Check out our press release on the top trends impacting the legal industry in 2010. Link below.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ct-tymetrix-identifies-key-legal-industry-trends-for-2010-82602952.html
Posts
8 years ago
Showing posts with label law department management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law department management. Show all posts
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Benchmark data will help firms move to new value-based models
My recent post on “Web Tools for Law Firms” reminds me of another piece that I wrote earlier this year but never posted. Whereas the creation of web tools for law firms might be only marginally beneficial to corporate law departments, I feel confident that the new model articulated by O'Melveny and Myers will definitely be. Read on and comment.
I just read a fascinating post in Above the Law called The New Biglaw Business Model, According to O’Melveny & Myers (http://abovethelaw.com/2009/09/omelveny_myers_strategic_plan.php), which was subsequently cited in the ABA Journal (http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/omelveny_aims_to_become_fixed-fee_leader_leaked_plan_says).
In it, bloggers David Lat and Elie Mystal discuss a “leaked” strategy memo from the management of OMM. Whether it was truly leaked or, as some commentators have observed, released as a PR move, is beside the point. The memo is interesting in that it perfectly illustrates the Catch-22 in which large law firms find themselves. OMM management acknowledges that the market for legal services delivered in the traditional model is shrinking. As the memo says, "In the very recent past, our business model, as a whole, has yielded disappointing financial and practice growth results." The plan notes that O'Melveny's litigation model, "which depended heavily on high charge hours levels by associates, counsel and partners to offset the impact of discounted rates and increased write-offs of expenses and time, has been under pressure for at least three years" -- i.e., well before the Great Recession began. In addition, OMM management acknowledge that alternative models are emergent. For example, the decomposition of the full-service firm is being driven outsourcing. "Document review and production have been outsourced altogether or client-directed to contract attorneys," the memo states, "thus eliminating much of the work formerly assigned to junior associates." These difficulties won't go away with the recession: "[O]ur litigation clients are looking for rate and fee reductions, and we expect that mindset will continue into the next good economy and beyond."
To their great credit, OMM management appears to be charting a genuinely new course for the firm, one that seems to honor the long time pleas of clients to pursue alternatives to the billable hour. They even take the courageous step of entertaining new organizational models required to profitably pursue these value based delivery models including a reversal of the traditional pyramid and proactive outsourcing of low value work.
The one question that I am left with in this memo, or any similarly aspirational statement of intent is this, “How can OMM effect this type of fundamental transformation of its model unless its knows, with a high degree of certainty, the costs associated with the matters it is handling?”. Obviously, they can’t rely on their billable information to date. It is that information that is at the root of their client’s dissatisfaction. Rather, they need benchmark information about what the same or similar cases cost when handled in the manner to which they aspire. I would submit that the only way the OMM, or any Biglaw firm, will be able execute on this type of model shift is to have, and be able to rely on, benchmark financial data about the costs and outcomes of similar cases. In addition, there is question of execution. As we all know, it is no small feat to change the fundamental structure of an institution like OMM. And for as hard as that is, changing the culture required to make this new vision work will be exponentially harder.
I just read a fascinating post in Above the Law called The New Biglaw Business Model, According to O’Melveny & Myers (http://abovethelaw.com/2009/09/omelveny_myers_strategic_plan.php), which was subsequently cited in the ABA Journal (http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/omelveny_aims_to_become_fixed-fee_leader_leaked_plan_says).
In it, bloggers David Lat and Elie Mystal discuss a “leaked” strategy memo from the management of OMM. Whether it was truly leaked or, as some commentators have observed, released as a PR move, is beside the point. The memo is interesting in that it perfectly illustrates the Catch-22 in which large law firms find themselves. OMM management acknowledges that the market for legal services delivered in the traditional model is shrinking. As the memo says, "In the very recent past, our business model, as a whole, has yielded disappointing financial and practice growth results." The plan notes that O'Melveny's litigation model, "which depended heavily on high charge hours levels by associates, counsel and partners to offset the impact of discounted rates and increased write-offs of expenses and time, has been under pressure for at least three years" -- i.e., well before the Great Recession began. In addition, OMM management acknowledge that alternative models are emergent. For example, the decomposition of the full-service firm is being driven outsourcing. "Document review and production have been outsourced altogether or client-directed to contract attorneys," the memo states, "thus eliminating much of the work formerly assigned to junior associates." These difficulties won't go away with the recession: "[O]ur litigation clients are looking for rate and fee reductions, and we expect that mindset will continue into the next good economy and beyond."
