Litigation Support Leaders Honored in D.C.

I just returned from speaking in D.C. at the International Litigation Support Leaders Conference, organized by Litigation Support Today magazine. It was a well-organized event, especially as it was the first one offered by the magazine, attracting litigation support managers and professionals from across the country. It was a very focused conference with excellent speakers and engaged attendees, yet the highlight was easily dinner Thursday evening. Albert Buckwalter (LST's Editor) honored those litigation support leaders with the Betsy Ann Reynolds Awards for Excellence in Litigation Support in several categories. So often are litigation support professionals the unsung heroes in the legal profession, and it was nice to see some recognition for their efforts and leadership:

Beth Kellermann, Litigation E-discovery Manager for Apple, Inc., was recognized in the corporate legal department category. Florinda Baldridge, Director of Practice Support for Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, was recognized in the private law firm category. Also, Carl Kikuchi, Branch Chief for the Office of Litigation Support, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division was recognized in the government category. Congratulations to all.

But it was especially warming to see long-time friend and colleague Tom O'Connor receive top honors industry-wide for his selfless work in New Orleans, helping lawyers after the spotlight on Katrina had faded. Many may not know this, but Tom relocated to New Orleans and organized free CLE for attorneys by getting speakers and vendors alike to respond, and brought other resources and ideas.

During his speech he asked, "Who helps lawyers?" The answer is, of course, other lawyers. In his unassuming and down-to-earth manner, Tom told me afterward how even a relatively simple thing as providing free copies of software to struggling attorneys brought on tears of thanks. That's how much this assistance was needed. As Tom shared, while the the larger firms generally had more resources to rebuild, what were solos who practiced out of their home offices to do when they didn't even have a roof over their head? Some had to move away, but those who stayed needed all the help they could get to continue on. The public usually thinks of the negative aspects of the profession, and sometimes with good reason, but it's people like Tom who make me proud to be a member. Congratulations Tom, it was well deserved.

Word 2007 -- A Tale of Two Experts @ LegalTech NY

It was the best of times: While making my way through the vendor hall jungle at LegalTech NY, I had the pleasure of catching up with Donna Payne (Payne Group) and Sherry Kappel (Microsystems). I always find time to seek out these document technology savants, and this week's discussions were as helpful as ever.

My personal opinion is that Office 2007 is the clear winner from Microsoft this past year (definitively overshadowing Vista), and the massive improvements are well worth the office suite upgrade and third-party integration efforts. Sherry insightfully observed that with Word 2007's linked styles right out of the box, firms are likely going to need to pay even more attention, not less, on training and reinforcing solid style usage with their user base. As Sherry mentioned in a recent ILTA publication, if you're not automating your document practice, then how are you going to maintain your margins when your corporate clients demand a substantial rate cut? Also, she noted that the new XML format, while adding some needed document file stability, also adds a bit more complexity due to the XML intricacies.

Donna Payne and I had some techno.fun comparing and contrasting Word's built-in Document Inspector capabilities to a dedicated metadata scrubber such as Payne's Metadata Assistant. On one hand, it would seem that Word's built-in Document Inspector gets the job done. Both Donna and I have used it and found it to be effective, especially in a pinch where you're working on a simple document and just need a quick scrub before sending it off to someone. When you want to remove just about everything, it pretty much does the trick. But in comparing notes, we quickly agreed it has several fundamental weaknesses:

1) No Workflow: In other words, when using Word's Document Inspector, you have to remember to manually scrub and save the Word document before you start the e-mail process. Third-party scrubbers add the necessary workflow which allows you to scrub the file as part of the e-mail attachment process.

2) No Selective Scrubbing Within Each Category: For each of Word 2007's five scrubbing categories, it only offers you an "all or nothing" approach for the items in that particular category. There is no middle ground. So if you want to scrub only some of the document property fields, but keep a few like "Author" and "Title", you'll need to first remove all of that category's metadata, and then manually retype in the few you want to retain. And that's a bad thing, because you can lose useful or necessary metadata in the process if you're not careful.

So while we've seen very substantial improvements in Word 2007, firms and companies will still need to assess their overall practice workflow and specific scrubbing needs, and it will likely take third-party add-ins to more fully address them.

2008 Thoughts on Vista & Office 2007

Listening to the tech press, you'd think Windows Vista is on its death bed. John Dvorak is behind the "Vista Death Watch", and other trade mags are supporting efforts to "save" XP. Not that the latter is a bad thing -- Windows XP's current state is that of an excellent operating system, very stable and mature, with more moderate hardware requirements than Vista. But of course, that wasn't how XP arrived, was it? No -- lots of hardware and driver incompatibilities, and it was very unstable and regularly crashed for many until the first two service packs (SPs) showed up. XP SP1 even managed to trash a number of PCs so badly their owners had to wipe them and reinstall XP from scratch. Talk about the ultimate failure for a patch designed to increase stability and performance. Thus many IT pros are waiting to see what SP1 will do for Vista.

Will Vista end up similar to how the market received Windows ME? The comparisons would seem apt so far. With each platform generation of Windows, Microsoft has typically taken three times to get it right, and the fourth to bloat it up beyond repair. The last time around, it was Win95, Win98, Win98 SE (widely acknowledged as the best and most stable of the Win9x series), and of course the "Millennium Edition" which was so bloated and troubled that it mainly only saw installations in the consumer PC market -- and many of those were sold as pre-installations on new PCs. This time around, we started out with the clunky Windows NT, saw substantial improvements in both Windows 2000 and XP, and are still wondering how Vista will play out.

The big success story for Microsoft is that their new Office 2007 line rocks compared to their previous efforts. I've been using the Office 2007 Professional suite since June and am hooked. Better and easier comparison tools built into Word (finally!!!!), built-in metadata removal, etc. The ribbon bar simply rocks. Outlook 2007 is a joy to use and its built-in search is blazingly FAST! I added OneNote 2007 recently and it's really been improved -- lots of new features and integration with the other Office 2007 apps and IE to easily move information over to OneNote. OneNote's new indexing and search within images is utterly fantastic. Microsoft actually listened to their customers in developing Office 2007, and it shows. While organizations will need to plan their migrations and third-party integrations with the Office 2007 suite carefully, I think many will like the numerous improvements once they give it a chance.

Despite the press-mongering, from direct experience I also don't have much in the way of negative feelings for Vista so far. Is it bloated? Absolutely. Does it consume disk space faster than an interstellar black hole? You bet. Does it seem designed by a committee with no unifying theme other than the "Aero" look and feel? Affirmative. But is it unstable? Not in my experience so far, although I'll reserve judgment until after I've installed all the forthcoming SP1-related patches. I've been running Vista Ultimate (32-bit) on a new Toshiba mid-range laptop since June with a TON of new and legacy apps, and overall it's been a pretty good experience. In other words, it hasn't stopped me from getting things done. No system crashes, no "stop" errors, mostly just some apps stopping and restarting.

