March 29, 2017

Six law firms take legal project management just-in-time training to the next level

Six leading law firms have recently started to take their legal project management (LPM) programs to the next level by purchasing licenses to LegalBizDev’s new library of online LPM tools and templates which lawyers can access on their laptop, tablet, or phone. The six firms are:

  • Winston & Strawn – an international law firm with more than 875 attorneys in 17 offices in key financial centers around the world. