Zeugma

KM Legal Conference, Day 2

We kicked off with Rachel O'Connor of the Australian firm Allen Arthur Robinson taking us through various innovations and techniques operating in her firm's offices.  Eg 50 hour policy – all fee-earners to devote 50 hours to KM pa; amalgamation of documentation across offices, advanced search, etc. Challenges included development of client-facing role, PSL role. Priorities included PSL role review, liaising with IT department on projects, matter debrief between PSLs and PSLs and partners.  She brought in partners to this process.  Web 2.0 technologies were on the agenda, and in particular current awareness.

The following panel discussion considered the 'Future of Legal Know-how Provision' with Chris Bull, COO, Osborne Clarke, Carol Aldridge, Head of KM/IS, Burges Salmon, Simon Drane, LexisNexis, and Judith Pain (Head, PLC Property), and Wendy in the chair.  Chris observed that how we use legal information will change: outsourcing of legal advice will become more prevalent; and the double digit increase pa in information providers' costs eg LexisNexis, has got to change.  Simon Drane responded.  Carol agreed with Chris, citing the shift her firm has made from LN Current Awareness to PLC's offering, and noting the problem with buying in knowledge and the overlap between that and internally produced knowledge.  Judith acknowledged this, and pointed out that law firms need to consider their know-how strategy, including risk, BD, HR depts, IT provision (eg where do they want IT risk to lie? an external provider can help with this).  Comms were important, within the firm and between external provider and firm. 

Questions from the floor indicated serious concern, in particular over clients being given LN or PLC content, and being aware that this was what was happening.  Carol agreed, and advised a cautious approach to the problem generally, particularly because law firm departments are becoming more savvy about breaking down IS costs within transactions.  One respondent said that in her firm the use of RSS with advanced search within the firms was in demand, and would mean less reliance on external providers.  Simon Drane responded by asking the audience what did lawyers actually want.  The respondent argued in return that the generation of good quality content was critical – that was the real market – not yet more expensive access to information that everyone already had. 

Chris's question clearly set the agenda for PLC and LN, and the whole discussion.  I have rarely heard such overt criticism of providers voiced in sessions.  The economic downturn is of course prompting re-appraisal of budgets, but there is more to it than that. Such re-appraisal often brings with it content audit, along with a greater awareness of  redundancy of content, or use-metrics by fee-earners; and this is prompting reflection on how external content fits with internal know-how.  There is of course the wider public interest point in having good access to basic law and more advanced finding tools than we have at present – a point that wasn't raised in this session, which concerned itself more with the operation of market forces between providers & law firms. 

In the first breakout I attended, 'Strengthening your firm's knowledge sharing and capture culture', a number of practical tactics were discussed by Claire Andrews, Director KM (Europe & Asia) Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton.  What knowledge do you collect?  Among the items were business activities, tacit knowledge, practice notes, training/library/KM.  She presented a table where the KM type was matched against an 'Existing' and a 'Required Improvements' column, and a 'Required New' column.   Getting close to lawyers' work really helped in making the PSLs' work more relevant to fee-earners.  She gave the example of tacit knowledge and know-how on due diligence among specific groups of lawyers (can't remember which), which was unearthed almost casually in the firm – important, and it had by-passed all prior knowledge collection processes.  Tagging matters was essential, to know which matters were active, and the relevant staffing reports, billing reports, too.  When a matter is closed, the KM team moves in to 'deal-track', tag the documents, etc.  KM people asked for these documents, but didn't always get them, so at relevant meetings, KM staff would chase up.  Expert interviews involved the use of knowledge maps, ie practice notes/guidance, particularly of use to junior lawyers.  Using a semantic web approach, it involves interviews with specific question types (Tacit Connexions were the consultants).  There are costs to this, but she thought that the KM payback was worth it.  The firm ensured usage by having the right projects, with good content, and encouraging use from that baseline. In addition the firm used it in training.    Good session.