With the above criticisms said, Vista is not without its charms. There are a number of things I really like about Vista:

• Fast built-in search, at least for the indexed file types. You can also customize the indexing settings.
• Vista Sidebar Gadgets - Great for monitoring just about everything, including system performance, weather alerts, To-Do's, and even receiving Office 2007 tips and tricks from MS, and a lot more. (Yes, Apple, Google, and Yahoo have their widgets and whatnots too.)
• Simplification of user accounts into "Standard User" and "Administrator", and the ability for standard users to temporarily elevate their rights to an administrator without logging out and back in again.
• Handles media file types in Explorer better than XP, especially when tagging files.
• Vista's Mobility Center is great for pulling various system settings together into a single control panel -- perfect when setting up for a presentation in a hurry.
• Live pop-up previews of open programs in the task bar -- this really helps when you have many open windows and need to find the right one quickly. (Vista's new 3D Desktop Flip is a nice addition too, but after seeing Ubuntu 7.10's desktop flip, I like it better than Vista's as it uses a better visual metaphor.)
• Dialogs, Help, Windows Explorer, etc., all improved in usability, navigation, and explaining things to users in plainer language.
• Built-in basic CD/DVD burning. Now even unsophisticated users can burn discs without having to learn a new program. Easy wizard-based steps and it works.
• Windows Complete PC Backup (full drive imaging backup) really works, but it's not available in any of the Home versions. Ironically, home users need it the most as businesses typically already employ more advanced drive imaging tools for deployments.
• Vista can resize hard drive partitions on the fly without reformatting or losing data, rather like a built-in basic version of PartitionMagic. (Perfect if you want to make room to dual-boot to a second OS, such as WinXP or Ubuntu Linux.)
• An improved Disk Cleanup utility that walks you through a nice wizard and shows you how much space you're likely to reclaim before you commit.
• New Control Panel applet for easily setting file associations with your installed programs. (Perfect for when another program has grabbed a file association away from your preferred program.)
• New Aero interface is very Apple-ish (that can't be a bad thing as long as your hardware supports it). Yes, it's mainly eye candy and sucks resources on slower systems, but I like it. It's handy at times to see what's sitting underneath the current window via its transparency. Aero runs fine on my mid-range laptop, and gives Windows that new car smell. (Windows DreamScene is in the same category -- think full-motion desktop backgrounds -- but I like it too.)

Of course, there are a number of things I really dislike in Vista as well:

• UAC (User Account Control) -- Too many redundant prompts, which interrupt my workflow. I absolutely LOVED the Apple commercial dissing it with the Secret Service guy. Priceless. (It's on YouTube.)
• File shadow copying service works and is accessible in Vista Ultimate, BUT: The home versions stupidly keep making shadow copies of your files but don't let you access them, so it's a waste of valuable drive space AND it presents an e-discovery treasure trove (Duh!). You can either turn off your System Restore protection to disable shadow copies (not a good idea as it's saved my bacon several times), or reduce the amount of drive space allocated for restore points, which limits your recovery options. Microsoft absolutely needs to provide a way to turn off file shadow copies while preserving System Restore's core functionality of backing up and restoring just your system files and registry settings.
• While greatly simplified, Vista's built-in Disk Defragmenter has been lobotomized from the power user's perspective: There's no graphic status, not even a simple progress bar. Vista only presents a single button to click. After that, it lacks any indication of its progress or how long it will take -- could be minutes, could be hours. Place your bets, round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows! (Not even Microsoft.) On the bright side, Vista automatically defrags your disk in the background at reduced throttle, which is good for many users who just don't defrag otherwise.

I also wouldn't run Vista on anything less than a dual-core CPU, 2GB of RAM, a halfway decent graphics card, and a nice big hard drive. The over-hyped ReadyBoost is more pain than what it's worth, and I don't use it. It's also subject to the law of diminishing returns. ReadyBoost supposedly helps more on systems with lower RAM (e.g,. 512MB), but it makes far, far less of a difference the more RAM you have onboard. At 2GB of RAM it likely won't provide any real boost per some of the online tests I've read, and my personal trials confirmed as much.

Overall, and with the exception of hard-core gamers needing XP's faster performance, I see Vista as a nice OS for home users buying new PCs -- though it's somewhat crippled without Ultimate's enhanced features. Other than the new drive encryption and other security enhancements, it's definitely a tougher sell for businesses. There's just not that much noticeable improvement or enough compelling new features to justify moving from XP yet, especially when you consider the substantial cost and effort involved in testing/migrating hundreds of legacy programs to ensure their compatibility. Not to mention Vista has significantly higher hardware requirements if you want good performance for your users.

Thus Vista's OS licensing is only the tip of the total cost iceberg. IT executives are likely considering skipping Vista altogether and deploying the next OS, "Windows 7", when it ships (right now it's slated for 2010, but we all know Microsoft usually pushes back its ship dates along the way). The trick is to manage the time gap if Microsoft doesn't change their plans for phasing out XP. Currently, mainstream support for Windows XP SP2 will end on April 14, 2009, after which it switches to "Extended Support" that will last for 5 years until April 8, 2014.

As long as businesses are able to purchase new XP Pro licenses during this gap as needed, it will seriously undercut the need to upgrade to Vista. Many industry analysts are predicting Microsoft will extend XP's mainstream support given the considerable outcry from home and business users alike. However, MS usually waits to just before the support cutoff deadline before announcing any extensions, as earlier announcements would only serve to provide more reasons to stay with XP instead of upgrading.

Office 2007, on the other hand, is a noticeably superior improvement, and the clear winner from Microsoft this past year. Since switching, I never want to go back to an earlier version. The many new features and enhancements actually work well. Microsoft's apps division finally gets it.

Bottom line, if I were a CIO looking at Microsoft upgrades, I'd invest in Office 2007 and offset it by staying put with WinXP for a bit longer, especially as SP3 is coming and should extend its life. Don't get me wrong, I actually like Vista and have had a good experience with it so far. But when it comes to quantifying it, Vista is a much tougher sell for businesses than consumers.

Are Legal Service & E-Discovery Providers Becoming a Commodity?

It's funny how personal events tend to lead me into various thoughts and discussions about the legal market. Yesterday I flipped on my digital cable box to see that effective with the new year, Comcast has taken over Insight's cable business in Illinois. Knowing that Comcast has had several years of turbulent press (e.g., regarding tracking customers' web history, firing customers who used "too much" of their broadband connection, and the latest controversy over interfering with customers' BitTorrent file transfers), I did a little Googling to reacquaint myself with the latest news and blog posts.

In doing so, I found this insightful post at the Manifest Destiny blog. The gist is that broadband ISP providers are afraid to admit to themselves that they're just selling a mere commodity -- shipping bits. And, that it's virtually impossible for them to be honest with their customers if they can't first be honest with themselves. Before I relate this to the legal market, let me quote the following to help put things into clearer perspective:

"It must be pretty awful to wake up one day and suddenly realize that you're in a commodity business. As a software developer I've at least had a taste of it - it was unsettling to realize that an army of developers in Bangalore could churn out code better than I could, dollar for dollar. I had fooled myself into believing that what I was selling was so extraordinary and great that people would be begging - begging! - for me to deign to craft some SQL and PHP on their behalf. Such a rarified gift! Such a technical artiste!

When you realize that you're selling a mere commodity your ability to profit (and extract rents) from your cleverness is severely limited. It won't help to roll out an ad campaign or make the product mint-scented. You can't differentiate your product from your competitors'. It's all pretty much the same. The users can't tell the difference. All you can do is sell as much of it as you can while spending as little money as possible."

