Archive | Uncategorized RSS feed for this section

People-Finding: Achieving One of KM’s Three “P”s

5 Dec

crowdBy Chris Boyd, Senior Director of Professional Services, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Our firm defines KM as “delivering more value to clients by putting the knowledge of all attorneys at the fingertips of each attorney” and includes within “knowledge” the following three “P”s:

  1. Work product: model and sample documents, how-to guides, checklists, and other practice aids.
  2. Project-related information: profiles of cases and deals.
  3. People-related information.

This post focuses on the third “P”: people-related information. KM projects that focus on the first two Ps typically get more publicity and recognition within firms, probably because the output is more tangible; it’s usually obvious if a practice group has forms and matter profiles, but less obvious if the firm has a way to locate expertise.  But connecting attorneys to the right people to answer questions and help clients achieve their goals can be the most powerful KM resource of all.

Below are some ways to achieve the third “P,” referred to from here on as “people-finding.”

Internal expertise.  This is a critical part of people-finding, and much has already been written about it by excellent authors.  See for example, the listing in Gwyn McAlpine’s November 23 ILTA KM blog post under Enterprise Search / Expertise Location.

External expertise. Clients frequently want referrals to attorneys in practices that a firm doesn’t provide or to professionals in fields other than law, such as accounting, banking, or consulting. A strong people-finding resource should help attorneys tap their colleagues’ referrals to find external experts.  The main challenge is deciding which referrals to collect and post, given that gathering every last name from every attorney is neither feasible nor worthwhile.  Our firm limits the scope by simply including in the referral tool only those attorneys and other professionals whom firm lawyers have recommended in response to internal requests for help.  This approach both limits the work and, more importantly, ensures that each referral is supported by a firm attorney who has recommended the name to a colleague with a client question.

Experience with judges, arbitrators, and others. Information about judges, arbitrators, mediators, and experts can be useful for litigators.  For example, when drafting briefs in support of a substantive motion to be heard by an unfamiliar judge, it would be useful for the litigation team to know that the judge does not take kindly to requests to exceed page limits and will not allow counsel to repeat at oral argument any of the points already set forth in the briefs. Similarly, if a litigation team is bullish about a client’s chances to defend a case at trial, the team will want to avoid using a mediator who is known to “split the baby” between the parties and instead seek someone who has a reputation for pressing for an outcome that is in line with the actual merits of the case.  And when retaining a testifying expert in a matter in which opposing counsel is known to be aggressive in deposition and cross-examination, the attorney will want to know how the witness has performed in similar circumstances – whether the witness can retain composure under pressure and testify clearly and persuasively.

A strong people-finding resource enables a firm’s litigators to quickly locate information about each of these key players in the litigation process. A judge’s profile should note the firm’s attorneys who have clerked for or appeared in front of the judge, the matters the judge has presided over, and perhaps even link to external profiles of the judge’s cases and decisions.  The resource should enable attorneys to search arbitrator or mediator names to find out which of the firm’s attorneys have experience with them.  And expert profiles should outline expertise, link to CVs, and note the cases they’ve appeared in.

Who-knows-whom. A final category of people-finding is providing attorneys the ability to find out who at a firm knows a specific person or knows people at a specific company or other organization.  Two ways to do this are (1) an enterprise search for the person’s or company’s name in documents or time entries, and (2) a search in ContactNet or similar tools to see if the name occurs in a colleague’s public contacts or the email addresses of emails sent to or from the firm.

People-finding is a critical component of a strong KM program. Enabling attorneys and other professionals to find internal experts is a great start; enabling them to find external experts, information about key players in cases, and who-knows-whom is even better.

For Your Viewing Pleasure…

23 Nov

catalogBy Gwyn McAlpine, Director of Knowledge Management Services, Perkins Coie LLP

Did you miss any of ILTA’s programming for knowledge management professionals this past year? Below is a catalog of what you may have missed.  Because programming is member-driven based on your requests and feedback, the categorization below gives you insight into what your peers think are hot topics.

