64 posts categorized "Books"

September 28, 2016

Fourth edition of our Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide published today

Vincent Cino, the chairman of Jackson Lewis, calls the fourth edition of our LPM Quick Reference Guide, “A must read.” According to Toby Brown, the chief practice management officer at Perkins Coie, “Every partner should use this book.” And Melissa Prince, the director of pricing and LPM at Ballard Spahr, calls it her “LPM bible.” The book opens with extended comments from these three experts, and 19 others, who describe how this encyclopedia of tools and templates can help lawyers increase value, client satisfaction, and firm profitability for both hourly and alternative fee arrangements.

When the first edition of this Guide appeared in 2010, LPM was essentially a brand new field, and this was the only book that explained “how to do it.” Since then, LPM has grown rapidly and become a mainstay of law firm practice.  At 400 pages, the fourth edition is almost twice as long as the third edition was, reflecting recent advances in the field.  

The philosophy of this Quick Reference Guide is summarized in its first few pages:

Please do not read this book.

This Quick Reference Guide is an encyclopedia of techniques to help lawyers become more efficient. Very few lawyers have the time to read this encyclopedia cover to cover. And even for the ones who do, merely reading about LPM will not make anyone more efficient. This book is designed to help you quickly identify the tactics that will have the greatest impact on your practice and adapt them to meet your needs.

Legal project management increases client satisfaction and firm profitability by applying proven techniques to improve the management of legal matters. It is not a simple set of steps that lawyers should apply to every case or matter, but rather a toolbox which includes a broad array of procedures and templates. Each lawyer must find the tools and tactics that will have the greatest impact for them…

Our examples draw on a rich and deep body of knowledge that project managers have developed over the last several decades to help businesses run more efficiently. This book describes and adapts the tactics that lawyers find most useful and ignores the rest.

LegalBizDev principal Mike Egnatchik is my co-author for the fourth edition, and the book also includes sections written by 25 contributing authors, including such thought leaders as Stuart J T Dodds of Baker & McKenzie, Richard G. Rosenblatt of Morgan Lewis, Tom Clay of Altman Weil, and the Law Firm Value Committee of the Association of Corporate Counsel.

The 412-page, 8.5” x 11” paperback can be ordered for $99.95 by email (info@legalbizdev.com), fax (917-386-2733), phone (1-800-49-TRAIN), or mail (LegalBizDev, 225 Franklin Street, 26th Floor, Boston, MA 02110). More information appears on our web page, including an order form showing the volume discounts on orders of two or more copies.

In association with the publication of this book, LegalBizDev is also introducing several new LPM products and services which use these tools and templates in:

  • Just-in-time training
  • Just-in-time support
  • Traditional training
  • Certification

For more details, contact us today (info@legalbizdev.com, 800-49-TRAIN).

July 27, 2016

Using outsourcing to reduce legal costs (Part 2 of 2)

By Jim Hassett, Mike Egnatchik, and Jonathan Groner

Michael Bryant, the CEO of nSource, stressed that help desk functions are only one of many operations that law firms can and are outsourcing with the help of companies like his.

For example, DLA Piper asked nSource to manage a “captive operation” for it in an off-site location in Tampa, Fla. Bryant says that some law firm functions that were at first thought of as requiring attorneys on site actually were susceptible to being done off site by contract employees. One of them, in DLA Piper’s case, was conflict checking – a crucial function that a law firm must undertake before it takes on a new matter.

“We distinguished between the strategic and the tactical aspects of conflict checking,” Bryant said, “and we found that the tactical, day-to-day aspects could be done off site. By doing so, we reduced the firm’s costs for this function by 50 percent, and we also achieved a 50 percent decrease in the time required to hire a new conflicts analyst and bring him or her up to speed.”

nSource did this by carefully studying the conflict checking process – what steps were involved, who did them, and how long each step took. After completing this process mapping, it was able to advise its client, DLA Piper, on how to outsource that task.

Bryant said DLA Piper’s leaders were so pleased with the way outsourcing worked in the conflict checking arena that they expanded it to other functions as well, saving money, increasing efficiency and improving the way the tasks were done.

Legal marketing, like conflict checking, has aspects that are highly strategic and can’t easily be outsourced. But, DLA Piper and nSource found, it has many routine aspects as well.

“Although there are some people in marketing who really need to be near the lawyers,” Bryant said, “when you think about all the external and internal communications demands on a marketing team, the RFP responses, the responses to honors and awards submissions, these can be leveraged and done in a centralized way, off site. For DLA Piper, we moved to a factory-like setting, where they really churn these things out. We placed rigor and precision around an area that has historically been chaotic.”

In similar ways, nSource has set up outsourced offices for other functions such as library services and human resources for DLA Piper and other clients. 

