Articles Posted in Technology

At a recent conference, Mark Chandler, the General Counsel of Cisco, made an interesting distinction (See my post of March 8, 2007 on an earlier Chandler speech.). A law department can use software to streamline and speed a process such as producing the first draft of a common agreement. He terms that improvement automation. To be able to search through all of the online minutes of the corporation would be automation. People can do the same thing without automation but we are much slower.

In contrast, a more radical use of software would be, for example, electronic billing. Invoices delivered through electronic submission changes the method of review, the circulation of approval, the accuracy of the data, as well as the speed of everything. Chandler terms that technology. Dramatic improvements in productivity follow from technological innovation (See my posts of June 27, 2007 with three examples of law department productivity enhancers.).

Chandler’s distinction rests on the difference between improvement through automation and a jump in productivity through technology.

Vendors of software are quick to provide you with references, but those may be hand-picked accounts that are highly unlikely to say anything other than compliments.

Far better to scout around and find users of the software that the vendor did not provide as references. Question the vendor’s reference accounts about other licensees and then talk to the others. Experienced consultants can also provide names, as might the vendor’s website.

Once you find another client of the vendor, ask the person who uses the software the most you’re probing questions. High ranking lawyers have views, but from the operational side of things, the person in charge is the best source of information. Above all, ask them what they do not like about the software and what they like about it. Ask them about the support the vendor provides. The insights of actual users are by far the most valuable information you can collect before you make a selection.

The worst thing to do is to allow a vendor to show you its prepared set of capabilities and examples. Get away from the canned brilliance and forage in reality.

Give the vendor a short script of exactly what you would like to see in the order you would like to see it. Ideally, give them some of your scrubbed data so that what they show you looks realistic. For example, with a matter-management system ask for a walk-through from the creation of a matter to its close. During a demo of a document management system, look at how easy it is to create a new version of a document.

Additionally, take advantage of webinar demonstrations, which save money and time and therefore allow you to have more users get a sense of the software’s ease of use. If possible, take advantage of a trial period to test the software’s capabilities on your own. Earlier, I offered five additional tips (See my post of April 27, 2006.). Immediately after the demo ends, while impressions are fresh in your colleagues’ minds, have them complete an evaluation form

By contributing author Brad Blickstein, Blickstein Group, on legal service providers:

I received a note from Rob Thomas of Serengeti Law yesterday, in reference to my post of May 10, “DataCert acquires Corprasoft.” Rob pointed out that, like some other companies I mentioned, Serengeti has integrated matter management and e-billing. He made some other interesting points; here they are…

“I recently read your post discussing the DataCert acquisition of Corprasoft. You list other systems that have already integrated matter management and e-billing, but did not mention Serengeti. I wanted you to know that in recent surveys of both law departments and law firms, Serengeti is the most widely used system for matter management and e-billing in the legal profession. We currently have more than 10,000 in-house users on Serengeti, and all of their 12,000+ law firms, in 125 countries. There are more than 160 law departments on the system (more than double our nearest competitor), from some of the world’s largest companies (American Express, Disney/ABC/ESPN, Nike, AlcatelLucent) to some with a solo in-house GC.”

Met. Corp. Counsel, Vol. 15, June 2007, at 43, describes software available from Proskauer Rose and DecisionMaker Software. The software guides users through a series of straightforward yes or no questions regarding the Family Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. “By asking a simple set of questions, providing all forms, giving detailed instructions concerning where everything is to be filed and fully documenting a file through every step in the analysis, the software becomes a one-stop shop.”

The software, which is available free for evaluation through June 30, 2007, appears to be a good example of a law firm encapsulating its knowledge and making it available through a rules-based software package (See my posts of Feb. 24, 2007 on rules-based document assembly software; and April 18, 2007 on DealBuilder and the efforts of three law firms.).

By contributing author Brad Blickstein, Blickstein Group, on legal service providers:

Electronic billing provider DataCert just announced its acquisition of matter management company Corprasoft. This deal should at least raise the eyebrows of many who follow law department technology—both companies are among the leaders and have been around for quite awhile.

What does it mean? Well, it furthers the consolidation of matter management and electronic billing. Lawtrac, TrialNet and CT Tymetrix have had integrated solutions for quite some time. Bridgeway and Mitratech have launched e-billing components within the past year or so.

By contributing author Brad Blickstein, Blickstein Group, on legal service providers:

In the National Law Journal article on Cisco general counsel Mark Chandler (April 19, 2007), “Using Technology to Cut Legal Costs,” he tells a story of saving $250,000 per year with one of Cisco’s primary firms, Fenwick & West by helping them understand that they were using lawyers billing “$400 to $500 an hour doing fairly routine work filling out forms…” The innovation: Cisco is adding a paralegal to fill out the forms and will save $400,000. But it is reducing its payments to Fenwick by only $250,000 because “There [are] enough savings for everybody.”

This is a great way to save money while keeping a strong relationship with a primary law firm. But I wonder if a technological solution wouldn’t have been better here. Most routine forms can be filled out automatically in a fraction of the time. Both firm and client may have been better off by adding new technology rather than headcount. After all, that is what the article is all about.

By contributing author Brad Blickstein, Blickstein Group, on legal service providers:

I read with great interest the National Law Journal article on Cisco general counsel Mark Chandler (April 19, 2007), “Using Technology to Cut Legal Costs.”

Mr. Chandler is a proponent of using electronic tools to “mine all the documents…collect them and eliminate the stuff that is not responsive.” While it’s not surprising that the general counsel of one of the great technology companies is behind this, it seems that most in-house counsel are not ready for computers to do the work of associates. Such counsel may want to consider using technology to make attorney review more efficient, by weeding out junk files and organizing the remainder for a more efficient review.

In February 2007, Edge Legal Marketing surveyed online people who had attended LegalTech New York. Eleven percent of the respondents were from law departments. One of the questions asked respondents to mark all of the software categories that they “checked out at Legal Tech.”

Of the 51 choices, all but 11 of them would be applicable to both law departments and law firms. The firm specific ones include “accounting/finance,” “client relationship management,” “debt collection,” “docket/calendar/conflict of interest” (which law departments might consider for docket and calendar functions, though few do), “document accounting solutions,” “metadata removal tool” (a conceivable package for law departments that have sophisticated litigation support facilities), “networking communications equipment,” “networks security,” “software leasing solutions” (which is not really software) and “tax” (which someone in the tax function might use).

Hence, if you set aside the software that a law firm needs because it runs its own computer system, the law firms and departments might equally license most of these kinds of software. Some software, not necessarily listed, could be law-department only (See my post of March 31, 2007 on software unique to law departments.).

An informative advertisement/article in Met. Corp. Counsel, April 2007 at 35, describes the offerings of Corporation Services Co. (CSC) regarding software for corporate secretaries (See my posts of July 19, 2006 on board software, Aug. 9, 2006 on the merger of corporate secretary and board software; Oct. 1, 2006 on matter management software joined with corporate service-of-process software; Jan. 24, 2006 for ten corporate-secretary applications; and Feb. 14, 2007 on the cottage industry of corporate secretarial packages.). Most of the article describes the company’s Virtual Boardroom software suite.

Among its offerings is a capability I have not written about: CSC Compliance Calendarsm, which can be customized to send alerts for specific events such as nonprofit filings and SEC or regulatory filings. Another new capability, which CSC is finishing, is an “audit committee checklist based on the responsibilities of audit committees as outlined in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.” I note these capabilities – new to me – in their own right and to make the larger point that well-run software vendors continuously strengthen and extend their offerings.