Articles Posted in Knowledge Mgt.

The law department of BAE Systems, with its 120 lawyers, enjoys the efforts of a head of knowledge management and training (See my post of Sept. 10, 2005: specialized roles in law departments.). According to Legal Week, July 31, 2008, among her other activities, Jo Humphrey has developed an Internet-based knowledge exchange called the Lawyers Virtual Information System – called LVIS and pronounced like the singer with the mesmerizing pelvis.

“Part of the theory behind LVIS is that by helping the legal team share knowledge companywide, more advisory work can be handled internally.” Other law departments have set up similar systems to improve productivity and quality (See my posts of March 26, 2008: Cisco; and March 11, 2007: Kraft.). Those companies, too, might have hoped to reduce their payments to outside counsel.

Talent Mgt. Mag., July 2007 at 44, discusses strengths and limitations of ten techniques to elicit and exchange knowledge. The first technique on the list is “subject-matter expert interviews.” Although I have not heard of a law department that conducts such interviews, they certainly make sense to me (See my post of Feb. 25, 2007: video recordings to capture knowledge.).

The strengths of interviews are that they (1) capture directly what the expert says, (2) can trigger tacit knowledge that might otherwise remain unexpressed, and (3) can link to documents. Limitations include (1) “bandwidth and search limitations can prevent effective dissemination” [which presumably means that people can’t find the interview material] and (2) interviews take place outside the context of the job [which presumably suggests that the knowledge extracted is less practical or relevant].

A 2007 survey by the Association of Corporate Counsel, reported in Met. Corp. Counsel, Vol. 16, May 2008 at 61, drew responses from 1,166 general counsel. When asked what initiatives outside counsel could implement to improve the relationship with their legal department, respondents ranked at the top a set of billing improvements.

According to the summary, those improvements were “followed closely by offering seminars, training and CLE sessions and providing updates on developments in applicable areas of law.” In the 2006 survey, that training choice was ranked highest.

Some partners might be reluctant to train in-house lawyers, because they fear that those lawyers might then have less need to call upon the firm. A few partners might worry about appearing patronizing if they offer instruction. Others realize they are poor teachers. Some don’t want to take the time because it is not billable while a handful may feel that client lawyers do not want training. Or maybe the in-house counsel don’t ask for training or subtly discourage it.

The technology is cheap and easy that allows in-house lawyers to record lessons they have learned during the day. For example, PDA’s let you save your comments at any time on what you just took away from a negotiation, or from a law review article, or from a meeting with outside counsel. Voice recognition software does the trick in the office (See my posts of Feb. 23, 2008: references cited to dictation.). It is easy to cut and past good ideas (See my post of April 27, 2005: knowledge management.).

I think of experiences, insights, practice observations, and ruminations as “nuggets.” For years I compiled my own nuggets on consulting to law departments. My blog posts are nuggets.

These Individual chunks of knowledge are not as stylized as post mortems (aka after-action reviews), which are much more familiar to in-house lawyers (See my posts of Dec. 10, 2005: litigation studies at BellSouth; April 7, 2006: resolved litigation should instruct us; Nov. 6, 2006: after-action reviews; Dec. 19, 2006: test predictive accuracy of law firms; Jan. 30, 2006: ChevronTexaco’s COBALT; Jan. 3, 2008: rarity of post-mortems; and Jan. 13, 2008: learn from unsuccessful practices.).

Aside from being a fountain of youth (See my post of April 27, 2006: Continuing Legal Education may help lawyers live longer.), Continuing Legal Education for attorneys who work in law departments ought to have great value (See my post of Dec. 19, 2005: think of law departments in terms of “learning organizations.”).

Much is made about how vital it is for in-house lawyers to keep abreast of business developments (See my posts of Nov. 6, 2005: Continuing Legal Education should be Continuing Business Education; July 16, 2005: general counsel now “measured by their business acumen”; August 3, 2005: for general counsel, a stint on the business side; April 12, 2006: opportunities at universities for law department lawyers to learn about business; and May 7, 2006: in-house training on financial literacy.).

Talent management posts that refer to CLE and its importance in that domain have also been plentiful (See my posts of August 27, 2005: “Human capital” reporting; Sept. 5, 2005: career spotlights on up-and-coming lawyers; May 14, 2005: executive development courses for high-potentials; and July 31, 2005: succession planning.).

