Dennis Kennedy

	Web DennisKennedy.com

« November 2005 | Main | January 2006 »

December 31, 2005

A Reflection on Blogging at the End of 2005

This quote from Rich Karlgaard via Doc Searls captures something essential about blogging at the end of 2005:

Blogging is not overhyped. You may be forgiven for thinking so, as no day goes by without a story on blogs. But blogs are no fad. They are cheap and easy to do. And blogs fulfill that deepest of human needs as defined by psychologist Abraham Maslow: self-actualization. People write blogs because they want to know themselves and want to be known by others and because they want their lives to count. When a communications medium is both riding the Moore's Law cost-capability curve and tapping into a deep need, it's no fad.

All best wishes for 2006!

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

Posted by dmk at 11:03 AM | Comments (1)

December 30, 2005

X1 Licenses Are Almost - Get Yours Now

As I mentioned here, the nice people at X1 are providing fifty licenses for the X1 Desktop Search tool for readers of this blog who email me with a request for the URL for the download. My rough estimate is that there are around fifteen of them left, so if you would like one be sure to email me (denniskennedyblog @ gmail.com) with your request for the down load URl soon. I appreciate it when you include comments about this blog with your request. As any blogger will tell you, it's fascinating to see who reads your blog.

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www/denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

This post brought to you by Dennis Kennedy's legal technology consulting services, featuring RSS and blogging consulting, technology audit, strategic planning and technology committee coaching packages especially for medium-sized law firms (15 - 100 lawyers) and corporate legal departments.

Posted by dmk at 02:32 PM | Comments (0)

December 29, 2005

Disaster Remembrance Week

Blogs got a lot of attention in 2005 - for a lot of reasons, good and bad. However, there probably has not been enough attention paid to the practical impact blogs have had in times of disaster to assist others in need.

The WorldWideHelp Group is promoting this week as Disaster Remembrance Week.

From the announcement:

"Last December and this January, the online community came together as never before to help in the aid efforts in South-East Asia. The lessons learned there were put to use, and improved upon, when the other tragic events of the year unfolded.

Can we harness that goodwill, that togetherness, that willingness to help once more?

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

Disaster Remembrance Week

Posted by dmk at 08:47 AM | Comments (0)

December 28, 2005

Looking for a Little Help Researching "Of Counsel" Arrangements

I'm working on a little research project, maybe it will turn into an article, on the practical aspects of "of counsel" arrangements between lawyers and law firms.

In part, my working hypothesis is that "virtual law firms" (I know that some of you don't like that term, but bear with me) will be founded on the evolution of "tried and true" legal relationships between lawyers rather than on some kind of new form of "affiliation" or other relationship model.

It seemed like a straightforward topic, until I started doing a little research and couldn't find much of anything.

Here's what I'm looking for some help on:

1. Collections of resources, outlines and articles on this topic (non-premium resources, to the extent possible). Send me the URLs.

2. If you are willing, sanitized copies of "of counsel" agreements so I can see what the standard approaches are.

3. Information, including anecdotal info, about financial and other arrangements and the successes and failures of this approach.

4. Discussion of ethical and practical issues.

I'll create a page of links to the best of the resources I find and post it here and/or on my website.

Thanks for your help.

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

This post brought to you by LexThink!(TM) - The Conference, Re-imagined. LexThink! - Think big thoughts, do cool things, change the world. Ask us about private LexThink retreats and conferences for your firm, business or organization.

Posted by dmk at 04:49 PM | Comments (1)

December 27, 2005

Free X1 Desktop Search Licenses as Gift to Readers of this Blog (Limit of 50)

The nice people at X1 have graciously agreed to provide up to 50 of the readers of my blog with a free license to the X1 Desktop Search tool ($75 regular price). I wanted to used this offer as a way to say thank you to readers of my blog.

There's been no category of software hotter in 2005 than the desktop search category. X1 is one of the leaders in the category. The tool will let you swiftly search files and email as if you have a search engine for your hard drive. I can tell you that Microsoft Outlook seems like a completely different program once you use a desktop search tool for searching your email.

All you need to do is to be one of the first 50 people to email me (preferably at denniskennedyblog @ gmail.com) with a request for the URL you'll need for the download and I'll get you the info you need. The URL has a built-in counter that will cut things off at 50 or at an expiration date in January, so I'll simply ask you to download one copy only. Once the 50 downloads happen, the offer will end. If you'd like to pass along some comments or suggestions about my blog, I encourage you to do so.

By the way, although I am, of course, interested in sponsor inquiries, I'm also happy to talk to vendors about doing promotions like this one that provide benefits to readers of this blog (without requiring any more effort from me than this one does) or other discount / affiliate marketing arrangements.

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

This post brought to you by Dennis Kennedy's legal technology consulting services, featuring RSS and blogging consulting, technology audit, strategic planning and technology committee coaching packages especially for medium-sized law firms (15 - 100 lawyers) and corporate legal departments. More information on the "Second Pair of Eyes" packages for legal technology audits and strategic planning may be found here (PDF).

Posted by dmk at 01:51 PM | Comments (0)

Reinventing DennisKennedy.Blog for 2006

I have been thinking quite a bit lately about DennisKennedy.Blog and the directions I want to go with it. I've gotten some constructive criticism lately (or at least I think it's meant to be constructive) and some good suggestions from a number of people.

The four comments that seem to arise most often are: (1) the posts are too long, (2) the blog should have more focus, (3) jokes or other attempts at humor should be labeled, and (4) the posts are way too long.

So, I had been thinking about "reinventing" the blog before I saw Hugh McLeod's great drawing called "if you can't re-invent yourself." Now I'm working on at least a modest reinvention of this blog for 2006. Reinvention, from time to time, is a good thing, I think.

I'm also encouraging people to let me know your ideas and suggestions.

What's in the works? Here's what I'm considering:

1. Shorter posts. People have convinced me that "long posts" should actually be done as podcasts.

2. The biggest change I'm considering is to move completely to a question-and-answer format, much like the Ask Dave Taylor blog, of which I'm a big fan. There's always been a good response to the "By Request Days" (other than by people who got confused the first time I did it). Someone told me that they really liked the Q-and-A format for my writing and, as I've read Dave Taylor's blog, it seems attractive to me. Just to be clear, I'd be making up most of the questions are using the questions as titles of the posts, although I'm sure that the format would lead to more audience questions.

3. One thing that became very clear in 2005 is that blog advertising and blog advertising networks are now considered quite acceptable. I've had some reluctance to go very far in that direction, but now will move in that way. Your sponsor and advertiser inquiries are now welcome.

4. I also think that the blog's focus will be more explicitly on technology - legal technology and the impact that technology has on the law and the practice of law.

But that's just my current thinking - I'm not sure yet what I'll finally decide - and I do have some other ideas as well. I invite your reactions and suggestions.

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

Like what you are reading? Check out the other blogs where I post - Between Lawyers (feed) and the LexThink Blog (feed).

Posted by dmk at 01:19 PM | Comments (3)

Survey Says Majority of Employees Have Sent or Received Potentially Damaging Email

I thought you might be interested in a recent press release on email usage issued by Fortiva that quotes me briefly. The press release summarizes the results of a study they did on employee email habits. The results are fascinating and might prompt you to do some follow-up at your firm, company or organization.

"

Risky Business: New Survey Shows Almost 70 Per Cent of Email-Using Employees Have Sent or Received Email that May Pose a Threat to Businesses

Survey results indicate employee email habits may be exposing businesses to potential legal pitfalls; substantial discrepancy exists between actual and perceived risks

November 15, 2005 – Norwalk, CT – Before you hit send, you may want to think twice about the content of your email. Chances are if it is a joke, gossip, or even information about your company, you could be putting yourself – and your company – at risk. A new survey released today, conducted by Harris Interactive® for Fortiva, shows that 68 per cent of U.S. employees who use email at work have sent or received email via their work email account that could place their company at risk. Despite this, 92 per cent of these employees do not believe they have ever sent a risky email. Together these statistics indicate a substantial discrepancy between employees’ perceived and actual risks.

Fortiva commissioned Harris Interactive, best known for The Harris Poll®, to look at email usage among employees. The survey, which examined the email habits of over 1,000 individuals who use email at work, uncovered a number of issues that raise concerns for businesses – both in the way employees are using and storing their corporate email.

According to the results, a majority of employees who use email at work (61 per cent) admit they have used email at work for personal use. Results also show that nearly half (48 per cent) say they have sent or received joke emails, funny pictures/movies, funny stories of a questionable tone (e.g., racy/sexual content, politically incorrect), while one in five (22 per cent) say they have sent or received a password or log-in information via email. When shared through email, this type of content could pose significant risks to businesses, either from a possible security breach or employee-driven lawsuits. Respondents were given a list of nine email categories that could be considered medium to high risk; only 32 per cent said they had never sent or received email in any of those categories.

“As email is being used increasingly as evidence in lawsuits, it is very important for organizations to educate their staff on what is and isn’t acceptable in a workplace communication,” said Dennis Kennedy, an information technology lawyer and legal technology consultant based in St. Louis, Missouri. “Those organizations that don’t implement effective policies and procedures, train their people, and enforce policies for email are at serious risk of facing both future lawsuits and unhappy results in those lawsuits. These statistics reinforce the fact that businesses need to do a better job of reducing their risk by communicating their policies more effectively with employees and backing up that communication with training and well-designed technology solutions,” Kennedy added.

While a majority of employees (73%) who use email at work are aware of corporate email policies, less than half (46 per cent) say they “always” adhere to the policy. This statistic suggests a lack of understanding among employees of the importance of an email policy.

The way that employees are storing their email may be of even more cause for concern than the content of those messages. While 41 per cent of employees who use email would prefer to keep important emails indefinitely, most businesses place limits on the amount of email that can be stored.