Which got me to thinking, "Haven't we been experiencing this in the legal market?" Legal work is being outsourced to armies of contract reviewers both here and abroad. Some of these lawyers aren't employed directly by law firms, as e-discovery providers are quick to tout their expanding review centers and legal outsourcing companies are growing. There are more e-discovery service providers than hardly anyone can keep track of (although my friend George Socha provides great value in doing so with Tom Gelbmann). Like the constant M&As in the wired and wireless telcos, e-discovery vendors are continuously being merged, acquired, and/or creating strategic partnerships with their "coopetition".

Is "Distinguishing" Easier Spun Than Done?

At various conferences this past year, such as ILTA's and ACC's annual conferences, plus the IQPC 4th E-Discovery Conference, I've asked many e-discovery vendors -- especially the conversion and hosting providers -- what distinguishes their services from their competitors? Some were quick to mention their proprietary web-based hosting and review software, while others point to their lower-cost contract legal reviewers, high-tech review centers, high-volume capacity, and/or quick turnaround. A few also mentioned either their top Socha-Gelbman survey rankings and/or their blue chip client list. While certainly impressive factors, these last two didn't serve to distinguish what they actually do.

Very few, if any, truly offer the full soup-to-nuts range of services all by themselves (i.e., without partnering). This isn't a criticism, mind you, as it's extremely difficult to build and excel in all aspects of the EDRM model by yourself, especially in the deadline-driven high-volume and high-stakes cases. Instead, several have distinguished themselves with niche software mousetraps for litigation holds and e-mail analysis. Others have begun building litigation-readiness consulting teams to get their feet in the door. I have to say I sincerely appreciated all their candor and hospitality, and overall found it to be a very congenial group of dedicated professionals trying their best to help their clients.

But for the most part, when I speak with lawyers and e-discovery consultants (some of which are both), many feel it's difficult to see any significant differentiation from a client's perspective, at least until they've had a chance to work together on projects. It's far easier for me to speak with friends and colleagues at law firms and in-house legal departments to hear who they've had good luck with (and those who have not been so good), than in trying to determine this from the e-discovery and law firm providers themselves. In short, even their best sales and business development executives have some difficulty with this, and it's understandable.

Now don't get me wrong -- legal and e-discovery providers offer valuable and necessary services, especially in light of the wide and blindingly bright spotlight cast by the increased focus on ESI. Rather, I'm simply left wondering how many firms and providers have truly recognized the market has already shifted into a more pronounced stage of commoditization. Everyone talks about providing "value-added services" while sustaining growth and profitability. The savvier ones focus on the client value not as the lower per-unit cost (thus recognizing the commoditization and competition issues), but on the overall cost savings achieved in successfully and timely resolving the matter -- all while avoiding the costs and negative publicity of discovery sanctions.

Larger law firms have been building up their litigation support and related IT professionals, and changing focus to make them a profitable line of business rather than a cost center. Yet some are still challenged to find this magic path while being extremely cautious (and rightfully so!) in taking on the liabilities and risks associated with the more forensic aspects. In addition, corporate counsel routinely say the top large law firms generally all provide high-quality services. In my opinion, this just adds to clients' perception of commoditization and their increasing desire to receive them at reduced or fixed cost -- assuming most everything else is being perceived as nearly the same.

Where Does This Leave Us From the Client's Viewpoint?

Answer: A rapidly-changing, crowded, and confusing set of choices. All of which makes it challenging for any single provider to, well, single itself out or make a large enough splash. Of course, a top-ranked spot still helps as lawyers tend to go with whomever most others are using -- as long as their professional network confirms good results. Offering a unique niche product or service is good too, and even better when properly aligned with one's other offerings and resources. Making it onto a client's preferred provider list is still incredibly important. Getting there and staying there without cannibalizing future revenues is the challenge. To borrow Bill Engvall's tagline, "Here's your sign" of legal commoditization.

Most recently, we've seen the entré of automated document search providers. In attempting to prove their solution is significantly more accurate and perhaps less costly than manual review, they are beginning to distinguish themselves from commodity-level contract reviewers. Indeed some of us are keeping an interested eye on these developments. While still nascent, there is potential here if they can deliver on their assertions and convince legal decision-makers that it's worth a try. Only time will tell if this is sustainable or just another tech fad that didn't catch on with more conservative lawyers. And if it does prove sustainable, how long before it too becomes commoditized? Or will there be a legal market "Google" to emerge as the distinguished leader?

As recessionary concerns grow, it will be even more incumbent on corporate counsel to continue to reign in legal costs while generating positive results for their corporate client. Some types of litigation matters increase in bad economic climates. Which means, of course, that the next few years could bode well for those service providers who can distinguish themselves with their potential client base and return consistently good results at an acceptable price. I'd even say the latter is the best way to distinguish yourself in the long run. As we all know from recent cases and the press, bad news travels fast.

As these services become even more commoditized, however, there will likely be even more shakeout and consolidation among providers. Now is a good time for those looking to fill in their gaps. Corporate clients generally prefer more depth in their outside providers. Not to mention their purchasing departments likely have been minimizing the number of outside suppliers to gain better pricing advantage and to simplify (i.e., reduce) their vendor administration overhead. They will likely provide some pushback to legal departments seeking new providers. In some cases, this will extend the RFP process unless or until corporate legal puts their foot down and tells them they need someone "Now!" So while there will be growth, particularly among e-discovery providers, expect it to be rather dynamic in terms of the overall player makeup. Like Comcast above, I expect the larger players will enjoy a larger land-grab. We'll also see a number of middle and smaller players assimilated or perhaps relegated to the less complex, more localized matters, where low cost and local access for clients is very attractive. We've seen this time and time again in the scanning and coding industry.

However, there's no magic crystal ball, and only time will tell how the legal market responds. There will be some legal decision-makers who have already recognized the importance of addressing these issues early, and many who will be economically cautious, only paying as needed. Sometimes that saves money, and sometimes saving money gets very expensive on the clean-up side. That's where having a good discovery advisor-partner is worth its weight.

We'll continue to see further consolidations and partnerships among e-discovery and other technology providers. We'll see more outsourcing, even if it's only internal to that provider (think coding banks in India and China, for example), to increase their global reach and financial efficiencies. And like my cable TV, we'll be launching our browsers or RSS readers only to find that ABC provider is now part of XYZ. Stay tuned...

My InsideCounsel Column on Technology Counsel

My next column is available at InsideCounsel, which explores the emergence of the Office of Technology Counsel. I've been hearing and indeed have engaged in more and more discussions in the legal market about how most companies are still nowhere near where they need to be in their litigation readiness. While it is improving somewhat, slowly, and likely under the pressure of sanction avoidance, the lawyer/IT gap is still a major challenge, as is the capacity of their interdisciplinary teams to handle both their regular day jobs along with these increasing duties.

Add into the mix recent case developments such as the Qualcomm vs. Broadcom imbroglio, and it's easy to see where communications and overall e-discovery coordination are still breaking down between the team players. I think those companies experiencing the most pain, and more importantly, those willing to learn from it, will be exploring additional organizational changes. We've already seen this in the wake of SOX and other regulatory requirements with the establishment of compliance offices. Those seeking to understand an Office of Technology Counsel's place in the organization can refer to my mission quote from the column:

"In short, this office’s mission is to transform the organization from one of reactive fire drills and ad hoc processes into a well-oiled machine to enhance repeatability, accountability, predictability and overall risk management. When done well, this translates into enhanced defensibility."

