Make More Rain : planning, technology

Law Firms Can Send Registered E-Mail

Admin — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:37:58 GMT

E-mail has just about become the standard for communication. It saves time and facilitates collaborations. But there are times when you need to be able to prove receipt and contents of an e-mail, and in that regard, it presents its own set of problems.

Carole Levitt and Mark Rosch addressed that subject in some detail in an article appearing in the August 2007 The Bottom Line, the official publication of the State Bar of California Law Practice Management and Technology Section. After laying out the problems of proving receipt and contents, the authors point to a solution endorsed by various bar associations—registered e-mail. Registered e-mail is a service offered by RPost.

If you are not already using this service, you need to consider it. On a pay-as-you-go model, it is $0.59 per e-mail, but there are various package prices that will bring that cost down for law firms making regular use of the services.

We have come to use e-mail automatically. It has been moving from an informal and casual communications device to our primary means of communication, stipulation and agreement. As noted by the authors, RPost is “a process by which sent e-mails can be ‘registered’ to show legal proof of receipt of a specific e-mail and attachments.”

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®. For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center: 877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.

Law Firm Business Intelligence Systems

Admin — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:21:00 GMT

I am in the process of writing several posts dealing with the role of the variables in the Law Firm Business Model—some already posted and other still in process. Those variables and other key performance metrics are not only the ingredients for forward looking models, they are the indicators (the gauges) that tell law firm leaders how well the law firm is running and when intervention is needed.
Staying on top of things isn’t an easy job. It is only in recent years that law firm leaders and managing partners have had access to tools commonly used by CEOs and C level executives in the corporate world. They hold the promise of dramatically improving law firm management. They leverage technology to amplify the effectiveness of the limited amount of time busy attorney managers devote to the role of management.

We are talking about Business Intelligence (BI) systems like that now available to law firms using Juris. The most visible parts of BI systems are dashboards that provide leaders with instantly digestible information providing continuous and full field-of-view situational awareness over the law firm, practice class or area of the attorney’s responsibility. Dashboards can be customized for the roll of the attorney or manager—for the CEO, managing partners, practice leaders, billing attorneys and even working attorneys.

The ability of dashboards to convert numbers into instantly digestible information is an important innovation, but BI systems do more. They monitor activity and alert the appropriate individual when events and circumstances require their attention. They back up situational awareness and alerts with actionable information. Numbers, charts, and alerts are “active” rather that one-dimensional displays on a computer screen. By clicking on displayed information, BI systems will drill down into the information needed to take action that will change future outcomes. BI system are designed to focus attention where it is needed and then supply just the additional information needed to answer those classic “5 Whys”—What and Why?, Where and Why?, When and Why?, Who and Why?, and How and Why?.

Recently I asked some of the best minds around what they see as the biggest trend and challenge for law firms in the area of law firm management. While all the answers aren’t in yet, those that have responded point, among other things, to the improving state of management, and at the same time, they report that the next three to five years will be even more changeling for law firms. Those who fail to embrace the need for more management, better business systems and more competitive intelligence will be sorely tested.

Trends in Law Firm Practices and Procedures

Admin — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:24:58 GMT

Many small nitty-gritty practices can make one law firm more productive than the other. It is always interesting and educational to see what others are doing in the nitty-gritty sphere. We have some insight into those trends from Reid Trautz. Trautz was reporting on activities at ABA’s August meeting in San Francisco in his blog Reid My Blog.

Attorneys are moving to dual LCD monitors. One screen for doing work on documents and the other for practice management tools-- calendar, client info, email.etc.
Law firms are finally shifting to remote back-up services to protect the firm from a fatal loss of data.
Interest in document management technology outranks interest in case management software.
More firms are closing their billing on the 25th to speed up billing and for an earlier position in the client’s payment cycle.
Firms are implementing automatic procedures and technology that increases the pressure on partners to collect bills sooner
Fewer firms are starting work without having first obtained a signed representation agreement.