But first, some background for those new to ILTA programming. ILTA produces KM programming in a variety of formats, building upon timely themes.  Each year, you can count on targeted articles and sessions in the Knowledge Management White Paper, typically published in June, and at ILTACON, held in August.  Throughout the rest of the year, the ILTA KM blog delivers a steady stream of thoughtful content approximately every two weeks.  Keep an eye out for articles in other places, such as the Peer to Peer magazine, and ad hoc sessions, such as webinars, virtual roundtables and vendor product briefings.  To facilitate open sharing and discussion, the latter are not always recorded, so be sure to attend those with topics of interest to you.  Lastly, the Connected Community Discussion Board features lively Q&A and announcements among an active, 1600-member community.

And because Knowledge Management can touch on many other areas, don’t forget to check out programming that may not be specifically targeted to KMers but is relevant to you nonetheless. Searches in the Connected Community will lead you to publications, recordings and discussions across a multitude of areas.  Also browse the ILTA TV page where you will find dozens of short interviews with thought leaders in fields that touch Knowledge Management directly and indirectly.

Note that you do need to be an ILTA member to access many of these resources. What are you waiting for?

Artificial Intelligence/Expert Systems

Collaboration/Tacit Knowledge

Data Analytics

DMS/Information Governance

Enterprise Search/Expertise Location

ILTACON

KM Strategy

Other Innovation

SharePoint/Portals

Upcoming Programming

In 2017, we have big plans for programing relevant to KM professionals. Look for a year-long focus on artificial intelligence and the changing legal market.  In addition, the biennial KM survey, which provides useful comparability metrics, is due to be published in July 2017. If you have suggestions for content you would like to see, respond to this blog post or feel free to contact me directly. Better yet, start a discussion amongst your peers on the Connected Community Discussion Board.

*For all the Blue Book die-hards out there, sorry. Just use the links. You’ll find it.

Evolution of the Contract: You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby

11 Nov

contractBy Lesha Van Der Bij, Principal, Optimize Legal

Contracts have been a key component of legal transactions for hundreds of years. Many lawyers, including me, began our careers reading Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company and learning the tenets of contract law – offer, acceptance and consideration.

For some lawyers, the process of drafting and reviewing contracts has remained largely the same since the days of Carbolic Smoke Ball. These lawyers begin working on matters by trying to remember a past file where they drafted a similar document, asking a colleague for sample agreements, or even reviewing first principles.

Over the years many, within and outside of the legal profession, have come to recognize that taking an ad hoc approach to contracts is suboptimal. Not only is it inefficient, it can lead to clients receiving varying quality of responses and work product from different lawyers within the same organization.  With clients expecting more from their law firms and the emergence of new technologies, the process of drafting and reviewing contracts has evolved.

Standardizing Language

The standardization of contract language began in earnest in the 1990s and early 2000s when many law firms created model agreements. Unlike sample documents pulled from past matters, which may vary in quality, a model is reviewed and approved by senior lawyers to establish an agreed upon standard.  Models tend to include best-case language that differs depending on the party (for instance, vendor or purchaser) the lawyer represents.

By developing models, law firms could take a consistent approach to each type of contract. Standardization also helped highlight boilerplate clauses that tend to not need negotiation, enabling lawyers to focus on more contentious and deal-specific provisions.

While model agreements promote consistency and efficiency, lawyers still spend substantial time creating first drafts and conducting side-by-side reviews that compare key clauses in their deal documents to those in their model agreement. Many law firms also have a difficult time maintaining and updating their vast collection of model agreements. So, after much initial hoopla, many model document collections start to languish.

Process Mapping

As interest in Lean Six Sigma and other process improvement techniques started to increase, a number of law firms began applying these approaches to contract work. Consultants or in-house experts would lead a group of lawyers through a typical transaction, mapping out the various steps to identify and try to eliminate inefficiencies, while documenting a more streamlined process in a checklist or project plan template.