- more -
Such storage limitations may be leading to practices that could jeopardize information security. The survey reports that half of employees who use email at work (51 per cent) have saved email outside the corporate network, putting valuable and sometimes confidential information at risk of falling into the wrong hands. For organizations that are not archiving their email, this practice of saving data outside the controls of the corporate network presents an even greater risk, particularly in a litigation situation.

“It’s a fact – employees are using your corporate network to send personal emails, from jokes to gossip to confidential information – and every business should be taking the necessary steps to protect that data from ending up in the wrong hands, or leading to a lawsuit,” said Paul Chen, CEO of Fortiva Inc. “If email from your organization is presented as evidence in a trial, and you don’t have a copy of that email, you may be unprepared to defend yourself. Worse still, email that could support your claim of innocence could also be unavailable, ultimately leading to a forced settlement or guilty finding. A reliable email archiving solution can help businesses avoid these situations and save millions of dollars in fines and settlements, not to mention salvaging their corporate credibility.”

An email archiving solution can enforce policies and ensure that evidentiary-quality copies of all corporate email are available in the event of legal or regulatory investigations. Fortiva’s managed email archiving solution was designed to help businesses automatically enforce email policies, meet regulatory compliance rules, and quickly and easily meet e-discovery requests. The Fortiva solution also allows employees to access their own email archives, including deleted email, from their corporate mailbox. This feature can help reduce the burden on email servers, while eliminating the need for employees to store copies of email outside the corporate network.

Additional findings from the survey include (among U.S. employed adults who use email at work):

* Those who earn over $75K a year are more likely to save work-related email outside of the company’s network (62 per cent vs. 41 per cent of employees who earn less than $50K a year)
* 73 per cent admit to knowing their company has an email policy; yet less than half (46 per cent) admit to always making sure they comply with policy before sending a note
* 9 per cent of U.S. adult employees who use email at work have used company email to submit their resume to another company
* One-fifth of employees (22 per cent) have sent personal details to HR including Social Security numbers, salary details, or medical information via email

Survey Methodology
Harris Interactive® fielded the study on behalf of Fortiva, Inc. from November 2-4, 2005, via its QuickQuerySM online omnibus, interviewing a nationwide sample of 2,400 U.S. adults aged 18 and over, among whom 1,042 are employed and send or receive email at work. Data were weighted to reflect the total U.S. adult population on the basis of region, age within gender, education, household income, race/ethnicity, and amount of time spent online each week. In theory, with a probability sample of this size, one can say with 95 percent certainty that the overall results have a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points and the results of the employed adults who send or receive email at work is plus or minus 4 percentage points. Sampling error for the various sub-samples of employed adults who send or receive email at work is higher and varies. This online sample is not a probability sample.

About Harris Interactive®
Harris Interactive Inc. (www.harrisinteractive.com), based in Rochester, New York, is the 13th largest and the fastest-growing market research firm in the world, most widely known for The Harris Poll® and for its pioneering leadership in the online market research industry. Long recognized by its clients for delivering insights that enable confident business decisions, the Company blends the science of innovative research with the art of strategic consulting to deliver knowledge that leads to measurable and enduring value.

Harris Interactive serves clients worldwide through its United States, Europe (www.harrisinteractive.com/europe) and Asia offices, its wholly-owned subsidiary Novatris in Paris, France (www.novatris.com), and through an independent global network of affiliate market research companies. EOE M/F/D/V

To become a member of the Harris Poll OnlineSM and be invited to participate in future online surveys, go to www.harrispollonline.com

About Fortiva Inc.
Fortiva is a leading provider of managed email archiving solutions for regulatory compliance, legal discovery and email storage management needs. With its outsourced solution, Fortiva is helping businesses across North America to quickly and easily meet email archiving needs without risking data security. Using proprietary DoubleBlind Encryption™ technology, Fortiva stores all data offsite in encrypted form, so Fortiva staff can never access the content of archived data. The customer retains exclusive access to the encryption keys, allowing them to instantly search and retrieve archived data without worrying about managing the storage infrastructure. Headquartered in Toronto, Canada and with offices across the United States, Fortiva delivers its customer-driven solutions through a strong network of strategic partnerships as well as a direct sales force. Fortiva is a privately-owned company, with investment from Cargill Ventures, McLean Watson Capital and Ventures West. For more information, visit www.fortiva.com.

About Dennis Kennedy.
Dennis Kennedy is a well-known information technology lawyer and legal technology consultant based in St. Louis, Missouri. Kennedy speaks and writes frequently on legal and technology topics and has covered corporate policies on email and Internet usage on the Between Lawyers blog (www.corante.com/betweenlawyers/) as well as in his own blog and articles. He also co-writes a column called "Thinking E-Discovery" at DiscoveryResources.org. For more information, visit www.denniskennedy.com.

In organizations up to 2,000 employees, 57 per cent enforce a mailbox size quota; In organizations greater that 2,000 employees, 72 per cent enforce a mailbox quota – Messaging Archiving Market Trends, 2005-2008, An Osterman Research Multiclient Study.

###

Contact:

David Gollom
High Road Communications
416.368.8348 ext. 267
dgollom@highroad.com

Victoria Badgley
Fortiva
416.366.6666 ext. 383
Victoria.badgley@fortiva.com

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

This post brought to you by Dennis Kennedy's half-day electronic discovery seminar - "Preparing for the New World of Electronic Discovery: Easing Your Transition from Paper to Electronic Discovery." Contact Dennis today for more information and to schedule a seminar for your firm or legal department.

Posted by dmk at 01:09 PM | Comments (0)

Mining and Minding Your Metadata - New Electronic Discovery Column

The January Thinking E-Discovery column titled "Mining the Value of Metadata" is now available on the DiscoveryResources.org website. In this column, Tom Mighell, Evan Schaeffer and I take on the timely topic of metadata (in the legal world, "metadata" refers to hidden or revealable data contained in Microsoft Word and other documents).

The column is a wide-ranging discussion of the topic, complete with some practical pointers. There's been a lot of attention on this topic recently and I don't think it's all that difficult to become reasonably knowledgable about the issues. This column will help you get off to a good start.

The money quote is from Evan Schaeffer:

It just so happens that I have a Word document open on my desktop right now. When I look at the file's properties, I see that the "author" is listed as my law partner. She's never worked on the document but I'm using her computer. That's an interesting example of how metadata can be wrong.

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

This post brought to you by Dennis Kennedy's half-day electronic discovery seminar - "Preparing for the New World of Electronic Discovery: Easing Your Transition from Paper to Electronic Discovery." Contact Dennis today for more information and to schedule a seminar for your firm or legal department.

Posted by dmk at 12:50 PM | Comments (0)

December 26, 2005

Dan Donovan's Limited Edition, Fine Art Photographic Prints of Busch Stadium

Dan Donovan - professional photographer extraordinaire and my brother-in-law - has partnered with the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team (a long-time client of his) to produce a series of limited edition, fine art photographic prints of Busch Stadium, which you can see and purchase at http://www.dandonovanfineart.com.

As Dan notes, "The last game at the original Busch Stadium was played on October 19, 2005, with the team moving to the new Busch Stadium in 2006. To commemorate both stadiums, this series of prints has been created. There are currently 5 prints in the series, with more in development."

My personal favorite is the one Dan calls "Clouds," but I encourage you to check out the collection and how talented Dan is. Even if you are not a baseball fan or a baseball stadium buff, you'll enjoy these photos. If you are, you'll want to add one of these to your collection.

Dan also does great, creative portrait photography.

The details on the photo series and purchase info can all be found at http://www.dandonovanfineart.com. Be sure to tell Dan that you learned about the photos on this blog.

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

Like what you are reading? Check out the other blogs where I post - Between Lawyers (feed) and the LexThink Blog (feed).

Posted by dmk at 11:00 AM | Comments (0)

December 22, 2005

Dennis Kennedy's 2005 Best of Legal Blogging Awards (the Blawggies)

Welcome to the 2005 edition of Dennis Kennedy's annual Best of Legal Blogging Awards, celebrating a tradition that began nearly one full year ago. These awards, which have become affectionately known as the "Blawggies," celebrate the best of law-related blogs as determined from my personal and highly-opinionated perspective.

When Neil Squillante first started the @ awards at TechnoLawyer.com, he had an online awards ceremony. As I recall, I was one of a small number of people who really enjoyed the awards ceremony pseudo-atmosphere he was able to create through an email list. I thought I'd pay a little tribute to Neil and bring back the tradition of an online awards ceremony. I've held the Blawggie awards ceremony at the beautiful DennisKennedy.Blog Conference and Convention Center. As it turned out, all of the winners were too busy doing their real work to attend, but fortunately I was there to accept on their behalf.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that, like most of these ceremonies, the Blawggies awards show ran a little long. I know that many people do not like long posts, so I'll start this post with an "executive summary" that lists the award winners and then follow it with a transcript of the awards ceremony that will tell you more about each of the winners, the awards and a few of my observations about legal blogging as we enter 2006. I do encourage you to read the whole post.

I. List of 2005 Blawggie Award Categories and Winners.

1. Best Overall Law-Related Blog - Tom Mighell's Inter Alia

2. Best Legal Blog Category - Law Librarian Blogs

3. Best Practice-Specific Legal Blog - Marty Schwimmer's The Trademark Blog

4. Best Legal Blog Digest - Stark County Law Library Blog

5. Best Blog About Legal Blogging - Kevin O'Keefe's Real Lawyers Have Blogs

6. Best Legal Podcast - Evan Schaeffer's Legal Underground Podcast

7. The Sherry Fowler Best Writing on a Legal Blog Award - Ernest Svenson's Ernie the Attorney Blog

8. Best Law Professor Blog - James Maule's Mauled Again

9. Best New Legal Blog - (Tie) Between Lawyers; Rethink(IP)

10. Best Legal Technology Blog - DennisKennedy.Blog

11. Best Legal Blogging Trend - Bloggers Making Money from Blogging

I encourage you to read more about the winning blogs (and why they were winners) in the transcript of the awards ceremony below.

