Technology & Trends In Legal Knowledge Management Webinar

15 May

 Post By ILTA KM Blogmaster David Hobbie

This Thursday, May 17, 12 PM EST, the ILTA KM Peer Group and Thomson Reuters Westlaw are co-sponsoring a webinar with the above title.  It is free but registration with West LegalEd Center is required.

The brief description:

“This program will focus on key developments in KM technology and trends that can help guide your firm’s knowledge management strategy. Whether you are just starting a KM program or you’ve been at it for years, you’ll take away insights into how other thought leaders in the industry have formulated or refreshed their KM strategies to improve efficiency and increase value for clients. Topics include:

  • Best practices from KM thought leaders
  • How to leverage KM with other firm technology investments
  • Knowledge Management and Enterprise Search working together
  • AFAs – and how KM can help make it a profitable offering
  • Set your firm apart – KM for business development and process improvement”

Moderated by Kimberly Stein, Manager of Solutions Software at Thomson Reuters, the panel includes Carol Bannen, Director of Information Resources for Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, Meredith Williams, Baker Donelson’s Chief Knowledge Management Officer (recently co-chair of the ILTA conference), and me, Litigation Knowledge Manager at Goodwin Procter LLP.

We’re looking to have a fairly high-level talk, so we will cover a lot of ground.  See you on-line!

A Mutual Benefit Society: Knowledge Management and Professional Development

7 May

Mara Nickerson, Chief Knowledge Officer, Osler, Member of ILTA KM PG Steering Committee

At a recent Toronto legal knowledge management meeting, a panel of professional development professionals attended and discussed a number of ways PD and KM can and should work together. Since I have responsibility for both at my firm, I participated on the panel wearing both hats.

KM Resources and Approaches Can Enhance PD Programs

First, the firm’s KM resources (such as precedents or checklists) must be integrated with the related PD programs. A PD program is often a good impetus for updating these resources. One of the learning objectives of the PD program should be to raise awareness of the KM resources and how to find them.

KM  Can Help Identify Training Needs

In Canada, KM lawyers are proportionally more numerous than in the US, and are embedded in each of our practice groups. Our KM lawyers are very helpful in identifying training needs, and in smaller practice groups are responsible for organizing training sessions for their associates.  PD works with the KM lawyers to determine whether a topic should be addressed through a formal PD session or at a less formal practice group meeting.

KM Can Enhance Subject Matter Expertise Sharing

Live PD programs are an excellent way for subject matter experts to share tacit knowledge, information such as practice pointers and lessons learned that are not written down.  The firm’s expertise identification systems developed by KM might help the PD group identify possible speakers on specific topics.  Of course most PD professionals have learned that not all subject matter experts are good teachers but a PD program can also be used to highlight the expertise system.  [Ed.--- Participation in request for information exchanges on email or internal social platforms that KM professionals should know about may indicate that the subject matter expert is willing to educate others about the subject.]

PD Content Can Enhance KM Resources

Most PD programs create new topical resources and such resources should be integrated with related KM resources. This could happen automatically through enterprise search.  But it is even better if the resources are more holistically tied together or integrated at the time they are developed rather than coming up as standalone artifacts.  KM topic guides, that aggregate key resources, legislation and other content on a particular topic, should include PD content.

PD Can Help KM Develop “Just-In-Time” Training Competencies and Topics

Many PD groups have gone beyond live programs and are focused on “just-in-time” training. This can be done through a variety of on-line tools – podcasts, interactive on-line presentations that can also be incorporated with KM resources.  KM and PD could work together to define the content the lawyers require and the best media in which to present it.  For instance, KM often develops substantive or procedural checklists, which are a great way to train junior lawyers on the steps necessary to execute transactions or specific court filings.  A 5 minute podcast from a subject matter expert is a better way to engage more senior lawyers in thinking about more complex issues.

PD and KM Can Both Leverage New Collaborative Technologies

And PD is also starting to leverage web 2.0 tools for learning purposes.  Any intranet-based online discussion forum has a learning component.  Wikis and discussion forums, and other social networking tools such as enterprise social networks, can be great approaches that empower practice groups to better learn about and share information on new legal and industry developments.

Please share in the comments any other ideas you might have on how PD and KM can leverage each other.