Checklists setting out the key steps in a particular transaction are then used to instruct junior lawyers and ensure that important steps are not missed. Project plan templates outline a matter’s milestones, staffing, and time estimates – information that is then used to develop more accurate fee estimates and keep matters on budget.

While checklists and project plan templates help standardize and streamline contract drafting and review, much of the time-consuming drafting remains in the lawyers’ hands.

Process Automation

Standardizing contract language and workflow generated an excellent opportunity for enterprising individuals to automate contracts. Limited automation (for example, through mail merge macros) has existed for many years. More recently, sophisticated and easy-to-use document assembly tools have emerged.

Document assembly tools enable users to answer a questionnaire asking for information about the transaction, such as parties’ names, deal type, currency, and closing date, and with the click of a button the deal information is incorporated into the applicable template to generate a first draft. While lawyers still must massage their agreements to ensure that they accurately convey the particular circumstances of each case, these technologies significantly advance the drafting process. The time spent drafting massive agreements for complex transactions, often containing only slight modifications, is greatly reduced.

That said, one downside is that these technologies require much effort and time to create templates and questionnaires. While the end user’s experience is relatively simple and seamless, the logic required to create the underlying questions is not always intuitive. An understanding of the underlying law is needed to create the templates and most lawyers have neither the requisite patience nor time to code documents.

So, many law firms still struggle with how to automate their model document collections. And, once the models are automated, how will law firms maintain and update them? Will history repeat itself, this time with coded model agreements languishing?

 Boosting Technology’s Role

In the march toward greater efficiency, still more emphasis is being placed on technology’s role. Some of the newest technologies have moved beyond automation and into machine learning and artificial intelligence. Most notably, contract analytics tools that are learning the language of contracts are being used in a number of interesting ways.

Some businesses are using these tools to analyze their day-to-day contracts by, for instance, triaging routine contracts, identifying problem clauses, and highlighting when legal counsel should be called. Law firms have started using contract analytics tools for reviewing hundreds or thousands of documents as part of due diligence.

Even with the aid of a model agreements and checklists, reviewing key clauses in numerous contracts is labourious and time consuming. Contract analytics tools can quickly identify the contracts from the mounds of data room documents, classify the key clauses in them, and produce an easily digestible summary for the lawyer’s review – all within minutes or hours instead of days or weeks.

While these technologies remain a far cry from robots replacing lawyers, they do provide the information required for quick and effective issue spotting.

Peeking into the Future

Contract drafting and review has evolved from a seemingly bespoke practice into an increasingly automated, computerized, and commoditized process. So, where are we headed?

Standardized Technology. Using automation and artificial intelligence tools to create first drafts and initially review contracts will become routine as technologies become easier to use and better supported. Companies offering these tools may well consolidate or industry leaders may expand their offerings to include all-in-one, one-stop-shop contract management systems.

New Legal Skills. Lawyers will need to develop a solid understanding of these technologies as they become a standard part of the contract process. Law schools will offer programs to provide graduates with basic knowledge of and skills using the range of tools available. Law societies will also specify a minimum level of technical proficiency that lawyers must possess to practice law.

New Roles and Mixed Professions. Lawyers will work more closely with technologists and other professionals to optimize the contract process. As tools and practice evolve, new hybrid roles that combine law, technology, and process improvement will develop.

Fewer Lawyers Required. Smaller teams of lawyers will be able to complete larger and more complex contract-related work. For instance, teams of junior lawyers conducting due diligence reviews will be replaced by one or two lawyers overseeing a computer-based document review. The volume of day-to-day contract review will also be reduced as businesses use these new tools to conduct initial assessments and identify problematic agreements requiring legal advice.

Greater Access to Legal Review. For a subscription or fixed fee, smaller businesses and individuals will have access to tools that can provide them with basic advice on routine contracts, enabling these groups to obtain previously unavailable legal advice.