A post by David Hobbie about an International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) session on Aug. 22, 2007, describes some of the knowledge management initiatives of Cisco’s Law Department. Cisco has 130 lawyers in the Silicon Valley and 230 total legal staff in 72 countries. They use DealBuilder (See my post of April 18, 2007: the software’s use by three law firms; Feb. 6, 2007: Microsoft and Reuters applications; and June 20, 2007: Cisco’s applications.) and have customized a contract management system. That system has guides for 26 types of contracts.

To encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing among its far-flung lawyers, the Department created a “Legal Exchange Collaborative” where users can post questions and send e-mails to one or more groups of lawyers. The system handles 20-to-50 questions per month. Its downside is that the e-mails contain only a hyperlink, not the question or the subject, so people who are traveling cannot make full use of it. To address this drawback, the department is considering creating a wiki that can disseminate more of the information its lawyers need (See my post of Feb. 9, 2008: references to six posts on legal wikis.).

Alternate reality games (ARGs) are immersive, massively multiplayer experiences that unfold for the participants over days, weeks or months (See my post of Nov. 18, 2007: online gaming worlds as a way to train in-house counsel.). As described in the Harv. Bus. Rev., Vol. 86, at 29, an ARG designer, knows as a “puppet master,” distributes information and material, such as to the lawyers of a law department at an offsite. The information might pertain to the department’s use of outside counsel over the past several years; the goal of the ARG might be to think through the consequences of drastically reducing the number of law firms retained by the department.

Before the offsite and during it the lawyers would “use wikis, social networking sites, chat rooms, and blogs to analyze clues, debate interpretations, devise mission strategies, predict game events, and ultimately build a common narrative.” In other words, through the life-like simulation they would learn.

As extolled by the author, Jane McGonigal, collaboration in such an effort teaches 10 collective-intelligence competencies. “These include cooperation radar, accurately identifying the very best collaborators for a given task, and protovation, the ability to rapidly prototype test experimental solutions.” Learn more about the remaining eight competencies at the website of McGonigal and why ARGs will supplant some meetings and planning processes.

Joe Bookman, the founder of PinHawk, offers an intriguing prediction in Law Tech. News, Feb. 2008, at 30. Bookman foresees that over the next year or so law-department matter-management systems will start to integrate with internet monitoring software. For example, when an in-house lawyer clicks on a matter, the monitoring software will automatically bring up any recent online references to that matter. Or, when the lawyer clicks on the name of a law firm retained by the law department, the monitoring software will display comments about the firm from the blogosphere or other online sources (See my post of on social networks.).

Such professional mashups (See my post of Nov. 24, 2007: artiblogs.), combining law-department information and supplementary information online, has no end of applications.

My friend Paul Lippe, head of Legal OnRamp, makes an interesting point. It is not enough for a general counsel to know the legal ins and outs of a situation. Nor is it enough to also know the situation’s business ramifications. What the general counsel must also know is what other companies that face a similar situation are doing, especially companies where a Board member sits on the other company’s Board of Directors.

That shared director will want to know why the general counsel’s position differs from the other company’s, if it does. Professional networks enable general counsel to reach out to peers, and they can help you when a board member looks over your shoulder with independent legal knowledge about the issues confronting you.

Forty attorneys took part in the most recent Association of Corporate Counsel’s (ACC) Executive Leadership Institute (ELI). Lectures by Stephen R. Chitwood, director of George Washington University’s Center for Law Practice Strategy and Management, focused on “executive leadership and management, motivation, strategic thinking, planning, analysis, and management, leadership style; and more.”

In the issue of the ACC Docket, Vol. 26, Jan./Feb. 2008, that reported on the ELI (at 16) there is a two-page ad (at 32-3) for Boston University’s Executive Leadership Center’s Mini MBA for in-house counsel. This program, cosponsored by ACC, “will provide you with the broad based understanding of corporate finance, accounting, risk analysis, management, and strategy you need to excel.”

Unlike the day-and-a-half conferences that one usually sees, these two programs are longer and more detailed (See my posts of Aug. 19, 2007 #4 for a sample of conferences that targeted lawyers in corporations.).