Digital White Papers

I L T A W H I T E P A P E R | K N O W L E D G E M A N A G E M E N T & M A R K E T I N G T E C H N O L O G Y 21 The Billable Hour Simply stated, the billable hour is a problem. It is not only a problem, but also one unique to law firms engaged in implementing legal technology solutions. Despite the increasing prevalence of fixed fee arrangements, some clients will still require the agreement of hourly rates from the beginning of an engagement, and this is certainly a key feature of tenders. This reliance by both lawyers and clients on the billable hour for certainty, while understandable is somewhat unhelpful in the world of fixed fee matters and legal tech, as it may muddy the waters. Two challenges that the billable hour poses to every legal technology project are as follows. 1. L AW YE R TI M E Implementing a legal technology solution for your firm or a client is incredibly difficult without input from lawyers practising in the area the solution addresses. Pushing ahead without lawyer input is extremely unwise, and generally leads to failure. So, you will need some lawyers' time, but how will you go about getting it? Legal technology and KM professionals tend to rely heavily on goodwill and some lawyers' general curiosity when attempting to engage lawyers on technology projects. It is fair to say though, that these approaches bring mixed results. Unfortunately, most firms still classify work devoted to legal technology projects as non- billable, meaning practising lawyers do not receive the same type of credit for work on technology projects as they do for billable client work at year- end. Generally speaking, because compensation is directly tied to the amount of billable hours docketed for the year, practising lawyers prioritise billable over non-billable work. More still, lawyers often place a premium on other non-billable work, such as marketing and business development that will help grow their individual book of business. Not surprisingly, the lawyers put forward to assist in legal technology projects tend to be mid- to senior-level associates who are experienced enough to understand both the details and market best practices of their practice area. These busy lawyers often find themselves "voluntold" to participate by the partner they report to who may be interested in the project. The "voluntold" lawyer however may not directly benefit from being involved. At best, the project will be a low priority for the lawyers asked to participate. At worst, these lawyers see the projects as an extra burden heaping more pressure on them in an already busy work week. This situation is untenable for both the lawyers and the project. So how do you overcome this? One way is to create a new classification for these projects that give lawyers a real incentive to participate in these projects actively. Why not make participation in these projects part of the track to advancement within the firm? By participating in legal technology projects that further the law firm's business, involved lawyers are demonstrating commitment to and ownership of the firm's continued success. Lawyers could be nominated to work on these projects, with nomination being an established stepping-stone to promotion. This shifts legal technology projects from being a burden to a privilege. The hours devoted to these projects should count toward the lawyers' billable hours targets as well. This approach sends a coherent message to your lawyers that these projects are an important part of making the firm's business more profitable and of higher quality. 2 . PR I C I N G This is not so much a problem as a headache for law firms, which traditionally price and bill for work based on the time spent to produce it. By contrast,

• Cover