Trautz also observed:

“Adobe Acrobat Professional 8.0 continues to impress every lawyer who sees it in action, especially as to creating searchable text PDFs, redacting, and e-mail features with Outlook.”

“Smaller firms have yet to feel the impending impact of EDD. Many big firms have head-on experience with EDD, but it doesn't seem to have affected many smaller litigation firms--yet.”

For Trautz’s original report on this subject, go to his August 15, 2007 post Best of the ABA in San Francisco.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®. For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center:

877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.

The One-Person Planner Approach for the Law Firm

Admin — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:08:42 GMT

Survey after survey discloses that only about 20 percent of midsized law firms engage in a formal planning process. Yet, the evidence is clear that those that do have a process outperform those that don’t. If your firm is one of the 80 percent without a formal planning process, you still need to plan—to think about the business of the law firm and into what and how do you want the law firm to change.

I previously posted a step-by-step quide for structured strategic planning as a team, but in this post, let’s take a simpler approach—a “one-person planner” approach. How do you proceed as one individual when thinking about the business of the law firm? Start by taking an inventory—what is the nature of the business today and then proceed to what you want it to be and what is required to get there:

What do our clients have in common (who are they)?
What do our clients think of us?
Who are our Partners- professional strengths, people and team skills, business strengths, marketing strengths, aspirations, traits, ages, satisfaction with income level, satisfaction with status quo, retirement goals?
What do our other lawyers have in common (who are they); are they the right people; do we have the right number; are we fully utilzing them; are we training and developing them as we should?
How do we stack up financially—per-partner income, rates, leverage, realization, margin?
How are we growing our business; where does our new business come from?
What is good and not good about our facilities?
What is good and not good about our administrative team?
What is good and not good about our systems and equipment?
Who are our competitors, if any, that really matter?
What are we really good at?
What do clients ask of us that we are not good at?
What are our biggest threats, if any, that really matter?
What are our best opportunities?
What is the firm’s value proposition—what elevator response would we give to someone who asks, “Tell me about your firm”?
Are you satisfied with who and what your firm is? If not, what do you want it to be?
If you are not satisfied, what do you want your value proposition to be—what elevator response would you like to give?
What is keeping you from being what you want to be?
Make a list—what has to change to get where you want to go?
Go back over your list and reshape it into a big picture.
The vision: This is who we are and want to remain or this is who we want to be.
What are the three to five main things that will determine the success of that vision?
What strategies are we going to rely on to achieve those main things?
- What tactics or programs will we implement to support the strategies and who is going to be responsible for what?
- How are we going to measure and report progress?
- How are those responsible going to be held accountable for their delegated role?

Now here is the caveat. Now you have to sell your plan. A one-person planning team can only take the progress so far. You need a consensus for a plan to work. Everyone doesn’t have to agree with every aspect, but they must agree to the destination and the road, the key strategies, for getting there.

I call that consensus “getting on I65 North”. The message I65 North conveys is that we are going north and we are going on this specified road. You can travel at your own speed as long as you are not endangering other travelers or impeding their progress. But you can’t go South, East, or West. If you want to go somewhere else, there are exits along the way.

The truth be told, the easy way to sell your plan is to move to the next level and repeat the process as a team. You’ve gone through the process and, having done so, you are in a position to facilitate the planning process. New light bulbs may go off during the process, but the team is likely to wind up with a plan very similar to the one you scoped out initially. Only this time, they have ownership.

When you plan as a team, you may want to use the strategic planning guide from a prior post or you may feel more comfortable initially by sticking to a modified version of the above one-person planner approach for now.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris, Inc. For information about Juris® products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income, go to www.Juris.com.

Law Firm Planning Gone Wrong

Admin — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:55:29 GMT

The “plan” must be to change the “plan”! Strategic plans are based on assumptions, and assumptions are inaccurate temporary estimates about the future.