The article includes a bullet list of related duties, some caution when developing the Office's reporting structure, and help on where you can find a suitable Technology Counsel candidate.

ACC Survey Reveals Key Trends with In-House Counsel

Law.com has a great AP write-up on the 2007 ACC/Serengeti Managing Outside Counsel Survey, a collaboration between the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) and Serengeti Law, released at ACC's Annual Meeting on Monday in Chicago.

From my perspective, here are some of the key take-aways:

1. In-house counsel are utilizing more systems, such as e-billing and matter management, to perform more business intelligence (BI) and metrics-based evaluations of their outside counsel's performance.

This should come as no surprise to anyone working with corporate legal technology. Better tools exist today, and law departments are able to either consolidate some of their data silos or at least push/pull data more meaningfully from various sources. More comprehensive reporting tools and dashboards enable more insightful analyses and comparisons of outside counsel performance on a number of key indexes. In addition, matter-centric systems allow better data normalization, data integrity, and integration of workflows.

In addition, in-house counsel are much more likely to use these systems to maximize discounts for early payments, also known as fast-pays. When outside counsel budgets are in the millions, or hundreds of millions, even a small discount adds up to significant dollars. In return, outside counsel benefit by having on-time and reliable positive cash flows with little or no collection effort.

2. Law firm extranets are declining as in-house counsel prefer to utilize client-centric systems.

It's difficult to do proper BI and pull your data together if it's spread among both in-house and a number of outside firms' systems. A common complaint among in-house counsel is having to log into multiple outside counsel and in-house systems to gain access to all their information. Depending upon the number of outside firms, it can be inefficient for in-house counsel to learn how to navigate different outside systems and manage multiple logins. In my opinion, internal (or alternatively, some ASP-hosted) web-based systems are on the rise for ease of access and collaboration while reducing desktop support.

3. As a result, corporate counsel are setting more rules for their relationship with outside counsel.

This goes beyond setting billing rates, as corporate counsel are including requirements for early assessments and regular updates, as well as technology expectations and data formats. In-house counsel are likely to continue increasing the number of rules in their outside counsel guidelines.

4. Corporations have heightened legal compliance concerns.

The complexity of regulatory requirements is increasing, along with high-profile investigations and trials involving executives and in-house counsel. While other costs are being managed more tightly, this is an area where in-house counsel are likely more willing to engage outside counsel and potentially increase budgets for this work. This presents outside counsel with additional client service and revenue opportunities, along with opportunities to further cement their relationship with upper-ranking corporate counsel.

5. Convergence of outside firms continues, but is not exceeding expectations.

About a quarter of corporate law departments surveyed use convergence (working with a smaller number of firms) to achieve better rates, efficiencies, and consistency of work. However, most companies reported that it only met (i.e., did not exceed) their expectations. Even though there was a drop from the previous year, the AP article also reported the median number of outside firms remained fairly steady when looking at past years' data overall. This suggests to me the following:

• Convergence is a useful management tool which will likely continue; however:


• Most of the significant reductions have already been achieved for those companies who've been using this technique for several years.


• Thus I'd expect those companies to continue convergence in "maintenance mode".


• Savvy law departments are now looking for other ways, such as BI metrics, to better manage outside counsel costs.

From my experience, none of these should have presented any real surprise. However, it's good feedback to validate where in-house counsel are headed both technologically and in managing their outside counsel. Overall, in-house counsel are becoming more information-driven, are updating their technological tools, and are taking greater interest and participation in their outside counsel relationships. For the corporations they counsel, that's good news.

My InsideCounsel "Tech Talk" Column on Matter Centricity

I'm pleased to announce I've recently begun contributing to InsideCounsel magazine for their Tech Talk electronic newsletter. My first column addresses "Matter Centricity", and describes how corporate counsel can benefit from integrating their various informational systems, such as matter management, e-billing, and document management.

Implemented effectively, there are significant workflow improvements to be realized, as well as enhanced data consistency, information access, and elimination of unnecessary "busy work". Conversely, there are a number of considerations and hurdles to overcome in implementing a truly matter-centric environment, some of which are not readily apparent. Check out the article for more information, including items for inclusion in your business plan and methods for managing costs with external consultants.

EDD -- ILM Needed to Take Out the Trash

This Law.Com article by Stanley M. Gibson, "Hit 'Delete' to Prevent EDD Disaster", tells the tale of how a company was ordered to produce millions of electronic documents and e-mails spanning over half a decade to the losing tune of a $570 million judgment. That's in addition to the costs incurred for legal fees and allocated costs of collection, restoration, conversion, review, and production of the data.

Unfortunately, hitting "Delete" is not sufficient. If nothing else, the result just became a compelling benchmark of why implementing ILM (Information Lifecycle Management) can indeed be cost justified. If a company may have to pay millions (or perhaps billions in the total tally), why not invest that money -- proactively -- into a solution that reduces financial risk and produces tangible operating benefits to its users in terms of structured data management and collaboration ease? As real-life EDD examples such as this continue to occur, an effective ILM implementation with proper policies, training, and management reinforcement could very well be the gift that keeps on giving.

Collaboration Thoughts: Google "Presently", Parallel Processing, Simplification and Savvy Execution

Google is rounding out their web office apps with a PowerPoint clone. Mike Arrington at TechCrunch blogged on the announcement yesterday at the Web 2.0 expo. As a word play on Writely, Google's collaborative word processor, Google fans are now eager awaiting "Presently".

Although it's still early, I tend to agree with Google CEO Eric Schmidt's comment that it isn't a threat to Microsoft -- yet. With Office 2007's release and obvious refinements (particularly the ribbon bar), enterprise and legal markets are already sitting up, taking notice, and planning their upgrades. However, in this Web 2.0 era of business at the speed of broadband, waiting for revisions to roundtrip through multiple people is becoming more and more burdensome and costly. Think serial processing vs. parallel processing. Core Single vs. Core Duo.

Would I trust Google's web tools with confidential or sensitive data? [Update: No. A major concern I do not see going away any time soon is how easily a third party will give up records under subpoena, or threat thereof, when there may be defenses or other protections available to the data owner. There may also be security concerns]. But there have been times when I've been collaborating with one or more CLE presenters when it would have been incredibly helpful to work on the same presentation file concurrently.

I also like Workshare's Professional Suite's "Manage Changes" feature, particularly for Word documents. It goes Track Changes a few times better as it allows you to import and manage revisions from multiple reviewers within the same document, enabling a more flexible review and revision process.

Collaborative technology can definitely help, but it's not a panacea by itself. It doesn't eliminate the need of those involved in the process to understand and identify more efficient ways of conducting business.

I recently re-read the Corporate Counsel article, "Seven Sigma: GE lawyers take a low-tech road to come up with a high-tech way to draft contracts quickly" (I believe it was the Jan. 2007 issue, no web link available). It describes how GE's law department -- using only sticky notes -- tore apart and simplified the process for drafting contracts, cutting their document length, complexity, and execution time dramatically. Then they implemented the technology to facilitate it. If they would have tried to automate their existing voluminous contract forms around the old process, I seriously doubt the gains would have been anywhere near as rewarding.

Web 2.0 has been getting a lot of hype, along with criticism for over-hype. Some of it is probably deserved, but businesses and their lawyers would do well to give it a spin. Before the ride is over, it'll likely get people thinking and moving in a new direction.

