Issue link: https://epubs.iltanet.org/i/34417
are very expensive to both create and maintain. Interestingly, there is something of a trans-Atlantic KM divide here — U.K. firms fully embrace the people component of “people, process and technology” and historically have hired significant numbers of KM (or professional support) lawyers, which, in some instances can be partner-track positions. However, most U.S. law firms view KM through a technology lens — the selection and implementation of better search tools, better email management tools, perhaps some document assembly tools and redevelopment of the firm’s intranet focused on client- and matter- centricity (and invariably on a SharePoint platform). Canadian firms tend to fall somewhere between these two polarities, wanting to replicate the U.K. law firm model, but usually lacking the resources to do so. So is it time to write the epitaph for law firm KM? It might be tempting, but it is premature as there is a great deal in play, including the future shape of the legal profession itself. LEGAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT EMERGES We are all fully aware of the impact of the 2008- 2009 “Great Recession.” After all, many of us had ringside seats as law firms culled both billable and non-billable staff or were ourselves subjects of downsizing. In the past two years, according to commentators such as Altman Weil and Hildebrandt Baker Robbins, we have emerged to a new normal, where power has shifted decisively away from law firms in favor of in-house counsel. The Association for Corporate Council (ACC) launched its Value Challenge in 2007, where the stated aim is to “reconnect the cost of legal services with their true value.” It is focused not merely on cost but on cost control and predictability. General counsel is 48 Knowledge Management ILTA White Paper no longer able to persuade superiors that somehow “legal work is different.” Today, chief financial officers are demanding that in-house counsel live within a budget, and general counsel are in turn demanding budgetary certainty from outside counsel. Now, even with a small uptick in the overall economy, the drumbeat from in-house counsel has grown ever louder. Some larger purchasers of legal services such as DuPont, Cisco, United Technology Corporation and others have announced to their outside counsel (and to anyone else who will listen) that the billable hour is dead. Instead, new billing models must be implemented (and not merely discounts, as these are not true alternative fee arrangements). This is particularly challenging to law firms, as most have little sense of the true cost of any given task. Various software tools such as Budget Manager and Engage have emerged to fill this vacuum and a new discipline (at least new to lawyers) has emerged — legal project management or LPM, which applies project management principles to legal services. A STRUCTURED APPROACH TO LPM Project management probably needs little introduction as it is a relatively mature discipline that has been used in the IT industry for decades. But project management in the context of legal services requires a little more consideration. Anyone who has spent any time with lawyers will quickly appreciate that there is a great deal more fluidity in legal projects as compared with, say, an IT infrastructure project. After all, it’s a people business and it is, by definition, adversarial. Plus, one LPM size does not fit all; what works for the transactional lawyers doesn’t necessarily work for the litigators. For example, litigators can only plan to the next milestone, whereas transactional