A survey of the AM Law 200’s technology managers, reported in Law Firm Inc., Vol. 5, Sept. 2007 at 42, found which e-billing software providers somewhat more than half of those firms use (See my posts of Nov. 17, 2006 about how firms must accommodate multiple e-billing packages; and Feb. 21, 2007 on vexations for law firms associated with e-billing.). Last year I reported the results from a similar question from 116 respondents (See my post of July 11, 2006.); this year’s survey attracted 113 respondents. The year-over-year fluctuations are enormous, so there must be something about methodology that explains the swings.
The two most common in 2006 were CT Tymetrix (Tripoint/Direct Invoice) used by 31 firms and Serengeti (Tracker) used by 29 firms. A year later, CT Tymetrix dropped to 19 firm citations and Serengeti to 10! Something is amiss.
DataCert (AIMS) was third in 2006 with 17 firms citing its use, but jumped to 26 firms in 2007. LexisNexis (Counsellink, Examen) plummeted from 14 cites to one, while BottomLine Technologies fell from 8 to 3. I only have comparative market share data for those five systems. It just doesn’t make sense that last year the same number of respondents from the same pool of firms – there is no way to know if the respondents were mostly the same firms or not – reported 99 instances of those packages while this year they reported a mere 59 instances. Something is very misleading or wrong with this data.
Bridgeway (eCounsel), Oracle/PeopleSoft (eSettlements), Thomson Elite [5 firms in 2007], Eliot, and Litigation Advisor had at least 4 firms using them last year, but no data for 2007. Last year 28 firms used other packages; this year, without the breakout of the five just mentioned, 32 firms listed “other.” Last year, 29 of these huge US law firms reported that they used no e-billing software; a year later 32 said the same thing. As e-billing spreads, that increase in non-use among huge law firms defies belief.