Enhancing Mobile Security - Feature Article

Organizations usually focus more heavily on protecting the castle by fortifying its defenses. However, mobile technology security can be a bit more challenging, in no small part due to the plethora and complexity of devices, user mobility, and increased risks outside the firewall. Sometimes it doesn't receive as much attention, or perhaps is perceived as less securable. Thus I've recently written a feature article on effective mobile security techniques, strategies, and policies, entitled "Enhancing Mobile Security". The downloadable PDF is compatible with Acrobat 5 or higher.

This was originally published as the cover feature in the February/March 2006 issue of Law Office Computing. I am greatly honored by Amanda Flatten, LOC's Editor and Publisher, for granting me permission to publish it here. Amanda, you're the best. If you're in the legal field and have any interest in improving your practice via savvy use of technology and keeping abreast of new developments, then I highly recommend a subscription to LOC.

Avoiding Mobile Computing Burnout

Whether you're a road warrior or just tote a few mobile gadgets, I think you'll find this article helpful in setting expectations and managing your stress from always being accessible. It was recently published online at eLOC, the e-magazine version of Law Office Computing. A hearty "Thank You" goes to Amanda Flatten, the Editor & Publisher extraordinaire, for graciously permitting me to post the entire published version here at LTG (especially for those of you who download the RSS feed).

Avoiding Mobile Computing Burnout

Use technology to enhance your work, not take over your life.

By Jeff Beard

It’s no secret that lawyers and legal staff have high-pressure jobs. As if we were not multitasking enough, mobile technology makes us even more accessible to client service and other demands. Untamed, it leads to information overload, multiple interruptions throughout the day and more stress.

Are your wireless gadgets just making you more wired? Do you need to go on a technology diet? Clients demand more access to you, and you want to provide good service. Mobile technology offers many tools to help you do just that. The problem is, sometimes they deliver too much of a good thing.

Consider how many devices and technologies are used to stay in touch: wireless e-mail devices; Wi-Fi laptops loaded with e-mail, office suite, time entry and various practice applications; cell phones; hands-free headsets; a lot of cables (laptop power brick, modem, Ethernet, universal serial bus, FireWire, audio, iPod charger, cell phone charger and personal digital assistant charger); home, office and cell phone voice mail accounts; professional and personal e-mail accounts; office, PC and Internet faxes; text messaging; instant messaging; replicated e-mail account on your laptop’s hard drive for offline reading; Virtual Private Networks, Citrix or other remote access software; camera phones, digital cameras and portable scanners; and a prepaid Starbucks card (for a liberal dose of Wi-Fi and caffeine).

That is a lot of technology to manage. It’s not uncommon to hear of professionals checking their e-mail in the middle of the night, while driving, during their children’s sporting events and let’s not even dwell on the restroom scenarios. While some will deny these stories, I have heard them all. The faster you respond, the faster your clients and co-workers expect you to in the future. After all, you reinforce their expectations with a five-minute turnaround from your BlackBerry or cell phone. Congratulations — you have just become a victim of your own success. All isn’t lost, however. There are a number of ways you can avoid mobile computing burnout and reduce information overload.

Set Reasonable Expectations

Jim Calloway, director of the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Management Assistance Program, recommends setting parameters with clients during the initial interview. “Communicate that you will normally get back to them within 24 hours, not including weekends,” Calloway said. “Share that you process messages on a first-in, first-out basis. Think about how you are going to handle the client relationship and what mobile access means.” The same goes for managing your relationship with your employer or co-workers. Calloway said legal professionals often can set themselves up for failure by committing to do too much, but setting realistic goals and ground rules will help you manage your workload.

Determine Which Mobile Devices Work for You

When it comes to traveling, less can be more. Ask yourself what you truly need to be productive and if you really will use what you take along. If you are reasonably tech savvy and comfortable with different gadgets and access methods, it might be worthwhile to have alternative technologies at your command. If you are not a technophile, then try introducing one new gadget at a time. That way, you are increasing the odds you will be comfortable using it on your own.

This might be a gross oversimplification, but generally I find two main types of BlackBerry or Treo users: those who can’t wait to get one, and those who really, really don’t want one, ever. If you are in the former category, make sure it’s for the right reasons and not just to have a status symbol or another tech toy. If you are in the latter category, take heart and use these tips to set reasonable expectations with others regarding your accessibility. You might be able to agree on alternative communication methods or less onerous response times.

Minimize Interruptions and Multitasking

Remember, technology speeds up many tasks, including the pace at which we make mistakes. “It’s important to recognize multitasking invites errors and misunderstandings,” Calloway said. “We have all sent e-mails that we wish we had never sent.”

Brett Burney, legal practice support supervisor at Thompson Hine in Cleveland, advises professionals to avoid the diminished returns of too much multitasking and to focus on the quality of work clients deserve.

Learn and Use the Technology You Have

Burney said he sees a lot of frustration stemming from underutilization of mobile gadgets. “One great way to avoid at least some of the tech-burnout today is to educate yourself on the functions of a device, and beyond that, even to learn a few tips and tricks,” he added. For example, instead of manually scrolling through e-mails, Burney said Treo users running GoodLink software simply can press the “T” key to jump to the top of the list to read a newly arrived message. “While it might only save me several seconds, I am happier because I am immediately looking at what I want to see. I realize this means spending more time with a device, either reading the instructions or just playing with it, but it pays off in the long run because I don’t get so frustrated,” he said.

Also, be cautious about adding mobile technology to your arsenal too quickly. Give yourself a chance to absorb it at a comfortable rate. Don’t ask for it if you don’t need it. If you need it, then learn how to use it properly and use it on a regular basis. Great tools are a wasted investment if you can’t use them when you really need them. Don’t wait until you are on deadline or two hours before a flight to pick up a new mobile tool without sufficient training. That is just asking for stress. Instead, plan ahead, test it and ask questions so you will be able to use it well before you leave. For instance, remote access accounts can become disabled if not used regularly. If you have VPN access, but use Web access most of the time, you could forget your VPN personal identification number or password, or the account might need to be reset. This is best summed up as “use it or lose it,” in which case you have unanticipated remote support problems adding to your stress level. Also, it’s not fun for the Information Technology folks who must support your remote technology. In many cases, an ounce of prevention keeps disasters at bay.

If you don’t have time to teach yourself how to properly use mobile technology, find out if your organization or a technology vendor offers any training or user guides. Portable cheat sheets and instruction cards are useful and easily fit into a briefcase or laptop bag.

Recognize That Technology Isn’t Perfect

Bad things often happen — batteries die, power cords get left behind, hardware fails, software applications have bugs, viruses abound, entire systems become unavailable at times, and yes, we all have made mistakes while using technology. That is life in the digital age. In recognizing this, however, we can generate effective alternate plans to get things done.

For example, if your cell phone or PDA dies, have a backup list of names and telephone numbers on your laptop or on a flash drive. Planning ahead for outages and problems is one of the best mobile lawyering stress relievers. It’s only a matter of time before Murphy’s Law strikes, and while it’s never fun, knowing you still can communicate and work productively under pressure is a nice safety net.

