Law Department Management

Three new technologies IBM is working on its Innovation Labs

EWeek, Feb. 4, 2008, at 34, lists 10 new technologies in the works at Big Blue, and three of them got me to thinking about law department applications.

(1) “The Virtual Team-Building Game is designed to improve trust and cooperation among colleagues unaccustomed to the notion of a virtual meeting.” A widely dispersed law department might find it intriguing to play this game; soon, an avant-garde department will meet virtually online (See my post of Nov. 18, 2007: Second Life and other online virtual worlds.).
(2) “Tag It collects tags applied to items to boost intranet search.” With a tool like Tag It, members of the legal department could tag different parts of the corporate intranet. The tags would make it easier to understand what their colleagues and clients see of value on the intranet (See my post of March 24, 2007: Technorati and tag clouds.).
(3) “IBM’s real-time translation service offers speech-to-text and speech-to-speech translation.” Although this capability only works now with IBM’s Sametime for instant messages and conference chats, it is easy to see how it will eventually be available for multilingual law departments (See my posts of Feb. 9, 2006: translation software for non-English speaking lawyers; March 23, 2007: patent translation costs; March 23, 2007: advances in machine translation; and Feb. 6, 2008: Brazilian matter management system that translates into many languages.).

What is the difference between customized software and configured software?

When you customize software, someone writes new code. When you configure software, you rely on the code as written, but change field names, tables, arrangements on the screen, and other elements of the software (See my post of May 23, 2007 about GE’s technology efforts, the disadvantages of customized software, and references cited.).

Customization is often expensive, lengthy, and problematic; configuration enables minor modifications within the pre-set limits of the package. Customization depends on the technical skills of the vendor and their willingness to depart from their package. Configuration depends on the flexibility built into the software but mostly on the willingness of the law department to tailor the as-is software as much as possible to its needs. My bias, I suppose it is obvious, is toward configuration and away from customization.

Easy steps a law department can take to reduce energy consumption

An article in Legal Tech. News, April 2008 at 36, lists many easy things any legal team in a company can do to protect the environment. Six of the actions are possible for every law department. (1) Remove your name from mailing lists that send out paper catalogs. (2) Install software that omits the last page of printouts from the web, the page that only shows a line or two from the bottom of the website (they refer to Print Greener software www.printgreener.com). (3) Conduct interviews of candidates and law firms by video conference. (4) Power down computers and printers: “for every dollar spent on IT hardware, 50 cents is spent on powering them.” (5) Distribute more reports electronically and design them with an eye toward them efficient printing. (6) Install lower-energy flat panel monitors.

I will add that one law department I have worked with has collection bags for used batteries and its printers are set to print double sided. Another department has ended the practice of spewing out a cover sheet before each print job (See my post of April 23, 2008: filing cabinets and environmental costs; Dec. 26, 2007: lights and energy-saving; April 27, 2007: environmental sensibilities of recycling.).

Four observations on a statement about data mapping software

The responsibilities of Leslie Lawson, the paralegal in charge of e-discovery for Eastman Chemical Co., include reviewing software that might help her tasks. In Corp. Counsel, Vol. 15, April 2008 at 76, an article describes Lawson’s role and mentions that “Eastman recently considered purchasing a software program to handle data mapping that would have cost about $300,000.” The company decided to “build the same thing on a customized basis for about one-tenth the cost.” That statement triggered several thoughts.

1. Legal software can be very expensive (See my post of Dec. 23, 2005: cost of a matter management system. Very roughly speaking, this particular offering costs as much as almost two lawyers, or four paralegals, in the first year, and then probably a paralegal a year for maintenance fees.

2. Automated solutions are available even for niche functions of a law department (See my posts of Feb. 9, 2008: 27 packages for law departments; Feb. 6, 2007: PSS Systems for litigation hold management; and March 19, 2006: nuts and bolts of hold requests.).

3. The law department budget may often bear the full cost of software that meets a need for the entire company. When the general counsel puts in a budget, the senior executives need to understand the reach of that budget.

4. It troubles me that the law department went through demos of software, took careful notes, and then chose to write its own program. That must drive software vendors mad! Yet, if the home-grown application can actually do what the licensed package does, but for a fraction of the cost, the do-it-yourself argument is compelling. I still fret about the ethics of picking up all kinds of ideas for free and then writing your own application (See my post of Oct. 1, 2005: the ethics of using good ideas in RFP responses.).