The new world of legal outsourcing does however raise some new management issues.  The challenge of managing subcontractors is familiar in other professions. The 11th edition of Harold Kerzner’s widely quoted textbook, Project Management, has an entire chapter devoted to working with external suppliers. The perspective is interesting, since the chapter makes it clear that a firm using an external source for some of its work on a matter is now in a role reversal. The firm is a client of the outsourcer it has hired, and has the same responsibilities to monitor that outsourced supplier that its own client has to monitor the firm’s work.

If XYZ Corporation has hired your firm for a matter, the legal department of XYZ had the job of hiring you in the first place and has the responsibility to monitor your work. Similarly, if you hire supplier DIS for discovery work, you had the job of hiring DIS in the first place and then you have the responsibility of monitoring DIS to assure that their work product is acceptable. The law firm is responsible for the entire work product, and must make sure that all the parts work.

Lawyers are just starting to become familiar with the idea of subcontracting work, and the use of outsourcers presents new challenges.

As Mark Ross noted in a paper entitled "The Ethics of Legal Outsourcing", “It is clear that to satisfy the duty of competently representing one’s client, a US lawyer engaging a legal process outsourcing provider cannot rely on the provider to evaluate its own work product and must himself or herself be able critically and independently to evaluate the work product received.”

Oversight can be complex. For example, consider the eDiscovery technique of predictive coding. Unlike simpler forms of eDiscovery—such as keyword search, concept searching, and looking for clusters of similar document groups—in predictive coding attorneys train software algorithms to find the most relevant documents by using samples of documents called training sets. According to Predictive Coding for Dummies (p. 8):

Training the predictive coding system is an iterative process that requires attorneys and their legal teams to evaluate the accuracy of the computer’s document prediction scores. If the accuracy of the computer-generated predictions is insufficient, additional training set documents are selected from the document population being considered. Multiple training sets are reviewed and coded until the required performance levels are achieved. Once the desired performance levels are achieved, decisions can be made about which documents to produce.

The great advantage of this approach is that attorneys will be able to explain the decisions made by the computer, since they worked to train the computer algorithms. This can satisfy the obligation of competent representation, so long as things are properly done. But there is always the danger that things will not be properly done. Predictive Coding for Dummies (p. 11) goes on to say:

Understanding how to use predictive coding tools properly is critical for several reasons. First, predictive coding is relatively new to the legal field and introduces additional complexity to the eDiscovery process. Second, many different predictive coding solutions are available on the market that vary in quality and approach. Third, even though predictive coding solutions can be difficult to use, clear instructions and training are often lacking, which can increase the risk of error. These and other factors have combined to create confusion about the proper methodology for using predictive coding tools.

The message is clear: A firm that uses predictive coding cannot rely on it as a black box that gives right answers at all times. Not all providers are equal. There must be a procurement process that evaluates and selects an appropriately qualified provider.

Competent representation includes understanding and monitoring the provider’s work. If that does not happen, the law firm may be at risk.

Due to the growth in outsourcing, in 2008 the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued an opinion to provide ethical guidance to lawyers about how to outsource in a manner that is consistent with the profession’s core values. State and local bar associations have also offered guidance in this area.

In August 2012, the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 concluded that outsourcing did not require changes to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. However, it did propose new Comments to identify the factors that lawyers need to consider when retaining outside lawyers (Model Rule 1.1) and non-lawyers (Model Rule 5.3) to assist on a client’s matter. The Commission also proposed a new sentence (for Comment 1 on Model Rule 5.5) to clarify that lawyers cannot engage in outsourcing if it would facilitate the unauthorized practice of law.

Like many obligations described in the Model Rules, these proposals were intended to be “rules of reason” and were not intended to preclude consideration of broader legal concerns, such as malpractice and tort liability. But they did reflect the fact that new trends in outsourcing place new demands on the supervising lawyers.

This series was adapted from the fourth edition of the Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide which will be published this fall.

 

February 15, 2016

A preview of the fourth edition of our Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide

When the third edition of our widely used collection of LPM tools and templates was published a few years ago, here’s what some of the best known experts in the field had to say:

“Every partner should read this book.” – Toby Brown, Chief Practice Officer, Akin Gump

“Not only will every lawyer benefit from this book, but so will those who provide support to practitioners.”  – Kim Craig, Global Director of Legal Process Improvement, Seyfarth Shaw LLP

“This book demystifies LPM, providing tools that lawyers can actually use.” – Stuart Dodds, Director, Global Pricing and Legal Project Management, Baker & McKenzie

As the field has grown since then, we have continued to develop new tactics and job aids to help lawyers increase efficiency and client satisfaction.  Last week, we released a preview of the fourth edition that includes over 100 pages of new tools and templates.  This special preview is now being used by our coaching and training clients, while we solicit advice for improvements from a distinguished board of advisors from over 40 firms, and finish researching and writing a few more templates on some of the hottest topics in LPM including pricing, task codes and Agile.

