7 posts categorized "Books"

October 09, 2019

Prepare and Negotiate for Approval of a Scope Change (Part 1 of 3)

By Gary Richards, LegalBizDev

The most challenging type of scope change involves increasing the fee from the original estimate. Increasing the fee requires a possibly difficult conversation with the client and raises the question of how best to approach the client to obtain their approval of this additional work and fees. Consider this scenario:

  1. You know it is best practice to contact the client as soon as you detect a material scope change that will increase their fee.
  2. But your client resists agreeing to scope changes that you request as they occur, saying things like:

“Don’t worry about it… you may find some savings in the remaining work… we’ll just settle up on all those scope change adjustments when you are done with the complete matter.”

  1. But when you reached the end of the last three matters for this client, having taken the “we’ll just settle up when you are done” approach, there were serious disagreements about the fees that were over and above your original estimate.
  2. You ended up writing off a few thousand dollars each time. This is affecting your realization on their work and dampens your enthusiasm for doing more work for this client, even though they bring you a lot of business.
  3. Accordingly, you have decided to ask your client contact to agree to deal with scope changes and resulting fee increases as they occur for future matters and not to postpone the discussion until final billing.

Three very helpful ways to prepare for such discussions are recommended in Fisher, Ury, and Patton’s book, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. The first of these is:

 

Know your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)

Start your preparation by addressing this question:

What could I do if they either don’t agree or they refuse to discuss my suggested new approach for handling scope increases as they occur?

To answer that question, try to list every step you could take to meet your/the firm’s needs without their agreement. Such a list would contain a range of steps from “very desirable” to “very undesirable.” That way, you can select the most desirable one on the list to become your BATNA. For example, you might come up with a list of steps that you could take like those below and then analyze each for its relative desirability based on how the business decision question is answered.

  1. Have our managing partner negotiate with my client contact’s boss.

Desirability: Could work, but to accomplish effectively, I would have to inform my client contact in advance to avoid a surprise, including explaining my reasons for doing so. That client contact’s reaction is hard to predict, but I think that my contact may have the final say as to where that client’s legal business goes.

Business decision questions: Can we risk the tension in the client relationship this would cause if they agree? Could we afford to lose this client?

  1. Decide to continue without a change, accepting the write-offs as usual if they occur.

Desirability: This would be the easiest step to take because it would require taking no risk in the client relationship beyond what occurs at the end of our work on the matter if they again resist the additional fees associated with legitimate scope changes. We would remain at risk for those associated write-offs.

Business decision question: Is a good client relationship here worth the possible continued write-offs?

  1. Suggest to my client contact that we can accept no further similar work from them unless we can agree to this new approach.

Desirability: This is the hardest step, since even if they react by agreeing to adjust fee expectations from scope creep as it occurs in order to maintain access to our legal services, an ultimatum like this would assuredly create stress in our relationship. But we could probably manage the stress given the increase in realization we would experience by avoiding the write-offs. However, they could instead say, “OK, goodbye.”

Business decision question: Could we afford to lose this client in order to avoid future write-offs?

  1. For their next new matter, cut corners on our thoroughness.

Desirability: Very undesirable. Unethical. Could lead to malpractice issues.

  1. For their next new matter, add a 15% contingency in anticipation of changes in scope so that we don’t have to go back to them for approval of the associated fee increase.

Desirability: Could work nicely, unless they insisted on seeing the task list we used to set the budget. Not likely, since they never have asked for that before. Plus, if we had no scope changes that equaled or exceeded that 15%, we could charge them less than they expected, which is good for client relationships.

Business decision question: Can we easily defend this practice to the client and ourselves?

  1. Urge the responsible partner in another practice area to augment their fees on the work they are doing for the same client so that for the two matters, we don’t have to write off anything.

Desirability: Possible “padding?” Very undesirable. Unethical. Could lead to malpractice issues.

Based on your analysis and your internal discussions of the business decision questions with your management/higher level partners, you would select one of the six steps before you try to negotiate the desired change with your client contact.

Deciding this way what your BATNA is before trying to negotiate with your client contact means you enter the discussion knowing exactly what you will do if they won’t discuss or agree to your new preferred approach. Having the firm’s approval for your BATNA gives you confidence not to spend more time than it is worth on tough negotiations.

In part 2 of this blog series, we will discuss how using objective external criteria can be persuasive in any scope change discussions and negotiations.

This blog series was adapted from the fifth edition of the Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide, an online library of LPM tools and templates which is updated twice a year.