Law departments commonly talk with their law firms about collaborative technologies

A recent survey found that “Approximately one-third (30%) of in-house counsel sought input from their law firms when evaluating collaborative technologies that they would use together, primarily online matter management and ebilling systems.” This finding comes from the 2007 ACCA/Serengeti Managing Outside Counsel Survey, selected results of which are presented in the ACC Docket, Vol. 26, April 2008 at 14.

I find it hard to imagine that law firms have much to offer a law department client that wants to choose a matter management system. What do firms know about that specialized in-house software (See my post of Feb. 9, 2008: 27 other kinds of esoteric software for legal departments.). In contradistinction, law firms may know much more about certain aspects of e-billing systems than does a client since law firms have to cope with so many of them (See my post of Nov. 28, 2007: law firm complaints about e-billing.).

The short squib does not mention them, but what about extranets and discovery software? Both are ubiquitous and both are very familiar to law firms. As to extranets (See my posts of Aug. 27, 2005: low-cost tool; Oct. 17, 2005: Virgin’s extranet; Oct. 21, 2005: used other than in major litigation; Oct. 31, 2005: JennerNet; Oct. 31, 2005: real-time access to everything at a firm; Jan. 3, 2006 and April 22, 2007: Tyco’s extranet; Jan. 30, 2006: ChevronTexaco’s; Feb. 12, 2006: compares extranets to portals; April 4, 2006 #2: extranets haven’t caught on; Oct. 18, 2006: unremarked extranets; Jan. 18, 2007 and Dec. 11, 2007: DuPont’s capabilities.). As to discovery software (See my post of March 26, 2008.). More information and the survey results are available from Rob Thomas, the report’s author.

The Law Department practice group of the International Legal Technology Association

PEER to PEER, Vol. 23, Nov. 2007, the magazine of the International Legal Technology Association describes ILTA’s Law Department practice group. Headed by Sally Letteri of United States Steel, it facilitates the sharing of information by law-department technologists. For example, the practice group will host a symposium on April 4, 2008 in New York City. Other leaders of the group (at pg. 68) include Frank Kilsdonk of Johnson Controls; Pamela Martin of DuPont; Mike Russell of Liberty Mutual; and Tom Morrissey of Pharma. I’m sure any of they would welcome hearing from prospective members.

ILTA has shown up in previous writings on this blog (See my posts of Nov. 17, 2006: multiple e-billing systems; Feb. 19, 2007: litigation support software; Feb. 12, 2006: client-specific extranets; and Dec. 12, 2007: Pfizer and its data warehouse.).

Twenty-seven software packages for law departments, other than basic programs

The dominant software used in-house are word processing and e-mail/calendar, followed far behind by matter management, document management, spreadsheets and presentation software. My blog has discussed 27 types of specialized software. What else might a law department use?

1. Benefit plans, to test proposed changes (See my post of Jan. 24, 2006.)

2. Blogs (See my posts of July 20, 2005; and May 4, 2007 for an attack on blogs.).

3. Concept maps (See my posts of Nov. 28, 2005; and Dec. 21, 2005 #1.).

4. Corporate secretary and Board of Director packages (See my posts of July 19, 2006; Aug. 9, 2006; Oct. 1, 2006; Oct. 29, 2006; Jan. 24, 2006 for ten packages in one department; and March 9, 2007 #1 for more on software to assist Boards.).

5. Decision-trees (See my posts of Oct. 24, 2005 about FMC; and June 18, 2007 about belief nets.).

6. Dictation and voice recognition (See my posts of Nov. 20, 2006 on dictation; Feb. 4, 2007 and Feb. 6, 2007 on word-to-text capabilities; and Aug. 26, 2005 on voice recognition.).

7. Discovery (See my posts of Feb. 9, 2006 about hundreds of vendors at LegalTech; and Feb. 19, 2007 about mandates by departments to their firms to use them.).

8. Document assembly (See my posts of March 24, 2005 on if-then, rule-based document assembly software; Feb. 24, 2007 on rules-based document assembly software; and April 18, 2007 on DealBuilder and its use by three law firms.).

9. EDGAR filings (See my post of Jan. 24, 2006.).

10. Expert systems (See my posts of Oct. 31, 2007 and March 27, 2005 on artificial intelligence software.).

11. Extranets (See my posts of Feb. 12, 2006 comparing extranets to portals; Jan. 30, 2006: ChevronTexaco; Oct. 18, 2006: unremarked extranets; Oct. 21, 2005: used other than in major litigation; and Jan. 3, 2006: Tyco’s extranet.).

