Articles Posted in Knowledge Mgt.

Theoretically, theories can explain many aspects of legal department functions (See my post of Dec. 7, 2008 #2: theories referred to on this blog.). Theories abound for all kinds of perspectives, so I thought I would highlight at least nine of them referred to on this blog.

How to track, explain, or predict the inter-locking activities of a legal department — complexity theory (See my post of Aug. 24, 2009: ill-defined term; Dec. 19, 2005: complexity; and Feb. 18, 2006 #3: origins of Complexity Theory.).

How employees and law firms relate to those who supervise them — agency theory (See my post of April 21, 2010: agency theory with 7 references and 1 meta.).

According to a summary in a presentation I saw, researcher, author and thought leader Thomas Davenport maintains that knowledge management (KM):

1. Is expensive if done well, although I believe there are low-cost initiatives like search software that can make a difference in a legal department
2. Requires hybrid solutions of people and technology, which in fact may tilt more toward people than software (See my post of April 30, 2010: four ideas from Mintzberg.).

A large law department I know handles many lawsuits. Its lawyers who manage those suits prepare closing reports that state lessons learned. They aggregate the lessons periodically and study them for trends and conclusions, which goes beyond a one-shot post mortem on major matters (See my post of Oct. 11, 2008: three tips for better retrospective analyses; March 16, 2009: money saving technique; March 31, 2009: post mortem technique that asks for one suggestion from a client for how to improve; April 25, 2009: after-action reviews in ACC Value Challenge; April 29, 2009: ACC Value challenge; July 7, 2009: bake it into matter management system; firms; and Feb. 25, 2010: after a deal closes, have a post mortem competition.).

Reflect for a moment how many valuable traits of management that single activity feeds into. My survey of ideas would include the following:

1. Continuous improvement, in that the whole purpose is to get better;

I just heard from Matthew Sullivan, the founder and principal at Red Bridge Strategy, Inc., specializes in helping clients evaluate and globalize legal services through Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO) and related arrangements. Based in Pune, India, Matt has also hosted a blog since last summer, Global Legal. It looks well done and had a recent post, for example, on whether a general counsel should retain an LPO provider directly or through a law firm.

Welcome to the blawg world, Matt!

According to an email that arrived today, Connected launched last March with only 3,000 beta members.

“One year later, the professional network for lawyers has grown to nearly 30,000 members – including members from more than half of the Fortune 500, lawyers from 98 of the Am Law 100, and 10 Alliance Partners from prominent legal organizations and associations. To date, almost 700 active groups have formed within the community, where members collaborate and share ideas on a number of legal issues, and 2,500 members have participated in community-hosted webinars.”

Attaway, Connected! I have mentioned you from early on and host a forum on it (See my post of March 31, 2009: suggestions for in-house lawyers regarding online networks; and June 9, 2009: data from a survey related to Connected.).

A fascinating article a decade ago, reporting research on the selection of investment bankers, has much to say about legal departments and why they select prominent law firms. Pamela Haunschild and Anne Miner published their article in Admin. Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, Sept. 1997 at 472-500.

The authors distinguish three fundamental bases for how organizations, presumably including legal departments, imitate each other. “With frequency based imitation, organizations execute practices previously used by large numbers of other organizations.” As more legal departments put in place outside counsel guidelines, for example, others followed suit.

“With trait-based imitation, organizations use practices previously used by other organizations with certain traits, such as large size.” An example might be DuPont, which had huge legal spending and a knack for self-promotion, both traits that led other legal departments to imitate its convergence of law firms.

Some proponents of a method to absorb information more effectively urge you to learn in chunks, review the chunks, and test yourself (See my post of Nov. 19, 2009: “spaced education’”). A related method emphasizes even more the benefits of testing yourself on material you are about to review carefully. As described in Sci. Am. Mind, March/April 2010 at 39, studies show that when you try to answer questions about material, you spot and retain the answers in the text you read much better than if you simply read the text and try to learn it.

So, quickly go over a statute, regulation, contract, or pleading and create some questions about the content. Just look at the headers, for example, and create the questions. Try to answer your questions without referring to the material, and then read the document. That pre-read engagement helps you pay attention and commit to memory. I remember a few other posts on ways to tune up your memory (See my post of April 18, 2005: take notes; Jan. 17, 2006: narratives store memories; May 30, 2006: working memory and the challenge of change; May 2, 2008: sleep enhances memory; Jan. 30, 2009: even moderate exercise sharpens one’s memory; Jan. 30, 2009: three tips for how to improve your memory; March 5, 2009: study at your metabolic peak time; Oct. 27, 2009: memory is not only selective, it is malleable; and Jan. 26, 2010: checklists.).

Drugs also may boost memory (See my post of Feb. 7, 2006: 40 drugs that improve memory, including modafinil; May 30, 2006: working memory; Aug. 19, 2007 #2: α2b-adrenoceptor and yohimbine; March 2, 2008 #4: ampakines and the neurotransmitter glutamate; and April 22, 2008: cogniceuticals include memory enhancement.).

No general counsel wants to be surprised by some event, not if a lawyer in the department had some inkling it happened or might happen. Drop-ins, phone calls, hallway chats, emails, and scheduled one-on-ones are all means by which the top lawyer keeps in the know about what’s going on.

Two other methods showed up in a presentation by Bart Colli, the general counsel of Aramark, in a PLI handbook regarding internal investigations (at 861). Colli’s single bullet point reads: “What the General Counsel Needs to Know memo to be operative at all times/Written staff reports monthly.”

I presume Colli has made it clear that if he ought to know something, put it in a brief memo to him. Different lawyers will have different thresholds for how often they send off such an update, but it certainly sets the tone: keep me posted! The second method, monthly staff reports, happens at more legal departments of much size. I have concerns that they become sclerotic, rote, and degenerate into self-promotion, but a general counsel can enforce standards (See my post of Aug. 1, 2006: burdens and benefits of staff reports; June 25, 2007: status reports to clients as an aid to setting priorities; Sept. 1, 2008: online wiki-like status reports; Jan. 13, 2008: report legal issues handled, not time; Nov. 23, 2008: status reports don’t clearly show how hard lawyers work.).

Five organizations will vie in 2010 to win the favors of general counsel who lead legal teams at large US companies. The competition will be fascinating to watch and whatever the outcome will likely benefit all managers of legal departments.

The Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) leads the field in longevity, brand-awareness, and sheer number of members. The award-winning Docket, its annual conference, and its efforts to lobby on behalf of the industry are a few of its many distinguishing offerings along with its diligent efforts to create chapters and alliances outside the United States. But the other groups must believe that it has struggled to attract general counsel from large companies.

The General Counsel Roundtable (Corporate Executive Board) has for years provided in-depth research and services to its members, who number in the 500+ range. It has recently teamed with Legal OnRamp so that it has a much more robust Web 2.0 capability, access to leading law firms, and Rampers have access to the formidable reports and research turned out by the GCRT. GCRT has also moved closer and closer to one-off consulting, but it remains very expensive.

My friend, John Kelly sent me the last two issues of his Litigation Management Report. Both of them are about a dozen pages and contain three or four articles and other material. My sense of them is that readers involved with claims groups, insurance companies, or workers’ comp practices, both inside counsel and outside firms, would benefit most from the quarterly reports.

Others, however, might want to ask John for a sample report and make their own evaluation. He has produced LMR for years and has developed a loyal and large readership.