II. "Transcript" of 2005 Blawggie Awards Ceremony."

"Hello and welcome to the 2005 Blawggie Awards - the second annual edition of Dennis Kennedy's Best of Legal Blogging Awards. (Theme music, based loosely on the intro music to Evan Schaeffer's Legal Underground Podcast, plays.)

Your host for the show is Dennis Kennedy of DennisKennedy.Blog. (Warm applause.)

Good evening, ladies and germs, er, gentlemen! (Polite laughter.) I just flew in from St. Louis, also known as "Blawg City USA" . . . and boy are my arms tired! (Scattered chuckles, rolled eyes.) Is this thing on? (Silence.)

Well, let's jump right into the show. 2005 saw a tremendous growth in the number of legal blogs, also known as "blawgs," thanks to the word-coining abilities of Denise Howell. What do they call it when you get thousands of lawyers, law professors, law librarians, law students, legal consultants and others writing blogs that focus on law-related content? A good start. (Applause.)

My attitude towards law-related blogs is "let a thousand flowers bloom." I'm enjoying the wide variety of law-related blogs and the many different approaches legal bloggers are taking today. It's been a great year. (Applause.)

Let me note two interesting trends I've noticed this past year. First, long-time legal bloggers seem to be expanding the scope of their blogs and writing about more general topics while newer bloggers are creating highly-focused blogs about a specific topic. In part, this trend illustrates the movement into a second generation of legal blogging and I'm fascinated by the evolution of legal blogging. I've learned much from new bloggers this year and expect to learn much more in the future.

The second interesting trend is how often I notice that some of the best writing on legal topics can be found on blogs that would not be categorized as legal blogs. It's an indication of how blogs are often a conversation in which all can participate.

A few words about the first Blawggie awards and then we'll get to the envelopes with the 2005 awards.

Some of the reaction to the 2004 Blawggies surprised me.

I said in the 2004 awards post:

The Blawggies are not based on any popular votes, surveys or scientific measures. They are highly-opinionated choices made by me, based on my experience, expertise and likes and dislikes.

In general, I like to see blogs (1) consistently useful content, (2) a generous and helpful approach, and (3) a combination of commitment and talent. In other words, I like blogs that compel me to read them on a regular basis. I read almost all blog posts in a newsreader these days, so the awards will reflect a bias toward blogs with full-text RSS feeds as well as all of my other biases and personal preferences.

My real purpose, as it is with the 2005 awards, was to encourage a whole bunch of legal bloggers to do their own "awards." I thought that this would be a great way for legal bloggers to highlight the blawgs they really liked and an even better way for me to learn about some great blogs I might have been unfamiliar with.

I was surprised that people seemed to take the notion of "awards" a bit more seriously than I expected and that "a thousand blawg awards did not bloom." I also noticed a few criticisms of my awards. I thought I'd address some of those criticisms as a way to explain what my intention is with these awards.

1. Dennis Gave Awards Only to the Blawgs of his Friends. There is a sort of chicken-and-egg element to this comment. I now have a number of blogger friends who became my friends because we read each other's blogs and respected each other's work. We wouldn't have known each other any other way. I really like and respect their blogs. However, as I said, "They are highly-opinionated choices made by me, based on my experience, expertise and likes and dislikes."

2. Dennis Focused on Old Blawgs. Well, Dennis is one of the older bloggers. I think I had a pretty good mix of old and new, but I do focus on the entire body of work of a blog and that probably does favor long-standing blogs.

3. Dennis Gave Himself an Award. Yes, I did. I've been writing and presenting lists of "best of the Web" lists and doing other lists of links for many years. I've learned that these lists get reused and repurposed in a number of ways and often people don't notice (or don't get the chance to notice) that I was the author of the list. As a result, I usually include my website or blog on any of these lists where they fit. Bob Ambrogi has been writing about legal websites and blogs since almost before the World Wide Web existed. Bob recently wrote an article calling 2005 the year of the podcast and listing his podcast on his list of best legal podcasts. Let's face it, any list of legal podcasts that did not include Bob's podcast would be ridiculous, whether or not Bob wrote the list. I usually try to find a way to list my site or blog in a non-controversial way and I'd recommend that other people do the same thing when creating a "best of" list, at least based on my experience. Generally, you can create a narrow enough award that you can fit onto the list. For example, "best blog focusing on legal technology and technology law with the author living in the 63119 zip code" would work well for me. Anyway, it's not all an ego thing. I did give my blog an award again this year.

4. Who is Dennis Kennedy? A fair criticism. I expected this criticism and this was part of the fun of doing the Blawggies. I thought that people would say if this guy can give awards, why can't I? At worst, they might check out my blog.

5. Dennis Didn't Give the Same Awards I Would. I enjoyed the fact that the Law Dork blog (which I've read and enjoyed for a long time) won a recent vote as "best law blog." I was surprised that some people seemed to get those noses out of joint because the Law Dork blog won the prize. Similarly, I was surprised by how the discussion of the TechnoLawyer BlawgWorld eBook focused more on what blogs other people would have included, rather than on the fact that the eBook is an excellent sampler to give people who have just recently heard about legal blogs to get started. I'm not very responsive to criticism that boils down to "he didn't do it the way I would have." What's cool about blogging - you have your own printing press or your own channel to do the version you would have done. That's a notion I've often referred to as "two turntables and a microphone." In fact, my Blawggie awards are explicitly an invitation for you to announce your own awards. As an aside, I could not disagree more with recent commentary that blogs are a new form of a "vanity press." Two turntables and a microphone.

Now, let's move from the 2004 Blawggies to the 2005 Blawggies.

In the past few months, I've changed the way that I "read" blogs. As you may know, I rarely visit a blog. Instead, I subscribe to the RSS feeds in a newsreader and read the posts in my newsreader. Recently, I created a number of "saved searches" or "watches" and, rather than attempt to read all of the posts in all of the feeds, I monitor certain topics and read a limited number of blogs on a daily basis these days. The award-winning blogs represent some of the law-related blogs I read on a daily basis.

As another clarification, I really do not read more than a few political blogs. I get my political news through emails from Marty Schwimmer. (A few chuckles and some muttered complaints about bloggers and their @#%*& inside jokes.)

As a transactional lawyer, I do not read many litigation blogs, except to the extent they deal with electronic discovery. As a result, some may feel that blogs in these categories are under-represented in these awards. My awards also focus on blogs of practicing lawyers.

I'll also note that the narrowly-focused blogs will work well for marketing and related purposes, but will diminish your chances to win general legal blogging awards. They've chosen the correct priority.

For the curious, I'm subscribed to around 180 law-related blogs in my newsreader these days. (Gasps from audience.) As I mentioned, that does not mean that I read all of them on a regular basis, except as they touch on topics that I'm interested in. Also, because of BlawgThink, I got the chance to visit hundreds of law-related blogs and meet or at least exchange emails with many legal bloggers. I say this both as background about me and to give some credibility to my claim that I'm very impressed by the quality of what's going on in the blawgosphere. Narrowing my selections for these awards was very difficult this year.

Finally, I prefer blogs that have maybe five or fewer posts a day and, big surprise, I tend to prefer blogs with longer essay-like posts.

And, now, the suspense-building is over, and we open the envelopes for this year's awards. (Loud, relieved applause.)

1. Best Overall Law-Related Blog - Tom Mighell's Inter Alia

Last year's winner was Sabrina Pacifici's BeSpacific.com. I could have easily given this blog the award again this year. However, I wanted to select a different blog for this award in 2005. I've noticed in the last few months that Inter Alia is the first legal blog I read each day. There are three things I want to highlight about Inter Alia. (1) I learn highly useful, practical information on a regular basis. (2) Tom has a great, succinct style that I admire greatly. (3) Tom's "Blawg of the Day" feature not only lets me know about new legal blogs, but is also an act of great generosity. Tom and I now write two columns together, have done presentations and webinars together and Tom is part of the Between Lawyers blog with me, so I get the chance to learn from Tom on a regular basis outside his blog. By the way, Tom has agreed to work with me to help me write shorter posts in 2006.

2. Best Legal Blog Category - Law Librarian Blogs

I stand in awe of the job that law librarian bloggers as a group are doing. Across the board, these blogs have developed into strong information resources, often with links to primary source information that I'm not sure how I would find otherwise. There are so many great blogs in this category. I'll simply mention a few to get you started: BeSpacific.com, The Law Librarian Blog, Out of the Jungle, Law Dawg Blawg, WisBlawg, Vancouver Law Library Blog, Stark County Library Blog, Library Boy, LawLibTech, Connie Crosby, BarclayBlog, and Slaw.ca

3. Best Practice-Specific Legal Blog - Marty Schwimmer's The Trademark Blog

The Trademark Blog won this award last year and, even though I wanted to move to a different winner, the fact is that The Trademark Blog remains the model of a practice-specific blawg. Marty covers trademark law with a great eye for compelling material, his trademark wit and lots of pictures. I said last year: "The Trademark Blog is a great example of a way lawyers can speak in a plain voice to both a legal and non-legal audience in an engaging way." Two other practice-specific blogs I wanted to single out this year are Dennis Crouch's widely-acclaimed Patently-O blog and Janell Grenier's always interesting Benefitsblog. Both are great examples of ways to do practice-specific blogs.

4. Best Legal Blog Digest - Stark County Law Library Blog

This blog could also win my most under-appreciated blog award. A big trend in legal blogging in 2005 was the development of blogs that aggregate information from other legal blogs, digest posts from other legal blogs or highlight and point to posts on other legal blogs. These kinds of blogs can be quite useful as a way to monitor a number of blogs in one place. Nancy Stinson at the Stark County Law Library Blog has been highlighting and pointing to useful posts for a long time now. She does a great job of picking up interesting and useful posts from other blogs, usually a few each day. I like this approach because other approaches can overload me with the sheer number of posts they cover. My honorable mention in this category goes to Lisa Stone's Legal Blog Watch. Lisa's summaries of posts are so great that I rarely go to the underlying post. Even though I understand the purpose of the blog, I wish Lisa would cover blogs outside the Law.com blog network on a regular basis.

5. Best Blog About Legal Blogging - Kevin O'Keefe's Real Lawyers Have Blogs

I like the way Kevin puts his opinions and his incisive comments and wise observations out there for discussion on a regular basis. He wants to get conversations started. He also has a long history of using the Internet, runs a blog design, hosting and consulting business, and has excellent insights and experience in the world of legal blogging. I always respect Kevin's opinion on these matters, even on the occasional times we disagree. I always learn something. If you want to learn about developments in the world of blogging, the use of blogs for marketing and practical information about the use of legal blogs, you'll find no better starting point than this blog.

6. Best Legal Podcast - Evan Schaeffer's Legal Underground Podcast

I'm not prepared to go as far as Bob Ambrogi and say that 2005 was the year of the podcast, but podcasting was certainly an important development in 2005. My favorite podcast is Evan Schaeffer's Legal Underground Podcast. Evan recently finished his 44th podcast. Evan's set a high standard of professionalism for lawyer podcasts - he uses scripts, excellent recording techniques, music, sound effects and creates a professional, polished podcast. He also created podcasts that run about 10 to 15 minutes (or less), a time that many people believe is the "sweet spot" for podcasts. Better yet, the material is great, often humorous and always insightful.

7. The Sherry Fowler Best Writing on a Legal Blog Award - Ernest Svenson's Ernie the Attorney Blog

As I wrote about here, I'm a big fan of the writing ability of some of the best legal bloggers. There are some legal blogs I read because I like the writing. I think that the best writer among legal bloggers is Sherry "Scheherezade" Fowler. However, Sherry has stopped practicing law and was wondering the other day whether she's still a legal blogger. That's for her to decide, but I decided to honor her writing abilities by putting her name on this award. Since the end of August, Ernie's writing, especially about the aftermath of Katrina, has been stellar. He's become such a great writer and captures something essential about New Orleans on a regular basis. If publishers are looking for someone to write a great book about Katrina and its aftermath in New Orleans, I'd point them to Ernie.

8. Best Law Professor Blog - Jim Maule's Mauled Again

As Professor Maule says, his blog features "more than occasional commentary on tax law, legal education, the First Amendment, religion, and law generally, with sporadic attempts to connect all of this to genealogy, theology, music, model trains, and chocolate chip cookies." His blog also shows that you can write engaging and helpful commentary about the U.S. tax system. Mauled Again is a great read on any topic I really enjoy the writing. Two other law prof blogs earn an honorable mention from me because I enjoy reading them so much: Paul Caron's TaxProf Blog and Tun Ying's The Yin Blog (among other things, we like some of the same TV shows).

9. Best New Legal Blog - (Tie) Between Lawyers; Rethink(IP)

Oh, puh-leeze, like I'm not going to have Between Lawyers listed in this category? Both winners in this category represent the important new group blogging phenomenon and that's part of the reason that I picked them in this category. I've enjoyed the evolution of the Between Lawyers experiment (although the jury is still out on the "Lawyer X" thing). Between Lawyers shows how highly individual and well-known bloggers can create a group blog with a different focus and voice that exists alongside their individual blogs. I know a number of people who will tell you that one of the coolest things about legal blogging and its potential was seeing the RethinkIP guys - Doug, Matt and Steve - hanging out together at the ABA TECHSHOW. We all thought that they were best friends from college. The fact was that they were meeting in person for the first time. I like the way they've used the Rethink(IP) blog as a way to create a group voice and a forum to discuss issues that do not fit into their practice-specific individual blogs. They also taught me how to do Skype instant messaging this year and helped me rethink my approach to blogging, collaboration and making gratuitous "rethink" references. As I mentioned before, there are a ton of great new law-related blogs this year - there are many worthy of winning this award.

10. Best Legal Technology Blog - DennisKennedy.Blog

Ha! I figured out a way to give my blog an award. My recent effort to republish many of my legal technology articles over the last few months probably locked up this award for my blog. There's a lot of content there. My one criticism is that the posts tend to be a little long.

11. Best Legal Blogging Trend - Bloggers Making Money from Blogging

Need I say more, other than to say that we all hope that this is a much bigger trend in 2006.

And there you have it - the 2005 Blawggie Awards. (Applause.)

I'd like to take a moment to say a special "thank you" to my partner in LexThink!, Matt Homann, for hundreds of great ideas in Matt Homann's Nonbillable Hour blog, for putting together the BlawgThink conference and for proving everyday that the most powerful technology in blogging is the telephone.

As I said, these awards reflect my perspective on the Blawgosphere today. I welcome your feedback, but really invite you to post your own awards as a way of saying "thank you" to the blogs and bloggers that matter most to you.(Applause and Blawggie theme music playing.)

++++++

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

This post brought to you by Dennis Kennedy's legal technology consulting services, featuring RSS and blogging consulting, technology audit, strategic planning and technology committee coaching packages especially for medium-sized law firms (15 - 100 lawyers) and corporate legal departments. More information on the "Second Pair of Eyes" packages for legal technology audits and strategic planning may be found here (PDF).

This post also brought to you by LexThink!(TM) - The Conference, Re-imagined. LexThink! - Think big thoughts, do cool things, change the world. Ask us about private LexThink retreats and conferences for your firm, business or organization.

Posted by dmk at 08:16 PM | Comments (4)

December 21, 2005

A Phishing Primer from Dave Pollard

You can never learn too much about the real dangers of the Internet. I mean, of course, things other than reading too many blogs or too few blogs.

Dave Pollard has posted an excellent primer called "The Phishing Menace" on one of those dangers - phishing. Phishing uses a combination of technology and social engineering to try to get you to give up personal and financial information that can and will be used in ways that you will not like. Pollard's post will educate you on the basic safety principles and point you to some useful resources.

The money quote:

Phishing, by contrast, is not annoying, it's dangerous. It's not overzealous promotion, it's crime: fraud and theft. It is also, currently, harder to filter, and becoming more sophisticated.

Highly recommended.

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

This post brought to you by Dennis Kennedy's legal technology consulting services, featuring RSS and blogging consulting, technology audit, strategic planning and technology committee coaching packages especially for medium-sized law firms (15 - 100 lawyers) and corporate legal departments. More information on the "Second Pair of Eyes" packages for legal technology audits and strategic planning may be found here (PDF).

Posted by dmk at 11:11 PM | Comments (1)

December 20, 2005

Why Lawyers Don't Choose (or Use) Case Management Software - Article

[NOTE: This is another in the series of repostings of my previously-published articles. This article was written in 2000. Because I think that there are many experts on case management software, I've rarely written on the topic of case management. This article is one of those occasions. It takes a high-level view of the topic and does not delve into specific programs, because, as I said, other people can do that much better than I can. Today, I'm interested in ASP (application service provider) approaches to case management and the integration of project and workflow management into case management tools.]

Why Lawyers Don't Choose (or Use) Case Management Software

Take a minute and try this exercise: add up the time you spend looking for files, looking for misfiled information, designing filing and calendaring systems and digging through the rubble on your desk in the average day. (As a starting point, the average person spends sixteen minutes a day just looking for lost items.) Multiply that by the number of days you work in a year. Multiply that times your hourly billing rate. Ponder that amount.

Lawyers spend an inordinate amount of time looking for information and attending to administrative details. And, if true is money, lawyers should be adopting ways to decrease the amount of unproductive time they spend.

If there were a way to keep your files constantly accessible to you and your staff, to organize your client information, to reduce paper and clutter, to streamline intake and retrieval of information, to generate reports that give you meaningful information about your practice and to keep information at your fingertips, you would probably stand in line to sign up for it. Case management software offers all these potential benefits, and more.

Yet, after many years, many seminars and many consultants, many lawyers and law firms have not adopted these programs.

Let's consider the reasons that lawyers give for not using case management software.

1. "I Don't Know What It Is." I've been surprised by the number of lawyers who have told me that "Someone told me that I need case management software, but I really don't know what it is." Part of the reason for this is that the term "case management" has a litigation feel to it and non-litigators struggle a bit with the concept. Think of it as "practice management" or, better, "matter management."

Every lawyer has some find of system for dealing with ongoing matters and dormant or closed matters. Typically, that system involves file folders, filing cabinets and papers stacked in piles on their desks and in their offices. Information retrieval typically involves memory, knowledge of an individual filing system, a byzantine numbering system, and lots of scrambling around to find items.

Case management software automates that administrative process. It makes information available to people who do not physically control the file, makes it possible to update and modify information easily, and, most important, makes it easier to find information quickly when you need it. In the more sophisticated programs, you can also integrate timekeeping, billing, accounting and even document management into a single package.

As a result, accessing the case management program when a client or opposing counsel calls can immediately bring to your computer screen the information you need to address the issue at hand.

2. "It Costs Too Much." I've heard this comment from lawyers about programs costing $295 as well as about programs costing thousands of dollars. I'm sympathetic to it because I've noticed that most firms have had at least one horrendous, money-wasting experience with technology in the last ten years and are, for good reason, gun shy.

Focusing solely on the costs of the program, however, is the wrong approach when considering case management software.

Instead, you will want to analyze this software requires on a "return on investment" basis. If you bill on an hourly basis, your income is limited by the number of hours you can bill. If you use value billing, the more efficiently you can work, the more profit you'll make on each transaction. In either model, recovering lost or unproductive hours will bring you a meaningful return.

