307 posts categorized "Legal Business Trends"

April 18, 2018

A model for LPM success:  The case of Bilzin Sumberg (Part 4 of 5)

By Tim Batdorf and Jim Hassett

Improved communication 

According to managing partners and other law firm leaders in our research on Client Value and Law Firm Profitability (p. 97), the second most critical short-term LPM issue (after defining scope) was “Manage client communications and expectations” (38%).

Managing partner elect Al Dotson explained how this applies at Bilzin Sumberg:

Early communication with the client is absolutely essential for us to mutually understand what the expectations are.  In addition, I routinely set up non-billable team meetings to ascertain the status of the work at any given stage, to avoid duplication of effort, to identify issues sooner rather than later, and to communicate quickly with the client if there are any issues.

According to partner Carter McDowell:

The primary benefit of this communication for clients is that it helps them understand the process in an organized fashion, as opposed to just a ten minute discussion of how do we go through this process and what the requirements are.  Clear agreement on project plans has also enabled us on more than one occasion to go back to the client and say, “Here’s a hearing that we hadn’t anticipated, so we updated the budget to include that process.” 

Similarly, Suzanne Amaducci-Adams reported that:

Communication serves as a tool to educate clients.  Some clients underestimate cost because they think you are “just closing a loan,” and they don’t realize you have to draft corporate resolutions, write three or four different opinion letters, and more. But once they see it broken down, then many are more willing to pay a fair fee.

In the Spring of 2013, COO Michelle Weber reviewed the final reports from 26 partners who had completed their first round of LPM coaching with LegalBizDev.  She said: “If I were to distill the entire program into one highlight, one thing that everyone learned and changed, it was improved communication. It sounds so simple, but improving communication with clients and within the firm is very hard, and we still have a lot of work to do.”  

Bilzin Sumberg’s approach to LPM

A full account of Bilzin Sumberg’s LPM initiatives could be the topic for an entire book.  This table provides a high level overview of the firm’s approach.

2011

  • Managing partner John Sumberg and COO Michelle Weber attend several conferences, and become convinced that Bilzin Sumberg would benefit by becoming a national leader in LPM.  
  • In November 2011, LegalBizDev is hired to coach three key lawyers to begin to create the firm’s first LPM champions.

2012-2014

  • At the firm’s annual retreat in March 2012, these three LPM champions described their “quick wins” from coaching and encouraged lawyers who were interested to take the same LPM coaching program.
  • In May 2013, 26 lawyers completed coaching (representing more than half of the firm’s 51 partners).
  • Bilzin Sumberg’s LPM committee is formed.
  • Internal LPM staffing is strengthened when Paul VanderMeer is promoted to the new position of Chief Knowledge Officer.

2014-2017

  • Bilzin Sumberg’s LPM committee meets regularly with practice group leaders to monitor and encourage the use of LPM.
  • Practice group leaders build regular discussions of LPM successes and best practices into their meetings.
  • To simplify and improve reporting on project finances and progress, Bilzin Sumberg purchases Prosperoware’s Umbria software.
  • To improve LPM just-in-time training, the firm purchases LegalBizDev’s digital fifth edition of Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide.
  • In October 2017, a panel discussion is held for the entire firm, in which eight partners who have become LPM champions describe its benefits.
  • Nine more lawyers begin LegalBizDev coaching.

2018 and beyond

  • Bilzin Sumberg commits to continue to support and enhance its leadership position through additional LPM initiatives.

 

Throughout this process, the firm has built its approach around the five recommendations explained in our white paper “The Keys to LPM Success”

  1. Focus on changing behavior and solving problems – As seen in the examples throughout our previous posts, right from the start Bilzin Sumberg’s coaching and internal support programs have focused not on abstract principles but on how to help each lawyer solve the problems that they want to solve.  COO Michelle Weber summed up the advantage of this approach: “This is one of the parts of the program that I appreciated the most: Lawyers don’t have to change their world. They just have to change what they do a little bit.”
  2. Aim for quick wins to create internal champions – The first quick wins were reported by the three senior partners who spoke at the March 2012 retreat (Al Dotson, Jon Chassen and Mitch Widom).  Twenty-three additional partners gradually signed up for coaching based on what they heard, and most of them became champions as well. 
  3. Publicize successes within the firm – Practice group leaders have been encouraged to include LPM in their regular meetings to publicize successes.  On a firm-wide basis, LPM has been discussed at most major firm events in this period (including the 2012 retreat and the 2017 panel described in this series).  Bilzin Sumberg is constantly looking for new ways to get the word out, and they recently began circulating “LPM Tips of the Month” memos, which call attention to key LPM issues and the online tools and templates that can help partners address these issues.
  4. Use just-in-time training materials – This is the “secret sauce” for the program, and it is described in detail below.
  5. Take action now and follow up relentlessly – When clients are asking for change, delay is the enemy.  Senior managers and champions must never lose sight of the fact that LPM will continue to evolve as the legal marketplace changes.

Just-in-time training materials

Just-in-time training provides learners with exactly the information they need, precisely when  they need it.  In most professions, this has become the standard way to teach new skills. For example, when lawyers need to use an unfamiliar feature of Microsoft Word, very few would consider taking a class or looking it up in a book.  Instead, they simply look up the information they need in online help files.

Since the start of the LPM initiatives described in this series of posts, LegalBizDev coaching has been structured around the tools and templates which appear in the fourth edition of our Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide.   For the past several years, Bilzin Sumberg has provided a copy of this book to each new lawyer who joined the firm.  

In 2017, the fifth edition of these LPM tools became available in digital form.  This edition allows lawyers to access these tools from anywhere, whenever they need to, and the tools are immediately available to every lawyer in the firm.  Moreover, new tools can be easily added as they become available, and firms can customize key tools to their unique needs and procedures.  

Bilzin Sumberg was one of the first firms to purchase a license to these materials.   The online version of the tools was formally introduced at Bilzin Sumberg during the October 2017 panel discussion described above.  Going forward, LPM staff, practice group leaders and others will use these new digital tools to efficiently provide lawyers with more help more quickly.  

For more details about these digital tools, you can attend a panel discussion entitled, “How LPM Directors Can Increase Their Impact with Just-In-Time Tools and Templates,” at the Legal Marketing Associations’s P3 practice innovation conference in Chicago in May, 2018.  LegalBizDev CEO Tim Batdorf will facilitate this discussion with Scott Wagner of Bilzin Sumberg and Dave Clark, the LPM partner described in our case study of Lathrop Gage.   Audience members will also be encouraged to discuss any custom tools or templates their firms have developed, and how best to implement an online LPM tool library to ensure lawyer usage.