Of course, contracts are but a subset of the overall practice of law. That said, the evolution of contract law provides a useful case study that may apply to the legal profession as a whole.

The practice of law clearly is changing. As new processes and technologies develop at a rapid pace, these changes bring opportunities for lawyers ready to adapt.  Not only will lawyers have the opportunity to improve legal service delivery, but also to free themselves from much of the mundane tasks and focus their time on work that can add significant value.

Even If They Don’t Ask – It’s Time to Do Some Soul Searching

19 Oct

By Mara Nickerson, Chief Knowledge Officer, Osler

Casey Flaherty and the ACC recently published Unless You Ask: A guide for Law Departments to Get More from External Relationships. The basic premise of the Guide is that if clients want their external lawyers to change the way they work and ensure they focus on delivering efficient client service, they need to ask.  And, the Guide is full of all of the questions in-house lawyers can ask on a broad range of topics, including knowledge management, process and project management and expert systems – all topics near and dear to my heart (and job). The Guide specifically warns clients not to accept puffery from their law firms, but instead ask for concrete and measurable evidence.

Casey sent me a copy of the Guide just as it was released because my firm has been rolling out the Legal Technology Assessment. Needless to say, one of the topics covered in the Guide is lawyers’ technical competencies. I was able to use the Guide as one of the tools to encourage lawyers to complete the assessment. Beyond that, I have also been using it do a bit of KM soul searching.

My firm has a very old and well-established KM program, dating back to former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Bertha Wilson, who started our centralized research collection in the early 1960s. We now have a solid KM team and many of the standard KM systems and databases. We are also quite focused on process improvement and efficiency and implemented a number of new technologies to enhance practice efficiency. But, all that might sound like puffery!

While I could debate with Casey the extent to which law firms should be required to disclose how we make our “secret sauce,” I have found the Guide a valuable tool to work through with my team and consider where we are doing well and where we still have gaps. And, of course, we do have gaps.  Even Casey counsels law departments not to expect perfection from law firms – expect only a willingness to engage and evolve.

Sometimes we can get stuck in what we are doing: it started out as the right thing to do, so we just keep doing it. The Guide reminds us to take a step back and review the ROI.  Are we having the impact we think we are?  Are our tools being used the way we expect them to be? Yes, it is time for some soul searching and I plan to use the Guide as the starting point for discussing 2017 KM goals and projects with my team.

I have forwarded the Guide to the other Chiefs at my firm and asked them to review and summarize how we are doing in the areas they manage. I want us to be fully prepared when clients ask.

And, one client has asked; the client has instructed us to use the Guide as the focus of conversation at our next quarterly relationship meeting. This client has not yet asked for a detailed response to the specific questions in the Guide. But we are ready.  And I am well on the way to setting our KM goals for 2017.  Thanks Casey.

A KM Lawyer’s Quick Guide to Document Assembly

28 Jul

assemblyby Lisa Houston, Knowledge Management Lawyer, Dentons Canada LLP

Implementing and supporting a document assembly initiative can be a daunting task, especially in the first year or so. Having some best practices and lessons learned from others who have trod that ground can be a big help. So, allow me to share one Knowledge Management (KM) Lawyer’s recollections of her early days leading a document assembly initiative.

When our global firm’s Canada region decided to implement the well-known Contract Express document assembly solution, KM led the initiative. A lean team of KM lawyers and content specialists kicked off a pilot with three practice groups, while our counterparts in our firm’s US region conducted their own parallel pilot.  Here is some of what we learned along the way.

Getting Started with a Good Pilot

We piloted Contract Express with a handful of interested lawyers and paralegals from our banking, corporate, and entertainment practices. Each group selected a collection of documents for our team to convert into templates; fortunately, the selected documents all proved to be well-suited for document assembly.