The inaccurate character of assumptions is why planning must be a continuous process. Through that continuous process of changing the plan as the future gets nearer, successful organizations are distinguished by doing the “right things”.

I often wondered why so many consultants to the legal community tend to discredit the value of strategic planning. Rob Millard’s post titled Why Committing to Success Leads to Failure sheds light on the reason. It is because too many law firm leaders they deal with see the “plan” as the end product. It isn’t. It is the planning process, not the plan, that leads to success. Strategic planning is a way of thinking—strategic thinking. The plan must be to change the plan!

The need to continually change the plan is the reason that I emphasize that the tangible product of strategic planning, “the plan”, should consist of words, phrases, and sentences, not paragraphs, pages, and chapters. It is a living document that coordinates and shapes an organization’s actions and decisions and that is changed by those actions and decisions in reaction to an unfolding future. Taking a line from the Pirates of the Caribbean, “It is more of a guide than an actual code”.

Periodically, the organization must come together and revise the guiding product. They must come together to agree on revised assumptions about the future, to identify the changes in the opportunities available to the firm, and to adjust or reaffirm the law firm’s goals. They must agree on the key strategies the law firm will rely on to achieve those goals. Then they must set out the programs and responsibilities for implementing the tactics in support of the agreed upon strategies

Rob Millard wrote: “All too often, I find myself facing blank stares from clients [law firms] who want me to help them to only craft a plan that will lead them to greatness. This is only possible where the future is certain. Which, of course, it is not.” His point is clear. If you unwaveringly pursue a plan based on inaccurate assumptions, you will eventually implement the wrong strategy—you will successfully fail.

Rob Millard’s blog is The Adventure of Strategy. He is part of the Edge International consulting group. For more on this subject, you should also read my previous post, Strategic Planning Will Not Predict the Future, But It will Prepare the Law Firm for It, which referred to an earlier and also insightful post by Millard.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris, Inc. For information about Juris® products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income, go to www.Juris.com.

Continuity or How Law Firms Acquire a Life of Their Own

Admin — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:33:00 GMT

One of the business rules I have lived by is the motto “Fix it before it breaks”.

It is an understanding that all things have a life cycle. If it exists, it is aging. It is wearing out. It is becoming obsolete. It is breaking. Change is constant. We either change up or natural forces change us down.

This past week, Bruce MacEwen posted an item on his blog Adam Smith, ESQ dealing with partner retirement, Mandatory Retirement” Idiocy or Atrocity? Also this week, The Wall Street Journal Online commented on a forthcoming study by two economists, James Rebitzer and Lowell Taylor, which delves into the predatory behavior behind the current “up or out” model of larger law firms.

To understand what is going on, one only has to understand the Life Cycle. The life of a law firm without a succession plan resembles the classic bell shaped curve.

It is created by the original partners. The firm then continues—prospering for a period of time. Eventually, as the productivity of the partners begins to decline, performance of the law firm turns downward. Finally the law firm goes out of existence with the retirement, disability, or death of the partners.

Law firms that succeed in taking on a life of their own have found a way to transition from one generation to the next. To understand such a law firm, visualize a series of life cycles as illustrated below:

The life of a continuing law firm is measured by its successful movement across the multiple life cycles of productive practicing partners and leaders. The point is that the continuing life of a firm depends on the hand off from one generation to the next. It is not surprising that Altman Weil’s survey disclosed that the majority of larger firms have a mandatory retirement age policy. While Bruce MacEwen correctly sees a tragic waste of accumulated wisdom in mandatory retirement policies, the naked-in and naked-out tradition of large firms coupled with their mandatory retirement age is an effective way to institutionalize law firm survival—placing it beyond the reach of politics and power.

From the standpoint that survival depends on the hand off from generation to generation, law firms are not unique. While mega law firms have found an answer through mandatory retirement, the corporate world’s answer has been independent ownership—i.e., shareholders. Shareholder interest supersedes “management’s interest” and that places shareholder interest and business survival as the primary objective of the business. On the other hand, a family-owned business does not have an independent ownership and faces the same problem as midsized law firm. Survival depends on having someone to hand the business off to and it depends on the existing owner/management wanting to hand the business off to that someone.

