By Jim Hassett and Jonathan Groner
The course was extremely practical. We have had conceptual training before from other companies, but our lawyers are always looking for something they can use on a day-to-day basis, and that is exactly what this workshop provided. Some people put their lessons into practice that very day. After all, if we can decrease our write-offs as a result of improved upfront conversations on scope, those results flow through directly to the bottom line. A proactive five-minute conversation with a client can pay for itself very quickly from a return-on-investment perspective.
Co-managing Partner Lowell Stortz said that before the course was offered:
I was somewhat skeptical of the results, because we chose people for the workshop who already had some interest in and/or knack for scoping. It’s always easy to show progress when you start with someone who’s at zero; it’s much harder to show progress when you start with people who are already pretty good at something. At the suggestion of the course leader, three weeks after the course I sent an email to this group of accomplished, busy, successful lawyers and asked them to respond as to how they’d used it, if at all. Virtually all of them responded (and in a law firm environment that alone is amazing) with good insights.
One participant reported to Stortz that:
I have one client that I thought just wasn’t interested in LPM or scoping. But as a result of the workshop, I reached out to the client and engaged them in a conversation and it turned out that there really was a place for this. The training led me to give it a shot, not only from my side, but also inviting the client to think about it. This yielded some benefits right away.
Another participant, Scott Hecht, is an insurance litigation partner at the firm and head of the insurance department. He explained that at any given time he is responsible for managing dozens of matters pending for a particular client, although a group of other attorneys do the bulk of the work. He took the class because he wanted:
To enhance my ability to manage those matters, communicate effectively with the client, and maximize efficiencies in billing and other areas.
Each of these matters is a litigation matter or an administrative investigation. They are all somewhat similar in scope on the surface. The variation is based on the number and nature of opposing parties, counsel, witnesses, and documents in each case. What I took away from the scope course is the need to have a constant sense of the client’s expectations in each matter and the way in which external factors sometimes only known by our defense attorneys handling the matters can still substantially affect the scope of each matter. It’s a question of getting and keeping your ducks in a row for each of dozens of similar matters.
In this client organization, there are 30 or more people who are my points of contact; they all have different personalities, levels of experience, and expectations, and I need to be very responsive to all of them. I expect LPM techniques to translate to a better experience for my client contacts, which differentiates our law firm from others.
Course participant Paul Hoffmann, a bankruptcy partner, pointed out that the office of the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, which supervises bankruptcy matters nationwide, recently set forth a rule change that requires advance budgeting in all larger bankruptcy cases. Therefore, bankruptcy lawyers have a legal obligation in many of their cases to develop budgets in advance.
I took the course because I wanted to improve my ability to estimate fees and to draft engagement letters. This will help to reach agreement in advance with clients on nontraditional billing matters and also help clients draw up budgets on traditional hourly billing matters.
There are so many ways in which a lawsuit can change as it unfolds. There can be a change in parties, a change in issues, or there can be the need to document a settlement or an appeal.
The course did a very good job of telling us how to explain budgetary changes to clients so as to minimize any client concerns that might arise. And it also did a very good job of showing us how the billing attorney must meet with the entire team to discuss the budget and to discuss any budgetary changes that may arise as time goes on.
Tracey Donesky, still another course participant, represents employers in many types of matters, particularly both federal and state wage and hour suits under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other various employment discrimination claims brought under various state and federal employment laws. According to Donesky, the single most important fact about LPM is that:
Clients want LPM, so law firms will have to use it to increase client satisfaction and better manage their cases. LPM needs to be integrated into every aspect of every case. The course helped solidify in my mind the need for LPM from a client expectations standpoint.
Donesky has recently begun to use LPM techniques on a number of matters, including several for one firm client where she is lead counsel. She seeks to budget for each case 30 days in advance, working with partners, associates, paralegals, and other timekeepers on the file to identify what litigation activities are anticipated for the month ahead and then allocating estimated hours expected to complete such activities. This provides the clients who use LPM an estimated budget, which helps increase predictability and manage expectations in advance. While there is some level of trial and error to the process in these beginning stages, the hope is that over time and as similar cases begin to work through the LPM system and historical data is gathered, the budgeting and estimating process will become more predictable and precise.
As Donesky summed up the experience to date, “The firm is only going to get better at this process as time goes on and more data is analyzed.”
Part 3 of this series (coming March 11), will focus on additional efforts in the firm currently underway to improve LPM.