Our entertainment group chose documents used in film production financings and our finance group provided documents for a simple secured financing. Both sets were ideal for a couple of reasons.  First, they were documents for more “commoditized” transactions in that they are used time and time again on similar, smaller-scale transactions, usually by the same group of lawyers and paralegals and for the same client or type of client.  While elements of the main agreements might change based on the business terms, most of the documents remain the same from one transaction to the next. Second, both sets contained everything needed to complete the transaction from start-to-finish. One of the great things about document assembly software like ContractExpress is that one can not only create individual templates to generate one-off documents, but also generate all of the necessary associated documents for a transaction using a single online questionnaire and “master” template.  The time saved by generating multiple documents at once – compared with drafting each individually – is priceless.

Unlike the entertainment and finance groups, our corporate group selected documents that were not meant to be compiled as a set; however, like the financing documents, each of the corporate documents was a model document used frequently for many different clients. The corporate pilot documents included, for instance, model non-disclosure and shareholder agreements.  These model documents also proved ideal for document assembly, having been prepared specifically for our start-up clients who preferred shorter plain English documents that are easily understood.  While the models are not one-size-fits-all, they are simple and flexible enough for a variety of clients.

Since then, from my experience working with a range of documents, I recognized that another prime candidate for document assembly is a model form of the primary document used on significant transactions or matters, such as a share (stock) or asset purchase agreement in merger and acquisition transactions. True, these agreements can be complex and the transactions highly-negotiated, meaning no model or template could cover every possible scenario or structure, and coding to cover everything would be a monumental task.  But, if one has a quality model document at hand – one that is heavily annotated with commentary and instructions for using variations of important clauses (for example, pricing provisions) and optional clauses – converting the model document into a coded template for document assembly is time well-spent.  With this template, lawyers can prepare a solid first draft in a matter of minutes rather than hours, leaving ample time to focus attention on revising the draft to account for unique or sophisticated elements of the transaction.

However, coding complex transaction documents like these does have one small drawback: first drafts inevitably are negotiated and revised and those changes might veer into the “static” text in the template (the text intended to remain the same from one deal to the next regardless of particular business terms and circumstances). So, if something in the business deal or document changes that is not a template variable (like, for instance, agreement date, number of parties, governing law of the document, and pricing terms), one of document assembly’s prime benefits – the ability to generate new versions by simply changing answers on the template’s questionnaire – is lost and the document must be manually changed from that point on.  Even so, considering the alternative, this potential drawback is no big deal.

Training and Supporting Document Assembly

Back when we piloted document assembly, four KM lawyers and two content specialists were trained to code templates and only one of us had any experience with document assembly; I had created some templates with another product (EnAct). We divided into groups, with one of us taking the lead with each of the pilot groups, and jumped straight into coding templates. Much of the advanced coding that became necessary we learned through trial and error and collaboration.  The manuals and Knowledge Base on the ContractExpress website became our new best friends.  It also helped that our colleagues in the US were devoting significant time to their own initiative, so that we could bounce ideas off each other and ask one another if we had already figured something out.

Through the significant time we invested in the beginning and our steep learning curve, we soon recognized expecting all of us to become coding gurus – or even top-notch trainers – was unrealistic. For one, with competing demands, not everyone had time to learn more than the basics or devote extensive time to coding.  We also learned that creating templates was not just about coding; we also would need to support the process in other ways.

While the KM content specialists (who do not have legal education) who received training became very proficient at coding, we knew that at least one person supporting or instructing the coders ought to have some legal knowledge and become an “expert” coder. As the KM lawyer lead on the project, I learned as much coding as necessary to code the templates for the pilot.  I have since trained others on coding and support the other people who do the coding by helping them with the more of the advanced coding and reviewing their coded documents. I also needed to devise and deliver a more formal train-the-trainer program to spread the training responsibility over a larger group and compile materials and create templates for common but complex coding tasks.

The other KM lawyers who had received initial training during our pilot continue to support our process in ways other than through coding. KM lawyers review the initial documents and meet with the lawyers who provided the documents for template creation to get more background or instructions.  They identify what needs to be coded and highlight the documents for coding, which are then passed on to the coding team.  They also help by writing and organizing questionnaires and trying out some of the coded templates before we ask the lawyers who asked for the documents to test and approve them.  At times, our KM lawyers also enlist and supervise law students working at the firm to do some of the non-coding work.

Advancing Document Assembly

Once word gets out following a successful pilot, requests for coded templates come pouring in; in our case, we quickly learned that KM could not support the volume alone. To keep up with demand, we needed to train people outside of our KM Department and we gave a great deal of thought who might be the best people to train.

We started by delivering presentations to various practice groups, describing how document assembly could enhance their work and how they should go about selecting materials suitable for coding. Having the practice groups identify the ideal documents for document assembly helps ensure the best return on our coding investment and manage the workload. We also ask practice groups to identify people within their group to be trained in coding documents. We suggest as good candidates for coding experienced legal assistants who know the practice well, senior paralegals, and junior associates, all both good with and interested in technology.  (One thing we discovered in our own training and by training others is that not everyone has an interest in or aptitude for document assembly coding.)

With every group that requests templates, the coding contingent grows and we develop coding and questionnaire expertise in more and more practice groups. This frees the KM document assembly team to continue advising, providing advanced coding expertise, and supporting others.

Involving Our Lawyers in Document Assembly

Recognizing that our lawyers’ time is best spent on our clients’ matters, we try to limit their time in the template creation process. We ask the lawyers who request templates for their help only at three points in the template creation process.

First, we ask lawyers for their time up front to meet with us and provide relevant background on the documents and any instructions for coding. Typically, this involves just a phone call after the KM lawyer has read and reviewed the documents and identified items needing clarification.

Second, we ask the lawyer to test the templates once they have been coded and provide any feedback to the person coding the documents. Every template is coded to generate a separate document that lists all of the pages and groups of questions (or variables), a Word document version of the online questionnaire.  We ask them to provide their feedback on both the questionnaire (using that document as their guide) and the generated document, and then mark those up before meeting with the KM lawyer if necessary.

Third, after coders have revised the templates based on the lawyers’ feedback, we ask them for a final review. When the templates are ready for use, we hold a short training session for all members of the practice group who will use the coded document sets to generate documents for live matters.  We suggest that all legal assistants in the group and any lawyers who might generate their own first drafts using the templates receive this training.  As for updating the templates, we expect the members of the practice group trained in coding will maintain the coded templates.

Anyone embarking on a KM document assembly initiative is wise to be prepared for enthusiasm from lawyers and demand for coded documents to spread quickly. Make a plan for how you will identify, train, and incorporate others into the team early on so you can meet the demand when it comes.

OpenText’s New Purchase: A Requiem for Recommind?

7 Jun

reqby Joshua Fireman, President & Founder, Fireman & Company

The enterprise search market is getting interesting again and that is a good thing for all of us. The big question this week is, “What does OpenText’s acquisition of Recommind mean?”

Why Did OpenText Buy Recommind?

I think we can safely say that, with a transaction purchase price of $163 million based on $70 to $80 million of annualized Recommind revenues, this deal was about eDiscovery revenue and not enterprise search. Recommind’s enterprise search market (for its Decisiv Search product) has been close to flat for the last couple of years, meaning that annual Decisiv Search revenue is based predominantly on support payments.

Verdict: This deal was about eDiscovery revenue, not enterprise search.

Will OpenText Add Resources to Decisiv Search?

I suggest that we look at OpenText’s historic behaviour with respect to acquisitions. Tony Byrne did a great job of summing this up last month: “The most important thing to understand, though, is that as a vendor OpenText is a financial construct in search of a technology rationale. The company follows a ‘roll-up’ strategy: purchasing older tools for their maintenance revenue streams, streams which — while not always large — are almost always very profitable.”