After we add the finishing touches, the fourth edition will go on sale in October 2016.  If you’re not in one of our coaching or training programs and don’t want to wait until October to get started, we are selling a limited number of copies of the third edition for $99 (a 75% discount from the original list price of $395 per copy), plus shipping and handling.  As in the past, this book will be sold only to law firms and to select in-house counsel and only through this web page.

 

December 26, 2014

Bloomberg interview regarding my new book (Part 2 of 2)

This interview originally appeared in Bloomberg BNA’s Corporate Counsel Weekly.  A pdf of the complete interview can be downloaded from our web page.

Bloomberg BNA: Can in-house counsel help law firms become more efficient?

Jim Hassett: Absolutely. Many law departments need to become more efficient themselves if they expect their firms to deliver better service. A few years ago, an AmLaw 100 Chairman I interviewed for an earlier research report (The LegalBizDev Survey of Alternative Fees) noted that “It is very difficult for a law firm to tell a client that a matter is not going well because of what is going on in the legal department. I think we’ve all had experiences over the years with in-house counsel who are not good managers… [This] can increase cost and reduce the quality of outcomes.” Another participant echoed this theme when he described some problems he was having with a very large client but noted, “I am reluctant to tell [the GC] that his own people cause a fair amount of inefficiency, because he’s not going to want to hear it.”

My new book lists the top three things clients should do to increase value:

  1. Define objectives and scope at the beginning of each matter
  2. Increase transparency about client needs
  3. Improve in-house project management

As one chair summed it up, “Clients have to jointly work with us to figure out what it is they want us to do less of in order to meet their expense goals. You can’t do scorched-earth approaches to matters at reduced fees.”

Bloomberg BNA: How are new staff roles contributing to profitability?

Jim Hassett: In 2012, Jonathan Groner and I wrote an article for Bloomberg Law Reports entitled “The Rise of the Pricing Director.”  At that time, despite extensive networking, we were able to find only a handful of people who held the title of pricing director in a law firm or performed that function. Law firms generally move a little slower than glaciers, but the growth in pricing directors in the two years since has been meteoric. According to a 2014 survey by ALM Legal Intelligence, “Seventy-six percent of big firms now employ some sort of pricing officer. And these positions are in the midst of a remarkable growth spurt.”

With 20/20 hindsight, it is easy to see the reason for the rapid growth of the pricing director title and function. The well-documented changes in the legal profession over the last few years have placed intense pressure on profits. It is therefore not surprising that a new host of high-level executives has emerged to help law firms set their prices in a way that will help them to maintain profitability.

Many firms agreed on the value of hiring people with business backgrounds and empowering them to use their skills to help lawyers make crucial decisions on pricing and efficiency. As one managing partner put it: “I think what’s had the greatest positive effect is our business managers. They can much more impartially sit down and analyze profitability. They build up a database of what it costs us to do things, and they’re just invaluable. They work with enough lawyers that they’re able to focus on the numbers and their minds work differently… These non-lawyers are focusing on the business side of the equation and what it costs to do things, pushing back and helping lawyers have a little bit of backbone. They can now show them a model and say, ‘No, that’s too low, you’re going to lose your shirt.’”

Bloomberg BNA: Is profits-per-partner a good metric to measure a law firm’s influence?

Jim Hassett: In my opinion, it is definitely over-emphasized. Unfortunately, when lawyers talk about profit, many think first and foremost about profits per equity partner, the figure publicized in the American Lawyer annual rankings of the top 200 firms. This is widely perceived as a sign of financial health and sometimes used to recruit laterals to higher profit firms. It is also misleading.

In any other business, profits are defined as the revenue that is left over after all expenses have been paid. In the law, partner salaries come out of the “partner profits” pool. In a law firm, if there were no partner profits, partners would be paid nothing for their work. This leads to considerable confusion. For example, one managing partner in our study said: “As a partnership, everything we make above our cost is profit. I once had a lawyer who stood up and said, ‘How did we lose money this month?’ I said, ‘We didn’t lose money, we just didn’t make as much money as we would have liked.’ It’s very hard for a law firm to lose money, that is, be in a situation where you’re not paying your partners anything.”

In other businesses, companies analyze which product lines and groups are most profitable, and they act on that information by fixing or discontinuing unprofitable products or people. In law firms, the focus on total profits per partner distracts people from one of the most critical questions in today’s competitive legal marketplace: which matters, practices, partners, and offices make money and which don’t?

