Digital White Papers

ANOTHER LOOK AT PRECEDENT MANAGEMENT TAKEAWAYS BENEFITS OF A PLAN HAVING A PRECEDENT MANAGEMENT BLUEPRINT — BASED ON THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS OF THE MULTIFACETED COMPONENTS OF OUR PRECEDENT USE — ENABLED US TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMED GUIDANCE TO OUR TRANSACTIONAL ATTORNEYS SEEKING TO LEVERAGE NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO INCREASE EFFICIENCY. IT PROVIDED CONTEXT FOR ANALYZING USE CASES AGAINST POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS. AREAS RIPE FOR PROBING INCLUDE: — How complex/simple are the documents involved? — Does a form already exist and, if not, can you get consensus on terms and style? — What is the expected usage level of the end product? — How much negotiation typically occurs after the initial draft? — ould other precedent resources, such as clause libraries or benchmarking W tools, offer more benefit than automated forms? — Which party in the transaction traditionally prepares the first draft, and is that the entity you generally represent? — Is there a desire to delegate work to less experienced attorneys, or is a "lowleverage" practice involved? — Who will support the solution from both a substantive and technical standpoint? •Can you rely on the level of attorney participation and decision-making required? •Do you have internal resources with the knowledge and skills needed to administer the system, or will you rely on vendor support? — How will the system be maintained so content is kept up to date? — What components of the process can be shifted to non-billable staff to limit the demand on, and optimize the value of, high-priced attorney time? A few more considerations I try to keep top-of-mind include: DON'T USE A SLEDGE HAMMER TO KILL A FLY. For some use cases, a well-constructed DMS search or a simple Word macro will do the trick. WATCH FOR THE "HE SAID/SHE SAID" OR "TWO SIDES TO EVERY COIN" SYNDROME. Associate says, "I hate doing this, let's automate." Partner says, "We do it 10 times a year, not worth the cost." DON'T KEEP BEATING THE POOR DEAD HORSE. When you encounter drafting styles (or personalities) so widely different that any level of consensus is unlikely regardless of effort and powers of persuasion, it's time to move on. We continue to learn from our ongoing precedent initiatives, but I offer a few observations to date. Some are obvious, but still worth remembering. •It is important to have a complete understanding of the practice need and business context before jumping to the solution. An attractive option at first glance may prove to be a mismatch once the details of actual tasks and business realities are analyzed. •Even though automated precedent tools can help relieve high-priced attorneys of some routine tasks associated with precedent management, they certainly do not dispense with the need for committed attorney participation. Full automation of documents can command a significant investment of attorney time upfront. The degree and level of attorney engagement in the use of contract analysis tools to generate reference standards and clause libraries may vary depending on the specific documents you tackle, the skill set and capacity of your KM team, as well as the individual preferences of the attorneys involved. •Whether you opt for document assembly, contract analysis, sophisticated search or some other technology to assist with document

• Cover