Use the “Off” Button

Mobile devices have to be recharged — and so do you. If you stay connected all the time, you will become drained and less productive. Put all your commitments into perspective and make adjustments. For instance, turn off wireless e-mail devices and cell phones at family events, or even better, consider whether you really need to bring them to these events at all. Admittedly, most of us like to carry cell phones for personal safety and convenience. In that event, it’s OK to send calls to voice mail. For this reason, I prefer phones with external Caller ID displays for triage purposes. Check if your phone offers a shortcut to manually force an incoming call to voice mail rather than having it vibrate or ring several times. For example, I discovered that pressing the side volume down button twice on my LG cell phone does the trick.

If you are in a meeting with a client, there is nothing worse to that client than constant buzzing or ringing interruptions. This gives the client the impression that you are not giving your full attention. Indeed, some firms have added this to their etiquette training. For longtime road warriors, cutting that wireless cord can feel strange at first, but it gets easier with practice.

As professionals, we are quite fortunate to have a wide variety of mobile tools at our disposal. As tools, they serve very useful functions. The trick is to manage them before they manage you by setting realistic expectations and ground rules. There still will be times when you become overloaded or frustrated, but I hope some of these tips better prepare you to anticipate and work through them.

Stress-Busting Tech Resources

• “Technology, Stress and the Lawyer’s Quality of Life,” by Jim Calloway, director of the Oklahoma Bar Association Management Assistance Program


• JDBliss, “A Blog for Attorneys Seeking Career Satisfaction, Work/Life Balance and Personal Growth”

Jeff Beard is the legal services IT manager with Caterpillar Inc., a Fortune 100 company headquartered in Peoria, Ill. He is a former practicing attorney, and is a frequent national author and presenter on contemporary legal technology and practice management issues. Beard enjoys working with mobile technology, and covers many such devices and issues on his blog, LawTech Guru. This article was submitted in his individual capacity, and all views stated are his own.

Free eBook: "BlawgWorld 2006: Capital of Big Ideas"

I've been a long-time subscriber and occasional contributor to The TechnoLawyer Community. It's a unique free service for seeing what's new and interesting in the world of legal technology. TechnoLawyer is also a particularly great place to get some good ideas and feedback on various topics and technologies. I've seen it evolve from a simple listserv into an organized online community, spawning many topic-focused newsletters, an integrated blawg, and basically giving its readers more substance than noise, a rarity indeed.

Along those lines, Neil Squillante and his capable crew have been working for months on delivering even more value to their subscribers. I'm happy to say the fruits of their labor are now available in their new TechnoLawyer eBook, BlawgWorld 2006: Capital of Big Ideas. It's designed to take you on a journey through 51 of the most influential blawgs. (And yes, LawTech Guru is included -- I thought I'd get that out of the way, as I'm truly honored to be in such good company.)

I was immediately struck by the high quality of the publication in PDF format. There are some phenomenal thought pieces in it, and couldn't help myself from sinking into reading many posts from some of my favorite blawgs as well as others I had not visited in a while. With so many blawgs available today, it's all too easy to miss some great posts, even with using an RSS reader.

BusinessWeek Online's blog, Blogspotting, recently asked, "Where are the good law blogs out there?" Well, here you go.

BlawgWorld 2006 has something for everyone: Whether you're new to blawgs and are wondering where they are and which ones to read, an avid blog reader who'd like to catch up on some of the better posts you may have missed, or somewhere in between. If ever you found yourself thinking, "so many blawgs, so little time," then the BlawgWorld 2006 eBook is a great stop along the way. Each blawg's representative thought piece contains a brief author and blog bio, as well as the topics it covers. This makes it very quick and easy to skim, and you may just find the articles useful. If nothing else, they are interesting and thought-provoking -- exactly what you'd expect from good blawgs and their authors.

While the eBook is free, you do need to be a TechnoLawyer subscriber to receive it. If you're not already one, I recommend joining (it's a free sign-up). While Neil probably wouldn't want me to say this, you can always cancel at any time, so there's little lost in the effort and much to be gained. Enjoy.

AmLaw 200 vs. Fortune 500: Alternate Realities in Professional Development

Bruce MacEwen (Adam Smith, Esq.) has this great post comparing The American Lawyer's release of its annual survey of mid-level associates, and Business Week's cover story on "how to recruit, train, and hold on to great people."

Bruce presents a bone-jarring juxtaposition of negative comments relating to some law firms' approach to professional development vs. that of Fortune 500 companies. As he quoted from the AmLaw survey, "sometimes it's not pretty" in terms of what occurs in large firms. Read the quotes. Having worked in both small and large firms, none of those comments are surprising to me -- keeping in mind that it's always dangerous to generalize or take comments out of context. But clearly, there is something to these concerns.

In stark contrast, savvy corporations are walking the walk and talking the talk: They are devoting substantial resources in finding and developing their greatest resource: People. For instance, read "Caterpillar Constructs a Leadership Pipeline". This is not merely lip service, it is the corporate culture as embedded and fostered by strong leadership.

One of the basic tenets of Six Sigma is "steal shamelessly all non-proprietary and non-copyrighted ideas". In other words, if you find something that has worked for someone else, why reinvent the wheel? Let's just say there is much law firms can learn from their own clients, and they don't have far to go to get it. The real question: How many want it?

NY Times: Katrina Left a Legal System in Shambles

For those wondering just what Katrina has done to our legal system in its wake, the New York Times piece, "A Legal System in Shambles" chronicles the many legal problems caused by the devastation as well as the very human impact.

Update: Championed by Ross Kodner, and joined by many legal technology experts, vendors, and more, HelpKatrinaLawyers.org is now online. Ross describes it as a "Resource of volunteers for legal technology, practice management and disaster/data recovery for any law practice affected by Katrina".

The site describes in more detail the type of help they are marshaling across the legal market:

• Guidance regarding restoring backed up data, or recovering data from physically damaged computer systems or media


• Advice about temporarily practicing with either borrowed, rented or purchased new PC and voice systems


• Provide remote access to allow any lawyer who can get online to use well-known legal software to get their work out and contact clients and associates


• Provide sound longer-term focused guidance on replacing destroyed or damaged systems - but doing it the best way at fair prices, avoiding making costly mistakes

Also, don't forget the other resources posted earlier.

Reinvent Yourself

As I attended an intracompany conference this week, I had an opportunity to speak with various people who have had radically different jobs throughout their careers. I don't believe it's any coincidence they were also some of the most dynamic and engaging people I've met, and that they had advanced well within the organization. Good business people have more than just technical competence, more than just managerial skills. They have a broader perspective gained from diverse experiences.

A few years ago, I attended an insightful keynote by Attorney Christine Edwards of Winston Strawn in Chicago. It was entitled, "Accountability at the Speed of Thought", which addressed the challenges and responsibilities that chief legal officers face today. I blogged it as she made a number of key points, which I summarized:

• Businesses need to cross divisions and business lines (no more silos).
• The informed technologist has a career path. Business leaders today are more interested in methodology and softwares. Today, the sky is the limit for business leaders with a technology background. Communication skills are key. Corporate boards need people who understand technology, but can see the broader picture. As Ms. Edwards put, they can see around corners.
• Technology can facilitate things, but what is really needed is a change in behavior and culture -- there are no silver bullets.

These points are even truer today, and indeed have risen to become imperatives. Successful organizations need diverse, well-rounded business professionals who understand the technical, business, process, and human issues. To get there, we need to continually reinvent ourselves. While our technical and management competencies are surely important, our overall business savvy, adaptability, and creativity are even more critical in the long run.