On a conservative basis, cutting in half the time you spend simply looking for lost documents alone probably recovers $5,000 of time per year for the average lawyer. Case management software also offers other efficiencies and the costs and benefits can be quantified. You can make a meaningful decision based on how long it will take for the software to "pay for itself." In firms of 50, 100 or more lawyers, these economics will involve large, meaningful numbers.

Not surprisingly, lawyers starting a firm clearly see the benefits of a case management solution. If a solo can use case management software to help run a practice and avoid hiring a secretary (or can hire a paralegal who is billable rather than a secretary), those savings alone may make for an easy decision. In larger firms, simply reducing or holding the line of staff hiring may economically justify a move to a case management system.

3. "It's Too Complicated." I recently watched a demonstration of two case management programs for small firms in which the ability to enter information in six different ways was touted as a great feature. Wrong! Giving lawyers too many choices results in a training nightmare. Lawyers want to be able to use a program easily, to access the information they want simply and not be confronted with a computer screen that looks like the controls of an F-18 fighter jet.

Consultants and sales reps are too often guilty of describing an overwhelming vision of case management – all documents scanned, no paper, no filing cabinets, client files appearing on your screen as you pick up the phone. This overemphasis on the "gee-whiz" simply overwhelms many lawyers who see instead a future in which they are constantly trying to learn how to drive the software and never practicing law.

Each lawyer, however, if he or she thinks about it, can identify one to three administrative issues that, if they could be made available or eliminated, would dramatically improve his or her practice. Some examples: having accounting and timekeeping information immediately available when an opposing counsel calls with a settlement offer, having a list of all cases involving the same opposing counsel, judge or arbitrator, having a chronology of all contacts with a client readily available, or having the ability to do a mailing to all clients whose wills are older than two years.

Many case management products produce exactly this result and often give you the ability to enter data about a client or individual once and have it appear in a firm address book, in time, billing and accounting and in case and matter management. You do not need to make changes in 3 or 4 separate programs.

That simple feature really sold me and has sold many others. The point to remember: focus on your needs, not on the bells and whistles. In many cases, less is more and simpler is better. If the program can do the one or two things that you think are most important in a simple enough fashion, you probably won't find the program very complex after all.

4. "It Doesn't Match My Needs." Last year at the ABA's TECHSHOW (2000), I counted 25 vendors who offered some form of case management software. Some were general packages. Some were designed for small firms and some for large firms. Some were designed for specific practice areas or types of firms, such as plaintiff's personal injury firms.

Unless you work in a specific practice area that may be covered by a particular product or two, it is difficult to evaluate choices meaningfully. As I've mentioned the term "case management" lends itself to the work of trial lawyers and you may notice that some programs take that approach. If, for example, you do estate planning, "matters" really won't mean much because every client has the same matter. A demonstration of the software that focuses on the features of the software rather than its benefit to your practice will leave you with the feeling that the software is not for you.

Some case management software allows for a degree of customization. In addition to reading reviews and talking to others who use the product who have a similar practice, the ability to do some customization should be an important factor. If you also do a good job of identifying what the program can do to help you in your practice and insist on finding a program that will do that, I think you'll find programs that do meet your needs.

5. "I'm Too Busy." Time is money, after all. And why are you so busy? If the reason is because you are looking for documents or practicing in an inefficient matter, you may want to make some time to consider case management. For example, do you routinely work ten and twelve hour days that result in six to eight billable hours?

If you are too busy because of workflow, then case management software can really help you in handling that inflow of new work. Because case management information can be accessed remotely or even transferred to a Palm computing device, some lawyers have found that the software can help them avoid going to the office on weekends.

Again, the issue is one of identifying the barriers that keep you from working well and seeing if case management software can help you on those specific issues. Sometimes the simper changes can bring the biggest benefits.

6. "The Software Will Govern My Life." You may have even experienced this at home with Quicken. This reaction is a reasonable one. After all, for better or worse, you have developed a system of organization that's gotten you to where you are today. You want to practice law, not organization.

Sometimes I've found that this reason masks another reason. Lawyers can be embarrassed by their lack of technological savvy, the mayhem that passes for a "system" of organization in their offices or their utter dependence on a secretary who knows the system. In fact, it's interesting to see how the possible loss of a long-time secretary motivates lawyers to consider case management software. You will get your best results if you analyze your current methods as part of introducing case management software.

Another legitimate concern is the amount of time it may take to convert existing systems and transfer data into new case management software. Won't you be running a paper system and a computer system in parallel, at least for a while? Consider these issues in your return on investment analysis.

Finally, the closer a case management software program can mimic or adapt to your existing methods, the better a candidate it is for you. Again, customization may be an important consideration and worth additional expense. Your software should help you practice law better, not make you an expert on using the software.

7. "I'll Lose Money If I'm More Efficient." The villain here is hourly billing practices. What if I become 20 to 40% more efficient? Won't that simply mean that I'll make 20 to 40% less per year? Why would I want to do that?

Clients have not yet started to make lawyers pay for inefficiency. That tide is turning. As we see the rise of non-traditional competition and competition from law firms leveraging technology, there will be increasing downward pressure on the fees charged for standard legal services.

Case management software offers ways to deal with a higher volume, lower margin practice. It also can help you use information you have to strengthen personal relationships with clients (e.g., your software automatically reminds you of a client's birthday or gives you a list of clients you haven't talked with for over 6 months) or to track and identify sources of new clients (e.g., what clients reported that they came to you because of an ad you placed). A decision to use case management software will force you to look at your billing practices and what the alternatives are.

More important, this objection is based on the assumption that the time savings you find will eliminate billable hours. In fact, it's likely to eliminate non-productive time that probably was not being billed anyway. How often do clients get a statement with an entry like: "tore apart office looking for piece of paper that had notes regarding bank accounts; finally found it buried in papers on desk after third try: 3.5 hours"?

Conclusion: There is a grain of truth in most of the common objections to case management software. On closer examination, however, the objections tend to dissolve. If you can focus on your most important needs and the simplest steps that will bring you the most benefits, case management software will bring you meaningful and measurable business results and financial benefits. That's the whole point for bringing technology into your practice. Take a look at the programs out there today and what there capabilities and strengths are. Identify what your needs are. Then look at case management software. Your life may get a little easier.

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

This post brought to you by Dennis Kennedy's legal technology consulting services, featuring RSS and blogging consulting, technology audit, strategic planning and technology committee coaching packages especially for medium-sized law firms (15 - 100 lawyers) and corporate legal departments. More information on the "Second Pair of Eyes" packages for legal technology audits and strategic planning may be found here (PDF).

Posted by dmk at 09:35 PM | Comments (0)

December 19, 2005

My 2006 Legal Technology Predictions Article Published on LLRX.com

In what's become a tradition with me, I've written my annual legal technology predictions article. This year, the article is titled "Dennis Kennedy's Legal Technology Predictions for 2006: Small Steps for Most Firms, Giant Leaps for a Few Firms" and it was published today as part of another excellent issue of LLRX.com.

For a number of reasons, I think that this will be a wait-and-see year for many law firms, and that approach will not be unreasonable. At the same time, there are many opportunities for innovative firms to separate themselves from the pack, especially if they discuss these opportunities with their clients. For the details, I encourage you to read the article.

As I've mentioned on many occasions, LLRX.com is an excellent resource that everyone should know about and it's my favorite place to publish my new articles (that is, the ones I don't write on commission). I recommend that you add LLRX.com to your favorites and/or subscribe to its RSS feed.

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

This post brought to you by Dennis Kennedy's legal technology consulting services, featuring RSS and blogging consulting, technology audit, strategic planning and technology committee coaching packages especially for medium-sized law firms (15 - 100 lawyers) and corporate legal departments. More information on the "Second Pair of Eyes" packages for legal technology audits and strategic planning may be found here (PDF).

legal technology

Posted by dmk at 08:31 PM | Comments (0)

Outside Counsel / Inside Counsel Partnering Through Technology - Article

[NOTE: This is another in the series of repostings of my previously-published articles. This article was written in 2002 in connection with a presentation I did on "client-driven technologies." I became quite intrigued with the DuPont Legal Model and other efforts that I thought would change the nature of the practice of law. This article was written from the perspective of law firms. Today, I'd be more likely to take the point of view of the corporate legal department. Most of the same principles still apply today, although perhaps with a bit more urgency.]

Outside Counsel / Inside Counsel Partnering Through Technology Toward the Virtual Law Firm

Fifty-five percent of corporate legal departments considered firing one or more law firms in 2002, down slightly from 62% in 2001. The leading reason, by a significant margin, was "lack of responsiveness." Add Enron, pressures to cut legal costs on the part of clients, increased rates and demand for billable hours on the part of law firms, and increasing movement of lawyers and law firm mergers to this mix and you get a volatile situation.

Both law firms and corporate legal departments desire stable relationships where work can be done at a high level, responsively and in a way where law firms can be profitable while a corporate legal department can control costs.

There have been a number of significant efforts at "partnering" between corporate legal departments and their core law firms to create these types of stable relationships. The classic example is the famous "DuPont Legal Model" developed by DuPont and its outside law firms beginning in 1992. The DuPont Legal Model grew out DuPont's attempt to reduce the number of law firms it used (then over 300) to manageable number (currently 35) and, in the process, take advantage of a variety of techniques to improve the delivery of legal services.

The core elements of the DuPont Legal Model are (1) a business focus on DuPont's legal issues, (2) an ongoing work process reengineering, (3) a commitment to cutting-edge technology, and (4) a shared culture of efficiency and cost control.

All lawyers who have corporate clients would be well advised to meditate upon these four elements.

Among other things, the DuPont Legal Model has resulted in the creation of the DuPont Primary Law Firm Network, an early form of a "virtual law firm," a collaborative team of law firms and service providers who are willing to and do work together. DuPont believes that the next step beyond simple "partnering" is the collaborative work team and that turning partnering relationships into collaborative work teams offer great value.