 

A pdf of the complete case study can be downloaded from our web page. 

March 21, 2018

A model for LPM success:  The case of Bilzin Sumberg (Part 2 of 5)

By Tim Batdorf and Jim Hassett


The benefits of LPM discussed in this post and the next illustrate how LPM can help lawyers better meet the needs of clients.  In its 2017 Chief Legal Officers (CLO) Survey  (p. 37), Altman Weil provided 280 CLOs with a list of ten possible service improvements and asked them to “please select … [the improvements] that you would most like to see from your outside counsel.”  The top three needs were: 

  1. Greater cost reduction (51%)
  2. Improved budget forecasting (46%)
  3. Non-hourly based pricing structures (39%)

Meeting client needs for cost reduction 

When clients ask for lower costs, the first thing many lawyers think of offering is a discount on their hourly rates.  This may be necessary in some cases, but it should be the last thing lawyers consider, not the first.  Lower hourly rates lead to lower realization and profitability.  (Unfortunately, many lawyers do not understand that a 10% discount on a particular matter may cut profits by 20% or 50% or more, depending on the firm’s economics.  Very few lawyers know the exact implications of a particular discount at their firm, as discussed at length in Chapter 3 of our book Client Value and Law Firm Profitability.)   

A much better approach is to use LPM to improve planning and management.  At Bilzin Sumberg, most significant matters now start with the responsible partner specifying a complete list of major steps in the process (a matter plan), and then estimating the cost for each step.  Once this budget is in place, tracking systems compare actual costs to budgeted costs as the matter proceeds.  Then, if actual costs are higher than planned, the partner can work with the client to manage and reduce future costs.

To ensure consistency of data and to provide additional “eyes on the target,” Bilzin Sumberg now has a centralized process supported by finance staff who input information into their budgeting software. LPM staff then provide partners with “ticklers” when certain milestones are reached.

In many cases, this analysis is based on lawyers tracking the work they do by means of task codes.  As the number of lawyers using these task codes has grown, information about the true costs of past matters, by task and phase, has become more accurate.  This enables lawyers to produce better budgets in the first place and to determine which steps can be accomplished at a lower cost without affecting quality.  

For example, litigation partner Jose Ferrer noted:

If you see that in the past 30 days you have used only the discovery task codes, it forces you to think, “Did this discovery add or detract from your progress in the case?”

Litigation partner Scott Wagner added that this type of planning and tracking can also reduce costs right from the start:

Perhaps instead of two associates assigned to a task, you may find that you need just one, or you might conclude that a partner could complete a task for a lower total cost even if his or her hourly rate is much higher. 

Wagner went on to describe how this type of planning and tracking applied to one matter:

We had spent a lot more money on discovery than we had planned. When I went back to look at it, I realized that we had budgeted ten hours for meet and confers in this phase, which at the time seemed like a very reasonable estimate. But we had actually spent over 100 hours on meet and confers. The truth was, it was time that was very well spent, and we were able to accomplish a lot with it. But I never envisioned that the meet and confers would be as extensive as they were. 

Real estate practice group leader Suzanne Amaducci-Adams commented that: 

Although our practices are completely different, “meet and confer” was the exact same hole we had in our budget on all of our initial loans budgets.

While some issues were similar across practice groups, in other cases different practice groups required different approaches to LPM and different solutions.  Consider, for example, the idea of having all partners begin with the same standard forms for routine matters.   

At Bilzin Sumberg, this has been quite effective in the corporate practice, where many lawyers work with similar sales and financing transactions every day.  By adopting a standard set of forms and agreements as their starting point, they have been able to reduce costs and avoid “reinventing the wheel.”  Bilzin Sumberg is in the process of redeveloping its intranet site so that each department has its own home page, which includes approved standard forms.

Within the real estate group, however, the idea of standard forms has proven more useful to some lawyers than others.  Lawyers who focus on Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities have developed a very solid set of starting forms.  But other lawyers in real estate, like partner Adam Lustig, more often represent borrowers than lenders.  His practice does not require a standard set of starting documents:

These documents are usually drafted by banks.  So the idea of starting from forms isn’t all that useful to me. More often than not, I’m the one reviewing and responding to documents prepared by opposing counsel. 

In this case, the LPM initiative led in a different direction.  As Amaducci-Adams explained:

We came up with the idea of checklists and issues lists.  For example, when you review a borrower’s contract, what are the 50 or more things you need to know? We developed a borrower’s issue list so none of the key issues would fall through the cracks. Then we started adding in the best language we had seen for certain provisions.  Our borrower issues list worked so well that we started breaking it down for different types of loans.  For example, there are unique issues with construction loans, leasing, hotel management agreements, franchise agreements and more.  So we gradually rolled out issues lists for each major category.

The lists not only led to lower costs, Amaducci-Adams explained, but: 

They became helpful in quality assurance. When we had an associate who reviewed a set of loan documents for us, they had to refer back to our list, and they had to confirm that every single thing in there either did not apply or was already in the documents. So our work product became better.


Meeting client needs for predictable budgets 

The same matter planning process that yields lower costs also leads to more predictable budgets and fewer client surprises.

According to litigation partner Scott Wagner:

The conventional wisdom is that budgeting is not possible in litigation. But based on my LPM coaching and subsequent discussions with my colleagues, we have found that you can indeed come up with a budget that is useful to your client and can lay out all the contingencies to know what a particular litigation will likely cost.  The result is that we became much better at giving both clients and the internal team a more realistic estimate of what a case will cost.

This type of budgeting has become a standard operating procedure for Wagner, who offered the following example:  

A few weeks ago, a long-term client described a new case and asked for “an idea of what this is going to cost.” I said, I really need to go back and sit down and look at the numbers. And he really, really pushed. I said, let me go back and sit down and figure this out.  I saw two immediate benefits.  First, when clients realize that you’ve given some thought to it, they take your estimate a lot more seriously, and that can lead to a detailed discussion.  If clients are going to push back on cost, it is much better to do this in an informed negotiation before the work begins than at the end of the matter when the client gets a surprise in the bill.  Second, you just do a lot better job. If you do off-the-cuff estimates, you always forget to include something. 

