publication of the International Legal Technology Association
Issue link: https://epubs.iltanet.org/i/355985
ILTA WHITE PAPER: JULY 2014 WWW.ILTANET.ORG 40 THE AGILE LITIGATORS' MANIFESTO: BETTER, CHEAPER, FASTER LITIGATION SPRINT To put this in the context of litigation, an example of a sprint might be preparing an answer to a complaint. To get it done, the team identifies all the work that needs to be done to answer the complaint, including all the research (e.g., research plaintiff, examine the impact of suit, research venue, investigate options for motion to dismiss). An associate might be assigned the task of preparing the outline and researching the venue. Another associate might volunteer to research options for a potential motion to dismiss. Once the outline and research are completed, the associates present their results to the lead attorney or partner handling the case (the stakeholder). The partner reviews the results and provides feedback (testing). The associates might have to go back and revise the outline and draft an answer based on the partner's feedback. That process might be repeated again until the partner is happy with the draft, which can now be sent to the client for final review. The client might offer additional feedback, which is again incorporated into the draft and a final (shippable) version is generated. At this point, the answer is filed with the court. The final step in a sprint is a sprint review meeting to discuss lessons learned and items to be added to the backlog. After this, the sprint is completed. This method forces the team to determine the core tasks first. In litigation, this might be identifying key issues that need your attention. Litigators do this naturally, so the Agile framework is a good fit for the way litigators work. Once the project owner has determined what the key issues are, the team creates a list of next steps, identifies subtasks that need to be performed (researching each key issue, investigating the facts pertaining to the issue, researching applicable case law, etc.). This list of next steps becomes the project backlog. After the first sprint is completed, the project owner (e.g., lead attorney) identifies which tasks from the project backlog will become part of the next sprint. And the entire process is repeated. Each increment of the project brings value to the stakeholder and provides frequent feedback loops throughout the life of the project. This continuous communication results in an end product that is better aligned with the client requirements. COURSE CORRECTION WITH REFINED PROJECT BACKLOG After the first sprint's tasks are identified, the remaining tasks become the project backlog. The project backlog can contain tasks that are general and specific. In Agile parlance, the tasks are referred to as "stories," because they contain both the task to be performed and the reason for doing it. For example, "research Acme v. Wiley Coyote case to support joint infringement argument in Summary Judgment brief" might be a backlog task. Framing it this way helps the team see the larger picture — the purpose of the task — not just the isolated task. Attorneys and billable legal staff already do this when submitting their time entries, so the client can see the value of the time spent on a task. Unlike traditional PM methods where the tasks are determined up front, the Agile approach allows for tasks to change and evolve as needs change. Backlog maintenance is a key component to the successful implementation of the Agile project management method. Tasks on the backlog list are revisited at each iteration, before each new sprint begins. Once the sprint starts, the tasks in that sprint can be further refined and broken down into subtasks if needed, enabling course correction throughout the life of the project. LITIGATION PROJECT BACKLOG In litigation, the project backlog might include the following discovery tasks: written discovery, document production, depositions, expert discovery and discovery motions, as outlined in the UTBMS listing of litigation task codes. Each of these tasks is very broad, and, as the team starts on it, the task might be broken down into smaller subtasks. For example, written discovery might include drafting interrogatories, requests to admit, and written disclosures, as well as responding and/ or objecting to the same items from the opposing side. As the project owner identifies which of these tasks will go into the next sprint, the tasks are refined to account for the latest issues, facts and strategy in the case.