallen down is on helping lawyers get much of any value out of the data. Consequently, other than docketing and calendaring information (which is normally synced with their e-mail/calendar application already), there is no good reason for a lawyer to open a matter management tool. So they don’t.

 

Many corporations have spent in excess of $1 million in the selection, purchase and implementation of a matter management system. What should have been included in these systems are tools that actually help a lawyer do a better job, achieve better outcomes, spend less money, or all of the above.

 

In short, matter management always “should” have been based on project management discipline and on helping lawyers manage the “process” of law better. It wasn’t, precisely because of the belief that legal work was special; it had to be handled differently, by experts that would not get value from routinized steps (or checklists). And while we are on the topic of legal matters, I am of the mind that we should get rid of all terms that connote that legal projects are any different than other projects.

The more work we have done on legal project management, the more we have realized that it is almost exactly the same as project management for architects, engineers, builders, etc. So, a matter is a project. A case is a project. A deal is a project. A transaction is a project. Litigation is a special project. This will make things easier, now.

Project management is what matter management “should” have always been. Project management is process-driven, where appropriate, it is collaborative, it is work-flow and it is about planning, executing and monitoring.

Most legal matter and spend management applications today start the management of work at the receipt of the invoice. This is okay for some, I guess. After all, you can save 1 to 10% of your legal spend just by making sure that invoices comply with your business rules. But you don’t get better outcomes. You don’t get faster turnarounds. In short, you don’t get things better, faster, cheaper — just cheaper.

Here at Onit, our fundamental belief is that you have to start the management of your projects much earlier than the invoice.

Understanding Legal Process Management

In large corporations, legal departments are largely back-office operations. They handle contact review, employee terminations, litigation, trademarks and patents, and a plethora of other functions. The legal process itself demands a lot of paper, and legal departments often get buried in just the documents required for a project. When you add in the emails, calls and other requests from the front end – the sales department, human resources or other business units – the legal department slows down, trying to sort through not only existing work but also making sure that new requests are routed through the system efficiently. That’s a tall order, given the average amount of work most legal departments have, using less staff than a few years ago.

Legal process management ties together the front and back ends of the business. Here’s an example of how smooth the process could be: using a portal, customized forms and a data entry wizard, the human resources department could request that the legal department review the involuntary termination of an employee. The process would be simple for both sides:

  1. The portal, which could be a part of the legal department’s home page, an intranet page or reside on the legal process management vendor’s server, would include a link to request legal services. The human resources representative would click on the appropriate link, i.e. “Review an involuntary termination.”
  2. The link would bring up an online form that could be customized for the company. The human resources representative would then fill out those fields and attach supporting documentation like performance reviews or inappropriate emails sent by the employee.
  3. Using the data entry wizard, the form could include a drop-down menu for the reason for termination, such as “inappropriate conduct.” Something like this could be flagged so that the termination would need to be reviewed by the general counsel. The request would then be routed to her by the legal process management system to be reviewed before giving approval to HR to terminate the employee.

By utilizing a legal process management system, the legal department gets everything it needs to begin working on an issue in a timely manner. Instead of back-and-forth emails that can easily get overlooked in overflowing inboxes or playing phone tag, the legal department is able to customize forms that ask the right questions from the inception. The department requesting the legal services is able to provide the right information and can track the progress of the legal department through the portal.

This efficient way of legal process management frees up time across the enterprise, allowing everyone to focus on their jobs. It simplifies the legal process, makes sure that the work gets done, and prevents costly, time-consuming lawsuits over missed deadlines. It saves time and money, both important resources in companies that are struggling to do more with less in a turbulent economy.

Watch this video to see how a simple tool like Onit Process can help a general counsel automate a contract review process with a sales manager. To see the tool, sign-up to view the Legal Process Management Onit Premium screencast.

6 Steps for Evaluating Legal Project Management Software

Legal project management software can streamline your department’s processes and help you keep track of the large amounts of information that are commonplace in today’s paperwork-intensive legal departments. Whether it’s litigation encompassing e-discovery, keeping track of trademarks and patents, or contract management, a good legal project management tool can increase your efficiency, control costs, and ensure nothing slips through the cracks. Selecting a legal project management system is a big commitment so you’ll want to evaluate different vendors before making a final decision.

Here are 6 steps to consider when evaluating legal project management tools:

1. Determine your department’s needs. How many users do you have? What features do you need? What legal projects will you be using it for (litigation, contracts, NDAs, etc.)? It may seem very rudimentary but you’ll want to have the basics laid out before you start evaluating vendors.

2. Find out how easy it is to implement. You’re going to have to train your entire legal department on the software, so investigate the vendor’s demos, videos or screencasts. Request an online demo and ask questions specific to your project scope. If you have colleagues who already use legal project management software, ask them for a recommendation and find out how easy it was to implement.