Carter McDowell, a partner in the Land Development & Government Relations Practice Group, reported a similar experience:  

For us, it began when one large client asked us to produce a budget for the upcoming year. This request forced us to sit down and take each of the hearings we were going to have and to break down each of the component parts of how we went about processing an application to get to hearing, who we met with – neighbors, staff, board members, etc. – and to assign essentially ranges of time for each of those. That gave us a framework that we’ve subsequently used to talk to other clients about the process that we go through to process an application.  It’s broken down in writing, in chart form, with hourly projections for each of the tasks. 

Meeting clients’ needs for predictable budgets can also lead to new business.  Al Dotson described a recent matter in which a large international client asked for an estimate:

We took a look at the sheet that we have been keeping and updating on an annual basis that brings forward all of our matters using today’s rates, and the manner which we staffed it, to give them a range of what we thought this would cost.  They got the legal spend approved, and we came within pennies, literally pennies, of the budget that we set for them without writing off a single dime of time. And that was simply because we actively use our task codes, apply the historical information we have, and then manage the process carefully.

 

A pdf of the complete case study can be downloaded from our web page. 

March 07, 2018

A model for LPM success:  The case of Bilzin Sumberg (Part 1 of 5)

By Tim Batdorf and Jim Hassett

Executive summary

This series of posts describes the process that Bilzin Sumberg has used to implement LPM over the past few years, and provides examples of the benefits they have achieved in six major areas:

  1. Increased new business and profitability
  2. Meeting client needs for cost reduction
  3. Meeting client needs for predictable budgets
  4. Improved AFAs
  5. Improved definitions of scope
  6. Improved communication

As this series will make clear, Bilzin Sumberg has had many successes in changing the way they practice law to better meet client needs, and their LPM initiative has paid for itself several times over.  But their work is not done.

The final post in the series describes implications for other law firms based on Bilzin Sumberg’s experience with LPM.  Some of the tactics Bilzin Sumberg found to be effective are quite simple to implement.  For example, in the early stages of implementation there was some lawyer resistance to the term “legal project management.”  By changing the terminology, using a less intimidating term like "efficiency" as opposed to “legal project management,” Bilzin Sumberg was able to overcome lawyer pushback and develop broader buy-in. 

Other Bilzin Sumberg strategies required more effort, such as unrelenting support from senior management, bringing in external consultants, and a gradual increase of internal LPM staff. 

Nobody at Bilzin Sumberg – or any other law firm we’ve talked to – has ever said LPM is easy.  But they do say that well-planned LPM investments will pay off for their firm and their clients.  Greater efficiency and predictability is an absolute necessity for law firms wanting to survive and prosper in an increasingly competitive legal marketplace.


Introduction

Lawyers often ask us to name law firms that serve as models for cost-effectively implementing legal project management (LPM).  

Our first public answer to this question appeared in this blog in 2013,  when we wrote “no law firm on the planet has achieved more [LPM] behavior change, more quickly or more efficiently” than Bilzin Sumberg, a Miami-based law firm with more than 100 lawyers.  Now, five years later, this series of posts will explain how the unrelenting support and follow-up by Bilzin Sumberg’s management has enabled it to hold the number one spot, and to achieve substantial benefits both for clients and for the firm.

Some firms are sure to disagree with this assessment, and a few may lay claim to the title for themselves.  It is certainly true that some groups at other firms have made greater progress in particular sub-areas of LPM, such as process improvement, pricing, and knowledge management.  But based on our research and consulting with hundreds of firms, we believe that no other firm has achieved greater LPM progress and experienced greater benefits across the board.  And the reason is simple: Bilzin Sumberg has produced more behavior change amongst its lawyers than any other firm.

Last fall, our CEO Tim Batdorf facilitated a 90-minute panel discussion at Bilzin Sumberg, in which eight of the firm’s leading LPM champions described what they had achieved to date, and what they had planned for the future.  Every lawyer in the firm was invited, and the discussion also provided a brief overview of two new LPM resources that Bilzin Sumberg recently adopted:  the digiral tools and templates in the fifth edition of our Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide, and Prosperoware’s Umbria software to improve budgeting, tracking, and more.

The first speaker was the firm’s managing partner elect Al Dotson, who spoke about the benefits already experienced through the firm's adoption of LPM as well as the expected benefits with future progress. When Dotson held his first LPM meetings with each practice group leader:  

Every practice group said LPM didn’t apply to them. Every practice group said that they were unique. Every practice group said they could not use LPM. Every single one.

In the final section of these posts – “Implications for other firms” – we will explain that this sort of initial resistance is almost universal.  To overcome this resistance, in our experience, the support of key leaders is an absolute prerequisite for success.  

In some cases, we have worked with firms that made significant LPM progress when they were led by a partner who strongly believed in it.  But then the leader left, and the initiative fizzled as new management stressed new priorities.

At Bilzin Sumberg, Dotson, along with managing partner John Sumberg and COO Michelle Weber, have persisted in gently prodding partners to see how LPM could help them, following the five key approaches explained in our white paper “The Keys to LPM Success.” 

  1. Focus on changing behavior and solving problems
  2. Aim for quick wins to create internal champions
  3. Publicize successes within the firm
  4. Use just-in-time training materials
  5. Take action now and follow up relentlessly

Although these approaches are important for success, LPM is not a “one-size-fits-all,” well-defined linear process or a simple set of steps.  It is a mindset which must be constantly reinforced.  And the behaviors that lawyers change as a result of this new mindset evolve over time in response to changes in the legal marketplace.  

As Bilzin Sumberg COO Michelle Weber summed it up: “LPM is not a silver bullet.  It is an ongoing and continual process of gradually modifying behavior, with little moments of clarity.  To create LPM acceptance in a law firm culture, you have to keep reinforcing it.”


LPM Benefits

Increased new business and profitability 

To evaluate any LPM initiative, it makes sense to start by going directly to the bottom line, to see whether LPM has increased new business and/or improved profitability.  

At the panel discussion last fall, Al Dotson, Bilzin Sumberg’s managing partner elect and head of the firm’s Land Development & Government Relations Practice Group, began the discussion by saying:

I have successfully used legal project management to generate business many times.

In a previous LPM panel discussion – held to kick off their firm-wide LPM initiative in 2012 – Dotson described how one of his clients was so impressed by the legal project plan he had produced in his coaching that the client awarded Bilzin Sumberg a significant amount of new work.