 

July 24, 2019

How to Improve the Management of Legal Teams (Part 3 of 3)

By Jim Hassett and Tim Batdorf

In this final part of our series, we discuss rules #7 through #10 and conclude the discussion of Paul Dinsmore’s “Ten Rules of Team Building” from the AMA Handbook of Project Management (p. 411).

Rule #7: Get the team in shape

Effective leaders do not do all the work; they delegate. They don’t micromanage, and they don’t try to do it all themselves or have others perform tasks exactly as they would.

They apply active listening and communicate regularly with team members. They also focus on unifying the team to work towards shared goals, and they don’t allow egos to get in the way of teamwork. This means learning to deal with conflict more effectively, whether it is between two members or between the leader and someone else. It all comes back to listening.

In some cases, it may be useful to formally coach junior team members at the outset. Ask them where they feel they need training. Compare the skills your team has with the skills they need to become more efficient.

If the learning curve looks steep and the team is working on large matters, you might even consider formal training programs. In large firms, the professional development department can provide quick guidance on what is available and what has worked for other lawyers in the past.

Rule #8: Motivate the players

Rule #1 was to identify what drives your team: the inherent intellectual challenge of legal matters, the relationships and collaboration, competitiveness, or the simple need to pile up billable hours.

Of course, the answer is likely to be all of the above and more, and in different proportions for different people. On large matters, your job as a leader is to develop a sense of what motivates each key individual and then to incorporate these motivators into your feedback and interactions with team members.

Make sure key team members understand the deliverables in the SOW, and then give them ownership of the process. Let them tell you how to meet your goals, on time and within budget.

Motivating some team members may be as simple as recognizing and praising their accomplishments.

If you expect the best from your team, you are more likely to get it.

Rule #9: Develop plans

Lawyers are good at convincing clients to invest time and money in planning. Clients are told to plan their taxes, plan their estates, and plan the best way to structure their contracts.

But when a new matter begins, many lawyers would rather jump right in than step back and plan their approach. Jumping right in can be a great way to be inefficient, and the traditional billable hour model rewards inefficiency.

However, as one consultant put it, “Being too busy to plan is a lot like running alongside your bicycle because you are too busy to get on.” Now that clients are pressuring legal counsel to become more efficient, there is a new emphasis on developing a plan before beginning a matter.

Planning starts with a solid SOW so that it is clear that the client and the lawyer agree on what is to be done. Then the lawyer in charge can map out the necessary tasks and assign them to different team members, using the Matter planning template in this Guide or other tools.

Better yet, don’t just create a plan by yourself. Get your team so involved in the project and decision making that they say, “This is our plan.”

Rule #10: Control, evaluate, and improve

When many people start managing projects, the biggest mistake they make is to trust their staff too much. “I hired extremely talented people,” they reason, “so they will figure things out.”

Most learn the hard way that effective managers control the work process, evaluate the results, and use the results to improve performance. This can be valuable even if a project is so small that you are working alone. But when you work on projects with large teams, “control, evaluate, and improve” is absolutely vital.

If you want to rely on software for this, our opinion is that the best software solution is the one you already own and know how to use. Whether your team uses Outlook or something else, it’s worth learning about the features that can help you manage your team, including email groups, meeting invitations and scheduling, and creating and tracking team “To Do” lists.

Tracking the budget is especially important these days, and we often hear about how law firm accounting systems are becoming more sophisticated in their ability to support periodic work-in-progress updates. How often do you need these updates? The answer varies from one matter to another. Many firms seem to be headed toward real-time reporting and requiring lawyers to update their time records daily.

Finally, at the end of each important matter, it is vital to conduct some sort of “lessons learned” review. Poll your team members on what they thought worked well and what they thought needed improvement. However, ultimately, there is only one results assessment that counts, and that comes from the client. So you need to make sure that you have an accurate reading from the client as close to the end of the matter as possible.

In the good old days when clients rarely complained about the efficiency of legal teams and hourly rates went up every year, it was not necessary to think about better ways to manage legal teams. Now it is.

This blog 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.

July 10, 2019

How to Improve the Management of Legal Teams (Part 2 of 3)

By Jim Hassett and Tim Batdorf

In this part of our series, we cover rules #3 through #6 of Paul Dinsmore’s “Ten Rules of Team Building" from the AMA Handbook of Project Management (p. 411).