KM Can Assist External Social Media Initiatives

5 Apr

Guest Post by Helena Eldemir, Attorney in Knowledge Management at Littler Mendelson

KM often leads a firm’s initiative to promote the internal use of social media tools by attorneys—a natural fit given KM objectives to facilitate knowledge sharing, collaborate on matters, and identify subject matter expertise. However, when it comes to using social media to reach external audiences—clients, colleagues and thought leaders—KM can find itself sidelined, brought in late in the process, if at all, to develop a policy for regulating attorney behavior on social media platforms. This is a lost opportunity, and can hinder a successful outcome. Being involved at the outset allows KM to influence the overall process, one firmly grounded in principles of collaboration, user adoption and technical compatibility. Below are suggestions for ways in which KM can bring value to an external social media initiative.

Building a cross-departmental team with a shared vision

An external social media initiative will likely involve various facets of firm management. Broadly stated, marketing will bring expertise in branding, reputation building and business development; IT will address security, capacity and burden on systems; firm general counsel will concentrate on risk management, ethical considerations and improper communications; firm Sales & Marketing Executives (SMEs) will outline practice group needs, client perceptions and relationship building; KM will promote best practices in knowledge sharing and leveraging content for target audiences. Each department will have its own priorities, and the social media team will be challenged to reconcile departmental agendas with a shared vision for the initiative.

No stranger to collaboration, KM can help keep the project on track by insisting on a team-defined mission statement. In addition to stating the overarching goal (e.g., leverage social media to increase client awareness of expertise in a specific practice area), an effective statement will spell out narrower objectives that advance the strategy, such as producing related legal content; include a timeline for reaching milestones; and identify factors for measuring success. KM experience in project management and collaboration can provide the group with a process and framework to overcome differences and ultimately deliver results.

Overcoming resistance and misconceptions for better user adoption

KM works closely with attorneys and practice groups, and can voice the unique challenges attorneys face on external social media platforms.  These challenges can be overwhelming and may lead to resistance and misconception about the nature and role of social media in a professional setting. Therefore, it is important to identify attorney concerns, and ensure they are addressed in the overall strategy. Consider the following obstacles to attorney engagement:

  • Is there a lack of attorney knowledge about how external facing social media platforms work and what they are best suited for?
  • How does attorney experience with internal social collaborative tools like blogs, wikis, and enterprise social networks prepare them for external-facing social media activity?
  • What are the perceived risks in stating opinions, responding to posted comments or criticisms, or appearing too casual?
  • Will sharing knowledge provide competitors with an advantage, allowing them to better compete?
  • Is there misunderstanding about the nature of professional versus personal communications on external social media platforms?
  • Will sharing intellectual capital negatively impact business opportunities and actually reduce the likelihood of procuring billable work (i.e., why are we “giving it away?”)?
  • Does making contacts through public social media platforms undermine the firm’s compensation model, where clients are already “taken”?
  • Is time spent on social media platforms a good investment, or will it result in lost productivity (the “waste of time” argument)?

Tackling these issues in advance will help the team formulate an approach to training, as well as the optimal way to roll out the initiative. It may be necessary to create specific guidelines for each platform in order to assuage attorney anxiety. For example, a set of LinkedIn guidelines can address standards for accepting, declining or requesting connections; whether there are prohibitions on soliciting or providing recommendations; what is the appropriate scope of communications; and how to use descriptive words in position titles, summaries and areas of expertise. Making sure that firm attorneys—from summer associates to semi-retired partners—   understand the parameters of professional conduct in a social online setting is a key component in an external social media strategy.

Identifying the appropriate social media platform for the firm’s strategy

Often lost in the process is a discussion about the type of social media platform that will best advance the firm’s strategy. Tapping into experience with internal social media, KM can provide insight into which external platforms are best suited for the firm’s planned use:

  • Blogs are a good vehicle for shared knowledge and expertise, and are a good fit for a strategy focused on promoting firm practice groups
  • Twitter and comparable micro-blogging sites facilitate discovery of shared interests, and is conducive to a strategy that fosters communications around niche areas of laws
  • LinkedIn leverages shared relationships, and can bolster a strategy aimed at  broadening an individual’s reach
  • Wikis are structured for shared information, and could benefit a strategy built on practices that rely heavily on documents, protocols or corporate transactions
  • Facebook is a medium for shared experiences, which may be attractive to a strategy aimed at building a regional presence

KM can shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of each platform, and which is best aligned with the firm’s strategy. Bearing in mind that an external social media strategy may be executed in stages, each platform should be viewed in its context as a short, medium or long term solution.