This success encouraged other partners to volunteer for coaching, which in turn has led to many other examples of new business which can be directly attributed to LPM.  To cite just one example from the 2017 panel, real estate chair Jim Shindell described how a new client needing a series of condominium construction loans had first heard of Bilzin Sumberg:   

We had just saved another client with that same bank a ton of money with the speed and efficiency in which we were able to do the deal.

The new client then hired Bilzin Sumberg because of their proven efficiency on this same subject matter with the exact same lender.

Proof of new business from LPM is relatively easy to find, but exact figures for how much the LPM initiative has increased realization and profitability is harder to come by.  Like most firms, Bilzin Sumberg does not publicize its exact realization or profitability figures.  But there can be no doubt that many of the changes described in this series have increased both figures.  As COO Michelle Weber summed it up:

As a result of LPM, we have definitely decreased write-offs and reduced the number of times we need to go back to clients to discuss budget changes.

January 10, 2018

Litigation AFAs (Part 3 of 3) 

By Greg Lantier, Natalie Hanlon Leh, and Mindy Sooter, WilmerHale

 

Five Questions Outside Lawyers Should Ask Themselves Before Submitting an AFA

In this third article in the series about AFAs, we discuss five questions that outside lawyers should be able to answer for themselves before submitting an AFA proposal for a litigation matter to a client.

  1. Why Am I Proposing an AFA for This Litigation Matter?

First, outside counsel should ask herself why she is proposing an AFA for this matter.  To be sure, AFAs are often beneficial—providing clients with predictability in litigation costs and simplifying the billing for outside counsel—but they are not without risk.  For example, if assumptions underlying the AFA were not accurate, or if these assumptions change over time, the original AFA proposal may likewise be off base.

Thus, outside counsel should be able to articulate the reason for proposing an AFA as a pricing alternative.  One common reason is client preference.  Some clients, including many public companies, value stability and predictability in litigation costs, and seek to avoid unexpectedly high monthly bills.  Other clients may prefer AFAs with success premiums to ensure that outside counsel has “skin in the game.”  But if the client has not requested an AFA, this might not be a good case to propose one.  Indeed, some clients prefer hourly-based billing.  And some cases may be unusual or unpredictable enough to make an AFA inappropriate.

In short, outside counsel should discuss the AFA approach with the client, understand the client’s preferences and concerns, and structure the proposal to address those needs.  While some clients are eager for AFA proposals, not all cases and clients are good fits for AFAs.  If the client has not requested an AFA or the case is unusually difficult to budget with accuracy, this might not be the case to propose an AFA. 

  1. How Long Do I Expect This Matter to Last?

Second, outside counsel should ask herself how long she expects this matter to last.  Outside counsel often has a sense of when or if a case might settle, depending, for example, on the litigation history of the opposing party and its counsel, and on the client’s historic preference for settlement versus trial.

Cases that are expected to settle almost immediately would probably not warrant an AFA.  Cases expected to last longer, but to settle before trial, could be good candidates for AFAs.  In those cases, AFAs provide predictability to clients without significant risk of diverging from the original budget estimate.  Likewise, AFAs in cases likely to proceed to trial are often beneficial to the client, providing the desired predictability and stability of fees throughout the case.  Those cases, however, present greater risk to outside counsel because over time, the budget assumptions underlying an AFA—formulated before litigation began—are more likely to prove inaccurate. 

For all AFA cases, and especially cases expected to “go the distance” to trial, outside counsel and her client should discuss and document the original budget assumptions as well as the circumstances under which the AFA may be modified if the litigation diverges from those original assumptions.  This will ensure that the AFA remains realistic and beneficial not only to the client but also to outside counsel.

  1. Would This AFA Be an Appropriate Template for This Client?

Next, outside counsel should ask herself whether this proposal is a sustainable model for future matters with this client. Often AFAs are presented in response to requests for proposals.  These are competitive bids, and, especially if this is an opportunity to work with a client for the first time, outside counsel might be tempted to present a low offer to beat out the competition.

If outside counsel hopes to build a lasting relationship with this client, however, it is important that the proposed AFA reflect a realistic case budget.  Certainly, the AFA should reflect any discount the firm is willing to offer to obtain this matter, but it should not be unsustainably low.  This proposal is likely to become a standard to which future proposals are compared.  If the original AFA is unsustainably low, the client will be shocked when the firm presents a more realistic budget next time. 

Thus, instead of presenting an unrealistically low proposal, outside counsel should talk through the AFA with the client to ensure that they are both working under similar budget and case assumptions.  That common understanding, leading to a realistic AFA, will build trust needed for future engagements, and be more likely to lead to a long-term relationship.

  1. Am I Confident the Client Will Make Adjustments if Circumstances Change?

Outside counsel should also ask herself how confident she is that the client will be reasonable in making adjustments to the AFA necessitated by changes in litigation circumstances.  Unfortunately, litigation is not always predictable.  A plaintiff may add claims or parties, and new issues may arise.  If these circumstances were not accounted for in the original case budget, it may be necessary to alter the AFA.  And if outside counsel is not confident that the client will cooperate in reasonably modifying the AFA, then an AFA may not be appropriate in this case. 

To determine a client’s willingness to reconsider an outdated AFA, outside counsel should have a frank discussion with the client before litigation begins about the circumstances under which the AFA may be modified.  Certainly, the outside firm should bear responsibility for meeting the original budget under the original assumptions.  But if those assumptions change, for example if the plaintiff adds new claims, there should be a mechanism by which the client and outside counsel negotiate a modified AFA.  If the client is not willing to include any such mechanism, or if outside counsel senses that the client will be unreasonably inflexible, an AFA pricing structure might not be the best approach.

  1. How Will I Train the Team to Work Within the Budget?

Finally, outside counsel should ask herself whether she has a plan for building a team that will work within the budget.  A good AFA is typically derived from an estimated case budget, calculated from the estimated number of hours to perform each litigation task. 

To ensure success of the AFA, therefore, outside counsel should have a plan for building a team that can work within the budget.  The plan should include training the team members about the budgets for each task, providing the team with tools for tracking their actual time spent and comparing it to the time allotted, and providing additional resources or skills to team members that have difficulty staying within budget.  Counsel must also ensure there are tools to track the overall team’s progress as compared to the budget.  These tools require mechanisms to track and report the hours expended versus hours budgeted. 

Without a plan for building a team that can work within the budget and for tracking that progress, an AFA becomes difficult to manage and the risk of departing from the AFA increases significantly.  Putting the necessary tools in place and training the team on the budget are essential prerequisites to entering into an AFA.