So each year, try to do several things you normally wouldn't do within your comfort zone. Get involved in a different kind of project, one that will bring you into contact with others you normally wouldn't see. Get involved in a committee that you otherwise wouldn't consider. Do some volunteer work in your community. Take a trip. Consider additional education, and it doesn't have be formal. Consider things like Toastmasters, Dale Carnegie, or LaMarsh. Change jobs. Heck, it can be something as simple as teaching yourself to juggle. Above all else, I've found it increasingly important to make time to reflect upon what makes you happy, including your life goals (not just career-related), and visualize how you might get there.

Granted, some of these are more easily accomplished than others. But consider that should you fail, you'll likely fail forward -- definitely not to be confused with "failing upward". I'm sure by now you've noticed I'm a firm believer of change or die.

There are many organizations who need your talents in a wide variety of capacities, and you just might discover something about yourself you didn't know. If you're already in a great situation, the experiences and perspective gained will only make you more valuable. In other words, what's the downside?

Don't Lead, Enable!

I just read, with great enthusiasm, Bruce MacEwen's post, "To CIO's Seeking 'Buy-In:' Snap Out of It", wherein he quotes Michael Shrage's CIO.com article, "Buttressing the Business":

[Bruce:] But without buy-in, where are we? Aren't we still staring at a landscape of still-born tech initiatives? Actually, there is an alternative. CIO's (and their departments) need to stop thinking of themselves as "leaders" [stay with me on this one, folks] and become "enablers:"

[Bruce quoting Michael] "In other words, IT shouldn't be a change or transformation leader; it should be a change or transformation enabler. What's the essential difference? For the purpose of this column, leaders are those individuals most responsible and accountable for setting the right objectives and ensuring the right results. Enablers, by contrast, are those individuals most responsible and accountable for providing leaders with the tools, techniques and technologies for achieving those objectives and results. Enablers make effective leadership practical and probable."

Thanks for summing up my philosophy so eloquently. Long-time readers may recall my feature article, "Are You an "Enabler?" published here the first month I went live (Sept. 2003).

To sum it up:

- Find or create something that acts as an enabler.
- Share it with someone who can run with it.
- Then get the heck out of the way!

If you've found a good fit, you'll likely find that you don't have to do much selling yourself. Your customer will take care of that.

Set them up to succeed and provide support when needed. Then you're working from a much stronger position of a "pull" than a "push". They will want to pull the solution from you, rather than you trying to "push" it on them. It's not easy, and it often requires some cleverness on your part to figure out how to do that. (That's why they hired you, right?)

Is this a bit radical? Probably. Will it always work? No. But don't let that stop you from trying. Fail forward.

[By the way, we're so much on the same page here that I authored the title for this post before I read the linked CIO.com article and its subheadings. Innovative minds sometimes do think alike...]

Six Sigma for Dummies

I've previously posted my thoughts about Six Sigma -- it's a problem-solving methodology for improving business and organizational performance. A number of very large companies already use it, though other organizations (such as law firms) would likely benefit as well. Through the relatively new Six Sigma Blog, I see that a new ""Dummies" book has been published, "Six Sigma for Dummies". As the Six Sigma Blog's capsule review mentions:

"One of the biggest inhibiting factors preventing wider Six Sigma implementation is the percieved [sic] complexity of the program. Most managers are simply clueless about the process, preventing them from seriously examining Six Sigma as an alternative for their company. Fortunately, Six Sigma for Dummies rectifies this by explaining in very straightforward, albeit at times simplistic, language the nature and benefits of Six Sigma. In addition, a number of small to mid-sized companies have been unable or unwilling to make the capital investment necessary to incorporate the Six Sigma process. This book will allow the novice to incorporate some basic Six Sigma attributes so that they can percieve [sic] for themselves the benefits of the program and ultimately incorporate it to a deeper degree."

Having been involved in a number of Six Sigma projects, I've found it a valuable methodology. It provides a number of approaches for identifying the root cause of a problem, what's broken in a process, and methods to quantify inefficiencies and benefits from process change. The latter is often difficult to do in service professions. Thus having additional tools to quantify value propositions can help firms get past a number of financial and other objections -- and it just might provide some valuable insight into how their larger clients operate.

Over the past several years, a number of large firms have begun PMO (Project Management Office) initiatives, particularly in their IT departments. While that's a great start, there is likely additional value to be obtained by incorporating Six Sigma. As its roots are based on statistical analysis (hence the name, Six Sigma), kudos to any resource that makes it easier to adopt and understand.

TechnoLawyer @ Awards

Thanks to my fellow colleague and blawger, Jim Calloway, I've just read LawTech Guru is in the running for "Favorite Practice Management Blog", a new category for this year's TechnoLawyer "@ Awards" (paragraph #4). I'm honored to be nominated and thankful to be in such good company. It's also just nice to know others have found my contributions helpful.

I also think it's important that whoever wins, wins on their own merits. So I'm not going to ask for your vote. (Don't get me wrong, I appreciate it if you do, but I just don't feel right asking for it. Vote for the blog you like best.) A number of we blawgers are good friends, and we enjoy giving something back -- especially in trying to improve the quality and practice of law. We put a tremendous amount of effort, thought, and personal insights into our posts, and we hope it shows.

I will suggest that if you haven't yet voted, please do so if you have the time. The voting ends on Friday, June 10, 2005, at midnight eastern time. You need to be a TechnoLawyer member to vote (it's easy to join). I'll direct you to Jim's post, as he's done such a nice job of compiling the instructions and linking the ballot form.

Also, I was surprised to see that as of yesterday, no one has voted for "Favorite Practice Area Blog". There are certainly some exceptional practice-specific blogs out there, well-deserving of some recognition for their efforts. If you have a favorite or have found one useful in your practice, by all means give them something back by voting.

(As you may have noticed, that means I haven't voted yet. One more item for the tickler list!)

Blawgs & Advertising Rules

Just happened to see this today on Law.com, from the New Jersey Law Journal:

Advertising Panel Lays Down Rules for Law Firm Ads on Web

While the article is silent on legal blogs (or blawgs if you prefer), it's good reason to take a look at your state's advertising/ethical rules. With legal blogs' continuing explosion, I expect it's only a matter of time before someone runs afoul of their respective requirements (if it hasn't already happened). Yet another item to add to one's checklist before firing up that new blawg.

Ch-ch-ch-Changes!

I just got back from Interwoven's GearUp! Conference. Many people would probably yawn at the prospect of attending a three day conference on document and content management, but I've left invigorated. Talk about a mass infusion of information, news, strategy, and most importantly, change management ideas!

Hands down, two of the best presentations dealt with the issues of user adoption, which boils down to good change management. First, Peter Lamb and Pat Morris of the Torys law firm shared their challenges and triumphs in their early adoption of WorkSite 8.0. One of Peter's first comments: The technology itself played such a small role, while the change management issues were paramount -- more than anyone had anticipated. Rizwan Khan, Interwoven's Director of WorkSite Professional Services, also delivered a stellar discussion on change management for matter-centric collaboration.

The problem, in the immortal words of the Pogo comic strip character, is "We have met the enemy, and he is us." We don't like change. Think about it: It took a great deal of effort to become proficient doing what we're doing. Every time we start to get comfortable, even with an inefficient process, someone or something comes along to the reshuffle the cards.