Next session was led by David Halliwell, Chief Knowledge Officer, DLA Piper UK. on 'Managing  knowledge share and transfer internationally, and he led on discussions of the structural issues underlying transactions.  These included the analysis of cross-border (eg due diligence on transactions), international and local issues.  Other firms deal with this in different ways.  One dealt with it by focusing on transactional support, cross-jurisdiction (albeit with local support from PSLs or junior lawyers).  Champions were key to DLA's strategy.  Eg recruits from other firms, esp Magic Circle firm, liaising with IT, etc., senior management champions of KM.  One respondent pointed out that in different jurisdictions there were different concepts of what constituted KM, linked to what lawyers actually did in terms of fee-earning.  Hooks, he said, were important – eg training.  So was technology.  Standardised platforms, for cross-border and international work, were essential, and made life a lot easier.  One respondent pointed out that use of IT was most successful when lawyers used it for themselves – eg using a wiki as a knowledge marketing tool. 

Attended Neil Richards' session on Sharepoint (already blogged here).   He summarised it well, looking at the good, (eg IT like it, its simple and integrated), the bad (it's complex, immature, square peg round hole), the ugly (tends to silos & chaos) – pretty balanced appraisal.  Responses from the floor echoed my experience in our use of Sharepoint in our law school intranet.  Also attended Dave Snowden's session..  Such a good set of compelling and provocative statements about KM (particularly on the value of narrative) that I simply wanted to listen & think, not take notes. His webpage & blog sounds like a place I'll be spending some time on; and listening to him on tagging I felt guilty about not doing that on this blog.  Will get down to it – some time or other...

Final session of the day – Derek Sturdy of Tikit talked about the journey to Web 2.0, while Richard King of Herbert Smith and myself presented a view of the future – 'Rip mix & (l)earn: the futures of KM'. I'll let the conference feedback speak for it – slides up on Slideshare, as usual.

Very good conference.  I learned a lot about current concerns of lawyers re KM, and came back to GGSL with many ideas to improve knowledge interfaces in our virtual firms. A couple of lawyers I talked to expressed surprise that an academic was at the conference at all, let alone presenting at it.  I don't agree.  As I say in my book, collaboration is essential if we are to improve legal education. It's vital for me to understand how lawyers organise their working lives – how can educators design professional legal education if they don't know about this? The general lack of interest in KM in the professional schools may simply reflect a curriculum that's outdated; but it's up to educational designers to help change that. Collaboration would also help lawyers.  There was some theory at the conference; not much interdisciplinary collaboration, and there could perhaps have been more collaborative questions asked about work done across professions (Dave Snowden obvious exception; and Claire Andrews' session was, too – her firm drew on cognitive work carried out at Southampton U. by psychologists on interviewing). 

A final point about technology.  I'm posting this to the web from an Asus Eee PC, my chunky Tosh emitting strange noises, having fainting fits etc.  I'll be talking about this little machine later, but I have to say I'm really impressed with the interface.  LInux, flash memory, portability & price are the commonly-cited pluses; small screen, a keyboard that requires a zen approach to keystroking, the downsides; but I'm already finding it addictive.

And a final thanks to BA whose flight up to Glasgow was delayed 2.5 hours thus helping me draft up this posting.  Ah, T5, how do I love thee, let me count the ways...

 

KM Legal Conference, London

I'm at a Knowledge Management Conference, in London, and speaking on the second day (more of that anon...).  Arrived via Terminal 5, Heathrow -- was this a lesson in KM and project management to keep in mind for the session...? 

Wendy Small (Eversheds) chaired the conference, and we started with a session by Lucy Dillon and Charlotte Balfry of Berwin Leighton Paisner on the effect of the credit crunch and economic downturn on KM. Housekeeping and client focus, to put it simply, was what they recommended, together with more innovation. 

The first break out session was run by Juliet Humphries on PSLs & remuneration / structure.  Interesting discussions of what people do, how they are matchifng their salary structures to PQ senior assistants, etc.  Two thoughts from this.   First, there was no mention of what other professions are doing, eg architecture.  Second, I think quite a few law firms could consider what Google do to create and capture innovation.  PSLs are actually in a position to be remarkably creative units within a firm; but there probably needs to be a more transparent project structure alignment between them and the core fee-earning work of the firm.

Next session was an account by Ann Halpern of Norton Rose of design and implementation of their search engine, Navigator, which appeared to be a textbook casestudy in specification & implementation, though quite reliant on PLC content, as far as I could see (but that may have had to do with issues of privacy in showing datasets in a live demo...).

