publication of the International Legal Technology Association
Issue link: https://epubs.iltanet.org/i/355985
ILTA WHITE PAPER: JULY 2014 WWW.ILTANET.ORG 47 Speaking of communication, language can be a barrier to working together. Even when American and British firms combine, language issues can arise when our common language divides us. One person noted the combination of a U.S. and U.K. firm nudged the two into adopting a style guide for the first time. The tool would have been handy all along but then became necessary. Similarly, firms combining with a Canadian firm can be caught off guard by Canada's language laws that require communications in both English and French if the firm has offices in Quebec. GETTING PLATFORMS TO COMMUNICATE Somewhat more obvious than whether people can communicate is the question of the extent to which their computer systems can talk to each other. Arguably, the biggest practical challenge in law firm combinations is marrying disparate information technology infrastructures. Most firms have amassed an intricate web of operational and practice-specific applications, many of which are not integrated, making people go to different places to enter and work with information. A firm might still be coming to terms with how to resolve its own patchwork of applications when it is confronted with the added task of bringing together two or more firms' platforms. After a merger, firms commonly find themselves sorting out multiple document management, finance and other critical systems, not to mention a cluster of work product repositories, intranets and other collaboration tools. Some of these systems can be retired early on, while others can take years to reconcile. In one scenario, two successive mergers led a firm to migrate people from two different document management systems (DMSs) to a third legacy DMS, only to convert the entire firm later to a fourth that none of the original firms had. One IT professional suggested that law firm IT departments confront pragmatically similar issues when laterals join the firm, albeit on a much smaller scale. IT finds out what technologies the lawyers use for different aspects of their practice and how they are accustomed to working, then reconciles that with what the lawyers will need to learn and do going forward. This individual starts with three surveys. The first survey asks a technology administrator to list the roster of applications, the second addresses specific questions to the IT director and the third takes a deep dive into how the technology is deployed and used. Getting to understand how people work and what they need to do their work is a critical first step to rationalizing systems. Complicating this already daunting challenge is the matter of new investments in technology. Before merging, both firms likely were exploring and planning new implementations. Setting priorities and building consensus to move big technology projects forward can take on a new dimension after combining. New questions must be considered: • Will the project have a different impact on different groups? • Do all parts of the firm need or want this? • Are all satisfied with the cost? Developing and documenting new processes early on can pave the way for smoother operations. Rick Krzyminski, currently Knowledge Management Director with Baker Donelson, describes a process that worked well for his previous firm, where he was involved with several combinations. There, after a merger, proposed projects were presented to a board of regional constituents who weighed and determined priorities. Once a project was approved, a protocol was followed for gathering widespread user input. As one case in point, when that firm redeveloped its intranet, it created a steering committee that included the CIO, CMO and representatives from all practices and regions. The committee met quarterly to discuss what needed to be done in every region. This strategy led to the creation and maintenance of a governance structure that helped standardize content management. TAKING WHAT WORKS BEST Even with the challenges reported, all consulted had overwhelmingly positive and successful combination experiences and benefits, dominated by brilliant opportunities for learning and personal WHEN FIRMS COMBINE: A KM PERSPECTIVE ON LAW FIRM MERGERS