There are, of course, other ways KM can contribute to developing an external social media strategy. The key is to get involved at the beginning, and help shape the process from the outset. Then, when it comes time to draft a firm social media policy, KM will be in a strong position to support and advance the strategy rather than get in the way–or worse, be left behind.

ILTA KM Champions, Past And Future

12 Mar

Post By David Hobbie, ILTA KM Blogmaster

Chris Boyd recently announced the opening of the ILTA KM Champion award.  It will be granted at the 2012 Conference, to be held August 26-30 in Washington DC (registration is now open, by the way!).  His announcement:

The KM Champion uses knowledge management resources to help his or her organization share knowledge effectively, deliver excellent service to clients and achieve its business goals.  Resources include (but are not limited to) model and sample documents, document assembly, matter profiles, enterprise search, expertise location, experience management, Web 2.0 collaboration tools (blogs, wikis, etc), KM support for AFAs or project/matter planning, and client-facing knowledge-sharing tools.  The award is given specifically for accomplishments since January 1, 2011.

Last year’s KM Champion was Scott Rechtschaffen of Littler Mendelson.

 You can nominate yourself or someone else for the KM Champion award here.  Nominations are due by March 31; after that, all qualifying nominees will be asked to complete an application form, which the award judges will review.  There are many KM champions out there, so please throw your hat – or that of a peer whose KM accomplishments you admire – into the ring!

For more information about ILTA’s 2012 Distinguished Peer Awards program, please go here.

If you want to hear about what kind of accomplishments justify awards such as KM Champion, Project of the Year, or Innovator of the Year, ILTA also recently announced a March 29 2012 webinar that will feature last year’s awardwinners.  The full announcement:

Join us for a webinar on Thursday, March 29, 2012 at 12 p.m. Eastern / 11:00 a.m. Central / 10:00 a.m. Mountain / 9:00 a.m. Pacific.

At ILTA’s 2011 annual educational conference, Bryan Cave and Littler Mendelson were awarded Distinguished Peer Awards for Innovator of the Year and Project of the Year, respectively.

Bryan Cave’s Innovator of the Year award recognized John Alber and his teams for developing a structural approach to innovation and a series of innovative systems. Bryan Cave has adapted an approach to innovation that mirrors the R&D functions found in the best companies.

Littler’s Project of the Year award recognized Scott Rechtschaffen and his team for the development of Littler CaseSmart, an innovative case management solution that combines a Littler-developed proprietary technology platform, rigorous quality assurance measures and an alternative staffing model to streamline the way cases are managed.

Come join John and Scott as they give an overview of their projects (as they did at the 2011 annual conference). They will also provide updates on the continued effectiveness of their projects, new successes and obstacles, and the impact their work has had on other areas of their firm’s operations and on the delivery of legal services.

 If you’d like to Tweet during this session the hashtag for the Knowledge Management Peer Group is #ILTAKM

 Speakers:

Scott D. Rechtschaffen serves as Littler Mendelson’s Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO). He leads the firm’s efforts to provide innovative client services by integrating new technologies and work processes that enable attorneys and clients to access the firm’s collective knowledge and experience. Scott has been a key member of the multidisciplinary team that developed the award-winning Littler CaseSmart approach to legal case management. Scott oversees the Knowledge Management Group’s work on the firm’s electronic and print publications, the internal search engine, the firm’s intranet portal, extranets and online subscription services.

John Alber is Bryan Cave’s Strategic Technology Partner, overseeing three technology-enabled groups at the firm: the Client Technology Group, the Practice Economics Group and the Accelerated Review Team. The groups under his leadership develop innovative service solutions and Web-based, client-facing, decision-making support, training and communication tools. The groups also develop internal decision support, knowledge management, project management, project estimation and client intelligence systems for the firm. John has written and spoken widely on legal technology subjects and received a number of awards, both in the legal field and in information technology.

 REGISTER online here

 Fee:  The fee is PER CONNECTION and is $50 for ILTA members and $150 for non-members.  You will receive connection (both phone and internet access) information upon receipt and processing of payment.

