Peer to Peer Magazine

P E E R T O P E E R : I L T A ' S Q U A R T E R L Y M A G A Z I N E | S P R I N G 2 0 1 9 29 the cost of future similar matters, by comparing the time, billing value, and total cost for specific phases in other matters, and then adjusting for likely variances in the current one. In other words, by maintaining a database using codes, it is possible to build a base case for a matter type and then evaluate drivers of costs and opportunities to improve efficiency. Many code sets have been created, and they all describe the work involved in handling a matter from a process perspective with the progression of work divided into phases (e.g., early case assessment; trial; due diligence; negotiations and documentation), tasks (e.g., issue litigation hold; review real estate leases), and activities (e.g., conference call with opposing counsel). Fewer codes are better, and it is preferable to start by gathering data only at the phase level. At this stage the burden is on the timekeeper so it is critical to provide simple and explicit instructions that do not interfere with the way practitioners actually options for resolution; meet with opposing counsel—6.4 hours"). Timekeepers typically do not link their entries to why or how they are doing particular work, nor demonstrate how the work adds value to the client's objectives. The entries often are not linked to the larger story of the legal matter. Phase codes used consistently provide key information about that story. By looking at the overall timeline of a matter and organizing timekeeping by phases, timekeeper data provides context for individual time entry narratives. When codes are used both to construct a matter budget and to analyze the team's progress, it becomes much easier to determine if the matter is on track, if the scope of the matter is changing, or if assumptions that were made at the outset continue to be valid. Scope changes may arise from inefficiencies or changes in the client's business objectives. Negative variances between budget and actual may indicate issues in staffing and turnover or internal management issues; it also may signal the need to raise questions with the client. The sooner the lawyer in charge of the matter receives this information, the greater the opportunity to manage the matter efficiently in real time, and to report status with confidence to the client. With accurate data on the work completed and outstanding items, the matter team can make adjustments to better manage the matter to meet deadlines, manage work to budget constraints, and minimize surprises. Codes can also be used to develop information about how to price or evaluate work. Over time need for more detail at the task level may emerge; additional task codes will be useful only if they are well-defined. For example, in a transaction, it may be useful to understand how allocating tasks among different service providers (law firm, law department, accountants) might reduce the cost/ improve the quality of due diligence. Data collection for its own sake, however, because "we might need it" is a recipe for a high error rate and noncompliance. Using only phases is a radical departure from the structure of many code sets that require granularity without regard to the utility of such information. Interesting information may emerge, but often with the sacrifice of data quality. Many report that in using various litigation code sets, 80% of the time is entered in any of three catch-all categories and often incorrectly. Quality data through accurate and simple time recording with fewer codes should offset the interest in collecting data for its own sake. Consistency, Compliance, and Communication Codes enable the client and legal service provider to embrace a common vocabulary for describing the work. Discussions may occur among others beyond the law firm and client: legal service providers include inside counsel and legal operations managers. They should have scoping and planning discussions with the business client to assure best use of corporate resources and appropriate allocation of roles and responsibilities. In addition, conversations should occur between inside counsel and A M A P F O R L I T I G A T I O N © 2017 Aileen Leventon. All rights reserved.

• Cover