Very interesting session by Julia Randell-Khan of Freshfields Bruckhous Deringer on Post Transaction Reviews.  We looked at why we do reviews, how to do them, and suggestions for improvement. Victor Chew, who was the progenitor of the system at FBD, used an online system, edited pages by himself and others.  His experience in this was fascinating, for he clearly put together something akin to an early wiki.   Fee-earners would use the system at the end of the transaction. Lucy Dillon (Berwin, Leighton, Paisner) observed that pricing was a focus of such sessions at her firm, as well as other points.  Some firms used the concept during a transaction, or even as a pre-transaction preview of a transaction.  I pointed out that we used a similar system in Practice Management on the Diploma in Legal Practice, based on our virtual transactions.  It was heartening to hear this, and I came away thinking furiously about how we could improve our system.

After the break, Craig Carpenter (VP, Legal Solutions & General Counsel), spoke on 'From Information Access & Expertise Location to Regulatory Compliance'. And Everything in Between'.  Intriguing title.  He's also with recommind...  He used the CapGemini Survey (March 2008) data on information search to show just how huges the costs are.  In addition the costs of eDiscovery, HIPPA, etc, Sarbanes-Oxley are gigantic.  The growth in expenses for this can add up to 35% pa in compound.  The average eDiscovery event rolls out at $1.5M per litigation.  Huge sums  The answer of Novartis was to develop, in phase 1, a KM system, called RADAR.  Phase 2, dealt with eDiscovery and compliance issues, so that probative information was preserved: the development of taxonomies, early case assessment, document clustering and auto-coding, email organization, tagging and filing -- in other words KM as the lynchpin for all projects.  Very interesting and ambitious approach that's clearly worked well for Carpenter & Novartis. 

Carpenter then asked, is KM the same for clients and outside counsel?  There was a contrast, he argued: greater complexity and size makes even simple benefits far more significant. 

Next up was the panel on 'Managing increasing demands from clients for KM services' -- Carol Aldridge, Head of KM/IS, Burges Salmon, Juliet Humphries (Pierian Spring Consulting), Lucy Dillon, and Sarah Fahy Head of Global Library Services, Allen & Overy.  Key question from Wendy Small -- are firms experiencing demand from clients for KM services? -- elicited no response, which Wendy (and I, to be frank) found hard to believe; but apparently Eversheds do.  Carol pointed out that demand is led by CRM and BD pitches.  This work, she finds, is actually welcomed by clients.  Clients also want tailored information, rather than just the info bulletin on the website.  She thought it was a question of adding value to the client relationship.  Julient made a similar point about the value of client relationships being enhanced -- key was context.  Should a firm charge for this?  The point was debated, with some agreeing, but Juliet arguing that other professions do this better,and manage the client relationship better, and that this is part of the CRM.  I was reminded of Susskind's fence at the top of the cliff, rather than the ambulance at the bottom.  Sarah Fahy would necessarily charge for such consultancy, but an hourly rate would be attached to the file.  In other cases, the research services was decided in advance on demand -- sort of a separate service.  Her firm worked with partners on costings for this.  So different models and approaches. The fee-earners would have a problem with outsourcing client advice at this level.  Clients still wanted the prestige of Allen & Overy.  Lucy Dillon thought that clients did understand value, and therefore if a client asked a partner to check over documentation for compliance, then this shouldn't be added value, but a necessary part of the core business.  For Juliet, it was a judgement call...

Interesting first day.  Clearly there's quite a thriving KM community of practice being built around this conference. 

How do we understand?

The Waking

I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow.
I feel my fate in what I cannot fear.
I learn by going where I have to go.

We think by feeling.  What is there to know?
I hear my being dance from ear to ear.
I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow.

Of those so close beside me, which are you?
God bless the Ground!  I shall walk softly there,
And learn by going where I have to go.

Light takes the Tree; but who can tell us how?
The lowly worm climbs up a winding stair;
I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow.

Great Nature has another thing to do
To you and me, so take the lively air,
And, lovely, learn by going where to go.

This shaking keeps me steady.  I should know.
What falls away is always.  And is near.
I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow.
I learning by going where I have to go.

Theodore Roethke, ‘The Waking’, The Collected Poems of Theodore Roethke, Doubleday & Co, 1966, originally published in The Waking, 1953.

Kwansei Gakuin University Law School Workshop

I spent five days last week in Japan, in Osaka, at the invitation of Professor Naoki Ikeda, at the Kwansei Gakuin University Law School, Umeda campus, in the centre of Osaka.  I was presenting a paper at the workshop & seminar held by the Law School on simulation in legal education, 8.3.08.  It was my first time in Japan, and I have to say I was moved by the difference (and differance) of the urban culture I came across. 

