One of the questions asked in a survey of UK law departments was “how good is the support that you receive from the IT function in the delivery of legal services.” As presented in Law Dept. Quarterly, Vol. 2, May-July 2006 at 25, on a scale of 1 to ten, 31 percent praised IT (a score of 8, 9, or 10) and 20 percent damned IT (scores of 1, 2, or 3). About half the scores were in the middle between “extremely poor” and “extremely good,” with an overall median of 6.

Not surprising, this number of critics, since IT support is a common whipping boy of law departments (See my post of March 26, 2006 on poor support by IT.), but at the same time an unexpectedly strong showing of satisfaction. Law is a small pool of peculiar users – in the eyes of the IT group – and lawyers cushioned in law firms are too demanding when they come in-house.

I wonder if legal departments would evaluate HR support with something like this distribution of scores.

The law department of Cisco, which spends each year three percent of its total legal budget on technology, has built a suite of tools, all of which are accessible through a portal. As I conceive it, portal software sits on top of other software packages and pulls together their content (See my posts of Aug. 5, 2005 about supplements to matter management systems; Feb. 12, 2006 comparing an extranet to a portal; Aug. 5, 2005 about a portal in Sears’ law department for litigation support; and April 9, 2006 about a portal in a manufacturer’s law department.)

For example, a portal might draw on the corporate secretary’s database, a document management system, a matter management system and an IP database – all with the goal to compile a full picture of law firm usage or a client’s activities. An intranet site can serve as a passive platform; a portal compiles information.

Hans Albers, Cisco’s Director of Legal Systems for the US and Canada, describes his department’s legal information platform in Law Dept. Quarterly, Vol. 2, May-July 2006 at 28. Any Cisco lawyer can post a question or start a “conversation,” and any other lawyer can post replies offering information and ideas. The system is indexed so Cisco lawyers “can look up all the conversations on certain themes, almost like an internal searchable blog.”

If the system has robust searching capabilities (See my post of Feb. 19, 2006 on advanced searching techniques such as by concepts.), it could help immeasurably. It sounds fairly easy to use, doesn’t take much time, and has both immediate and longer-term payback for all. What would be nice would be to have some usage metrics from the 150-lawyer department.

A side bar in Law Dept. Quarterly, Vol. 2, May-July 2006 at 22 (Jon Bellis), lists nine things that can undermine the success of a technology initiative: (1) “lack of commitment by the general counsel;” (2) “inadequate participation, understanding and buy-in among users;” (3) “unclear vision and goals;” (4) “technology viewed as an end in itself, insufficiently integrated with business goals and processes;” (5) “insufficient funding and resources to implement and maintain the system,” (6) “inadequate technical support from the organization, vendor and/or other outside resources;” (7) “failure to define metrics and monitor results;” (8) “poor project planning and management;” and (9) “unrealistic view of what it takes to succeed.” No quarrel with any of these.

But, before I ran across this list, I had offered my own technology wreakers (See my post of June 21, 2006 and its 7 reasons.), and I feel some consternation that the two lists barely match. Worse, as I ruminated on these new nine, even more obstacles appeared before me. It’s a wonder law departments are not still stuck with chisels and clay tablets!

a) The general counsel and top lawyers may only be committed to others using the software, but do not themselves walk the talk. “The GC doesn’t put documents on the new document management system.”

b) The software is hard to use. “It takes me forever to enter all that information into the new matter management system.”

c) Training is done all at once, poorly, and without tailoring. “Now, what was that told to me three months ago about creating e-mail filters?”

d) People leave who know the innards of the system or champion it. “Our trademark tracking software has languished since the paralegal left the department.”

e) The software vendor is no good. “I can’t get anyone at the help desk to tell me how to bulk enter data!”

f) The software is too advanced. “Document assembly sounds good, but we just need to share form documents.”

To give credit where credit is due, if it were not for self-interest much of the research reported in these posts would not exist. Advocacy groups and vendors abound, and some of them survey law departments in support of their positions or offerings. My flashing yellow light has to do with objectivity: we must all be cautious regarding data that might be skewed by the views of the group that gathers and analyses it.

Without impugning the quality of any of the facts found by these gatherers, here are some of the purposive survey results I have encountered. See my posts regarding proponents of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) (Dec. 9, 2005), executive search firms (March 12, 2006 and diversity among general counsel), technology vendors (May 1, 2005 and electronic billing), legal research (Jan. 16, 2006 about savings), consultants (Oct. 29, 2005), trade groups (June 6, 2006 and the Federal Judicial Center), expert witnesses (May 17, 2006), electronic billing vendors (Jan. 4, 2006), and law firms (April 7, 2006).

In other words, every cottage in the legal village produces what may be self-serving data, which does not mean the data is inaccurate, but which does mean that those who act on the data ought to bear in mind the source.

In-house legal departments range from one to over one thousand attorneys. According to the American Corporate Counsel Association, over 20 percent of in-house counsel are their clients' sole in-house practitioner; 2 to 5 attorneys comprise about 38 percent of departments; nearly 25 percent of law departments employ 6 to 20 in-house counsel; and only 15 percent practice in departments of 21+ attorneys.

Note that these data cover only corporations, not government agencies (See my post of Nov. 6, 2005 about large government legal teams.). The definition of a large corporate law department ought to start, according to these numbers, at 21 lawyers (See my posts of Sept. 10, 2005 and April 5, 2005 about managerial innovation in large departments.).

This paltry representation irritates me. The high-profile litigators who litter the top hundred don’t operate autonomously. No, they work under the direction of general counsel and experienced litigation managers, who aren’t just potted palms.

The listing in the Nat’l Law J, Vol. 28, June 19, 2006 at 1, biased toward nameplate lawyers at brand-name firms, insults the major influence of general counsel at the top of the strategic pile.

What trial equals advice to Microsoft on antitrust? What appellate argument has more sway than strategy set for massive litigation? Don’t sophisticated regulatory mazes guided through successfully count for more than People magazine headlines?

A slide from a presentation by Henry Walker, Chief Litigation Counsel for BellSouth teases with the bullet “Monthly High Expense Case Reviews.” It is likely that the largest portion of a law department’s outside counsel spend goes to its so-called “major cases” (See my post of Nov. 15, 2005 on the definition of major litigation.), but not necessarily every month.

Major cases likely have potentially large liabilities, but may have a low burn rate at times or peaks and valleys. For a law department to look to its spending on the month-to-month gushers makes sense.

“Probably less than 5% of all in-house positions are filled through recruiters.” This quote came from a search firm’s website. At the general counsel level, or that of the direct reports to the general counsel, that percentage certainly climbs much higher.

The Infirmation site goes on to observe that in some cities there may be more then 200 legal recruiting firms. “Additionally, many recruiters demand "exclusivity" from their in-house clients meaning that the in-house client is prohibited from advertising the given position and must fill it through the recruiter only. This means that the recruiter has sole discretion to present and exclude candidates.”
What about unsolicited resumes and word of mouth by in-house lawyers?

Everyone bemoans that which they can’t live without: e-mail (See my posts of July 14, 2005 about inefficiencies from e-mail interruptions and June 5, 2006 about the stress they cause.). Can a law department legislate relief? Ponder this fiat: “One law department has a rule that lawyers will not log on to their e-mail accounts two hours before or two hours after normal working hours in the jurisdiction in which they are located.”

Aside from wondering how anyone can enforce such a rule, as cited in Law Dept. Quarterly, Vol. 2, May-July 2006 at 17, I just don’t follow how it helps. If you don’t want to peek, you won’t. If the rule prohibited lawyers from sending e-mail, then at least the volleys and clicks would drop.