12. Form 16s (See my post of Jan. 24, 2006.).

13. Immigration forms (See my post of June 4, 2007 on I-9 software.).

14. Intellectual property databases (See my post of May 1, 2005 with some examples.).

15. Intelligent agents (See my post of Jan. 4, 2006.).

16. Knowledge management (See my post of March 5, 2005 on Google Desktop.).

17. Monte Carlo simulations (See my post of May 15, 2005.).

18. Network mapping (See my post of May 7, 2006.).

19. Neural nets (See my posts of March 27, 2005 on artificial intelligence software; and April 7, 2006 with its reference to neural networks.).

20. Portals (See my posts of Feb. 12, 2006 comparing an extranet to a portal; Aug. 5, 2005 about a portal in Sears’ law department for litigation support; April 9, 2006 about a portal in a manufacturer’s law department; and Aug. 16, 2006 about contents of portals.).

21. Registered agent, when creating and updating corporate matters (See my post of Jan. 24, 2006.).

22. Semantic-concept search (See my posts of Feb. 19, 2006; April 4, 2006 #4; May 24, 2005 on concept searching, and July 21, 2005 on text analysis.).

23. Social networks (See my post of Jan.19, 2008 on LinkedIn; and Jan. 30, 2008 #2 on LawLink.com.).

24. Stock options (See my post of Jan. 24, 2006.).

25. Subsidiary tracking (See my post of Jan. 24, 2006.).

26. Voting (See my post of April 18, 2005.).

27. Wikis (See my posts of Dec. 9, 2005 about Cornell’s legal wiki; Feb. 12, 2006 that predicts wikis between law departments; March 17, 2006 on wikis; May 17, 2006 on wiki-law.org; March 9, 2007 about Legal OnRamp; and March 20, 2007 #1 about Lucent’s law-department wiki.).

What have I missed?

Google at LegalTech NY and its possible forays into law-department software

Stalking the aisles of vendors at LegalTech NY I was surprised to see a Google booth. I learned that 50 of the AmLaw 100 law firms use Google’s Postini software to pre-filter emails – to remove spam.

But this is a blog about law departments, you know, so I pressed the Googlers in the booth about how their software might help them. They pointed out that the software could immensely help a law department cope with the email deluge when a company must collect, review and produce email messages. They also agreed that the software could use its “Content Policy Management” to pluck out documents sent by law firms.

Since efforts by law departments to collect electronic versions of law firm work product falter when in-house counsel have to do anything, a systemic solution that culls out attachments when there are clues in the email message might jump start this knowledge management activity. The documents thus collected could be relatively easily reviewed and placed in a repository online, to be searched, of course by a well-known program (See my post of March 5, 2005 on Google Desktop.).

Another possible use of the software would be to link emails to matter management system codes, so that the MMS could populate itself with related emails. Those who send emails would have to reference the proper matter code number, but the software could do much of the rest.

A new matter management system, used by major global law departments, from Brazil

At LegalTech NY I ran across Tedesco Tecnologia, a 13-year-old Brazilian software firm that offers an ASP matter management system for law departments. It has law departments using its software in 32 countries, including Air Liquide, Whirlpool S/A – Brasil, Wal-Mart – Brazil, BASF, and InBev, the world’s largest brewer. Marketing literature states that it covers more than 30 industries.

I did not take part in a demonstration of the system, but spoke with a principle and reviewed the company’s marketing materials. One feature of the Tedesco’s system is that it translates all but free text into 17 languages, so lawyers can see screen text, the system’s 25 fields, and data-entry selections in whichever of those languages they specify. Many currencies are also converted into local currencies.

US law departments are accustomed to the set of vendors known in this market, and they assume screens are in English. Tedesco offers a new, cosmopolitan alternative for consideration.

Women in e-Discovery as a resource for women who support law department technology

The ALSP Update, Vol. 1, Dec. 2007 at 11, the monthly newsletter of the Association of Litigation Support Professionals (See my post of Jan. 27, 2008 on ALSP.), introduced me to Women in e-Discovery (WiE). Begun in mid-2007, “it has grown to more than 700 members with 10 chapters and 16 additional chapters slated for 2008.” The fledgling, but fast-growing group has a web site and many of its chapters host monthly meetings.

Any in-house women who support, use, or care about technology in the discovery field should find out more about both WiE and ALSP.

A number of organizations cater to legal technology, and each of them offers members of law departments access to special groups for them (See my posts of Feb. 18, 2007 with its mention of the Sedona Conference; Nov. 17, 2006 on ILTA, the International Legal Technology Association; Nov. 20, 2007 on LEDES, the Legal Electronic Data Exchange System; and Feb. 18, 2007 about the Corporate Forum and more generally the benefits of knowledge networks.).