The authors are partners in WilmerHale’s Litigation/Controversy Department and IP Litigation Practice. This is Part 3 in a series of three related articles that have been adapted from Law 360 for the fifth edition of the Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide.  The Guide also includes three additional articles on this topic by the same authors.

 

November 15, 2017

Case Study:  LPM initiatives at Lathrop Gage (Part 2 of 3)

By Jim Hassett and Jonathan Groner

 

2.    Aim for Quick Wins to Create Internal Champions

The successes listed in Part 1 of this series, and many others, have begun to create a cadre of internal champions who are continuing to spread LPM within Lathrop Gage.

One broad example emerged from coaching several members of the firm’s Banking and Creditors’ Rights Practice Team.  Several leading members of the team saw the benefits of using task codes to organize their work, convey the details of the work effectively to clients, and improve budgets.

Following Clark’s recommendation, the group implemented a task code pilot project in June 2017, requiring the use of firm task codes on all new litigation matters opened by that group. Clark worked with the firm’s accounting department to design and implement the task code project, created training materials on the proper use of the task codes by all attorneys and paralegals in the group, gave presentations on the pilot project at team meetings, and had a special training session for secretaries on the correct use of these task codes. In conjunction with this pilot project, Clark’s LPM team created an in-house spreadsheet tool to assist lawyers with creating and monitoring budgets utilizing litigation task codes.  In addition, Clark and his team are working closely with a global business intelligence company specializing in legal and professional services firms to help it develop a robust matter planning and budgeting software program that will serve the firm’s long-term needs.

Throughout this coaching program, each lawyer focused on their “low hanging fruit,” the changes that would have the most immediate benefit to their practice.   For example, Rick Bien, Co-chair of the Business Litigation Team and leader of the firm’s ERISA, Life, Health, and Disability Insurance Group, created a personal docket for keeping track of all matters – a single document to see the interrelationships between matters.  For one large matter, he also created a RACI matrix, a simple chart that will increase efficiency and communications by clarifying the roles of team members in completing tasks and deliverables. It establishes the level of communications each team member should receive. RACI is an acronym for who’s Responsible, who’s Accountable, who should be Consulted, and who should simply be Informed. (For details, see page 217 in the Fourth Edition of the Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide.) The result of thinking through that matrix was that it helped Bien decide when and how to communicate with the client’s GC and its business executive as the matter progressed.  

Banking & Creditors’ Rights Litigation Co-Chair Wendi Alper-Pressman focused on delegating work more effectively so that each team member understands exactly what she expects, when it is due, and the estimated hours in the budget. Employment partner Bridget Romero focused on tactics to better use Statements of Work and Matter Planning Templates to clarify understanding of the client’s objectives at the start of a matter.  Jill Waldman, another Employment attorney, is standardizing her procedures to set baseline budgets upfront for all significant matters, and tracking and monitoring costs as the matter proceeds.

Wealth Strategies partner Gretchen Gold drafted new procedures for vault usage, and had them reviewed and edited by a team of Lathrop paralegals.  Then she met with Lathrop’s Records Department personnel and coached them on the scanning and indexing of documents in the vault, including naming conventions and sequencing. She also has begun drafting instructions to non-timekeepers who will be responsible for a quality checking process for scanning and bar coding documents in the vault.

In another example of her work as an internal champion, Gold successfully coached another partner how a task done at her higher rates could generate a client cost that was lower than the combination of that partner’s time/rates plus inexperienced associates/rates doing the same work.

 

3.    Publicize Successes Within the Firm

Even in a firm that is as well attuned to LPM as Lathrop Gage, there will be some resistance by attorneys to the adoption of any new practice concept, including LPM. Internal publicity is one way of countering that resistance.

“There are always obstacles,” Clark says. “There are lawyers who say that they don’t need it or that clients don’t want it or that there’s not enough time to do it. There’s always going to be some resistance, and part of my job is to understand, for each lawyer and practice group, what problems they have in their practice, and what LPM tools or templates will help them. Lawyers have started to notice that LPM is being mentioned more and more by clients, and that has helped to encourage them to start adopting LPM principles and practices.”

To date, internal publicity has largely been informal, as lawyers have shared tactics that have worked. 

For example, when Douglas Link completed coaching he began developing a standard checklist for each patent-application project that can be accessed by all members of the team and by in-house counsel for the client.

“The checklist is simply a list of all possible tasks for the project. It’s basically a shared Word document. We start with a basic checklist and then we develop an individualized checklist for each client,” Link says. “It happens that this is a very repetitive practice area, without a lot of unexpected events, so checklists work very well. You can use checklists and task codes to estimate costs and make the cost estimates more accurate. This is especially advantageous when the firm is working on a flat-rate basis.”  As a result of Link and others acting as internal champions, the entire Boulder office, which is devoted to IP matters, is now using this checklist.

Similarly, Travis McCallon reports that “Anyone on my team and anyone on the client’s team can find out where any matter stands and can generate a monthly report.  Because we share this with the client, the spreadsheet is straightforward, professional and comprehensive.”

Over the next few months, one of Clark’s key goals is to help build further momentum for LPM by setting up formal mechanisms and a regular schedule to publicize LPM successes, focusing on the benefits both to clients and to the firm. This can be accomplished particularly well at partners’ meetings or through individual face-to-face or telephone conversations with partners.

November 01, 2017

Case Study:  LPM initiatives at Lathrop Gage (Part 1 of 3)

By Jim Hassett and Jonathan Groner

A few weeks ago, Lathrop Gage CEO Mark Bluhm emailed everyone in the firm to announce the release of an online library of LPM tools as part of its multi-year initiative “to enhance LPM capabilities within the firm… to deliver greater value to clients, increase new business, and improve efficiencies and therefore profitability.” 

Many law firms are earning an “A for effort” in LPM these days, so initiatives in this area are no longer a cause for headlines. But a much smaller number of firms would get an “A for results,” because it is so difficult to get lawyers to change their behavior. Lathrop Gage is emerging as a national LPM leader by being among the very few that are taking the right steps to meet client needs as efficiently as possible.

The firm has nearly 280 attorneys in 10 offices nationwide, from Los Angeles to Boston. Lathrop Gage was founded in 1873 in Kansas City and, according to its web page, provides “strategic guidance in litigation, business and intellectual property law, with deep knowledge and experience in the industries” it serves.