It is hard to feel optimistic about a long-term vision for Decisiv Search. OpenText would have to do more than add development resources to the product team – it needs to innovate in an era where basic search is becoming commoditized and innovation is being driven by data analytics and artificial intelligence companies.

Verdict: Decisiv Search will remain stable, but is unlikely to evolve.

I am a Decisiv Search client – do I need to switch?

In the short-term, you have no reason to panic. But, you should start planning for the future. I have no reason to believe that Decisiv Search will not be maintained and kept current with required operating systems and integrations. However, as recently observed, enterprise search can be a core system powering content management ecosystems and search-based applications. Moving in this direction means you should look at other search technologies.

Verdict: Decisiv Search should operate in its current state for the foreseeable future. But, an integrated information environment demands more flexible and sophisticated tools that turn search into an intelligent content platform.

Where Is the Search Market Going?

There is no question that basic enterprise search delivers results (no pun intended). But, the real value lies in leveraging the search index and publishing search results via practice-centric applications. Search can power staffing applications, support pricing analysis, and contribute to risk management programs. The right search tool for you is one that:

  1. complements your existing information infrastructure,
  2. integrates into portals and mobile applications, and
  3. delivers information based on multiple data points, including user personas, time entry task codes, application context – even the time of day.

We are also tracking the evolution of more advanced, analytical search tools. Very interesting models are emerging that can be implemented in combination, rather than to the exclusion of, other search tools.

Verdict: Viable search options are available to law firms. Currently available technologies support high-value search-based applications. This path can be pursued in parallel with the emergence of more advanced analytical tools.

Is That All?

Not by a long shot. Fireman & Company evaluates search technologies with our clients regularly and we believe that this is an area with untapped potential. Whether your firm owns Recommind’s Decisiv or another search tool or is still exploring search, you should look hard at the strategic uses of search.

Stop Limiting Your Ferrari to Grocery Trips: Using Enterprise Search for Deeper Integration

11 May

ferBy Joshua Fireman, President, Fireman & Company

The traditional view defines enterprise as a tool that allows attorneys to research and leverage work product in ways that generally are not possible with standard document management system (DMS) search. Documents are returned with contextual information, including matter and people-specific information, and results come back based on relevancy, a key advance over native DMS search. Matter profile pages are generated automatically, as are lawyer profiles based on specific expertise search criteria.

This is how enterprise search has been sold and implemented across the legal industry. The model allows firms to leverage documents, matter information and attorney expertise without the need for large non-billable time allocations and attorney content contributions, while making a firm’s entire corpus of work product available at their fingertips in a way that manual KM contribution models simply cannot scale to. Firms that have adopted enterprise search tools have, indeed, experienced measurable efficiency gains, reduced write-downs, improved internal cross-selling opportunities and produced higher-quality work product.

Counterintuitively, the success of the “documents, matters and expertise” model has led to a general innovation stasis in law firms that own search tools (with a handful of exceptions). The simple and depressing explanation is that it has been relatively easy to benefit from enterprise search – which led, also depressingly, to a lack of market desire to leverage the extraordinary brains (the search engines and indexes) behind these tools. It is similar to buying a sports car and using it for suburban grocery trips.

I see enterprise search as a powerful integration layer that can provide access to integrated and contextualized information within both standalone applications and integrated Intranets. Viewed this way, search provides much more business value than just delivering“Google-like” search results. Rather, it can be used to:

  • Push information to users, using pre-determined search criteria (“canned” searches), where users see content views, rather than search results and can subscribe to topics and request notifications.
  • Target users based on who they are (personas), what they are working on (via phase and task codes) and where they are working (by application or via contextual location in SharePoint).
  • Power search applications responding to a variety of use cases from administrative departments (business development, conflicts and others) and practice areas.

An enterprise search selection must account for strategic considerations that go well beyond the legal industry’s widely accepted definition of enterprise search.