If that’s not bad enough, there are a number of other problems with these figures, starting with the fact that they are not audited. An August 22, 2011, ABA Journal article by Debra Cassens Weiss reported that “More than half of the nation’s top 50 law firms could be overstating profits per partner to the American Lawyer magazine… An analysis by Citi Private Bank Law Firm Group reportedly found that 22 percent of the top 50 firms overstated profits per partner by more than 20 percent in 2010. Another 16 percent inflated partner profits by 10 to 20 percent, and 15 percent boosted partner profits by 5 percent to 10 percent.”

Bloomberg BNA: Will the legal market ever “bounce back” from the recession, or do law firm partners now need to learn how to excel in a totally different environment?

Jim Hassett: Most of the people we interviewed believe that the world has permanently changed, like the managing partner who said: “The way law firms deliver legal services to clients is undergoing a huge revolution. It’s going to change before our eyes in the course of a very short period of time. And it’s all being driven by clients who want to get value for their money.”

As the chair of another firm summed it up: “I believe that we’re still in the beginning of the process. There are a number of famous economists who have talked about disruptive technologies and disruptive business processes. I think there’s a lot of evidence out there that this profession is being subjected to those pressures. Five years from now, if I turn out to be wrong, that will be great. But if I’m right, then I have to believe that those firms that adapt more quickly will have a competitive advantage, because the firms that don’t adapt quickly enough will be out of business.”

Adapted with permission from Corporate Counsel Weekly Newsletter Vol. 29, No.48, December 10, 22014. Copyright 2014, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) www.bna.com.

 

December 17, 2014

Bloomberg interview regarding my new book (Part 1 of 2)

This interview originally appeared in Bloomberg BNA’s Corporate Counsel Weekly.  A pdf of the complete interview can be downloaded from our web page.

Bloomberg BNA: Tell us about your new book Client Value and Law Firm Profitability – what was your goal and who did you talk to?

Jim Hassett: In the last few years, millions of words have been written by law school professors and consultants about how the demands of the clients of major law firms are changing and what law firms should do about it.

The only thing that’s been missing from the conversation is statements by the people who actually run large law firms. These senior decision makers deal with these issues every day, and their very livelihood depends on coming up with the right answers. I wanted to hear their honest opinions about these highly sensitive issues but knew they could not speak openly if they were quoted by name, so I devised a research approach built around anonymity. I conducted every interview myself, and promised that while firm names would be listed in the report, the name of every individual I interviewed would remain confidential and no quote would be linked to a particular person or firm.

Leaders from 50 of the AmLaw 200 agreed to speak with me for this book. Forty-two percent were managing partners or chairs, and the remainder were senior partners and staff, including CEOs, COOs, and CFOs. They were indeed unusually frank in their responses, including the AmLaw 200 chairman who said that “Lawyers are about as dumb as you could possibly be about understanding how our product is made. The lawyers who understand how to make it and who can manage that process efficiently are going to be the winners.”

They also spoke freely about both problems and solutions, like the managing partner who noted that “I have a $10 million practice. But that could be a disaster for a firm, because it could cost them $11 million to get $10 million. But nobody ever talks about it that way.”

Bloomberg BNA: What was your most surprising finding?

Jim Hassett: While almost everyone agreed that client demands for greater value and lower fees have been putting pressure on law firm profits, firms were remarkably inconsistent about how they measure profits. When I asked, “If you compare profitability for two lawyers in your firm, is there a software program or formula used to calculate profitability or is the comparison more intuitive?” a surprising 26% said there was no such formula or program and that the answer was intuitive. For the other 74%, definitions and formulas varied widely, including total revenue, profits per equity partner, leverage, several different types of realization, and a variety of approaches to cost accounting.

To dig more deeply into this important issue, we conducted follow-up interviews with industry leaders from firms that sell software to analyze law firm profitability. Jeff Suhr, a VP at Intellistat/Data Fusion, reported that his company currently has 91 clients actively using their tools. How do they calculate profitability? Ninety-one different ways. The fundamentals are basically the same, but there are important differences in the assumptions and details. These differences can have significant implications for the way profitability is interpreted and can affect the way in which the figures are used to motivate lawyers to change their behavior so that they can better meet client needs in a way that can be sustained.

Bloomberg BNA: What are law firms doing to protect the bottom line?

Jim Hassett: They are trying lots of things, with mixed success. According to our data, the two most effective ways of protecting profitability are quite new to the legal profession: legal project management (LPM), and new staff positions in such areas as pricing, value, and LPM.