Its first major LPM initiative began in November 2015 when LegalBizDev began enrolling key lawyers in our two-month coaching program to identify and implement the most effective actions with active clients and matters.  Based on the results with six pilot group participants, they have since expanded the program to a total of 25 lawyers, with more planned for the future. 

One of the lawyers who participated in the first coaching group – IP litigator Dave Clark – became so convinced of the value of these techniques that he took on the newly created role of LPM Partner. 

Clark first deepened his LPM knowledge by completing LegalBizDev’s Certified Legal Project Manager® program with Gary Richards.  As part of that program, he developed a firm-wide LPM implementation plan.  To support him as his role evolves, Clark has a telecon every other week with Richards, LegalBizDev CEO Tim Batdorf, and founder Jim Hassett.

His responsibilities and progress to date are described below, including participating in a supplemental “LPM Coaching Certification” process so that Clark can personally continue to expand the coaching program without using LegalBizDev consultants.  He has been coaching individual lawyers on an ad hoc basis for months, and has begun a two-month formal coaching program for his first group of eight lawyers.

The LPM program was initiated by Jennifer Hannah, the Chair of the Litigation Division and a member of the firm’s Executive Committee.  She is also a member of a new Client Value Task Force headed by COO Court Landon.  That group was started this year to periodically review LPM past accomplishments, future plans and related initiatives. LPM efficiencies are becoming a key part of the firm’s culture.

The approach Lathrop Gage is using is consistent with the concepts outlined in our white paper “The Top Five Ways to Increase Legal Project Management Results”

  1. Focus on changing behavior and solving problems;
  2. Aim for quick wins to create internal champions;
  3. Publicize successes within the firm;
  4. Use just-in time training materials;
  5. Assure continuous improvement by following up relentlessly.

This case study describes how Lathrop Gage is applying each of these principles.   

  1. Focus on Changing Behavior and Solving Problems

This is the most important of the five principles because, as noted in our white paper:

The key to getting started in changing behavior throughout an organization is to help lawyers solve the problems they face, such as living within a fixed fee budget or increasing realization.  And the best way to do that is to first identify lawyers who are motivated to change, and then to coach them one-on-one to create quick wins.

The first steps that lawyers should take are often easy to identify.  The hard part is getting them to do it.

Since completing his coaching, Tedrick Housh III, Chair of the Cybersecurity & Data Privacy practice group, has begun to use LPM in both client projects and litigation.  The LPM format is a natural fit for corporate clients who engage Lathrop Gage to assess their data security and privacy policies, regimens and incident response plans.  “We have spent a lot of time looking at all of our repetitive tasks,” he says, “to handle them more efficiently and make sure they are assigned to the right people.” 

For each new litigation matter, his team uses an electronic timeline with all deadlines and events coming up, along with a detailed list of tasks for each pleading, discovery item or witness. This format, says Housh, “prompts regular meetings of our trial team and forces us to continually evaluate whether certain tasks have been done, and sometimes whether they are still worth doing.” As trial approaches, the form suggests more frequent points at which to engage the client in the case.  “It’s certainly true that litigation is unpredictable,” Housh says, “but these tools have helped us even though we know that there will always be surprises.”

In another example, Douglas Link, an IP associate in the firm’s Boulder, Colorado, office worked with his coach to identify immediate ways in to improve his communication with clients. They developed a new engagement letter that spells out all possible steps that the firm might need to take in connection with a patent application. The new engagement letter defines the scope of representation by using task codes and provides future cost projections for the various tasks.

A third example comes from Courtney Conrad, a Kansas City-based partner in Lathrop Gage’s Wealth Strategies group.  She and her group have been informally using LPM for years by creating standard forms that help it serve its estate-planning clients, saving time and money. 

“We have a checklist, basically an electronic binder, that is accessible to everyone in our group,” Conrad says. “It has all the elements that you need for most estate-planning matters. It’s now a Word document, but we will soon transition to a document assembly system that will be even better. Once an attorney enters the necessary names, amounts, addresses and so on, that system will produce the document. This approach can be used not just in estate planning, but in many other groups firm-wide.”

The final example in this section comes not from a program that was started by a LegalBizDev coach, but rather from coaching Dave Clark conducted with LegalBizDev’s support.  Clark’s assumption of his new role as LPM partner coincided neatly with the firm’s being retained by a major auto manufacturer to handle a large series of trademark matters.  Travis McCallon, an IP team leader in the firm’s Kansas City, Missouri office, consulted with Clark during the early stages of this work, and together they worked on efficiency techniques to keep this new client happy and in the fold.

“This kind of trademark work has a lot of volume. Most individual cases are not too sophisticated, but there’s a lot to keep track of,” McCallon says. “We created an in-house matrix that gives us all the information in a spreadsheet – what has happened so far in the case and what will happen next. The spreadsheet includes the name of the alleged infringer, and it even includes a link to the content that constitutes the possible online infringement itself.”

McCallon says the Excel spreadsheet also spells out what the firm’s proposed next steps are in each case and contains a requirement for client approval before each step can take place. The client has full access to the spreadsheet and can “populate” the box for client approval, thus triggering correspondence from McCallon to the alleged infringer.

In addition, McCallon, with Clark’s input, has devised an internal checklist that his team uses to ensure that all key steps are being taken in any of these trademark infringement cases so the data is “right at our fingertips.”

As Clark summed it up, “Through the use of LPM principles, we developed a way to keep the client informed on a regular basis of what’s going on in the large number of trademark cases that we are handling at any one time.  This permits the client to see the status of all the matters practically at a glance. It has made it easy for the client to understand what’s going on in each case and what the recommended courses of action are.  The client has been extremely happy with this approach.” 

October 18, 2017

A checklist to assess your legal project management needs

By Tim Batdorf

The LPM Self-Assessment Checklist below was designed to help lawyers decide whether they should find time to focus on LPM, and if so, in what areas.

As quickly as possible, check off your general level of concern with each topic.  Use the results to determine which areas to focus on first.  If you rate several items as high, prioritize them by looking for “low hanging fruit:"  areas which could have the greatest immediate impact on your practice while requiring the least time and effort to implement.

The checklist could also be useful to law firm leaders who want to determine which lawyers are interested in LPM assistance, and could benefit the most from our one to one LPM coaching or other programs.