Intranet Integration

Users expect elegant, simple design in their Intranets, to drive and optimize adoption. This extends to searching multiple systems & repositories; these types of search must be transparent and intuitive to the user. Award winning law firm intranets now feature an integrated user-facing search box that combines search options from multiple systems into a single, guided user experience (see the illustration below):

F1Unified search, however, is just the beginning of the value that search can deliver via an Intranet because search can be used as a content management tool within an Intranet. Any content indexed by the search tool can be published in an Intranet by combining pre-populated search criteria with web parts that display result content in an easily consumable form. In other words, the search tool should be capable of displaying search results in multiple display formats (like, for instance, grids and tiles) as a component of an Intranet page.

This opens up the possibility of using search in place of application-specific web parts. Simple examples include displaying recent matters and documents via search. A moderately more complex example would be the display of user-generated DMS content in ways that surpass the capabilities of native DMS functionality (for example, by displaying a working file view). Even more interesting possibilities emerge when search is paired with user targeting (as we discuss below).

User Targeting

Innovative search uses emerge when we take advantage of “audiencing” where content is tailored based on Intranet user persona and page context. For example, an associate working on a matter can have relevant KM material suggested on the basis of matter profiling and time entry information. Similarly, experience location can be targeted to suggest peers (such as lawyers within two years of the user’s bar call) with experience on similar, relevant matters.

The combination of search and audiencing presents an opportunity to facilitate user movement through the Intranet by programmatically anticipating knowledge management and other needs. From the perspective of the attorney, the Intranet becomes a highly personalized work environment enhanced by the serendipitous discovery of relevant knowledge.

One of the most high-value uses of user targeting is the application of audiencing on matter pages to generate electronic matter files. An electronic matter file can meet several objectives, including:

f2providing users with a more relevant view of DMS (and other source) content via filters and content views than is possible with a traditional DMS, and

f3leveraging time entry (particularly where phase and task codes are used) to “push” information based on matter type, role and matter phase (checklists, similar relevant matters, peer experience, etc.)

From a strategic IT perspective, the development of an electronic matter file provides an opportunity to plan its long-term document management application strategy. As the legal industry considers the evolution of DM into back-end infrastructure, a web-based electronic matter file provides the opportunity to transition to a new DM model without substantial “big bang” change management concerns – the back-end can change without materially affecting the web-based front-end seen by the firm’s users.

Search Applications

An enterprise search tool can also be the engine behind targeted applications for different audiences within a firm. The following are examples of search applications:

  • Matter Auto-Prediction/Classification & Budgeting: Predictive coding has been in place for almost a decade in the litigation document review space; some search tools could be used to predictively code matter types, and obviate the need for lawyers to code them when opening a matter. With better and more comprehensive matter types associated with more of your matters, you could locate matters of the same type to help create budgets from the data.
  • Matter Location: Locate relevant matters to leverage past experience for RFP responses and AFAs; support LPM.
  • Conflict Checking: Leverage dynamically joined data across repositories; reduce risk with concept searching (e.g. Pepsi = Frito Lay); issue alerts when conflicts arise mid-matter.
  • Staffing: Make more effective use of legal resources and matching the right people; leverage dynamically joined data across matter intake, HR, Time and Billing, finance repositories; locate people based on multiple factors (experience, billing rate, geography, realization).

f4f5

The development of search applications is dependent on (1) access to the search index’s data layer, (2) the ability to present content in multiple view types (grids, multi-select tables, tiles, etc.) and (3) a categorization engine able to scale sufficiently to crawl all relevant repositories and be trained on your content. The right tool, integrated with the firm’s existing data and workflow infrastructure can lead to the development of extremely valuable, purpose-driven applications.

Conclusion

The enterprise search market is about to leap forward, as search vendors work with clients to realize the true potential of their tools. For years, clients asked for “Google for the law firm”. Today, we realize that this was the wrong question. Instead of trying to mimic other products, we needed to look at our interactions and relationships with information in the context of the practice of law. Building those use cases takes time, but the payoff is worth it.