Of the two necessary ingredients, the available talent to accept the handoff and the current owner/management motivated to make the handoff , it is the latter that is most often missing in midsized firms. The old guys and girls need something to motivate their hand off of power and income other than just a philanthropic desire to help the newcomers. The person handing off something of value should receive something of value—they should be paid for the value of what they are turning over or “selling” to the newcomer. Unfortunately, law firms haven’t been able to figure out that part of the equation. Without any consistency, law firms apply a variety of approaches that involve continuing compensation to retiring partners for some limited period of time—origination credit being a favorite. Often, the burden of those unfunded liabilities has had the opposite effect from their intended purpose. The incoming generation would rather dissolve the firm and move across the hall than share their income with the retired partners.

What is missing among law firms that is present within the commercial world is a concept of ownership and transfer of the going-concern value of the business. The new generation should have to buy its way in and exiting partners should be able to sell their ownership shares back to remaining partners. For a “how to do it” approach, see the prior post “Law Firm Value, Partner compensation and Continuity”.

The alternative strategies for long term survival can be summed up as:

Mandatory retirement usually coupled with a naked-in/naked-out tradition—the prevailing U.S. mega firm model among law firms
Ownership independent of management and workers—the corporate model to which the UK appears to be moving
Partner buy-in and buy-out agreements—the closely-held business model prevalent in the commercial business world

The alternative is either a law firm that fades away or one that survives for at least one more generation through an ugly or quiet revolution. We old guys leave one way or another. It needs to be by a win/win arrangement.

This overview should bring home to the existing generation of baby boomer partners the importance of continuity planning. The new guys and girls can go across the street to another firm or break away and start their own. The needs of the law firm’s clients will be met, no matter what happens to you or your law firm. There are always alternative law firms ready to serve. Continuity planning is most important to the entrenched partners. Without planning for the handoff to the next generation, it is the entrenched partners and their heirs who will lose the value of the legal service business they built (or improved) during their tenure.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris, Inc. For information about Juris® products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income, go to www.Juris.com.

Law Firm Planning and Budgeting

Admin — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:33:39 GMT

George O’May, the founder of what is now PricewaterhouseCoopers, once wrote something to the effect that it would be impossible to measure income (of a business) in so short a period as one year if it were not absolutely essential to do so.

Rough and inaccurate navigation has a better chance of getting you where you want to go than no navigation at all. Yet, 80 percent of midsized law firms do little in the way of navigation. Success, for whatever period it exists, appears to be accidental. Partners in those firms that do plan and budget earn two to seven times more than those that do not.

Planning is a continuous process, one that shapes a firm’s decisions and, at the same time, is shaped by decisions. Budgeting lays out expectations and goals for the coming operational period. To be effective, planning and budgeting have to be accompanied by programs that measure progress and that hold people accountable.

Prior posts have dealt with the Strategic Planning process. For example, see The Structure to Structured Planning. Budgeting is more down to earth. It is closer to home in terms of time. We are not planning based on assumptions about the future as much as we are dealing with the here and now.

The Juris development team recently invited existing Juris law firm clients to provide input for expanding the budgeting functionality of the Juris suite of software. The Juris software suite already includes features for budgeting at the timekeeper, client/matter, and firm level; the development team is looking for improvement ideas. They are particularly interested in budgeting requests related to decision-support features in Juris.

What we continue to find is that the majority of midsized firms do little in the way of budgeting. Budgeting firm expenses is more common than budgeting for the enterprise as a whole, including, for example, complete financial performance and cash flow. Budgeting at the matter level is largely nonexistent except where required by the law firm’s client.

