Good Morning
Sat 17th May

Waterlow Legal Technology Survey

Is it the use of technology rather than the toolkits themselves that makes or breaks a lawyer’s efficiency?
"The first Solicitors Journal Annual Technology Survey was run online at www.waterlowlegal.com and www.solicitorsjournal.com for four weeks at the beginning of 2007. All respondents generated £1 to the charities of their choice. Several readers had told us about their experiences with technology and IT departments and were intrigued to find out if anyone shared them. As a result the questions were put together using this feedback and the results suggested that control of IT and established working practices are major issues in law firms of all sizes.	We received 64 responses, 47 of which came from law firms. The medium to large firms were the most heavily represented and there were more solicitors (25 in all) responding than any other role. Out of those who selected the ‘none’ of the roles most were external or internal consultants but a few were librarians who clearly did not see themselves as information managers. See Table 1: Roles of Respondents for the full profile Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (40) had been qualified in their professions for over nine years – so one could assume their working practices were highly established. Over half (37) the respondents had full time, in-house IT support but these were, as one would expect, almost entirely concentrated in the larger organisations comprising at least six lawyers.
Table 1: Roles of Respondents for the full profile
IT facts and challenges
One of the most telling statistics was that nearly all the individual respondents rated themselves as more IT enabled than their organisation – and the presence of full-time in-house IT support did not change this picture. See Table 2: Ratings of IT enablement where 1 is ‘averse to IT’ and 5 is ‘very enabled’. Susan R Know, Legal Consultant at Kroll sees this as a challenge to law firms and corporations ‘ Clearly IT has become an increasingly important issue for teams within law firms and legal departments. Law firms are frequently taking advantage of the internet and computer forensics in investigations and case preparation and routinely use technology to collect, process and review electronic evidence for disclosure’, she says. She makes the point ‘Incorporating the IT team into this process is critical. However, the fact that respondents to this survey view themselves as IT superior as compared to their organisations, means there is still room for investment in technology’. When it came to sharing information, there was less of a gap between individuals and their organisations, with 41 respondents rating themselves at the upper end of the scale where 5 was ‘all information is shared and centralised’ and 37 rating their organisations at the same level.
Table 2: Ratings of IT enablement
Technology solutions
Although all the technology solutions we listed (CRM, invoicing and billing, conflict management, document assembly, precedents management and filing, case management and voice recognition) were found in many firms as bespoke systems rather than Microsoft Office adaptations, the most popular bespoke choices were invoicing and billing (45) and case management (34). There were more respondents adapting document assembly, precedents management and filing from Office (17) than any other solution (the next highest was 7). Rupert Kendrick, IT author, editor and journalist, explained why many law firms struggle with changing their working practices once they have acquired their own case management system. ‘The traditional role of the lawyer is to operate independently with a caseload. With every file, the lawyer makes the decision on the management of the case at every stage, from the most trivial to the most important aspects. The lawyer operates with a secretary on a one-to-one basis. Only they know between them the exact state of the any case in the caseload at any given time. This is a hierarchical model and places the lawyer in a position of great power but is an inefficient way of working, because everything must await the attention of the lawyer, including clients and others connected with the case. ‘A case management system challenges this model. All case data is entered into the system and cases are handled by teams who are trained in the use of the system and in the understanding of the relevant legal procedures. Individual letters and bespoke documents dictated by a lawyer are required less frequently because the case management system generates standard letters and documents. Key stages of any transaction (eg limitation periods) can be seen at a glance without the need for consultation with a lawyer. Clients can track the progress of their case online or just ask a member of the team to look on the system. As a result the law firm is able to rationalise staffing by employing properly trained, but less senior staff to operate the case management systems, reserving (fewer) lawyers for involvement in more complex points of law and senior management decisions.’ One has to wonder why take up of this solution is so low. Part of the answer may lie in the answers to the question we raised on who the main drivers of IT strategy were in the organisation. This was almost neck and neck with 25 respondents indicating it was lawyers (and all those respondents were lawyers, not information managers or librarians), and 24 confirming it was the IT teams (which included all the IT, consultants and information professionals). Kendrick suggests that this ‘may have something do with a perceived loss of day to day control of a caseload’. Not only did all lawyers have access to a PC, but 14 indicated that PDAs were also available upon request. Future surveys will test what sorts of PDA applications would add value for lawyers; there are already many forms of ‘point of care’ information delivery in this format for doctors.
Policies, procedures and procurement	Make a wish
It was encouraging to see that most respondents had email/electronic information policies (56) and data protection policies (48). However there were fewer incidences of homeworking policies (26) and client information policies (33). Susan Know reminds us that ‘law firms should be enforcing email/information policies, not only to protect themselves,but also so that they can enjoy the benefits of streamlined, precise data retrieval. As solicitors know from the e-disclosure context good electronic data management results in well-organised data with rich, informative metadata’. When it came to implementation of new hardware or software, the small to medium-sized firms would outsource the actual implementation, having done and internal exercise on cost/benefits first. The larger firms clearly operated on a collaborative basis with lawyers and IT discussing what the requirements were and getting involved in the testing. There were a few gripes on how long it all took ‘there is a long lead time in terms of getting an IT proposal approved by the management board and then further delays whilst it takes the place in the queue of other priorities, but we get there in the end’, commented one respondent. Respondents were very clear about what they looked for when choosing a supplier. Top ratings of 5 (very important) were given to ‘ease of use’ (27), after sales service (23), with cost being third (19). Brand and reputation were the least important.	When we asked respondents to tell us the one thing that would make them and their firm more efficient users of IT, unsurprisingly the overwhelming themes were training to get the most out of the systems available, greater freedom to use IT products and services while complying with necessary security policies and better understanding of what IT could do by non-IT literate colleagues. But the wish that was shared most of all was for more investment. As one respondent comments, ‘We need to invest in more regular and constructive upgrading of systems generally. There is too much reliance on ‘patching and ‘fixing’ where the cost effective response longer term would be to invest and upgrade’. Given that technology acquisition can usually be accounted for as an asset depreciated over three years, this is an understandable complaint. One thing can be certain; the effective use of information technology to drive down costs and improve efficiency in organisations is there for those who choose to take advantage. But the speed of take-up seems to be down to organisational culture and behaviour; and these don’t change nearly as fast as IT.