TECHNOLAWYER.COM: THIRTEEN YEARS OF TECHNO-GOOFS AND THE LESSONS LEARNED

By Carol L. Schlein

INTRODUCTION
Throughout 13 years of helping law firms to implement and use technology to better serve their clients, I have seen all sorts of silliness. For several years now, I've threatened to write an article about the dumb choices my clients make regarding the use of technology to manage their law practices. As a legal technology consultant working mostly with solo, small- and medium-sized law firms, I have witnessed the taking of many counter-productive steps in the name of moving forward. Hopefully, by sharing some of these missteps, I can spare your firm from making the same, often costly, gaffes.

One of my favorite law firm mistakes occurs when a firm hires a consultant, asks for advice, and then doubts it based on comments from a client or a brother-in-law who dabbles in computers, or because the decision-maker in the firm reads technology magazines that may contain good advice. Attention: some of the advice in InfoWorld may not apply to a law firm! What works for a large corporation or a technology magazine columnist may be totally wrong for a small law firm.

Case in point -- when law offices using an older version of WordPerfect and with a huge investment in forms or macros hear from an IT specialist at a Fortune 500 corporation that the office should switch to Microsoft Word because "that's what everyone uses." Never mind that the firm's office staff will pull out their hair and that documents and forms won't convert properly. I, on the other hand, would advise the firm to stick with Corel WordPerfect because of its significant investment in that platform and because, despite a fallen market share in the aggregate, WordPerfect still holds its own in the legal market.

Another mistake -- when a law firm receives several proposals from systems vendors and then shops primarily on price, rather than focusing on the vendor's reputation, ability to service the firm in a timely fashion, and knowledge base. To compound this mistake, firms, when presented with the bottom line, often lose sight of the reasons they're upgrading in the first place, and start to eliminate features or options to save a little money. I have found that it is easier for clients to swallow up front the bigger bill for hardware, and remember that every day, thereafter, the added processor speed or memory will make the staffs' jobs easier.

PENNY WISE?
I've noticed a pattern recently among several clients -- they embark on a cost-saving measure that turns out to be more expensive than the savings they hoped to realize. For example, in networked environments it's tempting to think that individual workstations don't need a CD-ROM drive since, in theory, most software can be installed from the network. In reality, however, with improved CD-burners (also known as CD-writers), patches and documents are often sent on CDs for loading on a specific workstation. Asking a consultant who is being paid on an hourly basis to set up a workaround or locate a machine with a CD-ROM drive to install a maintenance release, wastes unnecessary dollars.

This situation underscores the importance of keeping up with tech sector trends. Increasingly, software vendors are including CD-ROM-based tutorials with their products. The lack of foresight in configuring your firm's workstations with CD-ROM drives will cost you -- and hamper learning opportunities for your own staff as they adjust to a new product. Were your firm to install a CD-ROM drive on each computer, the staff could work with the tutorial during down time.

Speaking of "peripherals," years ago, I advised firms to cut costs by forgoing a sound card or speakers for their computers. Today, reasons abound for not skipping sound systems on new computers. While some Web sites use sound as background, a greater number engage sound to relay valuable information. This trend will intensify as broadband access to the Internet increases. Using a computer with a voice recognition system is also a reason to include a sound system. And, adding a CD-ROM drive or almost any component to an existing computer is substantially more expensive than including one with a new purchase.

Regarding purchasing, too many firms buy software without sufficiently determining its suitability for the office, and without knowing that the firm has the time, personnel and financial resources to implement and maintain the program properly. Products like Timeslips and Time Matters come to mind since they are inexpensive, but in order to maximize their full potential, they require a substantial time commitment. Implementing these products without a consultant is yet another mistake; I have found that firms that go it alone often end up accruing larger consulting bills for cleaning up messes that could have been avoided.

I worked with a firm recently that had been using Timeslips for several years. When the billing clerk quit, the replacement was confused about how to proceed. In reviewing the former employee's work flow, we discovered that many procedures had been executed circuitously or incorrectly. For example, no one at the firm knew to customize Timeslips to print letterhead along with bills. Until I worked with staff members, they were printing bills individually in order to first feed sheets of letterhead into the printer. I created a bill layout in ten minutes. The result? The firm now prints an entire month's billing in a single step, saving a huge amount of staff time.

MISDIRECTION
Often I see lawyers bogged down on formatting or procedural tasks that do not add value to the client relationship. One of my all-time favorites is when they spend time writing cover letters for bills. While letters are necessary on occasion, attorneys who insist on preparing individual cover letters that regurgitate information already on a bill are wasting time. For corporate clients, the main contact may not even be the person opening or reviewing the bill! And most individual clients are bright enough to understand that the document they have received is a bill to be paid.

Another pet peeve: lawyers who focus on the bill's format rather than on its substance. They get bent out of shape if lines are in the wrong place, but they don't ensure that descriptions for the work performed are clearly explained.

More costly mistakes occur when firms shortchange employees on training. Granted, firms are generally pretty good about arranging for introductory sessions. However, they skimp on follow-up training that supports new users as they work with a product. You see, most people absorb only a limited amount of information at a time. In fact, I often say that I expect students to recall only about 10 percent of the information I provide at a given time. I've witnessed many situations where, for the convenience of the trainers, students are subjected to full days of training, often on several consecutive days. This is a totally unnatural way to master a new software product.