Rule #3: Understand the game

Rule #3 is a hard one for lawyers, because the game is changing and no one is quite sure what the new rules are. In this time of transition, legal team leaders must define the rules of the game for each engagement and make them crystal clear to team members. The rules may vary from one matter to another, even when team membership remains the same. Associates working on a fixed price project must understand that the highest quality must be delivered within a limited number of hours. Where possible, they must also be shown how they will personally benefit from this behavior.

(If your compensation system rewards putting in more hours, and this matter requires putting in fewer hours, you’ve got a problem. In the short-term, management can address this by adjusting hours on matters managed for efficiency. However, longer-term adjustments to the compensation system may be called for, and changing compensation is never easy.)

In any case, efficient management begins with your personal understanding of the goals of each matter and the players involved; this starts with getting the statement of work right. Then you have to think through the implications of the SOW for each member of your team. And it wouldn’t hurt to talk to them about it.

The simple fact is that people work better when they understand the goals of a project.

Rule #4: Evaluate the competition

Evaluating the competition is second nature for litigators. If opposing counsel have a reputation for scorched earth tactics, then litigators will be prepared to react accordingly. But if the other side seems motivated to settle, litigation strategy will be quite different.

But some lawyers who are very good at evaluating the competition are very bad at communicating this knowledge to the rest of the team. Providing legal services efficiently is a team sport, and everyone must be on the same page.

Understanding the competition is also important when a legal team bids for new work. According to the 2019 Law Firms in Transition survey, 93% of lawyers predict price competition will continue to increase in the future. This will lead to some hard decisions about what work is worth bidding on and what work is not. And it all begins with understanding your competition.

Rule #5: Pick your players and adjust your team

In many law firms, assembling a team for a large matter can be an interesting exercise these days, especially if the firm is filled with lawyers who do not have enough billable work to meet their quotas.

In their hearts, lawyers often know which partners and associates are most likely to perform a particular task efficiently, and which ones will take their time. As the pressure to control costs increases, the competition to get efficient people on each team is going up. In the long run, this should lead to larger numbers of more efficient lawyers, but in the short run it can lead to some awkward situations and difficult choices.

In this environment, it has become increasingly important that team leaders pick the best available person for each role, without playing favorites. Trust has also become more critical. Team members must believe that working together efficiently is in their own best interest.

On large teams, it also helps to have a cheerleader or two. They can help counteract the effects of the lawyers who are experts at seeing the glass as half empty and at explaining why every task will take a very long time.

Rule #6: Identify and develop inner group leaders

Great leaders constantly think about training and developing their replacements. Who can cover for you if you’re absent? Who can help you motivate and lead the rest of the team? Who will the client trust?

Share your knowledge and spread it around to raise others up to your level. Remember, your goal is to make yourself obsolete.

As Dinsmore put it in his AMA Handbook of Project Management (Fourth Edition, p. 411), “Delegating, mentoring and coaching must become part of your daily habit.”

We will discuss Dinsmore's rules of team building #7 through #10 and conclude this series in our next blog post.

This blog 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.

June 26, 2019

How to Improve the Management of Legal Teams (Part 1 of 3)

By Jim Hassett and Tim Batdorf

What should you do with the associate who insists on turning over every rock? Or with the partner who consistently fails to meet deadlines? How often should teams meet? How much supervision can and should the relationship partner provide?

There is a vast amount of literature on how to manage teams in other professions. Business schools offer entire courses with names like Authentic Leadership Development (Harvard MBA) and Foundations of Teamwork and Leadership (Wharton MBA).

The literature on managing legal teams is much thinner, especially when you concentrate, as we do, on the kinds of teams that large law firms juggle to meet clients’ ever-shifting needs. Until recently, many partners have given little thought to managing these teams more efficiently, in part because the billable hour model provided little incentive for efficiency.

But these days legal clients are demanding efficiency, and so lawyers have become more interested in improving the way they manage teams.

In the AMA Handbook of Project Management (Fourth Edition), Paul Dinsmore outlines on p. 411 “Ten Rules of Team Building”:

  1. Identify what drives your team
  2. Get your own act together
  3. Understand the game
  4. Evaluate the competition
  5. Pick your players and adjust your team
  6. Identify and develop inner group leaders
  7. Get the team in shape
  8. Motivate the players
  9. Develop plans
  10. Control, evaluate, and improve

Legal teams come in so many shapes and sizes that it is impossible to come up with a short list of rules that apply to every case. But if you review the ideas behind Dinsmore’s list, you are sure to come up with a few action items that could help manage your legal team more efficiently.