Signature pedagogies: how do they emerge?

Shulman’s ideas about signature pedagogy, which oddly enough didn’t have a high profile in the Future of Legal Education conference, still have me hooked.  They raise a central issue, namely the extent to which we are ruled by a learning outcomes model of education, and the whole technocracy and superstructure (in a Marxist sense) of a modern mass educational system.  Technology and superstructure, as Benjamin knew so well, are intimately linked.  Nor is it a matter of technology transforming superstructure.  Far from disrupting, revolutionizing, transforming the system, technology is all too often actively co-opted to support the pre-existing educational system and its manifestation as signature pedagogy.  More and more information, media, channel-switchings are available to us now via hardware / platforms such as photocopiers, the web, scanners, portable cassette players, mp3 players, smartpens, laptops, and the like.  Looking back on my own experience as a learner, not one of these technologies was available to me when I was an undergraduate student at Glasgow in 1974-78.  And yet how little has really changed in the superstructure.  Massification, yes.  Transformation, no.

The Future of Legal Education Conference: general response

This was a great conference, no doubt about it.  I talked to one participant who had already been to four Carnegie-related events since the publication of the book, and she said this one was the best to date.  It was international, drawing from at least ten different countries’ legal educational practice; it was broadly based in terms of theory and practice; it addressed the issue of transformation which in the wake of Carnegie and Best Practices is what is needed; it contained substantial theory and plenty of practical examples; and there was the opportunity to hear more about and join organisations such as the Global Alliance for Justice Education.  Clark Cunningham has done a great job in pulling it all together – there are few people who could have done it. 

The conference also addressed issues that the Carnegie report could perhaps have dealt with in more depth – the issue of diversity, for instance (eg the effect of the signature pedagogy on students of colour); leadership in these matters (deans were present, particularly in the Transforming Existing Law Schools section, though significantly enough no representation from Harvard [apart from Gene Koo from Berkman on technology], Stanford, even UCLA); international perspectives, and technology. In this respect it served to take Carnegie concepts and critiques into new areas of law school experience. 

At a more personal level, I was moved by the passion and commitment of the speakers – not just those on the floor, but in private conversations with almost everyone.  Some speakers were outstanding in this regard – John Berry, Legal Division Director of the Florida Bar, and Mary Lu Bilek, Associate Dean, CUNY, come to mind. We were all there for basically the same reasons, so I guess it was a highly selective grouping of people; but it was also a sceptical and knowledgeable grouping too, who were listening to each other closely, and finding new things at almost every session.  I found it humbling and inspirational to be here and listen to what was going on in different jurisdictions.  I’m taking a shopping list of approaches home with me – so much to read about, plan, and begin to think about implementing in legal education in Scotland.

The Future of Legal Education conference, day 3

Missed the first session of the final day's concurrent workshops because I was absorbed in a conversation with clinicians...  Something of a theme in this conference.  Looked interesting, too, because on the subject of the Carnegie report, and the speaker talked about Reed, one of the earlier Carnegie reporters on legal education. 

The Future of Legal Education, Day 2

Arrived late to the first session (talking to conference-goers), to find Kate Lauchland in full flow: funny, shrewd, accurate.  Eg on challenges: the God Professor who will not play nicely with others; dumping integrated components, failure to draw connections, time, avoiding lip service, more time...  She advised us to start small and build on success.  Make sure profession is aligned with changes being carried out.

The Future of Legal Education conference, GSU College of Law, Atlanta

I’m at The Future of Education conference in Atlanta GA by kind permission of Clark Cunningham, conference chair and organiser.  I’ll be blogging the conference on this blog over the next three days or so, posting when I get back to my hotel. 

LILAC conference, January 2008

The only thing wrong with the Learning in Law Annual Conference (LILAC) is that it appears much too early for Scots, whose welcoming of the New Year generally extends a decent three days at least into January and for me often includes climbing a mountain.  For some, Hogmanay, bridged by the mid-Jan Celtic Connections festival in Glasgow, dances neatly into Burns night, but even as a postgrad student I was never able to last that long.  On the 2  Jan, then, I descended the shoulder of the great Stob Coire nam Beith in Glencoe with Euan (left, leading on an earlier climb), and raced back to Glasgow in time for the late plane down to Birmingham -- me and about 3 others on that flight. It has to be something special that drags you away from all this...