 Questions?   Please contact Kristy Costello at 512.795.4674 or kristina@iltanet.org

Webinar Report: Working with Vendors: From Cold Calls to Building a Relationship

7 Mar

Guest Post By Kathleen Hogan, Senior Counsel and Director of KM, BMO Financial Group

A recent ILTA webinar addressed an “elephant in the room” for law firm KM.  While we welcome and often rely on vendor expertise, we’re also not always thrilled about receiving cold calls, and nor are we always sure how to navigate these relationships. This post will cover the highlights of the webinar, which aired February 15, with speakers Perry Brock of Ventura Consulting, Joshua Fireman of Fireman and Co. and myself , and hosted by Mara Nickerson, CKO at Osler LLP (Mara is a member of the ILTA KM Peer Group Steering Committee).

We nicknamed the session “Vendors: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” for good reason. Perry (who, it should be noted, did the heavy lifting in creating the slides and throughout most of the session) identified five criteria (financial approach, executive involvement, project management, knowledge transfer, and issue management) that together characterize a relationship as staying on a basic vendor level, or evolving into a partner level. Vendors, for example, see revenue, where partners see opportunity, when looking at the financial approach to a deal. Partners will work collaboratively and proactively, while vendors are disinterested and reactive. We are glad to report that a poll of the audience showed that most firms view their vendors as partners rather than just “vendors”.

We talked about the three phases of onboarding vendors into our firms, from the “blind date” of a cold call or RFP, though “courtship” of evaluating expertise, capabilities and expectations, to “partnership” though contract, execution, and an ongoing symbiotic relationship.  To strengthen these relationships, we identified some best practices:  sharing information and priorities, being open about balancing commitment and competition, relying on vendors to support strategy, build partnerships for the long term, and understanding the vendors’ business. As always, negotiating a “win-win” agreement is best – supporting each other’s value proposition is key.

There may also be a tension within law firms of who “owns” a relationship. While KM might bring a product in the door and run a pilot, it’s IT/IS that will need to support and troubleshoot the product. The vendor should be comfortable with both; all stakeholders must openly discuss and tacitly agree on performance, initiatives, and expectations.

The session acknowledged the reality that vendors are often on the cutting edge of technology development, and KM can rely on vendors to learn about best practices, emerging practices, and even case law (e-discovery is a great example of this). Yet, KM has to balance using vendors as an information source with respecting their time and value. As well, as Mary Abraham noted in her blog, Above and Beyond KM, vendor demos often take up a lot of time with not much tangible value to show for them.

Polls taken during the webinar were telling. Most attendees field 3-5 cold calls a week, and some receive over ten! Clearly, cold call skills are a necessary tool for KMers! Our tips included screening calls and using “do not disturb” so you can be in control of your time and calls and not at the mercy of a cold calling vendor. If you do pick up the phone to find a cold call, let the caller speak for a few moments before simply saying no thank you, or perhaps arranging another time to speak. Always be honest. If you receive a message or email (or LinkedIn) solicitation, close the loop by replying courteously and with honest information.

Thanks to ILTA for the opportunity to develop this topic into a webinar for a wide audience.

Challenges For Law Firm KM: The Billable Hour Model?

17 Feb
Post By ILTA Steering Committee Member Chris Boyd

In recent decades, the prevailing revenue model for large law firms has been the billable hour.  Many people think this model hinders law firm KM programs in two ways: first, because under it the connection between KM-driven efficiencies and profit is less clear, and second, because time spent by attorneys on KM is not billable and thus usually not recognized or rewarded. This observation is of course not new; Ron Friedmann, John Gillies, Ted Tjaden, and others have discussed the challenges to KM posed by the billable hour model.  So while KM done well is absolutely the right thing to do — because it increases the value provided to clients, hopefully leading to increased client satisfaction and client retention, and it also improves the practice of law for a firm’s attorneys – it may nonetheless suffer from underinvestment.

One long-standing explanation for the perceived lack of monetary returns to a firm from KM is that lawyers who charge by the hour want to make each task last as long as possible, so as to pad the bill and collect more money.  Anything that cuts the time per task, such as well-done KM, thus reduces revenue and won’t be valued. While this view may have some cynical appeal, my experience has been markedly different.  Lawyers generally want to get their work done well and quickly, to please clients and move on to the next assignment. Any attorney who frequently works late and yearns for a more balanced life has a strong reason to work efficiently.  And any partner who regularly writes time off prebills has an equally strong incentive to see that service is delivered efficiently, to cut down on write-offs and increase realization.