Training is more effective when broken into shorter sessions with recess in between to allow new users to work at their own desks with the new product. Additionally, training is best accomplished when people aren't pulled out of sessions for "emergencies," and when they receive supporting materials that illustrate how the new system will be implemented in their firm.

DELEGATION DISASTERS
This brings us head-on to personnel issues I often observe among my small-firm clients. Lawyers -- and I include myself -- tend to both delegate too little and too much; while we trust our staff with some functions, we reserve for ourselves others that we should delegate. Some firms set up their network so as to limit the time of day staff members can log in, yet also allow anyone in the firm to access the firm's checkbook to pay vendors. While time-based log-ins sound like a good security measure, they can backfire when a vendor must install and test new applications while the computer user is away. The vendor can't proceed without contacting the system administrator for the log-in.

Another blunder awaits when a lawyer becomes enamored with technology and begins to spend more time "futzing" with computers than practicing law. Given today's billable rates, it makes no sense to have a $250-per-hour computer support person. Unfortunately, knowing when to do things yourself and when to delegate is a skill that doesn't come naturally to many lawyers.

At the other extreme are lawyers who want nothing to do with implementing their firm's new technology until after all the basic design work is finished, and then present a laundry list of items they'd like changed. Such lawyers must get involved earlier in the process to ensure their needs and concerns are met.

Further inefficiencies result when partners limit the functions that staff members can access within applications or in Windows generally. I have seen some firms prevent their staff from accessing their Recycle bins or opening Windows Explorer. This "safeguard" typically results in people running around to find someone with "authority" to make a minor change to a program. In my opinion, it's better to give people more access to let them explore, learn, and use the system more productively.

Along the same lines, setting firm policies and procedures that are complex or confusing will lead to staff dissatisfaction and possibly, dreaded turnover. Support staff constantly confide in me about the "stupid" rules or decisions their bosses have enacted regarding office procedures. If you've hired support staff to help run your business and care for your clients, give them the respect they deserve and assume they're capable, instead of incompetent. Giving people room to be creative to solve your firm's business problems will result in higher morale and loyalty.

DATA MISMANAGEMENT
Until the dot-com bust, many firms experienced exponential growth, and small firms, which typically started with name-based filing systems, switched to a number-based system as their client base expanded. While numbers are harder for most people to remember, numbering systems are much more predictable and therefore easier to work with than names, even as the number of active matters increases. With numbers, you merely increment, whereas with names you often end up with a hodgepodge of inconsistencies when two clients have the same last name, or a large client has a number of underlying matters. Unfortunately, some firms that moved to numbered case files wound up with multiple systems for identifying clients and matters because they failed to bring the older files into the new system.

Word processing file management, especially in small firms, seems to be a big mess much of the time. Even when networked, firms still seem to allow each secretary to have his or her own folder and file-naming conventions. This can be a recipe for disaster when a secretary becomes ill or leaves the firm. While well-intentioned, a secretary's approach to file organization is at odds with a lawyer's. For example, a secretary who works for several attorneys might be inclined to set up separate folders for each lawyer and within that folder organize the documents in sub-folders based on the type of document -- all letters together, all pleadings, etc.

But while this system may seem logical and workable, it's not. If two lawyers work on the same case, documents can end up in different places. The same issue occurs when the main folders are based on who typed the document. In this scenario, the lawyer needs to know with whom the document originated.

It is better to organize files by client, then case. Of course, as a firm grows, it should consider a document management program like Worldox, DOCS OPEN or iManage. These programs literally manage your document creation and access.

But don't just run out and purchase one of these programs. That can be a mistake, too. Do your homework. Make sure you've selected the right product for your firm. Before spending money on new software, make sure you're reaping value from your current applications. I'm always surprised by the number of calls I receive from attorneys who purchase a product and let it sit on a shelf until a crisis arises, such as when a firm buys a billing program but doesn't implement it until the firm must conduct a fee petition, or an accounting for an estate. Implementing complicated systems under a deadline is one of the worst things you can do to your already harried staff.

HIRING MISTAKES
Speaking of staff, small firms are often reluctant to recognize when it's time to hire new and different types of employees. Sole practitioners who pride themselves on operating without even an office assistant shock me. In my opinion, simply having a person stuff bills into envelopes, make copies, maintain filing, schedule appointments, and eliminate my need to talk to phone solicitors is well-worth the expense. Firms with even a few lawyers would be well-served to consider hiring an office manager. This relates to my earlier comments about failing to delegate. In observing many law offices over the years, I've been surprised at the tedious administrative tasks lawyers retain. I, too, am guilty of this "sin" -- I'm often the one putting together the supply order. I should -- and will -- start delegating that task to my staff!

While it may sound like a big budget item, in the long run, having a professional office manager should result in the smooth functioning of your office, since that person enables lawyers to focus on billable work, and not waste time on matters better handled by someone trained to deal with personnel, benefits, etc. Similarly, many firms might benefit from either hiring or training an existing employee to take on more advanced responsibilities, like maintaining the firm's computers. Tasks including performing backups, deleting temporary files, emptying recycle bins and maintaining the network can be expensive to farm out. Additionally, this individual can document the firm's systems and procedures, and perhaps train others to improve their use of products already installed in the firm.

If you recognize yourself or your firm in any of these gaffes, you should reflect on how you can improve your firm's functioning and decision-making. Not only will it make your firm function better, but it will also fatten your wallet.