3. Consult with your IT department. Do you need software that resides on servers in-house, or would a “cloud” offering (Software as a Service – SaaS) suffice? Involve your IT team in as much of the software selection as possible. They’ll be able to tell you what will work with your existing systems, what will require additional hardware purchases, and the requirements for installation and implementation. They’ll also be able to quickly access if the tools meet your company’s regulations and are compliant with your data security policies.

4. Review the software’s ability to “play nice” with your existing systems. This goes back to consulting with the IT department. They’ll be able to tell you if the software you’re considering can work with internal systems like Outlook or SharePoint or can integrate with other systems (i.e. document management, contract management, e-billing and matter management, time & billing, etc.)

5. Find out if the software offers the reporting you need. Can the solution you’re considering generate the reports you need on a daily, weekly or monthly basis to manage different projects? Is the user interface easy to use? Can you quickly create a report to check the status of all your projects?

6. Investigate the user interface. As eluded to above, a user-friendly interface makes managing projects and generating reports easier if it doesn’t require much training. Look for an intuitive, simple to use interface that allows you to see the status of different projects on one screen.

By following these 6 basic steps, you’ll be better prepared to select a suitable legal project management system that’s aligned with your company and legal department’s goals.

Want to get started today? Onit Project is a light-weight legal project management tool with full project planning functionality, document management and enterprise-class security. Register today and start tracking all your projects. You’ll be glad you did.

LPM 101: The Benefits of Legal Project Management Software

If you’re looking for advanced tools to facilitate a more efficient management of ongoing legal projects and open cases, the benefits of using legal project management (LPM) software are many. LPM tools offer users a wide range of benefits, including data collection and management, project planning, collaboration, document management, and much more.

One of the major benefits of LPM tools is that it facilitates easy collaboration. Let’s use a legal project as an example. When a legal matter or “project” is initiated, it is common practice to assign tasks to team members. How are these tasks tracked? Who tracks them? How do you ensure that deadlines are not missed? Is there a project manager? Is project status communicated in Outlook or another internal tracking system?

Creating a project in a legal project management tool alleviates all of these issues. When all team members have access to the same information, it’s easy to share documents, see status updates, assign tasks, and add notes about the project. Not only will your staff be more efficient and happier but it will also reduce their email and phone call loads.

Another major benefit of legal project management software is that it allows project leaders to assign and delegate tasks while supervising the progress of individual team members
. This helps increase accountability and promotes a culture of professionalism within the organization.

When it comes to a legal project, there are many moving parts and complexity is commonplace. One of the most beneficial features of legal project management software is that it makes scheduling easy. No longer will you need to worry about missed deadlines or getting clarity on the project scope. All team members have access to the information and can get updates immediately.

In some cases, you may wish to collaborate with professionals or legal experts outside your organization. You need not worry. Legal project management software makes it easy to quickly invite new team members and get them up to speed on the project scope. It can also be advantageous for the training of new employees, as the inherent features of legal project management software make it easy to demonstrate the progression of a project from its initiation to its final resolution.

Most of all, legal project management software helps your organization, whether it’s a corporation, non-profit, hospital or university, save money through the effective deployment of departmental resources and labor. It is an investment that can quite literally pay for itself in a relatively short period of time. How you ask? The ROI can be calculated in labor and resource savings, improved efficiencies and increased accountability and professionalism for starters. Layer in enhanced productivity and projects are more likely to stay within project scope and budget.

There is a wide range of legal project management software tools available and it’s important that you take the time to research the options carefully before making an investment. It’s critical to only pay for the features that your organization wants and needs. From introductory packages to advanced suites and modules, there’s a legal project management software package that’s just right for you.

Interested in learning more? Watch these screencasts to see if Onit Project is the right legal project management tool for your organization.

Legal Project Management – What’s It All About?

Legal project management applies and adapts the business process of project management to the management of legal services. As more law firms adopt alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) over the standard hourly billing model, the management of time and expenses becomes increasingly more important to the law firm’s overall success.

Historically, the practice of law is not about efficiency, but rather research and ingenuity. Project management, a concept from the business world, breaks down the process of law into measurable, systematic goals, which may seem contrary to the creative thinking approach many lawyers take.

However, the legal clients of today expect accountability, communication, and transparency. By having a process in place for documenting and sharing information and expectations, law firms can not only maximize client satisfaction, but profits as well.

The formula for successful project management includes reviewing the objective of the project with clients, defining a system of communication, mapping specific actions required, creating a timeline or schedule with target dates, and scheduling meetings to update or revise the project scope.

A law firm can implement these strategies using legal project management software, LPM training or certification, or both, depending on the size of the firm and the needs of the clients.