Consider this description of a "virtual law firm" (http://www.dupontlegalmodel.com/files/onlinelibrary_detail.aspibid=14) [Note: link no longer works – unable to find new link to white paper):

The virtual law firm connects lawyers electronically and culturally. Through the use of applied technology, such as extranets, integrated case management software, computerized databases, electronic invoicing software, document imaging, cell phones, personal digital assistants, and trial presentation software, team members in different geographical locations can perform legal work efficiently and cost-effectively in a shared environment. But this technology still depends on the human element and on the willingness of committed participants to implement and use it constructively in furtherance of an articulated vision and clear goals. In a virtual law firm, participants must share a common culture.

This description raises many issues and is an excellent basis for your discussion of this topic. I also want to emphasize this comment from DuPont's white paper:

"Without the benefit of sophisticated technology, neither the concept of the virtual law firm nor the DuPont Legal Model could exist."

This article will focus on the technology side of moving to partnering then to collaboration and to virtual law firms and perhaps beyond. There are also very difficult issues raised by taking these steps, competitively, economically, culturally and otherwise that also deserve very serious deliberation. I want to sketch out some key questions for you, some areas worth exploring more and some practical tips for getting started or moving forward.

1. Ask Your Clients. A recent survey indicated that over 90% of corporate general counsel would respond to surveys from their law firms. A tiny fraction of law firms use client surveys. Are there clients with whom you can extend existing relationships by means of technology or current technology cooperation into greater partnerships? Are they aware of initiatives like the DuPont Legal Model? Might they be considering such initiatives without including you in the discussion?

2. Listen to Your Clients. I have heard many stories of companies all but begging their law firms to cooperate on technology. Note that the number one reason law firms get fired is lack of responsiveness. If you survey clients, you must follow up. Find out where they want to go, what their priorities are and what they want to accomplish with their legal services. Of course, you will want to get a clear idea of where you fit into that picture. A very important lesson from the DuPont Legal Model is that clients are not necessarily adversarial with their law firms. Cost cutting may not be the primary concern and companies are willing to explore creative fee arrangements that may be more lucrative for law firms while maintaining a more stable relationship. Don't assume; ask.

3. Learn The Playing Field. You cannot move very far toward implementing client-driven technologies if you do not know what technologies and capabilities your firm has or can obtain. It is rare to find a firm that is using or is even aware of all the capabilities of its software and systems, let alone to find lawyers and firms who have a good understanding of all the new developments in legal technology. In addition, it is vital to understand what software and technologies your clients use for their own work and how they would prefer to interact with you. You might use surveys, meetings with the client or meetings between IS people to compare notes on what software and systems are used.

4. Find Ways to Cut Costs and Improve Profits. How much good will it do you to have your client telling peers and colleagues that his or her lawyer actually came to him or her with a way to cut legal costs? Likely areas of potential include identification of lower level work that can be commoditized or value billed, improved communications, hosting databases or eliminating the need for duplicate systems. Consider the issue of electronic billing. Corporate clients are bemused by law firms' reluctance to move to electronic billing. They see electronic billing as a way to streamline procedures and cut their own costs while at the same time improving the cash flow of their law firms by speeding up the payment cycle. Isn't this win-win? It is certainly worth taking the time to consider fully.

5. Get IS Departments Talking. Exchanging ideas and creating good relationships between your high-level IS people and the comparable client IS people will ultimately be a key to any successful efforts in this area. Do they know each other now? Do they meet with each other? Can you facilitate that in constructive ways? This effort will help resolve existing problems, result in shared knowledge and set the stage for more extensive efforts.

6. The Extranet Family. A key concept in collaboration has been the use of private, shared web sites commonly known as extranets. Extranets can take many forms – information portals, access to files and communication, case monitoring, document libraries and virtual deal rooms. It is important to realize that clients do not need the same features or even a full-blown extranet. A virtual deal room that simply gives access to documents in a case or transaction may be a perfect introduction to the use of technology for both a firm and a client. The time and cost savings of not Fedexing documents can be a measurable means of showing return on investment. Another idea gaining some momentum is the "project portal," an extranet dedicated to the work and resources in connection with a particular project.

7. Apply the 80/20 Rule. The 80/20 rule definitely applies in this area. The idea is that, as a general matter, 20% of your efforts will get you 80% of your results. You want to identify and act on that 20%. Which ideas make the most sense in your current context? From your point of view, which initiatives will best address the common reasons law firms are fired (improving communications to avoid "lack of responsiveness" issues) and hired (how can you show your expertise and understanding of the client's business?)? Do these initiatives cut costs or enable creative billing approaches? Do these approaches connect the client to you and make it harder for the client to leave? Are these approaches useful to other clients? Finally, are they responsive to your client's own list of priorities?

8. Make a Plan. Obviously, these kinds of initiatives cannot be done on a "back of the envelope" basis. Written plans are appropriate. In this case, educating your client is a form of marketing. Implementing the systems may an element of firm survival with a client in addition to solid marketing. The more you show your knowledge of the options, your familiarity with what others have done and the benefits for your client in the form of a well-conceived plan, the better shape you will be in. Part of any plan should be a method of measuring results.

9. Make it Reusable - Think Different. Some of the initiatives you take can be reused. Some aspects might even be licensed as moneymakers for your firm or even sold as products, either by your firm or jointly with a client. Be alert to intellectual property issues and opportunities, as well as reusable methods to implement similar projects for other clients. Databases of knowledge and expertise may also serve you well in the event of departures from your firm.

10. Make it Sticky. Stickiness is a term that is sometimes used in connection with web sites. It refers to a site's ability to keep a visitor on the site for a significant time and to visit multiple pages. By using technology to address key concerns for clients and to make it easy for them to work with you, you can also create a "stickiness" in working with your firms and your systems. As a result, you increase the costs and effort for a firm that wishes to take a client form you.

Conclusion. The DuPont Legal Model began in 1992. More than 10 years later, DuPont and its primary law firms are still working out the model for a virtual law firm. It is not realistic for you to expect that you can jump immediately into a virtual law firm model. For one thing, the cultural and economic issues alone are too complex. But you can definitely take advantage of opportunities to collaborate with clients to put down the technological underpinnings that can lead to such a model and, in the interim, provide significant benefits for both law firms and clients, including, in some cases, allowing your firm to survive and do work for its biggest clients. If you do not address these issues, your clients may dictate the answers for you, and, lately, that may mean that they think about firing you.

Ten Practical Tips for Technology Partnering Initiatives.

1. Educate yourself. My web page at http://www.denniskennedy.com/resources/legal-tech-central/clientdriven.asp is a good starting point. But it takes a lot of work to get up to speed on technology alternatives. Hiring appropriate expertise may be desirable in many cases.

2. Thoroughly understand the DuPont Legal Model. Your clients may approach you about the DuPont Legal Model before you approach them. They are reading about it and hearing about it in seminars. A great resource is http://www.dupontlegalmodel.com.

3. Send a survey. Statistics indicate that the vast majority of clients are willing to respond.

4. Listen to what your clients are already saying to you about technology. Lack of responsiveness is the major reason law firms get fired.

5. Give your clients new ideas to think about. Clients cannot know everything that is available. Give them some great suggestions. Clients appreciate creative solutions. Be the first to mention the ideas.

6. Get the right people involved. Are you the right person for this initiative? Who is? What role will your IS department play in the initial phases? I suggest that a high-level IS person be involved at the earliest opportunity.

7. Facilitate relationships between your IS people and the client's IS people. Here is a simple test. Ask the head of your IS department how many of the heads of clients' IS departments are in his or her contacts list. I bet it is too small a number. Are there ways you can get IS people to get together on a regular basis. Presentations by your IS group to client IS groups may make sense.

8. Find creative ways to control costs. Clients like law firms that are creative. They are also under pressure to control legal costs. Technology may allow you to show you are good at both. Controlling client costs is different from cutting your fees and profits.

9. Use technology initiatives in a way to increase the costs for a competitor to steal your client away.

10. Lead, follow (closely) or get out of the way.

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

This post brought to you by Dennis Kennedy's legal technology consulting services, featuring RSS and blogging consulting, technology audit, strategic planning and technology committee coaching packages especially for medium-sized law firms (15 - 100 lawyers) and corporate legal departments. More information on the "Second Pair of Eyes" packages for legal technology audits and strategic planning may be found here (PDF).

Client-driven technology

Posted by dmk at 08:14 PM | Comments (0)

December 17, 2005

Just a Reminder about Getting Permission Before Reproducing My Posts on Your Blog

I noticed this week that my recent posts were regularly appearing on a site at the aspsurvival.com domain name. I'm talking about my full posts, not just excerpts. In at least one case, another blogger linked to a post on that domain, thinking they were linking to my post.

Let me make it crystal clear that I have nothing to do with the aspsurvival.com site.

Just to make the obvious even more clear, you will need to get my permission, which I usually grant, to reproduce and reuse my posts in a manner that goes beyond fair use.

I'll also note that there has been a growing growing amount of comment and concern about instances of blogs "repurposing" content of other blogs to take advantage of ad programs. At an extreme end of the spectrum is a phenomenon known as "splogs." Steve Rubel has some posts on the topic of splogs and related matters here, here and here. I definitely recommend that you read these posts (and the comments) and think carefully how you use posts from other blogs, whether they explicitly have a Creative Commons or other license, or whether they are silent on the issue of licenses and permissions. It's a good idea to familiarize yourself with the basic concepts and recent developments in fair use on a regular basis. As a reminder, I have specifically chosen not to use a Creative Commons license on this blog even though we use one on the Between Lawyers blog.

Interestingly, Frederik Hermann has, with more than a bit of irony, suggested that maybe blogs that mirror or echo your posts might be a backup source in case you have a problem with your blog.

One of the reasons I place the "originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog" note at the bottom of each of my posts is to try to be sure that some kind of attribution stays with my posts if they are harvested and repurposed.