LPM Self-Assessment Checklist

 

Your Level of Concern

Part 1: Set objectives and define scope

None

Low

Med

High

Your clients and/or your team do not fully understand exactly what is and is not included in a particular engagement

€

€

€

€

Engagement letters fail to specify assumptions in hourly cost estimates or AFAs

€

€

€

€

Your clients are unclear about exactly what they want and need

€

€

€

€

Clients sometimes question the work that was done and what they are willing to pay for

€

€

€

€

Client decision makers disagree on the goals of a matter

€

€

€

€

Part 2: Identify and schedule activities

None

Low

Med

High

You and/or your team overlook tasks

€

€

€

€

Your process for routine matters could be more efficient or simplified

€

€

€

€

You do not use checklists regularly, effectively, or at all

€

€

€

€

Last minute time crunches or missed deadlines sometimes occur

€

€

€

€

 

Part 3: Assign tasks and manage the team

None

Low

Med

High

You are overwhelmed with too much work

€

€

€

€

Team meetings are inefficient or ineffective

€

€

€

€

Client demands for lower cost often lead to reduced profitability, which might be avoided with more effective delegation

€

€

€

€

Delegated tasks come back late or the work comes back differently than you expected

€

€

€

€

You lose too much time to e-mails, phone calls, or other interruptions

€

€

€

€

Part 4: Plan and manage the budget

None

Low

Med

High

You often begin matters without having a clear idea of the likely total cost

€

€

€

€

Legal fees frequently exceed your budget estimates at the start of a matter

€

€

€

€

Your realization rate is too low and/or you have too many write-offs

€

€

€

€

You have a difficult time meeting AFA requirements and capped fees while remaining profitable

€

€

€

€

Part 5: Assess risks to budget and schedule

None

Low

Med

High

You and/or your team are unaware of the risks to the schedule or budget at the start of a matter

€

€

€

€

You and/or your team could improve the way you minimize risks to the schedule or budget at the start of a matter

€

€

€

€

Part 6: Manage quality

None

Low

Med

High

Perfectionism drives up fees with minimal quality improvement and/or little to no significant benefit as perceived by the client

€

€

€

€

You and/or your team do not have quality control measures in  place to maintain the same level of quality while becoming more efficient

€

€

€

€

Part 7: Manage client communications and expectations

None

Low

Med

High

You fail to keep your clients regularly informed about progress

€

€

€

€

You do not know what type of updates (e.g., phone or email, weekly or monthly) each client prefers

Your team lacks a clear understanding of responsibilities and a clear plan for communicating within the team

Your team lacks a clear understanding of who should communicate directly with clients, and who should not

You and/or your team sometimes engage in miscommunication with each other and/or with the client

You do not routinely hold “lessons learned” reviews with your team and with clients

You could improve the way you handle difficult clients and situations

Part 8: Negotiate changes of scope

None

Low

Med

High

You do not effectively negotiate changes in scope with clients

You do not spot “red flags” immediately and make needed adjustments

You do not communicate changes in scope to clients

You do not have systems in place to track work that is beyond scope

You do not have a formal process for dealing with changes in scope

Your team does not know when there is a change in scope

Your team does not immediately inform you about changes in scope

€

€

€

€


Download a pdf of this LPM Self-Assessment Checklist

 

This post was adapted from the fifth edition of the Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide, a frequently updated online library of LPM tools and templates.

October 04, 2017

24 Benefits of Matter Planning

By Gary Richards

 

Our Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide includes a number of sections on different approaches to matter planning that will be useful in almost every legal matter.  For large and predictable matters, your matter plan may be quite detailed.  In most litigation and other unpredictable matters, detailed planning should be limited to the first few weeks or months.  (For background on an alternative approach to traditional project management which better fits unpredictable matters, see our article “Why the Agile Approach Is So Important to Law Firms” in the October 2017 issue of Of Counsel.)

But if you are one of the many lawyers who feels too busy for this, before you give up on the idea, consider these 24 benefits of matter planning:

  1. Helps set clear and reasonable client expectations
  2. Improves client understanding of the time and tasks required
  3. Helps prevent cost and delivery problems
  4. Improves estimates of time required
  5. Allows more accurate fee estimates
  6. Forces you to think through the entire matter
  7. Allows you to establish a logical sequence for the steps
  8. Identifies steps that can be in progress concurrently
  9. Allows insights as to which steps can be consolidated to gain efficiency
  10. Establishes a clear beginning and ending point
  11. Pinpoints missing steps
  12. Can discourage procrastination by identifying easily accomplished first steps
  13. Identifies the people, material, and other resources that are needed and when
  14. Identifies the commitment needed from you and from others
  15. Identifies tasks and general areas of responsibility that can be delegated
  16. Identifies the potential obstacles or problems that may need to be solved (risk planning)
  17. Shows where expert input/client help could add value
  18. Identifies the elapsed time required, i.e., total number of days from the beginning to the end of a matter as influenced by the need to wait or process certain interim steps
  19. Becomes a checklist to track progress and budget
  20. Provides insights into possible conflicts with your work on other matters
  21. Identifies staff assignments that could be changed in order to gain efficiency
  22. Stimulates seeking simpler ways
  23. Identifies areas where unknowns exist and contingency plans can be developed
  24. Increases client understanding as to what is required to meet their desired goals

 

This post was adapted from the fifth edition of the Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide, a frequently updated online library of LPM tools and templates.

September 20, 2017

How to hire LPM staff (Part 2 of 2)

Based on our LPM work with over 100 law firms, LegalBizDev recommends that candidates should be evaluated based on the five criteria below, which are listed in order of importance: 

1.  Extensive legal experience, ideally at your firm.

In a 2006 American Lawyer article, David Maister published a classic article entitled “Are Law Firms Manageable?”  Maister’s article opened with these words: “After spending 25 years saying that all professions are similar and can learn from each other, I’m now ready to make a concession: Law firms are different.” He went on to describe four major differences at length: “problems with trust; difficulties with ideology, values, and principles; professional detachment; and unusual approaches to decision making.”

The most fundamental challenge in hiring legal project managers comes from this fact: they must learn how to work effectively with lawyers. More than a few law firms have made the mistake of hiring somebody with a traditional approach to project management and no experience with law firms.  The results include lots of wasted time developing plans, frustrated attorneys, LPM staff who move from firm to firm, and firms that think LPM doesn’t work. 

The best candidate may be someone who already works at your firm as a lawyer or a senior legal assistant, who is interested in being trained in LPM.  We believe that it takes much longer to understand a particular firm’s culture and operations than it does to learn the fundamentals of LPM.  Internal candidates already know how things really work behind the scenes at your firm and who the key players are. In addition, the people making the hiring decision also know the candidate well.