Generally, the larger the law firm, the more beneficial it is to have at least one, if not several, project managers. Introducing and adapting this project management discipline within a law firm is a shift in how law firms have typically operated.

Project management introduces targeted goals and accountability in strategic ways geared towards not just maximum profits but client satisfaction. While this may be a difficult philosophical adjustment for some firms and lawyers, the practice is becoming more widely implemented. Legal project management is a new concept that is making its mark on how law is practice.

Don’t wait to get started. Register today for a free Onit account and kick-start your legal project management initiative.

Alternative Fee Arrangements: The Fundamental Advantage is for Law Firms

Law firms love AFAs. They love them because they make more money using them. Why else would a law firm actively bid on work using AFAs?

How are law firms profiting from AFAs? It’s simple. Strong AFA-oriented firms – regardless of size or specialty – have the data. They know how long projects take, how many personnel are required and the most efficient ways to execute. And they can mine that data across many matters and multiple industries. Additionally, because law firms are still capturing time entries from their staff, they can continually monitor the effectiveness of their AFAs and tweak their “input” costs accordingly if they are at risk of losing money.

Corporate legal departments are at a disadvantage because they likely don’t have the data to inform structuring an AFA and they certainly don’t get the “input” cost data from the law firms to monitor the effectiveness of the AFA from a cost perspective. From a purely cost-focused point of view, to enter into AFA negotiations without data and metrics around necessary resources and time is like going to a negotiation unprepared. The cards are stacked against the corporate legal department before the negotiations begin.

However, there is a way to help level the playing field and it’s pretty simple.

Request a shadow bill.

A shadow bill is exactly what it sounds like: A duplicate copy of the hours that the law firm staff spent on your project. I know that this is controversial, but making sure both parties have the data is the only fair way for AFAs to be entered into and maintained.

These bills are often circulated internally in a law firm so there may be an initial resistance to sharing them with a client. From a corporate perspective, requesting a shadow bill is the ONLY way you’ll be able to analyze the true value you are getting from the AFA. Moreover, law firms have the technology and processes in place that make this a simple task on their side.

Clarity of Results

Now imagine the clarity that ensues when both parties come to the table with a shared understanding of AFA-related results and costs. It extends beyond cost-controlling measures to create stronger ties between in-house and outside counsel – ties that can be used to create mutually beneficial results. In fact, cost savings are only the beginning.

One of the key benefits from AFAs is being able to share in the financial risks. In some instances (depending on the type of AFA – see below), law firms reap the rewards when a certain goal is attained. When alternative fee arrangements focus on results with the emphasis away from the billable hour, lawyers are rewarded for efficiency. AFAs also provide another important benefit to legal departments – clarity of future costs. Having the ability to mine data from other legal cases or matters is a huge incentive when trying to predict future legal spend. Shadow bills provide this transparency of legal spend.

Let’s look at an example. A case settled in mediation might net a law firm a tidy profit under an AFA structure – one that would not be reflected in an hourly structure. But balance this against an AFA-billed case that might have unexpected turns and the arrangement may work in the corporate legal department’s favor.

Shadow bills are the only way to level the AFA-playing field for law firms and corporate legal departments. Get started today. Request a shadow bill from your law firm and start managing your legal department like a business.

Beyond the Billable Hour

Below are some of the common alternatives to hourly billing:

    • Fixed-fee or Flat Rate – An agreed-upon sum for handling a matter or a defined portion of a case.
    • Capped Fee – An hourly rate, but the client is promised the total billing will not exceed a predetermined amount
    • Discounted Hourly – A reduced hourly rate, often tied to a high volume or extended to major clients
    • Blended Hourly – A uniform hourly rate averaged among the partner, associate and support staff rates
    • Project Billing – A flat fee agreed upon in advance, for handing a specific project
    • Incentive Billing – A fixed fee, established at the outset, with an incentive bonus if the law firm obtains specific results
    • Modified Contingency – A reduce hourly rate with additional compensation depending on the outcome of a matter
    • Defense Contingency or Negative Contingency – Defense attorney’s compensation is totally or partially dependent upon the outcome of a matter
    • Hybrid Arrangements – Any billing method that combines two or more alternatives

Want to Learn More?

Take a look at the articles and surveys below to see why alternative fee arrangements are becoming so popular.

Articles

ACC Value Challenge

2010 Surveys

    • Inside Counsel Third Annual Law Department Operations Survey (Link no longer live)

Alternative Fee Arrangements: Smart Law Firms Profit, Smart Law Departments Know It

Law firms are resilient – one of the most tenacious businesses that exist.

Never mind the (almost) static, partner-centric organizational structure. They’re slow to adopt new technology when compared to businesses in other industries. They often have the reputation of holding onto tradition and responding slowly to new experiences or trends.