The law firm's revenue producing resources are its legal professionals. The most elementary (and important) budgeting step would be to develop individual “budgets” or plans for each individual timekeeper. Why an individual plan? Every member of the team is an individual—each with a different balancing act in their daily life. Billable hours are just one part of that balancing act. Firms that have successfully adjusted to new work/life balance environments will vary compensation and timekeeper plans based on the individual’s plan. The plan should include:

Business Development
Professional Development
Management or Administrative Activities
Work on Non-Billable Matters
Work on Billable Matters

Budgeting fee revenue for a law firm for so short a period as one year (let alone one month) would be impossible if it were not absolutely essential to do so! You can’t do it just by adding up available hours of the professional staff. You can’t do it just based on past experience. You can’t do it just by reviewing the work already in-house. You have to do it using all of those pieces of information plus a large dose of judgment. The fact that it is difficult makes it all the more imperative that it be done.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris, Inc. For information about Juris® products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income, go to www.Juris.com.

Not Polite Conversation but Law Firms Should Follow Apple's Strategy

Admin — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:27:36 GMT

One of the first things we learned at our mother’s knee is that one should never discuss politics or religion in a social setting. It was not considered polite conversation.

Things have gotten much more serious. In the past, bringing up politics or religion with casual acquaintances might have resulted in fewer invitations. Today, the wrong comment can get you killed or start a riot. The list of things to avoid is also growing. For example, unless you want to derail a conversation, never refer to work/life balance as a gender issue. Use gender and work/life balance in the same paragraph, or even worse, in the same sentence, and you can expect an avalanche of emotional rebuttals. Now, we have learned that discussing Apple® computers must be added to the list of taboo topics. By now I’m sure that everyone in the blogging community is aware of the perils of Larry Bodine after penning an article in Law Technology News relating his not-so-happy experience with an Apple.

Apples are great for Apple-minded people. Creative team members at Juris are Apple folks. They live happily, surrounded by a sea of PCs, all the time producing ads, product sheets, direct mail pieces, and delivering on our advertising and marketing needs with talent and speed. My first encounter with a personal computer was with an early Apple. My wife learned to tolerate the age of technology with an Apple. She has never completely adapted to her later PC replacements.

It is like left-brain and right-brain differences in people or the “Women are from Venus and Men are from Mars” issue. Your brain just gets wired differently depending on which world you operate in—Apple or PC. I know there will be people who say they use both with no problem. There are professional baseball players that bat left-handed and right-handed—but I never could. Most other people can’t.

Frustrated by the “Mac Attack” from Mac fans furious over his LTN article, Larry wrote “…Mac users are just realizing that they have bought orphan technology."

Actually, Apple's strategy has proven to be sound when examined with hindsight. It is a strategy that ambitious midsized law firms would be wise to consider.

As the PC industry developed, Apple chose to be different rather than adopt the "me too" strategy of Compaq and other IBM wannabees. In a "me too" world, only the low cost producer can survive in the long run. IBM's strategy of a “universal” machine with mix and match components cost IBM its market leader role when others were able to operate at lower cost points.

Apple has been able to survive and profit without relying on price or distribution channels for its competitive advantage. The low cost producer is always at risk that someone else will build a device that meets the needs of 80 percent of its market but at a significantly lower cost point. Niche players are less attractive competitive targets and it is much more difficult to one-up their value proposition.

While Apple only holds a 4.8 percent share of the U.S. market, they have 100 percent share of the Mac fan market, and they hold that more securely than Dell holds its market. Besides, 4.8 percent of the U.S market isn’t all that bad.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris, Inc. For information about Juris® products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income, go to www.Juris.com.