Other tactics have led to more mixed results, including relying on new technology, knowledge management (KM), and contract attorneys and outsourcing. The book includes many quotes from proponents saying that technology, KM, and outsourcing were the most valuable steps they took, and from others who said that they were a waste of time and money. These differences of opinion can be traced both to the different needs of different firms and to the details of how they tried to implement change in each of these areas.

Bloomberg BNA: Lots of people seem to agree that legal project management is important, but what exactly does it include?

Jim Hassett: That is an excellent question. The field is so new that experts disagree about what should be included and excluded from the concept. This has slowed progress, as seen in the remarks of one senior executive who noted: “We were just at a board meeting last week where we were talking about whether we should do formalized project management training. My answer to that is obviously yes, we absolutely should. But first we need to agree on what legal project management is.”

In my book Legal Project Management, Pricing and Alternative Fee Arrangements, I reviewed the short history of this movement and proposed the broad definition we use in our coaching, our training, and this research: “Legal project management adapts proven management techniques to the legal profession to help lawyers achieve their business goals, including increasing client value and protecting profitability.”

This broad definition includes everything from budgeting and communication to process improvement, knowledge management, and personal time management. We believe splitting hairs over what is and is not LPM is just another excuse to avoid action. Law firms need to move as quickly as possible to the real problem: What must we do today to meet client needs while remaining profitable and competitive?

Bloomberg BNA: Where is the pressure for LPM coming from?

Jim Hassett: From clients. One of the best sources of information about client demands is the Chief Legal Officer Survey which Altman Weil has been publishing for the last 15 years. (Full disclosure: LegalBizDev is a strategic alliance partner of Altman Weil.) One key question in the 2014 survey, which was released in November 2014, was, “Of the following service improvements and innovations, please select the three that you would most like to see from your outside counsel.” This year’s answers from 186 CLOs were greater cost reduction (58%), more efficient project management (57%), and improved budget forecasting (57%). Since LPM leads to cost reductions and to improved budget forecasting, you could say that the top three client requests were LPM, LPM, and more LPM. 

In business, everything starts with meeting client needs. But lawyers who understand LPM and apply it to their practice are still a tiny minority. As one senior executive put it: “One of the problems that we have, and frankly that most firms have, is just teaching lawyers how to manage a project, getting them out of the habit of just automatically starting out with some rote process. Just because the client says, ‘I think I might have a lawsuit’ doesn’t mean you go off and conduct 40 depositions. Lawyers need to sit down and talk about what the client is trying to accomplish. It might turn out that we are able to accomplish the client’s end goal without taking any depositions.”

When I asked about which aspects of LPM were most critical to firms’ short-term success, it is interesting that the top two areas participants singled out were defining scope and managing client communication. These issues cannot effectively be addressed by the expensive software that so many firms see as a starting point. They require partners to change their behavior and become more efficient.

Adapted with permission from Corporate Counsel Weekly Newsletter Vol. 29, No. 48, December 10, 22014. Copyright 2014, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) www.bna.com.   

November 05, 2014

Tip of the month: Embrace experimentation aimed at quick wins and developing champions, one practice group or one lawyer at a time

Lawyers love precedent, and many law firm committees are postponing action until they see evidence proving the value of a “one size fits all” perfect solution that will fit their entire firm.  But there is no silver bullet, and firms that continue to look for it could go out of business while they wait. The key to success is, as Stuart J.T. Dodds put it in his book Smarter Pricing, Smarter Profit, to “think big and start small.” 

The first Wednesday of every month is devoted to a short and simple tip to help lawyers increase efficiency, provide greater value to their clients and/or develop new business. This month’s tip is explained in detail in Chapter 7 of my new book Client Value and Law Firm Profitability.

October 29, 2014

Business development best practices: Follow up

This is one of a series of occasional posts summarizing the most important best practices from my book the Legal Business Development Quick Reference Guide which is now also available in a Kindle edition.

There’s no way around it: business development takes time. To build new business, you must follow up, week after week, month after month, and year after year.

In The Sales Bible (p. 197) Jeffrey Gitomer sums it up this way:

Most sales are made after the seventh no…It takes 5 to 10 exposures (follow-ups) to a prospect to make the first sale…[so] you’d better have what it takes to persevere through the follow-up process and not quit.

For many busy lawyers, the best way to assure that you will follow up is to “make an appointment with yourself” for one or two blocks of time that will be devoted to business development every week, such as 2-4 PM every Tuesday and Thursday. Put the time in Outlook or your weekly planner, and try to avoid scheduling anything else at that time. When something comes up that is more critical, as is sometimes inevitable, reschedule your marketing time.

We recommend setting this time block in the middle of the week, at a time when you are likely to be able to reach clients and prospects. If you think Mondays and Fridays are the best times to discuss new business with your clients, try it, track the results, and then decide.

