Issue link: https://epubs.iltanet.org/i/12204
ALIGNING LAW FIRM FEE STRATEGIES WITH KM reliance on budgets (matter-, client-, phase- or period- based). These budgets may derive from previously prepared profitability analyses. Where practical, budgets could be further enhanced through phase or phase/task time entry. KM can support these efforts by collecting sample or template budgets and considering how phase or phase/task codes can be designed to meet practice or regional needs. Capturing this information is of little value unless it is regularly reviewed. Sharing common reports with clients regarding key financial measures relating to the engagement may become the norm. Are current firm workflows designed to share this information in real or near-real time? Additionally, passive approaches, in place to monitor matter value internally, could shift to the automatic distribution of e-mail fee reports alerting an attorney when pre-defined fee levels have been reached. • Analyzing fee arrangements: What are the costs of specific types of legal work? The answer, in part, may be found through an analysis of the nature of the work and related fees. For example, knowing precisely every incorporation the firm has done along with the associated fees provides important data points from which an estimated cost can be determined. Unfortunately, existing workflows may not deliver this information neatly. Most likely, incorporation work is done in connection with other services, blending the nature of the services and related fees. To address this, firms are exploring different ways to capture information about the nature of the services by matter. New business intake information can be supplemented with information captured in deal and case databases. Technology may also be utilized to classify matters based on time entries, timekeepers and/or the work product associated with the matter. Even if the type of work is identified, one might consider the nature of the information available for the analysis. Most law firm workflows have been developed over time to support the hourly billing model (e.g. time entry). Thus, a large portion of available fee information and pricing is based on hours. Consistent capture of information based on workflows supporting AFAs will provide additional insights into the way that AFAs deliver value to the clients and law firms. This, in turn, may suggest additional ways to conduct the analysis. While the examples provided here are law-firm centric, there are parallel client workflows that need to be considered. Collaborative environments used for e-billing may suggest how law firm and client workflows can align. Seamless, aligned workflows will support effective fee management and the relationship. AFA SYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS The value of information derived from various systems depends upon the purpose of those systems. For example, a firm experience locator may be designed to identify lawyers with particular subject matter expertise. That same system, however, may not directly support a search to locate the best timekeeper for a matter simply because the system does not offer information about billable rates and other timekeeper metrics. KM can explore whether and how discrete systems can work together to support the firm’s AFA strategy. The following are a few examples. www.iltanet.org Knowledge Management 29