Even in the absence of this cynical view, however, the billable hour model does still handicap KM as a potential firm investment, because it is difficult to prove that KM delivers bottom-line returns under such a model.  Increased efficiency and value to clients?  Sure.  Better work-life balance?  Sometimes.  But clear, quantifiable, profitability increases driven by either increased revenues or decreased costs?  Not so much.  In fact, showing true KM-driven ROI has for years been an elusive quest for law firm KM leaders because under the billable hour model, it is very difficult to show a directly profitability increase by implementing KM.  Without that hard numerical business case, KM will usually get short shrift when it comes time to allocate precious headcount and program budget dollars.

But change a matter’s billing structure from hours-based to a fixed fee, and suddenly the benefits of KM resources become more visible in the firm’s bottom line.  Delivering the same (or better) results with fewer hours both delights clients and increases a firm’s profit margin on the matter, and may increase the firm’s overall profit margin as well, depending on how the “saved” hours are allocated.  For firms that measure per-matter profitability, KM-driven time savings on fixed-fee deals or cases can be quite compelling.

How, then, can CKOs use fixed fees and other AFAs to overcome the billable barrier to increased investment in KM capabilities?  One way is to work with firm management, practice group leaders or even individual partners to develop packaged service offerings with fixed fees that appeal to clients and lend themselves to KM-driven efficiencies such as precedent databases, automated documents, and expertise locators.  CKOs can support such packaged services by making sure their KM teams deliver the resources, processes, and training to enable efficient service delivery.  CKOs can also work with marketing and finance departments to develop client-facing materials promoting the benefits to clients of the service offerings and measure the resulting uptake by clients along with the associated revenues and profits.

Another way is to design and deploy tools that partners or the finance department can use to estimate one-off fixed fees based on matter parameters.  The underlying algorithms will likely rely on past matter fee data and associated variables from KM matter tracking systems.  And done well, these tools will help partners quote competitive yet achievable fees, and thus increase the number of such fees the firm quotes.  Growing usage of fixed fees will in turn create demand for the KM resources required to deliver efficiently on the promised fee.
The second way that the billable hour revenue model can hinder firms’ KM efforts is that while client-facing attorneys absolutely need to participate in KM initiatives, they can be reluctant to do so because the time spent will be non-billable and thus not count towards billable hour totals that are so frequently used by firms to assess performance and allocate bonuses and other compensation.  Attorneys rightfully spend most of their time on work for which they will receive credit and for which the business will obtain revenue.
To address this challenge, many larger firms have hired full-time professional support lawyers or subscribed to services such as Practical Law Company.  While doing so can provide excellent results, for firms not willing or able to make this level of investment, there are other ways to address this challenge:

  1. Make KM time equivalent to billable hours, perhaps capped at some reasonable annual total given that firm leaders are unlikely to approve unlimited amounts of KM time that doesn’t bring in revenue.  Our firm has done this, and our experience is that the capped credit does motivate associates to spend time on KM projects.  KM leaders do need to check time recorded to KM matter numbers to make sure the work is legitimately KM, and not mis-coded client or administrative work, but that’s a small price to pay for the benefits that the capped credit brings.
  1. Clearly and tangibly reward associate work on KM projects, through performance review plaudits, public recognition, or other methods. This may work where firm or practice group leadership visibly champions KM but may not be able or willing to make KM time fully or partially billable.
  1. Sidestep the reluctance of billable attorneys to participate in KM projects by pursuing a “windmill” strategy to power KM projects via existing firm processes.  Ron Friedmann and I wrote about this for the June 2006 ILTA KM whitepaper, and the ideas set forth in the article continue to work..

Other suggestions?  Feel free to contribute in the Comments.