It will certainly be interesting to see where, if anywhere, this post gets automatically reposted. That also will have more than a bit of irony, to say the least.

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

Like what you are reading? Check out the other blogs where I post - Between Lawyers (feed) and the LexThink Blog (feed).

Posted by dmk at 11:08 AM | Comments (0)

December 15, 2005

What Did I Really License? - Article

[NOTE: This is another in the series of repostings of my previously-published articles. This article was written in 2003 for Practical Technology Contract Review News email newsletter I used to publish. It was part of a series of articles explaining the various sections of IT agreements and how to think about them. This article is a companion piece to the "5 Ws of License Grants" article I reposted today.]

What Did I Really License?

I want to take a closer look at the fundamental issue of what you are licensing. I'll give you some tips for analyzing whether the contract language you have is adequate, especially as it relates to software. I am constantly surprised at how often the definition and description of software being licensed varies from what both parties intend.

Software companies have a tendency to use old software license forms long after they have outlived their usefulness. These agreements often leave many issues unaddressed and invite problems in the future.

Your mission in negotiating these agreements is to document what you are actually paying for. Many times, that may take more work than you might expect. Here are five items to put on your checklist.

1. Accurate Definitions. What does the definition of "Software" actually say? Is it what you expect? Often, program names turn up in contracts that are different from the program names you expect. Do not assume that the name you see in the contract is correct. An agreement for another program could have been reused for your agreement and may indeed have the wrong programs listed. Are all necessary components or modules listed? Expensive results may occur if key components are left out.

Are there necessary utilities, installers or other programs that should be included? Are you getting the current version, the Windows version or whatever other version you need? Don't be afraid to ask for specific details.

2. Number of Copies. Does the license include the right to make the copies you need. Many licenses are quite specific that you can only make one backup copy of the program. In today's world, that makes no sense. Multiple copies of the software will probably reside on backup tapes. Most organizations today prefer to use installation disks for workstation installations, create disk images and have multiple backup and even disaster recovery operations. I like to specify these normal uses and "copies incidental to the operation of the computer," since the program will be copied into RAM, a browser creates history and temporary Internet files and no one knows how many copies Windows makes of everything and where it stores them.

What about copies for notebook computers and home computers? Does your remote access system "create" another "copy" of the software for the remote user? Perhaps these may seem to be minor issues in the big picture, but the "copies in RAM" issue has been litigated with a finding that the copy in RAM was a reproduction for copyright infringement purposes. Also, why start out under an agreement of which you are in technical violation from the date of installation?

3. Versions, Upgrades, Updates and Similar Creatures. The world of software has a bewildering number of terms, all with slightly different meanings, for modifications to software. There are fixes, patches, updates, modifications, upgrades, point versions (e.g., 3.1, 3.2), versions, and even more. In your agreement, you care about which you have to pay for and which you do not. Try to avoid being silent on this issue. You will not like to be forced to pay for an upgrade that seems to you like an update or a full version that seems like a point version.

Ask the specific questions and memorialize the deal accurately. Deals can fall through on these issues. Also, be sure to know what happens if key features of the software are moved into another package (especially important in the case of a change in ownership) or if the company no longer supports or develops the software. Not complicated enough? What about required upgrades that force you to move to a new version of Windows, for example? Spending a little more time addressing the drafting issues upfront will avoid expensive business issues latter.

4. Source Code and Object Code.The object code of a program is the form of code readable only by machine. The source code is what the programmers write and is, at least in theory, understandable to some humans. Almost all software is licensed in object code. However, if your deal contemplates any modifications or development by you, you must have a license to use and modify the source code. If you are dealing with someone on the other side does not understand this, you must find someone else who does.

Licensing source code raises a number of thorny issues, include whether to have a source code escrow agreement. In your review, you will want to see assurances that the source code is the actual source code, that it is written and documented in a way that programmers can reasonably understand, that it also includes all code and tools to enable the program to operate, and that you continue to get source code for any modifications.

5. Documentation. Don't assume that because you license the software you'll be getting copies of the manuals for all your users. Some license agreements fail to mention documentation. Some license agreements fail to describe it adequately. Some license agreements limit you to a single copy of the manual and documentation. Check the language and then ask that it be changed to reflect what you want.

If you are going to sign a software license, it only makes good sense to make sure that it actually describes what you are getting. Start asking the right questions.

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

This post brought to you by Dennis Kennedy's legal technology consulting services, featuring RSS and blogging consulting, technology audit, strategic planning and technology committee coaching packages especially for medium-sized law firms (15 - 100 lawyers) and corporate legal departments. More information on the "Second Pair of Eyes" packages for legal technology audits and strategic planning may be found here (PDF).

Posted by dmk at 09:20 AM | Comments (0)

The 5 Ws of License Grants - Article

[NOTE: This is another in the series of repostings of my previously-published articles. This article was written in 2003 for Practical Technology Contract Review News email newsletter I used to publish. It was part of a series of articles explaining the various sections of IT agreements and how to think about them. It really doesn't get any more basic that getting the license language to match what you want in your deal, but you'd be surprised how often that is not done well, especially in the first drafts of contracts.]

The 5 Ws of License Grants

Nearly every technology contract today contains at least one license grant provision. Most commonly, there will be a software licensing clause, but trademark, copyright and even patent licenses have become common in everyday technology contracts.

I have often been surprised when I review a contract prepare by a vendor to find that the license grant is not even close to what is anticipated by the deal, let alone what either the licensor or licensee actually wants. License grants are not "one size fits all" clauses. Because the license is a key to the deal, a license grant provision should never be treated as a stock or off-the-shelf clause. It's one clause that you want to get exactly right because if you don't get the rights you need now, you will probably run into problems later.

Getting a license grant right takes some effort, but simply focusing on the simple five Ws - who, what, when, where and why - that we were taught in school will put you ahead of 95% of people reviewing license grants. These may seem like basic questions, but, believe me, there are no stupid questions when it comes to reviewing license grants. You want to make sure that you understand the language and that it covers what it is supposed to cover.

1. Who? Don't take this question for granted. Who is licensed? Your company and employees? Yes, but is the correct company licensed? What about affiliates and subsidiaries? Employees of affiliates and subsidiaries? Do you use part-time employees or other independent contractors who are technically not "employees"? How about third party consultants who install, maintain or work with the software? Customers? Potential customers you want to allow to demo the software? Other users? I've seen questions come up in each of these categories.

2. What? What exactly is being licensed? Is it just object code of software? Do you want source code as well? How about documentation? Trademarks? Copyrights? Compare what you think you are getting to the license grant language to make sure that you are getting everything you expect.

3. When? Many license grant provisions do not spell out a duration of the license grant, leaving at least three interpretations – the grant is perpetual, the grant is equivalent to the term of the license agreement or the grant is for a "reasonable" period. Nail this question down and save yourself from any later trouble. As a general matter, setting the duration of the license grant equal to the term of the agreement (including renewals) is the most logical approach.

4. Where? I once reviewed a license for a mobile software application that was going to be used by technicians in their cars. Incredibly, the first version of the license grant provision from the vendor included language that the software could only be used at a specific address! Obviously, someone had simply used an old license agreement as a model with no awareness of the consequences. Sadly, I am sure that some licensees simply signed this "standard contract."

Site licenses or machine or location specific licenses were common in the mainframe era and that type of language occasional slips into today's license agreements. In the case of software especially, you want to determine where the software will be used and be sure that the license grant authorizes use in those locations. Will employees be running the program at home or on a laptop? Will they be accessing the program remotely? PDAs and wireless devices also may require modifications to standard license grant language. Be wary whenever you see any type of site license language.

Another "where" issue arises in the case of license grants for particular territories. Check the definition of territory carefully and consider how it may affect e-commerce or web marketing.

5. Why? Why are you obtaining the license? Is it exclusive or non-exclusive? You'll want to proceed with caution any time an exclusive license is involved. Also, it has become fairly common to grant licensees the right to "use" software or other intellectual property rights. Unfortunately, "use" is not one of the exclusive rights granted under the copyright statutes (reproduce, make derivative works and publicly display are a few examples) and it is only one of the rights patent holders have (make, sell and offer to sell are others). It is, therefore, important to spell out exactly what rights you want to license using the precise terms, especially if you want to make derivative works or to grant sublicenses rather than to rely on a court later interpreting the word "use" to include these rights.

The license grant may well be the single most important section of any technology agreement. If you aren't specifically granted the rights, you probably don't have the rights. Why take chances?
By using the simple 5 Ws approach, you can go a long way toward quickly getting a license grant provision in shape. You will not only have better and more accurate language, but you can then use your attorney more effectively to work on more important issues than simply making sure that the language at least covers the deal. As a result, you'll shoot to the top of the class in being able to review license grants.

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

This post brought to you by Dennis Kennedy's legal technology consulting services, featuring RSS and blogging consulting, technology audit, strategic planning and technology committee coaching packages especially for medium-sized law firms (15 - 100 lawyers) and corporate legal departments. More information on the "Second Pair of Eyes" packages for legal technology audits and strategic planning may be found here (PDF).

Posted by dmk at 09:12 AM | Comments (0)

December 14, 2005

"By Request Day" - What Are Those Funny Symbols in Some of Your Posts?

Here's what I'd like to say: Writing on the Internet requires that you consider a different type of reader and that you accommodate a reader who likes to scan. Although some recommend avoiding long posts, like I have been known to write, if you write long (or short) posts, you want to break things up into short paragraphs, use headings, bullet points, bold and italics, and make the posts easier to read and visually interesting.

The funny little symbols and characters, I'd like to say, are a clever device to create visual interest and give my readers something break up the parade of words on a page.

That's what I'd like to say.

Unfortunately, the real story is this:

I sometimes write posts in Word. In the case of my reposted articles, I create the posts from Word documents. I might also copy portions of Word documents into my posts when I write them.

Unfortunately, in some Word documents I had turned on the "smart quotes" or "curly quotes." For reasons I don't understand, my version of Movable Type does not handle those curly quotes as regular quotes. Even worse, I cannot see that there is a problem when I "preview" he post before I published it. Even worse than that, I don't see the problem in my newsreader when I view the RSS feed for my blog. That's important because I don't often look at my blog in my browser, but I do look at the feed in my newsreader.

What I've learned is that the "smart quotes" and the "smart apostrophes" turn up as odd symbols and characters on my blog rather than as regular quote marks and apostrophes. I then have to edit the original post, change the quote marks and apostrophes (which are visible at that point in Movable Type) and republish the post. It's a pain and it's not a task that ranks high on the priority list.

I've now found a few tricks that usually catch the problem before it happens, but the problems occurs every now and then, especially in the reposted articles. I'll eventually find a more or less fool-proof method, but that's the explanation. If you can visualize a quote mark or apostrophe when you see those funny symbols, you'll know what I meant - but you were probably already doing that.

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

This post brought to you by Dennis Kennedy's legal technology consulting services, featuring RSS and blogging consulting, technology audit, strategic planning and technology committee coaching packages especially for medium-sized law firms (15 - 100 lawyers) and corporate legal departments. More information on the "Second Pair of Eyes" packages for legal technology audits and strategic planning may be found here (PDF).

Posted by dmk at 09:06 PM | Comments (0)

"By Request Day" - Read Any Good Books Lately?

I'm always interested in what books people are reading and what they like. I always try to read books that people recommend to me. Lately, my brother and I have been recommending spy novels and thrillers back and forth. A few years ago, I gave him a Robert Ludlum book and he stayed up all night reading it. That started us on passing books back and forth.

There are two books that I've read recently that I highly recommend for the audience of this blog.

The first is Gerry Riskin's The Successful Lawyer - a great collection of practical wisdom on a variety of subjects involved in the practice of law or any other profession. It's also available with a companion audio CD through the ABA Law Practice Management book store.

Earlier in my career, I had the chance to participate in the Edge Group's rainmaker education program at my law firm. I'd rank it among the very best training I ever received as a lawyer. I mention this because this book includes the core principles from that rainmaking course. They're solid, practical and well-supported by my experience.

The book has 49 short chapters, each of which is packed with a punch and great practical tips. In fact, each chapter is like the conversation you would have liked to have with a mentor or experienced colleague during your career. It's a book that you can read quickly, if you want, but also one that you will want to return to again and again and work through the ideas and exercises in it. Add me to the long list of fans of this book. It'd be a great gift for yourself or for a lawyer you know.

The other book I want to recommend is Bob Burg's Endless Referrals, just out in a third edition. Ironically, I met Bob recently via email when I committed one of the cardinal sins of emailing people you don't know - accidentally using the wrong name in the salutation to the email. Even worse, I didn't realize who Bob was until he sent me a polite reply and we exchanged a few emails and got to know each other a bit.

Finally, I realized that Bob was the author of Endless Referrals, a book that I had found quite valuable when I began my solo career. Bob told me that a new edition of the book was out and asked me if I wanted to get an early review copy. Of course, I would.

Bob sent me a copy and I devoured it in one setting. I think that this is a gem of a book that is required reading for anyone who has customers or clients or works with other people. That, I believe, would be everyone. The book is about principles of business networking, but it goes far beyond that.

The money quote:

"All things being equal, people will do business with, and refer business to, those people they know, like and trust."

Think about blogging in that context.

Like Riskind's book, this book is full of practical information that you can really use, including suggested language for certain conversations. I dog-eared a lot of pages in this book. I was also surprised to see how much of Burg's advice from the earlier editions I had internalized and made part of what I do. Even if you have read the earlier editions, the third edition is still a must-read.

As an aside: I've been sounding out a few people about using Skype chat to create a book group to discuss books like these on a regular basis. Let me know if you might be interested.

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog)]

This post brought to you by LexThink!(TM) - The Conference, Re-imagined. LexThink! - Think big thoughts, do cool things, change the world. Ask us about private LexThink retreats and conferences for your firm, business or organization.

Posted by dmk at 08:01 PM | Comments (0)

Seven Dangers in Using "Standard" Forms for Law Firm Technology Use Policies - Article

[NOTE: This is another in the series of repostings of my previously-published articles. This article was written in 2004 in connection with a presentation I did on technology use policies for law firms. Although it focuses on the issues that face law firms, the same principles apply in many different contexts. Forms can be quite helpful as long as you know how to use them]

Seven Dangers in Using "Standard" Forms for Law Firm Technology Use Policies

"We need a technology use policy. Why don't you hop on the Internet and grab one that we can use?"

This conversation is all too common. The question asked is meant to be a rhetorical one. You will be better off if you treat it as a real question and think carefully about the answers to that question.
There is almost no limit to the dangers you can run into when you "grab a form" off the Internet. This article talks about seven of the most worrisome dangers.

Danger #1. Forms May Be Used As Something Other than Checklists of Issues. When I was co-teaching a law school course on drafting technology agreements, we started the course with a discussion of the use of forms. Our key point was that you have to consider forms as checklists for issues to consider, provisions to include and points to clarify. They should not be seen a complete in any sense or as covering all possible issues. They definitely should not be seen as something to grab and use. Take a form and think through the application of each section to your situation. Does it apply? Does it reflect the approach you would take? Does it raise other issues? Use a form as a checklist, first and foremost.

Danger #2. Forms May Be Outdated and Wrong. How comfortable would you be using a technology use policy from 1995? If you grab a form on the Internet, how do you know that you are not doing exactly that? Be aware that policies you find might be outdated and not cover issues that now affect you. Even worse, they may reflect an approach based on a misunderstanding of applicable law, a failure to consider applicable law or a misguided approach to relevant issues. Be very careful about assumptions that you are making.

Danger #3. Forms May Not Even Address Your Issues. Law firms have some unique issues because of confidentiality obligations to clients, ethical rules and other issues that affect the legal profession. A standard form that you find on the Internet or in a form book might not even address these issues, let alone address them correctly. The form you find might not cover home computers, blogging, instant messaging or other issues that are important to you. It is too easy to treat a form as being "complete" and, as a result, fail to cover key issues.

Danger #4. Forms May Make Decisions For You without Appropriate Consideration. There is not a single, perfect approach to technology use policies. Each policy reflects a consideration of unique issues and a large number of decisions. Similarly, any form will embody a large number of decisions on issues. Some forms take a middle of the road approach. Some forms, unknown to those who use them, take more radical approaches. Your only guarantee is that it is all but impossible to expect that any form you find will reflect all of the decisions that you would make on each of the underlying issues. Every sentence in any form could be written differently depending on the underlying policy. When an issue later arises, it will not be comforting to keep saying, "But, it was in the form."

Danger #5. Forms May Let You File and Forget. The use of a standard form makes it very easy to file and forget your technology use policy. The whole approach trivializes the importance of the policy. Rather than posting it, publicizing it and training people to follow it, you will likely file it and forget about it. That will come back and haunt you.

Danger #6. Forms May Relate to a Different Regulatory Scheme.b Surprise! The legal profession has its own ethical rules and regulatory issues. Other industries have their own rules and regulations. If you grab a form, you may inadvertently use a form from a company with different requirements while missing rules and regulations that apply to you. Neither result is a good one.

Danger #7. Forms May Allow You to Avoid the Real Work You Must Do. When you grab a form off the Internet, change a few words and announce your new policy, you neglect very important aspects of creating a technology use policy. You do not do the research necessary to understand how people use technology in your firm and what unique issues your firm may have. You ignore the value of putting together a team to put a policy together. You also treat the policy as fundamentally unimportant. You guarantee an unhappy experience in the future.

Conclusion.

The best approach to creating a technology use policy is to do the hard work, make the hard decisions and move to drafting the policy at the point that you are ready to document and memorialize your decisions. A form that you find can serve as a model or as a checklist, but should not be anything more than that. Your policy should be your policy – your policy should not be dictated by someone else's forms.

[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/)]

This post brought to you by Dennis Kennedy's legal technology consulting services, featuring RSS and blogging consulting, technology audit, strategic planning and technology committee coaching packages especially for medium-sized law firms (15 - 100 lawyers) and corporate legal departments. More information on the "Second Pair of Eyes" packages for legal technology audits and strategic planning may be found here (PDF).

Posted by dmk at 07:53 PM | Comments (0)

An Important Tip about Word Track Changes and the Metadata Problem

I learned something new and a very important distinction to keep in mind about Microsoft Word metadata from Tom Mighell today.

Tom and I were discussing whether clicking on "Accept all Changes" and saving a document would protect you from having someone to whom you sent the document be able to turn the "Track Changes" back on or otherwise see revisions and comments you had made but thought you had hidden.

Tom contended that the "Accept all changes" approach would work. Based on my fuzzy memory of what I had been able to do in previous versions of Word and this article, I had my reservations - but I like to be cautious on these issues, but I trust Tom's opinions.

We tried a few experiments, checked with a forensics expert and did a little research. I'm now willing to admit that Tom was right, with a few words of warning and some advice that you satisfy yourself about the answer.

Here are the lessons I learned:

1. I was equating turning off Track Changes with Accepting All Changes. They are very different and the approach of turning off Track Changes is the one that is dangerous and can lead you into embarrassing situations. My approach was overly conservative, which is not necessarily a bad thing in this area. The one thing that you must realize is that simply turning off "Track Changes" will not protect your document.

2. If you want to rely on the "Accept all Changes" approach, you really have to make sure that you know what you are doing and check all of the right boxes. Any "user error" can make your revisions and comments viewable to someone who knows what they are doing. Proceed very carefully. The devil truly is in the details.

3. Before you rely on this approach, you absolutely need to make sure that this approach works with the versions of Word and the default settings you are using.

4. Microsoft has some great information on its website about the Track Changes issues, including