Partner Goals Should Determine Law Firm Plans

Admin — Wed, 31 May 2006 17:04:00 GMT

Extracted from a paper by Howard L. Mudrick, President of HM Soloutions

The individual goals and philosophies of the partners form the foundation for building the firm's future. Unless the partners have common goals, the firm cannot have a future direction. Partners may all be pulling in a different direction, fighting for priority over the firm resources they need. When a firm is just starting, the common goal of "making it" from a financial standpoint is often enough to motivate partners to work together. Once the honeymoon is over, the partners need more. They need to develop a common philosophy of practice regarding:

How hard are they willing to work?
What level of profits is needed to satisfy partners?
To what extent should they specialize?
What kinds of clients do they want to serve?
What type of work will the firm do? How sophisticated must the work be to keep the lawyers challenged?
Can the lawyers work as a team? Does the compensation system encourage teamwork?
What are the partners' marketing attitudes? Are they willing to participate in a formal marketing effort? Do they agree on who, how and what to market?

More about Howard L. Mudrick: Mr Mudrick is president of HM Solutions, Inc., a Dallas based management consultancy to the legal profession. Howard Mudrick, a CPA and a former partner at Hildebrandt, has more than 20 years experience consulting with law firms plus on-ground experience in financial management positions with midsized law firms. For a copy of Howard Mudrick’s paper titled Will Fate Plan Your Future or Will You?, email HLMudrick@aol.com.

Common Sense about Information Technology in the Law Firm

Admin — Thu, 11 May 2006 17:46:26 GMT

John Murdock, a morepartnerincome™ reader and member of Bolt Cumming Conners & Berry, recently sent me a complimentary copy of his book Common Sense on the Information Revolution and Your Job. The book’s co-author Terry L. Crum, previously the Chief Knowledge Officer and Director of Global Information Services for Jones Day, has moved to the consulting side working with law firms in the Information Technology and Knowledge Management areas.

This is a clever book. You need to read it. Why? The authors say it better than I can, and they do it right up front—on page six:

“In working to increase productivity, revolutionaries want to eliminate your job”

“In working to increase effectiveness, revolutionaries want to steal your customers”

Those two objectives are the motivations behind advancing information technology and systems in all businesses, including law firms. If the information and management revolutionaries can find a way to do it, they will replace many of the functions you perform as a lawyer through information and technology. Alternatively, they will replace you with someone better equipped to use information to outperform you. Likewise, if they can find a way to use information to deliver greater value to the customer, they will do it, and in doing so, replace you as the customer’s choice of provider.

When considering a new system or technology in your law office, the authors pose the following question. “How would you feel if your competitor adopted this plan?” If you would be concerned, then the proposed project deserves your serious consideration.

What sets this book apart from being ‘just good’ to being clever is what the authors do next. They take the reader through the uses of information as a competitive advantage as man progressed from the caves to the farms and then to the age of flight. The journey illustrates how the use of information and its forms has changed. By illustrating the difference between the brain, paper, and digital information, they open the reader’s mind to think outside of the box. The authors encourage the reader to consider how information can be used today in new ways and new forms to increase productivity in law firms and the value of the firm’s services in the eyes of the client.

Theirs is a blunt message: You are either one of the revolutionaries or one of the revolution’s losers! The book is available on Amazon.com, or for bulk purchases (5 or more copies) you can e-mail sales@commonsense.biz .

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris, Inc. For information about Juris® products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income, go to www.Juris.com.

ABA Legal Technology Survey

Admin — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:48:00 GMT

The ABA’s 2004-2005 legal technology survey is now available. You can purchase individual volumes or the complete five-volume set at www.lawtechnology.org/survstat. An executive summary can be purchased for immediate download. Volumes include:

Law Office Technology
Litigation and Courtroom Technology
Web and Communications Technology
Online Research
Mobile Lawyers

Laura Ikens, research specialist at the ABA’s Legal Technology Research Center, noted in Law Technology News that the survey disclosed a disconnect between availability and use of legal-specific software. Software is sitting on the shelves unused. Software loaded on computers and workstations is underused.

Try as they have, software companies haven’t been able to eliminate the need of the user to invest a little "learning time" to save a lot of future time. Too many features and capabilities are hidden behind menus and icons. Users don’t know to look for them. And even if they did, the old saying "out of sight, out of mind" applies.