Rule #1: Identify what drives your team

What motivates your team to work together? Is it:

  • A deadline
  • The inherent challenge of the legal matter
  • The relationship partner’s inspiration
  • The rewarding feeling of collaborating with people you enjoy working with
  • A chance to set a new legal precedent
  • The desire to beat a competitor
  • Insecurities about one’s job
  • The prospect of piling up billable hours to meet an annual quota

Or is it some other factor or a combination of some or all of the above? Knowing what drives your team can help you manage its members. If you talk to people about this, you may be surprised to learn what is driving different team members.

Ultimately, team members must motivate and empower themselves—the leader can inspire, but not motivate them. Your job is to create an environment to help team members motivate and empower themselves.

In the planning stages, brainstorm with your team members to come up with common goals to build a sense of community and ownership in the project. Set up ground rules for your team and for meetings, and try to get buy-in to the common goals from all members.

In the project scoping document, you (and others) should specify the scope and the constraints of the project as clearly as possible. This will help team members track milestones and check-ins along the way.

Encourage team members to share their ideas and opinions. When you use people’s ideas, give them credit. Remember, the best ideas usually arise from diverse teams interacting and brainstorming together. Conversely, few new slants or approaches arise from leaders who fail to harvest the richness of different personalities and perspectives.

It is very important for your team to know that you are listening to them.

Rule #2: Get your own act together

Being an effective leader starts with setting a good work example. Act like someone you would want to work for. I am sorry to report that there are lawyers out there—present company excluded, of course—who could benefit from brushing up on basic social skills.

Mood is contagious. Avoid negativity. Act happy and positive even if you don’t feel that way. The people around you will definitely feel better, and you may, too.

Don’t treat your team members as serfs or minions. Talk to them in the same way you would talk to your most important client or your managing partner.

Be proactive in identifying problems and in solving them. Handle problems with respect, tact, and common sense. Try to be rational about disagreements and avoid emotion.

Challenge your team, but don’t work against them.

We will discuss Dinsmore's Rules of Team Building #3 through #6 in our next blog post.

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.

October 31, 2018

Four approaches to business process improvement (part 2 of 2)

By Jim Hassett and Tom Kane, LegalBizDev

Approach #3: Five steps to improve any business process

Step 1: Make a very quick list of the most critical processes that you want to consider.

If you don’t know where to begin, use the standard task codes described on the UTBMS website. For example, a litigator focused on the discovery phase of cases could begin with these six tasks:

  • Written discovery
  • Document production
  • Depositions
  • Expert discovery
  • Discovery motions
  • Other discovery

 Step 2: Pick one process to focus on first.

It is important to begin with the process that is most likely to allow you to meet your goals, which of course means that you have to be very clear about what your goals are. When you have several goals in mind, you could start by constructing a “process selection matrix” like the one below to make your choice.

Process_Table

In this example, there are three different goals, all are rated on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high), and the lawyer considers them equally important in selecting a process. Therefore, the last column, the total rating, can be used to determine that your process improvement should begin with the deposition process because it has the highest total rating.

Step 3: Define exactly what is included in the process. Where does it begin and end? Then break it down into five to ten high level parts.

Step 4: Decide which step to redesign first.

Again, the step you choose depends on your goals. The following questions from Improving Business Processes may help you to make your choice:

  • At which points does this process break down or experience delays?
  • At which points do people typically experience frustration with the process?
  • Which parts of the process seem to consume an inordinate amount of time?
  • Which parts of the process lead to low-quality outcomes?
  • Which parts of the process incur unacceptable costs?

Step 5: Think through the details of the step you will redesign, and look for ways to increase efficiency, e.g. by simplifying the process, creating a checklist, and/or focusing more clearly on the factors that the client values most highly. Define action items and implement them.

 

Approach #4: 10 steps to improve critical business processes

These 10 steps are explained in detail in Susan Page’s book, The Power of Business Process Improvement. Here, they have been adapted and simplified for legal matters.

Step 1: Develop the process inventory. List all the big picture processes within a particular legal area, establish criteria for prioritizing them, and pick the one you want to start with. (The discovery tasks in the table above provide a good example.)

Step 2: Establish the foundation. Write a scope definition document that defines the problem you need to solve and provides a blueprint for the start and the end of your process improvement.

Step 3: Draw the process map. Identify each activity with a specific action word (e.g. create, review, develop, approve, update, or communicate), and then diagram the steps in a form that can be communicated to everyone involved. Be sure to include handoffs to other lawyers, staff, clients, and others.