Both sessions emphasized several key processes that absolutely must be done well for a great rollout:

• Get upper management in the game ASAP
• Involve all levels of staff
• Most importantly: Analyze your business processes before plugging in new technology.

Consider the last one carefully: How can you attempt to automate a process if you haven't defined a) What it is you're currently doing, and b) How you want it to work more effectively?

DM is becoming more like KM -- it doesn't really do as well on its own anymore, and there tends to be greatly different needs depending on the specific business requirements. One size still doesn't fit all.

To be successful, it needs to be baked into our regular workflow and processes. Over the past few years, Document Management has evolved and morphed into a much larger concept: Enterprise Content Management, or ECM. Content isn't just limited to word processing files. People, not organizations, create all kinds of spreadsheets, presentations, PDFs, web pages, graphics, video, and more. No one likes having to do even more work to save their work, such as filling out profiles and classifying documents. Thus the allure of matter-centric systems -- being able to drag and drop the desired files into virtual folders that auto-profile them for us, organize them for us visually, add subscription capabilities (so we only see selected matters, not thousands of them), and make it easier to find them later.

The end goal is to make it more usable -- make it easier and more intuitive for the end users to get their content both into and out of the system. Seamless integration makes it easier as well, especially when it's done right. All of which contributes to higher user adoption and buy-in, which ultimately reflects itself in a higher ROI and organizational effectiveness.

But to get there, it definitely entails change, and that change needs to be managed thoughtfully and carefully, rather than merely being imposed on pre-existing processes, workflows, and mental models.

Failing Forward

Gerry Riskin's insightful post is a perfect companion to my online discussion with Ron Friedmann this week: Gerry, a co-founder of Edge International, recently discussed why firms need to stop worrying about perfectionism and develop strategy such that they "fail forward". As he quoted from The Warrior Class Blog, "The idea is to “fail forward” in such a way that, even when what you try doesn’t work, it puts you in a better position after your move than before it."

Gerry adds:

Food for thought: It is quite natural for the best lawyers in the blue chip firms to be perfectionists, at least in so far as the practice of law is concerned. However, when it comes to formulating strategy, I believe that the perfectionist mindset must be suspended in favor of taking action. Many good firms are paralyzed by perfectionism and out-maneuvered by those who are willing to try things and learn from their efforts. It was Edison who was asked for a comment after trying over 2000 times to make a light bulb and still failing – he responded by saying he was the only person who know 2000 ways not to make a light bulb. Of course the firm must guard against embarrassing itself or offending clients but, at the same time, the willingness to fail is essential for learning how to become premiere business developers. Even amazing lawyers in amazing firms must fail on occasion, but when they do, they “fail forward”.

One of my favorite inspirational quotes is: "Reach for the moon, for even if you miss, you'll still land among the stars."

But I greatly prefer to flip it around: If you reach for the stars and only succeed in landing on the moon, you're still in a better position from where you started. The essence of failing forward.

The Right Answer to Ron's Wrong Question?

Ron Friedmann, a sharp guy and colleague, "recently asked a lawyer whether his firm was pursuing a relatively new idea and his response was, 'how many other large law firms are doing that?' Ron's reply was "why is that a relevant question?"

Ron ultimately revealed the question was whether that firm had considered a blog, and the interesting issue is how firms think about change and new ideas. "Large law firm technology managers who suggest new initiatives frequently face the question 'how many other firms are doing that.' Most businesses evaluate a proposal based on benefits, costs, feasibility, and risk." He asked to hear from someone who has a better explanation.

Ron, I agree with you, and perhaps I can add another perspective. As an observation, many legal organizations are conservative, risk-adverse environments. Lawyers are trained from Torts 101 to recognize, assess, manage, and avoid liability. So, if one is risk adverse, rather than follow Nike's motto, he/she will naturally ask, "well, before we do it, let's see if anyone else has tried it and observe what happened to them -- we don't know what will happen if we try it first." "Let's let someone else be on the cutting edge and see what happens -- we have other things on our plate to attend to."

Yes, benchmarking is a useful tool, but it quickly becomes a hindrance as a knee-jerk reaction to replace critical, original entrepreneurial thinking. The problem with looking left and right all the time is that one becomes accustomed to not looking forward on their own. As Ron, Dennis Kennedy, myself, and other blawgers have mentioned, there is a vast amount of untapped first mover advantages for law firms. A few have recently begun to realize this, but the rest are still very slow to follow -- well, at least until several other firms have tested the waters for them. The irony is that while more and more attorneys "get" what savvy technology application can do for them (perfect example: BlackBerries and wireless networking), they're much more cautious about it in client-facing situations.

While that's understandable to some degree, Ron is right that good business decisions are based on other factors than what the Joneses have tried. With legal services becoming more of a commodity every day, the Joneses are going to have a more difficult time to distinguish themselves if they continue to let their competition go first.

Instead, firms would likely fare better by defining their overall business and marketing strategy, and then find ways that other firms haven't tried to execute their plan. Instead of asking "why", I've always liked the semi-irreverent approach of asking "why not", and then get creative in finding ways to work through any objections, mitigate risks, and justify the decision. Now that's something that legal management understands and appreciates.

Low Effort, Low Risk Networking

Now here's a post I could see Matt Homann sinking his teeth into, and it's something I'll probably mention at LexThink! Chicago: Building the Perfect Firm:

Via the LegalMarketingBlog.com, I came across Fresh Inc.'s "The No-time Networking Plan" post by Keith Ferrazzi.

Keith's idea: If you can't find any time for networking, then don't. Don't stress yourself out over it either. Instead, let networking time come to you. How? By meeting people during the things you're already doing. Consider your down time while waiting in line, in a waiting room, running errands, etc., and then turn that dead time into networking time.

Keith posts a particularly inspirational account of how his friend Ben found a job in a new line of work by networking while at jury duty. Well, perhaps "networking" isn't the best description for his particular approach -- basically, he got up in front of a huge crowd of potential jurors and asked who was in the line of work he wanted. His timing was impeccable, and one can't argue with the results.

Here are my take-aways from all of this:

1. Lawyers generally have the gift of gab -- so use it. It's one of our many talents.

2. Don't be afraid to do something so unconventional or unexpected which your competitors would probably never try or even think of. Of course, don't confuse unconventional with unprofessional. I like to think that unconventional approaches are like our brains -- we're only using about 10% of them.

3. Work smarter not harder: Ben worked the room with incredible efficiency, and it didn't take any extra time out of his day.

4. Creative cold calling works with the right touch: Ben basically cold-called an entire room in less than a minute. I've personally obtained jobs by cold-calling -- jobs that turned into my career. Ben's approach was certainly more creative, less time-consuming, and required more than a little self-confidence. It took guts. Cold calling shows initiative.

5. Don't be afraid to ask people for a little information. People love to help. I've personally had good luck with "I wonder if you could help me..."

6. Turn adversity into opportunity. At jury duty, Ben was the only one who forgot to bring reading material. He turned an otherwise brain-numbing boredom slot into a self-marketing windfall.

7. Be yourself. Be gutsy, be clever, but above all else, be genuine.

8. Leverage what others know. Ben's contact in the juror room wasn't his future employer, but that person knew the people Ben was looking to meet.

This no-time approach breaks some of the well established marketing rules, such as targeting your intended audience. As such, it probably won't turn up leads as often as you might hope. But ask yourself, what have you lost by trying it during otherwise dead time?