It also helps to share your results with a colleague, a coach, or even a relative or friend. Simply knowing that someone else is watching will make you more likely to follow up.

Finally, you will need a good system for tracking To Dos.  Different lawyers prefer different approaches, and the best format is the one that contains the information you need, in a form that you will keep up to date.  My favorite is a simple list with three columns like this:

Who

Priority

To Do

Tom French

High

Hold telecon, based on key questions from the Quick Reference Guide 

COO at ABC Corp

High

If COO provides info for press release, finish a draft ASAP

Ms. Johanssen

Medium

Send agenda listing questions for the next meeting

Mary K.

Medium

Hold satisfaction interview

Tom S

Low

Call to set up a meeting

Falco Inc

Low

Meet in early June

This type of overt prioritizing will help you assure that if something simply doesn’t get done due to lack of time, it is likely to be the item that will have the least impact on the future of your practice.

Or better yet, use Outlook or any other program to keep your list.

And then don’t forget to actually follow up.  Week after week, month after month, and year after year.

October 22, 2014

Book excerpt: What should law firms do to improve profitability and LPM? (Part 4 of 4)

This series was adapted from my new book Client Value and Law Firm Profitability, which was published at the beginning of this month.

Given all the options and competing claims about LPM, what should a firm do to get started? Our answer is explained below at the end of this book: embrace experimentation and, as one of our clients put it, “just do something.” Start small, and find out what works for your firm.

Once you have grassroots support from influential internal champions, then you will be in a position to decide whether you might benefit from professional project management staff, depending on the unique needs of your practice area and your clients.

Remember that in this study’s ranking of LPM issues in Chapter 4, the two most critical were defining scope and communicating with clients. Neither can be delegated to project managers. Lawyers must first be committed to changing their approach before it makes sense to hire others to help them.

The big picture recommendations in the next section about starting “one practice group or lawyer at a time” include evidence that the development of internal champions and quick wins has proven its value in changing behavior in a wide variety of professions. So it is not surprising that a number of participants in this research cited the same approach:

I try to find an internal champion to move things forward. I worked with a partner in one department that bought into LPM and we gave a joint presentation on it. Word got out and another department asked to provide the same presentation to them. Many times once attorneys get a taste of LPM they get interested and want more. – Senior executive

We’ll have to have to have some guinea pig partners who are willing to try it and then be willing to testify as to how it has helped their numbers and their client relationships. – Senior partner

Because we’ve had some demonstrable LPM successes, enthusiasm for it is growing. – Senior executive

However, even with the support of champions, LPM is not quick or easy to implement. As one senior partner emphasized, there are no magic solutions:

Top management has to make it a priority and communicate it all the time, make it part of the culture. It will have to be ingrained in people, and it’s slow. When people use the tools and the resources, and they are successful, they will communicate their success to their partners. Others will want to use it, and LPM will work its way around. But that will take some time. We don’t know exactly how long it will take.

Some firms will find it valuable to hire professional project managers to support lawyers’ efforts, as in this quote from one chair:

We’re going to start hiring different people to manage the non-legal aspects of the practice, not the relationships. That’s what has to be done. Lawyers are notoriously bad managers. You could be a fabulous trial lawyer but not be able to get your hours in on time or bill on time. You might not be able to collect on the bill. With all these different components, it’s better to look to a project manager on accounts receivable, on AFAs, on collections, rather than the lawyer.

Another firm chair that has gone down this path has been very satisfied with the results:

I think that project management skills are absolutely critical to achieving value and managing well, which is why we have people who actually make this their life’s calling. People who are certified project managers, who are trained in it, who actually know what it means when you talk about Agile Scrum, as opposed to somebody thinking it’s a flexible rugby player. Project management is a profession, and the people in the profession need to understand how the legal business works, how lawyers think. How you would manage a project at IBM is not the same way you would manage a project in a large law firm. But when we have good project managers working as part of the client service delivery team with the clients, clients love it. They just love it. It adds so much value, it’s unbelievable.

(Agile Scrum is an approach to project management that starts from the assumption that customers often change their minds about what they want and need as a project proceeds. It therefore replaces extended upfront planning with rapid development of partial solutions which can be tried out on clients and adapted until they meet true needs. Many professionals believe that this will become an increasingly common approach to LPM as it evolves.)

There can be little doubt that the trend of using LPM professionals will continue to grow, especially in large firms. It is also safe to predict that the level of LPM sophistication needed to compete effectively will continue to increase.

