Digital White Papers

23 WWW.ILTANET.ORG | ILTA WHITE PAPER KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT One Size Does Not Fit All: Practice Group KM In both situations, information must be delivered promptly. Going straight to the source, many of our litigators have alerts set up through court websites to be informed of all the latest cases as soon as recorded. Others use our library resources to set up complex alerts monitoring various kinds of decisions. For KM, ensuring that litigators can obtain the detailed information they need about ongoing cases is a great support. » E-Discovery: E-discovery initially arose in response to the growth of email communication. It accommodated electronic searches of party documents and encouraged court acceptance of discovery provided on CD rather than stacks of paper. Now, hundreds of e-discovery tools are on the market, and their use is ubiquitous. For KM and litigators, the challenge is to understand the differences between the e-discovery platforms and how best to leverage them. We work with several outsourced vendors, each of which uses a different e-discovery platform. Our litigation group adds value for clients by ensuring the right vendor and platform are selected for the circumstances of each case. Litigators' early adoption of e-discovery technology and their broad content needs might allow them to be more open than other practitioners to adopting additional innovative technologies, such as artificial-intelligence-based legal research platforms. » Forms: Court forms are a necessity in litigation proceedings, but they differ from court to court. Although many litigators use pleadings and other documents they have draed before, obvious pitfalls come with this practice. Missing a form change and overlooking a reference to an old proceeding are all too easy. Tools that automate court forms in a way that allows suites of court documents to be produced quickly and accurately for new maers increase efficiency while reducing risk of embarrassment. Although the choice of tools will vary depending on location, most jurisdictions have at least one provider you can look to for court form packages and more advanced automation. TOP TOOLS Andrea: When I first started in KM, I strongly advocated for our intellectual capital to be shared across all practice groups. Lawyers are responsible enough to know what content they have the expertise to use. I still believe this approach is in the firm's best interests. However, not everyone agrees, so I have become more flexible. Here is what changed my mind: • Experience matters. Many smaller specialty groups find developing collections of past work product more efficient than creating model precedents, forms and templates. These samples are negotiated and unannotated, so expertise is needed to know what is and is not useful about the documents and where the pitfalls lurk. • Too much information is… too much. Individual lawyers need only the firm's intellectual capital that is relevant to their practice. Having access to everything causes information overload. Does it matter if some materials and resources are only available to a few people? • Costs can outweigh benefits. Nearly every specialty group I have worked with has requested access to its information be restricted to group members. Groups are prepared to invest in their KM collections only if assured of this restriction. That puts KM in an awkward position. I now think supporting specialists by improving their access to resources that make them better at what they do is more important than upholding the "access for all" principle. What side of the debate do you land on? The Debate Goes On: Access for All?

• Cover