Step 4: Estimate time and cost. Specify what is involved in each stage or activity in the process, how long it usually takes, and what it costs.

Step 5: Verify the process map. Ask other stakeholders to review the process map for accuracy. This provides a baseline to begin improvement.

Step 6: Apply improvement techniques. This is where the rubber meets the road. Eliminate bureaucracy, evaluate value added activities, eliminate duplication and redundancy, simplify processes, reports, and forms, reduce cycle time, and more.

Step 7: Create internal controls, tools, and metrics. Create controls to avoid errors, tools to support the new business process, and metrics to quantify improvements.

Step 8: Test and rework. Pilot test the new process, identify any issues, and rework them before introducing the new, improved process on a wide scale.

Step 9: Implement the change. Just as businesses develop marketing plans before they introduce a new product, they must plan how to implement business process changes, including “who has to know about the change, what they need to know, and how to communicate the right information to the right people.”

Step 10: Drive continuous improvement. After the change succeeds, you will still need to invest in maintenance. Evaluate, test, assess, and execute to sustain any required change.

 

Implementing your improved business process

All four approaches have value in different situations, and all take advantage of the 80/20 rule to maximize the benefits you will receive while minimizing the time it will take.

If you want to use these approaches in your own personal practice, you should be able to identify improvements quickly. But if you want to get other lawyers in your group to do the same thing, that’s a lot harder.

Whether you use approach 1, 2, 3, or 4, or you go out and buy Page’s book for more detail, or you hire an outside consultant, figuring out how to improve legal business processes is not the hard part.

The hard part is getting lawyers to do it. For ways to combat typical objections, see “Overcoming Resistance to Legal Project Management: A List of Suggestions for Law Firm Project Management Champions.”

Reproduced with permission from the Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide, Fourth Edition (© LegalBizDev, 2017).

December 08, 2010

Questions and answers about Certified Legal Project Managers™ (Part 3 of 3)

This post concludes my answers to the questions from Paul Easton, author of the Legal Project Management blogFor an update on the certification program’s status, see today’s press release on BusinessWire.

 

Paul’s question: I find it interesting that the program is customized to the individual attorney. The certification process begins with “an initial assessment telecon interview to determine each lawyer’s background and needs” and the study materials are selected based upon this interview. In short, this is not a standardized course. This seems like a great program from the learner’s perspective, but doesn’t the lack of standardization make it more difficult for the industry and legal employers to understand what skills this certification represents its holders as having?

The Certified Legal Project Manager™ Program is designed first and foremost to guarantee mastery of a baseline level of knowledge, which will be the same for every lawyer who completes the program.

However, lawyers will come into this program with different expectations and backgrounds, so it is important that the program also be tailored to fit each participant’s needs.  This will be accomplished in three main ways:

  1. In Module 1, questions are framed in terms of each specific practice.  For example, when defining a statement of work, participants are asked “What are the most important elements for your practice?” not “What are the most important elements in general?”
  2. The list of readings in Module 1 includes many suggestions for “supplementary readings” useful for lawyers who want to go beyond the minimum, including those who come to the program with a higher level of basic knowledge
  3. All of Module 2 is devoted to applying key concepts to an actual matter from each lawyer’s practice

The idea of also creating a unique reading list for each individual is an element of the program that appeared in the preliminary outline you reviewed, but which was changed as a result of discussions with the Certification Advisory Board.  Everyone will work from the same basic reading list.  It will include many options, enabling each lawyer to customize readings for themselves.

Paul’s question: Tell me more about the reference library that program participants use in their studies. What does it include? Is it all original material? 

Each participant will receive a library of six widely respected project management texts with a total of more than 2,500 pages, including my Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide and A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) by the Project Management Institute. 

In Module 1 of the program, lawyers will be sent a list of open-book essay questions, along with a reading list suggesting exactly which sections of these books will be most useful.  In Module 2 and beyond, they will continue to use these books whenever they need access to more advanced information.

Paul’s question: What impact do you think or hope that this certificate program will have on legal-project management as a discipline and on the legal industry as a whole? 

Of course we hope that this program will help raise standards so lawyers can better meet client needs.  However, in all honesty, we do not believe that legal project management certification is necessary, or even desirable, for every lawyer.  LegalBizDev offers a number of other programs which we think would be a better fit for most lawyers, including several types of "just in time training" and an Introduction to Legal Project Management course.  Certification is designed for those who want to go a step further and guarantee a solid foundation in both knowledge and skills. 