In the next few years, the most interesting developments in LPM are likely to involve moving away from traditional project management models to cutting edge alternatives. For example, in one of the most widely quoted texts on LPM, Robert Wysocki talks at length about how traditional project management solutions apply only when the client’s goal is clear and the steps required for a solution are clear. In many legal matters, neither precise client goals nor complete solutions are known at the start. These complex and ambiguous situations will therefore require the more modern LPM approaches explained in Wysocki’s text, notably Agile project management that is derived from the “Agile Manifesto” signed in 2001 by 17 influential software developers and says in part:

We are uncovering better ways of developing [products] by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to value:

  • Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
  • Working software over comprehensive documentation
  • Customer collaboration over contract negotiations
  • Responding to change over following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.

Agile project management is an iterative trial and error process that focuses on continuous improvement and responding rapidly to situations when they change in order to minimize the total work required.

But before firms can get to that level of sophistication, they need to start with the basics. And as one chairman in our research summed it up:

Most of our clients are no better at understanding or applying legal project management than we are. But in the future, the fact that you can actually do something on time and within budget is going to become an important indicator of whether or not you really are a good lawyer.

A pdf of this entire series can be downloaded from Altman Weil Direct, where it originally appeared.

 

October 15, 2014

Book excerpt: What should law firms do to improve profitability and LPM? (Part 3 of 4)

This series was adapted from my new book Client Value and Law Firm Profitability, which was published at the beginning of this month.

As law firms struggle with internal pressure to retain and improve profitability and external pressure to satisfy client demand for greater value, one tactic has risen to the top of most law firm lists: legal project management.

As discussed previously in this blog, the field of LPM is so new that experts have spent quite a bit of time arguing about what it does and does not include. If you accept the very broad definition that we have been using for the last several years—LPM adapts proven management techniques to the legal profession to help lawyers achieve their business goals, including increasing client value and protecting profitability—it is easy to see that the vast majority of law firms could benefit from implementing LPM in some form.

Which brings us back to the question of exactly how to do that. Educating is relatively easy, but changing behavior is very hard. It is also the central problem in legal project management. The Association of Corporate Counsel and the ABA conducted a meeting a few years ago, “at which leaders of corporate and law firm litigation departments rolled up their sleeves and tackled the complex issues surrounding present day concepts of value in litigation.” In an ACC Docket article summarizing the event, the authors noted that progress will not be based on improved understanding or increased knowledge. Instead, “The challenge is change/behavior management.”  It’s not a question of knowing what to do, it’s a question of getting lawyers to do it.

In this research, the managing partner of one firm that invested heavily in education but failed to see much behavior change had this to say:

Project management will probably have the longest-term positive impact, but it’s been the biggest challenge, because it’s something that hasn’t been easily absorbed by a lot of the lawyers. When busy lawyers start scrambling around, the inefficiency creeps right up. At our firm, project management has not met expectations. But it’s improving, and I do think long term it will have a really big impact.

If there is one thing that participants in this survey agreed on, it is that it is difficult to get lawyers to use LPM, as seen in these comments from five more firms:

Project management is not natural to lawyers. We’ve always been trained to get the case done well to win, but now we also have to get the case done efficiently, and that is not part of the natural toolkit for most people. – Managing partner

Getting people to manage engagements is very difficult in this business. So we’re at the discussion rather than the implementation stage. – Chair

We’ve done a better job on the front end, on the developing and pricing piece. Where I don’t think we’re doing as much as we could is on the legal project management end, thinking about whether there are more efficient ways to actually complete certain kinds of work. – Senior executive

We have clients, especially in litigation and corporate, who are saying we need to implement LPM. But it’s hard to get our lawyers off the dime. – Senior partner

I think that it will require a lot of work, and daily support from the top, not just lip service from the partner team twice a year. – Senior executive

Given that the formal field of LPM is so young, and that many lawyers resist its fundamental ideas, it is not surprising that there are still disagreements about what approach to implementation works best. Several major vendors—including my company—offer different solutions. Each believes strongly in its own approach and frankly has a vested interest in proving its effectiveness.

Generally, implementation approaches fall into three broad categories: training, coaching, and law firm staff. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive and many firms use all three, along with software, as described in the next section. All of these approaches can have positive effects. The hard question that every firm faces is one of cost-effectiveness: which approach will produce the greatest impact today for the lowest cost.

Historically, most firms have started with some type of training. Lawyers love precedent, so when Dechert announced in 2010 that it had trained its partners in LPM, a number of firms jumped in to do the same thing. This led to some great press releases about how these training programs proved that firms were committed to LPM, but precious little in the way of results. Consider these comments from three firms that invested in extensive LPM training programs:

Every shareholder and top level associate has had a full day of project management training. I’d like to tell you that they use it, but they don’t. – Chair

Training raised awareness, but I think it will take a longer campaign to significantly move the needle in terms of our ability to change the way we do business. – Managing partner

I don’t want to say it’s stillborn, because that’s too fatalistic, but it has not taken hold like I had hoped it would. I think that there are some attorneys who probably are using it in their own way, but as an institutional concept it has really been put on a back burner. – Senior executive

It took a few years for it to become clear that training every lawyer in the firm was not a cost effective way to go, and that led people to less ambitious programs such as short sessions of “awareness training” that set stage and identified the lawyers who need to dig in more deeply.