I’ve Got You Under My (Thin) Skin: Personality and Motivation in Lawyers

9 Feb

Post By David Hobbie,  ILTA KM PG Steering Committee Member and Blogmaster

At a meeting of legal knowledge managers I recently heard a presentation by Mark Sirkin, a consultant and expert in personality profiling, and, specifically, the personality profiles of lawyers as distinct from the general population.  He raised some intriguing points about those differences, which could potentially be harnessed by all those seeking to improve knowledge sharing and seeking behaviors inside law firms, or who are attempting to manage other types of change in lawyer-occupied organizations.  By contrast to much other speculation about lawyer personality that may take place at law firm administrative or technical conferences,  Dr. Sirkin’s thoughts were backed up by multiple extensive personality surveys, formal academic studies.

By way of full disclosure, I should note that I am a lawyer and may share some of the personality traits and motivations identified herein.

Why Emotions Are Important

It may seem that working with highly intellectual and intelligent professionals such as lawyers would not be assisted with a rich understanding of emotions or motivations.  Nothing could be further from the truth. For one thing, our efforts to communicate with lawyers are enriched by an appreciation that, as Dr. Alfred Mehrabian pointed out, 93% of communication is process (emotional and unconscious) and 7% is content.  Some of the most important communication happens very fast and on an emotional level.

Emotions are also critical to our ability to work together (collaborate). Emotions evolved to help us survive by working together.  Emotions are signals that provide us data about people (and sometimes situations).

Species Of Emotions

Emotions come in five flavors: Drives, Emotions, Basic Motives, Personality, and Complex Motives.  Drives are Darwinian concerns such as hunger, thirst, and reproduction.  Emotions are hard-wired, but expression is socially constrained.  Personality in turn has five traits that can be measured and observed.  Complex Motives combine personality, emotions, and the social situation, and are particularly significant for knowledge management and technology adoption.

Contrary to some lawyer’s perceptions of their own skills, there is very little correlation between emotional quotient (EQ) and intelligence quotient (IQ).  Lawyers can think that if they understand one thing they understand all things, but this is certainly not true with EQ.

The skills of understanding your own internal emotional state and recognizing that of others (i.e., externally directed) are highly correlated.

Challenges Of Working With Lawyers

Lawyers have a *lower* emotional quotient than the average population.

Based on multiple studies, lawyers are higher in skepticism, autonomy, urgency, and pessimism than the general population.  Lawyers are also higher in information-seeking; specifically, they enjoy learning more than the general population (not surprising given they all survived three years of law school.)

Lawyers are also lower in sociability and resilience.  In other words, they are “thin-skinned” (his words, not mine).

Some of this may be innate (people with these traits are attracted to the profession and do well in it) and some learned.  Dr. Sirkin noted that teams are not broadly used in law school (especially contrasted with business school).  The compensation system is individualized and competitive, and doesn’t reward cooperation.

Many lawyers are naturally adversarial.  In the group formation process they may get stuck in the “storming” stage of high conflict (Dr. Sirkin was referring to Tuckman’s four stages of group development of forming, storming, norming, and performing).

Generational differences around information handling and socialization complicate any overview of lawyers’ reaction to change and technological change.

The “PRICE” model posits that people are motivated in their workplace decisions by seeking Predictability (certainty), Rank, Independence, Connection, and Equity.  The desire for Rank is potentially in conflict with that for Equity, and the desire for Independence is potentially in conflict with that for Connection.

Dr. Sirkin suggested that of these motives, lawyers tend to value and are motivated by a desire for Independence or autonomy.  Many, even practice area leaders, do not want to lead others, but they don’t want others to tell them what to do.

Good leaders try to maximize all elements of motivation.  Pushing one at the expense of the others create an imbalanced organization.  Low levels of motivation hurt firms.  Signs include dissatisfaction, disengagement, defections, and ultimately dissolution.

Everyone can get better at emotional intelligence through coaching and practice.  Working with motivations can be improved through awareness of inherent tensions between different motivations.

Leadership in part is shown by taking care of other people.  Flat organizations don’t really exist, as natural leaders will emerge.

You might need to know the personality profile of the individual lawyer you are dealing with to know what their motivations might be. A specific person’s personality can predict the best motivators.

KM Professional Tips

Match the payoff with motivation.  If rank is the key motivation, a new tool will “help you beat / stay on top of the competition.”  If connection, the tool may “help your group stay connected and share information.”

Find friendly early adopters.  The named leader is not always the right person to try something new.  Groups can have multiple leaders.

When in doubt, maximize the PRICE motivations.

← Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers