Articles Posted in Technology

Programs that run full-fledged capabilities, including those that run on specific hardware, such as Apple’s or tablet devices, have the edge now over web-based apps. So-called native apps (aka platform apps) can be visually rich and lively. Now, as the newest generation of the code for designing Web pages, called HTML5 (HyperText Markup Language, 5th generation), spreads and browsers upgrade to take advantage of it, the functionality-and-appearance gap will narrow.

The in-houser of tomorrow – well, in the next few years – may find a raft of very specialized apps released by law firms, legal publishers, law schools or consultants that bring pinpoint information to their mobile devices. At some point, tech-savvy law departments might swap or sell apps they develop. Apps will show off intellectual capital, market the provider, collect and distribute useful data, and cement relationships.

The wide reach of the Web and its agnosticism as to devices and operating systems will enable HTML5 apps, as they compete more equally with native apps, to fill all kinds of gaps in what is available for law departments.

An executive from Micro Strategies, Inc., in Met. Corp. Counsel, March 2011 at 33, points out some of the proliferating cloud choices: “software as a service [SaaS], infrastructure as a service, platform as a service, and desktop as a service.”

SaaS includes such online hosted software as Serengeti Tracker and GoogleDocs. Infrastructure as a service includes huge server banks that law departments can use for storing e-discovery documents or backups of any kinds of files. I think deal rooms are examples of a platform as a service since they offer a suite of capabilities, and desktop as a service may pertain to iPads and other tablet functions that use Internet-based resources.

Given the ability of a law department to mix and match from this set, “This provides a minimum of 16 different kinds of cloud offerings.” Law department managers and their technology advisors need to stay abreast of this plethora of new alternatives.

An excellent chart in a recent benchmark report by Otto Henning & Co. based on large German companies provides insights into their law departments and level of use of nine technologies. Based on implemented systems only (Im Einsatz), all of them have access to a corporate intranet (Unternehmens-Intranet). Online research (Nachschlagewerke, including z.B. JURIS, Beck Online) is available for 89 percent of them. Document management software has been implemented by 65 percent of the 56 law departments followed by “Workflow-Systeme” in 51 percent. That latter category intrigues me, even more because of how common it is.

In decreasing order after those four technologies are e-learning systems, project or matter management (Wissenmanagement-systeme), transcription equipment and software, time tracking (20%) and matter management systems (Externe Kanzlei-Rechtnungsprüfung z.B Legalbil, DataCert). The age of integrated e-billing and matter management has not yet dawned in Germany.

Total cost of ownership (TCO) should be a calculation done by all law departments before they select software. An executive of Datacert wrote that the definition of TCO “includes all the upfront costs of procurement, including hardware and software, as well as ongoing operational expenditures such as training, administration, maintenance and system scaling to support growth.” Another person in the same article in Met. Corp. Counsel, March 2011 at 33,.added space, energy and HVAC. You want to have a handle on the all-in costs of the finalists before you choose.

It appears I have never referred to the term TCO directly but I have addressed the idea and some of its components (See my post of Aug. 14, 2005: costs of training when software is installed; Sept. 10, 2005: costs of litigation support software; Dec. 31, 2008: 10 questions to ask about software offerings; April 8, 2009: costs of team to choose software needs to be figured in; Oct. 28, 2009: open source software may actually be open wallet; and Feb. 8, 2010: high software maintenance charges.).

A recent market report from Hyperion Research describes a dozen vendors of matter management and e-billing who are identified as “Market Participants.” The Aug. 2010 MarketView Report of Hyperion Research, “e-Billing and Matter Management Systems for Corporations,” at 14-17 gives thumbnail descriptions of each company, its products, services, and strengths and weaknesses. [Disclaimer: I received a free review copy of the report.]

Several of the packages were unfamiliar to me, partly because they may focus on a particular industry, such as insurance and claims, and partly because the demarcation line between these law department systems and systems that also serve law firms can blur. I would not be surprised if several other software companies claim they have solutions for in-house counsel to track matters and spending.

The Aug. 2010 MarketView Report of Hyperion Research, “e-Billing and Matter Management Systems for Corporations,” includes a five-page history of those systems. It is a useful summary of where we are in 2011.

The comprehensive and detailed report foresees an integration of functions that currently operate from a variety of databases and other applications. The “solution footprint” that will bring together many of these functions they name “Enterprise Legal Management.” Of particular interest to me is a prediction that “as the ELM segment solidifies, we anticipate the entry of larger enterprise application vendors such as Oracle, SAP, Sage and Microsoft, as well as legal technology providers from other specialty areas.” Law department managers, they suggest, will continue to see a vibrant market at full competitive pitch.

Disclaimer: I know both founders and received a copy of the report at no cost.

Privileged to review a copy of the Aug. 201 MarketView Report of Hyperion Research, “e-Billing and Matter Management Systems for Corporations,” I will write a few blog posts. This post covers several thoughts.

First, the 76-page report offers huge value since it not only analyzes the market for licensed packages – more than two dozen of them – it also narrows down that large group to more manageable smaller sets.

Second, it lays out an eight-part framework for what to evaluate when you look at matter management and e-billing systems. That framework and other material in the report will also help how you conduct demos.

“The effects of technological innovation are over rated in the short run but underestimated in the long run.” This apercus from Joel Mokyr, The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History of Britain 1700-1850 (Yale Univ. 2009) at 127, who credits Arthure Clarke with the original insight.

The quote captures my notion that much technology flaunted for law departments over-hypes what it can accomplish today and the changes wrought shortly. On the other hand, dramatic changes over the next decade or so will almost certainly come about based on such innovative technologies as smart search, augmented-cognition, apps, online networks, visualization, and data mashups.

By now e-mail and cell phones and scanners and PDAs, innovations that still energetically spread and improve, have dramatically increased the productivity of in-house counsel. Lawyers complain about the pace of work being ratcheted up, but they cannot deny that they are able to accomplish much more in a shorter period of time. We can only dimly appreciate the cumulative, compounding effects of technology over time on the practice of in-house law.

Tim Wu, in his stimulating but scary book, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires (Knopf 2010) at 112, makes much of the term “innovation platforms.” The Internet is certainly one of the latest and greatest in a line of innovation platforms: it provides an open structure on which tens of thousands of entrepreneurs and citizens have hung applications and built businesses.

On a much smaller scale think of a matter management package in a law department as a potential platform. Now, they usually operate all by themselves, a “point solution” in some current jargon. But let third party developers have access, such as with APIs, and then appear bolt on e-billing or report writers or graphics capabilities. Voila! – a platform. If the data collected by the software finds its way to those who spin benchmarks and analytics, that extends the platform. If data flows into the software’s database from external sources, such as social networks or evaluations of law firms, or if data flows out to accounts payable systems, more platform characteristics become apparent. A platform becomes a commercial network, a symbiotic core that makes it more valuable to the market.

Currently, matter management software has closed itself off to most add-ons and new features. There is no Linux for legal departments or open source applications that can grow as many law departments pitch in to push it along. Perhaps SharePoint, however, is proving to be the exception: a platform for development of all kinds of legal department functions. One vendor, DataCert, has positioned itself explicitly as a platform.

During my annual trek through the aisles of LegalTechNY, I spotted a new entrant, at least for me, in the document assembly group. XpressDox comes from South Africa and boasts that it more than 500 law firms around the globe use its low-cost capabilities for document production. Trial copies are available by writing here.

The booth staff did not recall any legal departments that make use of their software, but I encourage law departments to explore this class of software and I like to publicize new players – herewith a tradition of doing so in the area of document assembly (See my post of April 16, 2007: four document assembly vendors from Australia.).