To their great credit, OMM management appears to be charting a genuinely new course for the firm, one that seems to honor the long time pleas of clients to pursue alternatives to the billable hour. They even take the courageous step of entertaining new organizational models required to profitably pursue these value based delivery models including a reversal of the traditional pyramid and proactive outsourcing of low value work.
The one question that I am left with in this memo, or any similarly aspirational statement of intent is this, “How can OMM effect this type of fundamental transformation of its model unless its knows, with a high degree of certainty, the costs associated with the matters it is handling?”. Obviously, they can’t rely on their billable information to date. It is that information that is at the root of their client’s dissatisfaction. Rather, they need benchmark information about what the same or similar cases cost when handled in the manner to which they aspire. I would submit that the only way the OMM, or any Biglaw firm, will be able execute on this type of model shift is to have, and be able to rely on, benchmark financial data about the costs and outcomes of similar cases. In addition, there is question of execution. As we all know, it is no small feat to change the fundamental structure of an institution like OMM. And for as hard as that is, changing the culture required to make this new vision work will be exponentially harder.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Best Practices for Managing Outside Counsel
Our latest whitepaper focuses on best practices for inside counsel to achieve alignment and efficiencies with outside counsel:
Download the free whitepaper (registration required)
"The relationship between outside counsel and their in-house counterparts has always been somewhat tenuous in nature. On one hand, both parties share a common goal—to effectively manage matters and achieve a successful outcome by applying their legal expertise. On the other hand, their goals and priorities can conflict, especially when it comes to cost reduction and utilization of resources.The paper details nine best practices for managing outside counsel, and is co-authored by CT TyMetrix expert Bill Sowinski and Keith Schrodt of CT Summation.
One of in-house counsel’s top concerns is cost reduction. As the economy necessitates a reduction in corporate spending and corporate executives place increased pressure on departments to slash costs, in-house counsel must find ways to manage litigation effectively while staying within their budgets.
Meanwhile, outside counsel are out to run a business and turn a profit. Their hourly fees continue to rise, and in-house counsel often receive pushback when negotiating alternative fee arrangements and reduced hourly fees."
Download the free whitepaper (registration required)
Friday, March 13, 2009
Law Department Operations - Plato and Socrates Wrestle with Legal Technology
I just finished Anathem, the latest novel by Neal Stephenson. Even by Stephenson’s wildly creative standards, the book itself is pretty “out there”. Set in the future, Stephenson speculates about religion, war, technology, and believe it or not, multiple universe theory.
To me, one of the most interesting parts of the book was Stephenson’s attempts to disguise a discussion of classical philosophy in the clothes of a sci-fi novel. He does this by creating a battle between two monastic sects: one clearly adherent to Platonic idealism, the other to the dialectics of Socrates. Although he never mentions either philosopher by name, Stephenson runs through their dialogues in a way that highlights the differences –- and points of intersection -– between the two. Moreover, by couching classical philosophy in unfamiliar garb, Stephenson gives himself free reign to expand on the ideas -- and warp them -- as he sees fit.
But what the heck does this have to do with law department management and legal spend management? In short, Anathem got me to thinking about how Socratic dialectic could help solve what I view as one of the biggest impediments to the future of legal technology. Essentially, the problem is this: we have two different, and seemingly incompatible, types of legal systems. One on hand, you have the structured, “backbone” systems like ERP systems that are essential to the efficient operations of an enterprise and have the clear benefit of demonstrable ROI. In legal tech, both basic matter management and spend management fall into this category. These solutions are platonic in that they assume perfect input will result in perfect output. In other words, if you create a perfect matter, you can attain a perfect understanding of that matter. If each of the matters in a portfolio were equally perfect, the combination would also be perfect, or to Plato, ideal.