Paul’s question: Where do you see demand for your certificate program in ten years? 

To be honest, I have trouble predicting ten months from now, so I am reluctant to try to predict ten years.  But I do feel safe in predicting that the marketplace will make some lawyers winners and some losers over the next ten years, and that lawyers who master legal project management are far more likely to be among the winners.  That does not mean they have to be certified, but it does mean they will have to pick up these basic skills somewhere, somehow.

December 01, 2010

Questions and answers about Certified Legal Project Managers™ (Part 2 of 3)

A few weeks ago, I posted the first answers to a series of questions Paul Easton, author of the Legal Project Management blog, had asked when we announced our new certification program.  I postponed the next installment until today, when the first group begins the certification process. 


Paul’s question: You designed this program in response to a request from “an 800-lawyer firm [who] asked [you] to design a formal certification program for two senior partners.” Is your program targeted exclusively at large firms?  Would a small firm or solo practitioner benefit from your program?

The principles apply to firms of any size.  The first two people to sign up were the two senior partners from Squire Sanders who requested the program.  (As a result of its recent merger with Hammonds, it now has over 1,200 lawyers.)  But the third person to sign up was a lawyer from a nine-lawyer firm in Australia that learned of the program over the web.  And the fourth and fifth people were from Stewart McKelvey, a Canadian firm with over 200 lawyers. So we already have evidence that the program meets a need in firms of all sizes. 

Paul’s question: One of the eligibility requirements is that you must be a practicing lawyer with 10 years experience. Why not legal-support professionals (e.g., paralegal, litigation support, and legal IT staff)?  Aren’t they more likely to fill the legal-project manager role than lawyers?

In November, the LegalBizDev Certification Advisory Board reviewed the preliminary outline which you saw, and modified a few of the details, including eliminating the ten-year requirement. Our program’s prerequisite is now defined as “practicing lawyers who have at least three years of experience managing large legal matters.”  We are currently working with a small group of paralegals to determine the best way to adapt our program to meet their needs, and will announce the results early next year.

Paul’s question: Who sits on LegalBizDev’s Certification Advisory Board? 

The board has fourteen members from firms with a total of over 10,000 lawyers, including:

Borden Ladner Gervais – Andrew Terrett
Fasken Martineau – Howard Kaufman
Ford & Harrison – Kay Wolf
McDermott Will & Emery – Byron Kalogerou
Stewart McKelvey – James Dickson
Miles & Stockbridge – David Eberhardt
Morgan Lewis – Richard Rosenblatt
O’Melveny & Myers – Stacie McLean
Squire Sanders – Stacy D. Ballin
Williams Mullen – John Paris

The remaining board members have chosen to remain anonymous.

Paul’s question: How do you determine if the experiential requirement is met? For example, I passed my first bar exam in late 2001, but for the past six years I’ve worked in legal staffing and project management, primarily for large electronic-discovery projects. At the end of 2011, would I qualify for this certification?

Decisions will be made case by case.  Based on what you wrote here, I am guessing that the “practicing lawyer” part of the requirement does not fit you.  However, as I noted, we are currently exploring the idea of parallel programs that fit the needs of other audiences.

Paul’s question: Do you plan to eventually design an entry level certification for lawyers who want to learn project management and differentiate themselves from their competition, but who do not have the requisite legal experience for your professional certification?

We are not planning an entry level certification at this time, but as Nobel prize winning physicist Neils Bohr famously said, “It is hard to predict, especially the future.”

Paul’s question: Why do lawyers need more initials after their names? After all, obtaining a JD and passing a bar exam qualifies a lawyer to practice law. Also, shouldn’t experienced lawyers know how to manage their cases?

Lawyers certainly don't need more initials.  But many do need the knowledge and skills this program will provide.  While experienced lawyers typically do know how to manage matters the old way, the “new normal” demands new management skills.  Until recently, generations of lawyers were never asked to be more efficient, so it is not surprising that they could use some help. 

Paul’s question: What is your certification’s formal title and initials? 

The program title is Certified Legal Project Manager™.  We do not expect people to use the initials.

Paul’s question: Two years ago, almost no one was talking about legal-project management. Has awareness of and demand for legal-project management grown so much in a couple of years to create the demand needed to support a certificate program? 

Absolutely yes.

Paul’s question: Is legal-project management just another management fad? 

We believe that clients are making this paradigm shift permanent.  Once law firms learn to deliver the same high quality more efficiently, why would clients ever want to go back?