In our experience, the most effective way for firms to build LPM momentum is not with large group training, but rather with one-to-one coaching for influential partners to enable them to directly experience the benefits of LPM. As a result, they will become internal champions who will lead efforts to adapt LPM to the particular needs of their firms, practice groups, and clients.

A pdf of this entire series can be downloaded from Altman Weil Direct, where it originally appeared.

October 08, 2014

Book excerpt: What should law firms do to improve profitability and LPM? (Part 2 of 4)

This series was adapted from my new book Client Value and Law Firm Profitability, which was published today.

The key to success is to come up with information and systems that increase the behaviors that are of greatest benefit to the firm. But it isn’t easy:

When you start digging into profitability at the matter level, you get set back. You can make the numbers say whatever you want, but did you consider headcount or overhead? Some of the offices might not be as busy so you want to spread the work to them. We’re willing to take a little hit. There’s a big picture we’re trying to achieve, and when we’ve tried to get into the weeds a little bit too much, it can backfire because we get bogged down with some of this stuff. So my idea is to take the long view. It’s very difficult to understand profitability at the matter level, and in some ways that’s a misguided approach because there are just so many factors to take into account. If you can slowly start to chip away at all these areas, then that will have a beneficial improvement upon your profitability. It’s all about improving your portfolio. – Senior executive

The real challenge is to use our profitability tool in a way that motivates all of the partners to their maximum effort toward profitability, without creating the wrong sorts of behaviors, like hoarding work or fighting unduly over origination credits. – Chair

Many firms are getting serious about training their lawyers to think differently about revenue, discounts, and profitability:

Our firm has really invested a lot of effort in arming ourselves with the tools to try and deal with understanding profitability. – Chair

Our CFO visits offices and trains people on profitability. – Managing partner

We fully intend to educate our attorney base to be more aware of these things. In particular, when attorneys approach our AFA subcommittee with a project that involves an AFA, part of the response is to address the profitability of that proposal and to explain to them when the particular pricing doesn’t make sense for us to take it on. – Senior partner

Left to their own devices, most lawyers are probably at a 5, on a 1 to 10 scale of understanding. But we educate them up to a 9. So it’s something in the middle. We have a very keenly-focused financial accounting regimen at the firm that is constantly preaching this, that all work and all books of business and all new clients are not the same. And consequently, our lawyers have a better than average instinct on this. At the end of the day, our pricing reflects this because we don’t give our lawyers total carte blanche to open up a new client at a new rate. We encourage them to bring in the clients, but then we work with them very closely as to whether that client at that rate makes sense. And sometimes it’s very timekeeper-dependent, what kind of leverage we’re going to have on the assignment. – Chair

In summary, while there is still much uncertainty about the most effective tactics, there can be no doubt that firms are increasingly focusing on questions such as:

  • How should our firm define profitability?
  • How should we communicate this definition to our lawyers?
  • How should we train lawyers to manage legal matters more profitably?
  • How should we compensate lawyers for bringing in and managing more profitable work?

Of these, the last question is by far the hardest. It is simply not possible to create a compensation system that makes everyone happy. The trick is to figure out which lawyers are most essential to the continued health of your firm, and how much do you need to pay them to keep them from leaving. Basically, my advice is to ask around and find the best compensation consultant you can. You’re going to need help.  (This is not an advertisement. LegalBizDev does not provide compensation consulting. It’s too hard.)

Last year, an AmLaw 100 firm that was just beginning to think seriously about those questions invited me to speak at a practice group leader meeting about pricing trends. When one participant asked what I thought was the most critical issue, I said it was determining the difference between low prices that are acceptable and prices that are simply too low to make business sense for that firm. “Where do you draw that line in the sand?” I asked. The chairman replied, “We don’t even know where the sand is.”

But that was then. Now that same firm has a number of new pricing and management initiatives in place and a new pricing director. Clearly, firms are making progress. It is just very, very hard.

A pdf of this entire series can be downloaded from Altman Weil Direct, where it originally appeared.

 
My Photo
Selected Top Blog: ABA TECHSHOW 2010
Selected Top Blog: ABA TECHSHOW 2009
Selected Top Blog: TechnoLawyer
Selected Top Blog: Legal Marketing Reader

Search blog

Email future posts to me

Custom blog design by Ginny Weaver Design