What other profession is so well known for charging at an hourly rate – a set-up that essentially rewards lawyers for spending more time (as opposed to only necessary time) on cases?

However, as corporate legal departments strive to drive down costs and minimize risks, an opponent to the hourly bill is steadily growing in popularity and is now (ok, I’m just going to say it) a mainstream practice for many law firms. The common perception is that alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) (think flat-rates or project- or value-based fees) give corporate legal departments a distinct edge when it comes to saving money and puts law firms at a significant (monetary) disadvantage.

That might not be the case.

As billing models change, resilient law firms are adapting. They’re surviving and thriving when it comes to AFAs.

Why are law firms benefiting from AFAs? Because most of them have the experience and (most importantly) the data to reinforce their AFA negotiations. The result is that law firms make more money using AFAs; not less. Counterintuitive? Read our next post.

State of the Nation

That AFAs are gaining more ground in the bout of in-house vs. outside counsel is no surprise to anyone. And, as is usually the case, the battle to keep law department costs down is fueling the movement.

A survey from the BTI Consulting Group cites that corporate legal budgets were expected to decrease 4.3 percent in 2010. This means that corporate legal departments needed to get the same amount (or more) of work done with less money and resources.

According to Fulbright’s 7th Annual Litigation Trends Survey Report, 52 percent of the U.S. corporate legal departments surveyed are using AFAs. One in six of the corporate counsel that responded estimate that AFAs account for 50 percent or more of their billings. Among all respondents using AFAs, fixed fees, conditional/contingent fees, blended rates and capped fees are the most widely used AFA variants.

And the practice is growing. The survey stated that four out of 10 U.S. respondents expect to increase their use of alternative fees and with large companies leading the way and that a majority of U.S. respondents see AFAs – and more stringent cost control measures – as becoming fixtures in the market.

To sum it all up, cost controls demand innovative thinking. As corporate legal embraces AFAs, law firms have to anticipate, adapt to and profit from these arrangements.

And they are.

Corporate legal departments are also embracing it. Read Mark Herrmann’s article – Inside Straight: Alternative Fee Agreements for Beginners in Above the Law to see how your legal department can benefit from project or value-based billing arrangements. Mr. Herrmann is the Vice President and Chief Counsel – Litigation at Aon.

The Dawn of Alternative Legal Fee Standardization

Alternative fee arrangements bring about a couple of different (ahem) feelings, depending on who you are and where you work. General counsel applaud them as they reduce outside counsel spend. Agile (and often smaller) law firms consider them a nicely sharpened tool in the business development arsenal. Larger firms, which can have ingrained processes and a strong hierarchy, sometimes find themselves a bit behind the curve.

Regardless, alternative billing is pretty much becoming, well, the new standard for billing.

Not that I’m telling you anything new here, folks. We all know how the in-house perspective on alternative billing has evolved over the years. Let’s recap the highlights of the conversation over the past three decades:

    • 1981: Legal work costs what it costs. We can’t control how much we spend or what outside counsel will charge us.
    • 1991: Wait a second. Maybe we can. If only we had the technology to do so.
    • 2011: We’ve got the technology. We see alternative fee arrangements thriving with documented ROI from our own efforts and/or our peers’ efforts.

So what has sparked this blog post? We can thank The Economist for that.

It published an article on May 5 titled “A Less Gilded Future,” which lays out ongoing and growing challenges for law firms. What factors are attributing to these challenges now? Besides technology and outsourcing – which both force a deduction in billable hours – the other “evil beast” is alternative fee arrangements.

In support of this, the article cites feedback from Robert Ruyak on one of the main causes for the demise of the law firm he worked at, Howery:

Howrey had begun acceding to clients’ demands for flat, deferred or contingent fees, causing income to become clumpy and unpredictable.

With this example in mind, and with what you have seen yourself, does the growing strength of alternative fees present a mighty blow to the proliferation of law firms? Or does it just mean an end to the way law firms conceptualize, pitch and measure their billing structures?

And one more (even more thrilling) thought: Are we actually nearing a point where we can apply industry standards to alternative fee arrangements?

The adoption of alternative fees has accelerated these past 5 years alone. The fees have been in use by some pioneers for much longer than that. Thanks to technology (such as legal project management software), is there enough collective data to begin to consider the average fees associated with matters and general tasks from both an in-house and outside counsel point of view? Imagine the implications this could have on negotiations – a basic plateau to start negotiations on that is backed up by both corporate legal departments and law firms alike. Standards such as this could help law firms negotiate on a more level playing field while also affording the necessary cost controls for general counsel.

What do you think? Now that we have (and have had) the technology, do we have the data to begin building standards for alternative billing?

Stay tuned for the next blog where I will discuss how some firms are pushing alternative fee arrangements with their customers because they are finding higher margins there! Sounds counter-intuitive, right?