Unfortunately, as Socrates tells us, you can't really know anything except through semantics and context. The same goes for systems. I do not need to tell anyone who has worked with data that neither the data that goes into a system, nor the data that comes out, is ever perfect. For this reason, we need context. In Socratic terms, we need semantics to create meaning from an insoluble problem. In my terms, we need metadata, both structured and unstructured, to add context to a matter. Currently, T360 enables users to use collaboration tools to supplement matter and financial data with a variety of critical meta-data. In addition, there are other excellent point solutions that can be used to supplement basic matter information. A couple of the best examples include data hosting providers like CT Summation’s CaseVault and sites that rely on Web 2.0 tools like Legal OnRamp.
Fortunately, it looks like we may have reached an historic moment where structured and unstructured data can be correlated in ways that optimize law department and claims operations. Much in the same way CT TyMetrix 360° was first to integrate the point solutions of matter management, e-billing, and document management into a single platform for the management of law department operations, we are on the cusp of integrating T360 with the industry leaders in document hosting and Web 2.0 for the legal profession. By complementing our enterprise legal management platform with on-demand solutions for handling unstructured data, we will synthesize the formerly incompatible systems to optimize law department productivity. The combination will result in a more perfect understanding of all aspects of law department operations.
There’s no way to know but I’m guessing that that's an outcome that even classical philosophers would consider “ideal”.
To me, one of the most interesting parts of the book was Stephenson’s attempts to disguise a discussion of classical philosophy in the clothes of a sci-fi novel. He does this by creating a battle between two monastic sects: one clearly adherent to Platonic idealism, the other to the dialectics of Socrates. Although he never mentions either philosopher by name, Stephenson runs through their dialogues in a way that highlights the differences –- and points of intersection -– between the two. Moreover, by couching classical philosophy in unfamiliar garb, Stephenson gives himself free reign to expand on the ideas -- and warp them -- as he sees fit.
But what the heck does this have to do with law department management and legal spend management? In short, Anathem got me to thinking about how Socratic dialectic could help solve what I view as one of the biggest impediments to the future of legal technology. Essentially, the problem is this: we have two different, and seemingly incompatible, types of legal systems. One on hand, you have the structured, “backbone” systems like ERP systems that are essential to the efficient operations of an enterprise and have the clear benefit of demonstrable ROI. In legal tech, both basic matter management and spend management fall into this category. These solutions are platonic in that they assume perfect input will result in perfect output. In other words, if you create a perfect matter, you can attain a perfect understanding of that matter. If each of the matters in a portfolio were equally perfect, the combination would also be perfect, or to Plato, ideal.
Unfortunately, as Socrates tells us, you can't really know anything except through semantics and context. The same goes for systems. I do not need to tell anyone who has worked with data that neither the data that goes into a system, nor the data that comes out, is ever perfect. For this reason, we need context. In Socratic terms, we need semantics to create meaning from an insoluble problem. In my terms, we need metadata, both structured and unstructured, to add context to a matter. Currently, T360 enables users to use collaboration tools to supplement matter and financial data with a variety of critical meta-data. In addition, there are other excellent point solutions that can be used to supplement basic matter information. A couple of the best examples include data hosting providers like CT Summation’s CaseVault and sites that rely on Web 2.0 tools like Legal OnRamp.
Fortunately, it looks like we may have reached an historic moment where structured and unstructured data can be correlated in ways that optimize law department and claims operations. Much in the same way CT TyMetrix 360° was first to integrate the point solutions of matter management, e-billing, and document management into a single platform for the management of law department operations, we are on the cusp of integrating T360 with the industry leaders in document hosting and Web 2.0 for the legal profession. By complementing our enterprise legal management platform with on-demand solutions for handling unstructured data, we will synthesize the formerly incompatible systems to optimize law department productivity. The combination will result in a more perfect understanding of all aspects of law department operations.
There’s no way to know but I’m guessing that that's an outcome that even classical philosophers would consider “ideal”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