2.  A flexible approach to project management that fits the needs of law firms.

Traditional “waterfall” project management works best in an environment where requirements can be well defined at the start of a project and are relatively stable.  However, in the legal environment, that is rarely the case.  The result is that Agile project management techniques designed for rapidly changing environments are most valuable to lawyers, and in many cases the traditional approach may actually be counter-productive. According to the article quoted in Part 1 from two Seyfarth Shaw project managers (“Lean and agile – How LPM can transform client services,” in The Lawyer’s Guide to Legal Project Management), one of the qualities that Seyfarth looks for when it hires new project managers is:

Are [they] flexible in their approach to projects?  How well do they respond to fluid situations?  If they have only practiced the traditional waterfall project management methodology… we would have to consider whether they have the ability to adapt to our environment. (p. 91)

We have seen many cases in which law firms first tried to find people with legal experience and failed.  Then they decided to focus on credentials designed for other businesses, such as people who have been certified as Project Management Professionals (PMPs).  This can be exactly the wrong way to go, if the certification came in one of the many professions in which project managers devote an enormous amount of time and energy to defining requirements and making a complete plan at the start of a project.

In the legal environment, needs can change suddenly, and all of those expensive plans may have to get tossed out the window the instant an adversary changes its tactics.

3.  The interpersonal qualities needed to influence lawyers.

When Seyfarth hires LPM staff, another requirement is that candidates:

Possess a mature sense of confidence and ability to influence a team of high-performing individuals to achieve success.  Could we see them sitting alongside attorneys or across the table from our clients?  (p. 91)

Successful legal project managers are both diplomatic and credible, with the gravitas to be accepted by senior partners.  Many firms have hired individuals with great technical facility, but none of these personal qualities.  They tend to sit in their offices developing elaborate plans for a small number of like-minded partners, while everyone else ignores them.  They also tend to last only a year or two in the position, before moving to a different law firm, or out of the legal field.

Obviously, personal qualities such as flexibility and gravitas will be much easier to observe and assess if one hires internal candidates rather than relying on impressions from interviews.

4.  A highly organized detail oriented personality

By its very nature, LPM requires a high degree of organization, discipline and tracking details.  This is another factor that will be easier to assess for internal candidates than for external ones.

5.  Project management knowledge

Note that this is last in our list, because in our experience, it is the easiest to train.  A number of our clients who have promoted from within have used our LegalBizDev Certified Legal Project Manager® program to develop the appropriate knowledge base.

In our opinion, it is unfortunate that many firms put project management knowledge first on their list of requirements, instead of last. We have seen many cases in which firms have hired LPM Directors based on their project management experience in construction, government contracting, or other areas where traditional techniques are used and agile techniques are not.  This has led to many stories of LPM Directors who could not or would not adapt to a legal environment, and ended up working with the very small group of partners who were interested in project charters, Gantt charts, and tools like Microsoft Project software.

Seyfarth faced these exact problems with their own first LPM hires:

The rigors of traditional project management, with its detailed documentation, waterfall-based phases, change control, and paperwork, were interfering with delivery in the fast-paced and often unpredictable world of legal service delivery. (p. 87)

Once Seyfarth switched to an Agile-based approach, legal project managers gained widespread acceptance among lawyers and “three day planning meetings were replaced with one hour kickoff meetings.” (p. 87)

This series was adapted from the fifth edition of the Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide, a frequently updated online library of LPM tools and templates.

 

 

 

September 06, 2017

How to hire LPM staff (Part 1 of 2)

When firms decide to make a serious commitment to LPM by hiring internal LPM staff, they must answer two questions:

  1. How should we define the job of the LPM Manager?
  2. Who is the best person to fill the job?

The position of LPM Manager is so new that both questions are much more difficult to answer than you might expect.

Some LPM Managers have been much more successful than others, due to a combination of management support, firm culture, and the background and personal characteristics of the individual who fills the position.  For an overview of how some of the most widely known LPM directors have defined the job, see the results of our research on the evolving role of LPM directors in this blog.

Quite frankly, in our survey of LPM directors at 15 large firms, it appeared that even within this group there are wide differences of opinion on how to define the job.  For example, some LPM Directors spent an enormous amount of time on evaluating and implementing new software, while others focused on more effectively using the software the firm already owned.  (We recommend the second approach.) 

Perhaps these differences of opinion are related to the high turnover rate for LPM Directors.  A year and a half after we published our research, we went back to LinkedIn to see how many had moved into different jobs.  33% of the people we had interviewed – 5 out of 15 – had changed employers in this 18 month period. (Three of the five had moved to different law firms, and two had gone to in-house law departments.)

In any case, the titles of two thirds of the people we interviewed included both pricing and LPM, but the vast majority of these 15 people spent most or all of their time on pricing.  One reason for this emphasis is that most groups were understaffed, and senior management often mandated an emphasis on pricing first.  It is much easier to get lawyers to agree to bid a particular fee than it is to convince them to change the way they practice law so that they actually deliver services within that amount.

In our view, both pricing and LPM are extremely important for long-term financial success.  To remain profitable, firms must both charge the right price and get lawyers to deliver services within that price. 

However, we also believe that if limited resources force one to choose between the two, LPM is ultimately more important than pricing.  These days, the fees that firms are able to charge are often determined more by competitive bidding than by thoughtful analysis.  And the best pricing function in the world does little good if lawyers consistently exceed the amounts they bid.

Once the job description is defined, the next question is how to identify the best candidate. 

Seyfarth Shaw has probably been hiring project managers for longer than any other law firm.  In the article “Lean and agile – How LPM can transform client services” (which appears in Ark’s recently published book  The Lawyer’s Guide to Legal Project Management), Seyfarth senior managers Karen Dalton and John Duggan have noted that “One of the biggest challenges can be finding people with the right skill set to perform the role of Legal Project Manager.”

The fundamental problem in finding qualified candidates is that as the demand for LPM has increased in the last few years, so has the demand for LPM staff.  Almost every firm starts their search by looking for people with prior LPM success at other law firms, which makes perfect sense.  The difficulty here is that the LPM Director position is so new that only a very small number of candidates meet this criterion.  And people in this group also tend to be highly compensated due to high demand and low supply.

In Part 2 of this series, we will recommend five criteria for evaluating potential LPM staff.

This series was adapted from the fifth edition of the Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide, a frequently updated online library of LPM tools and templates.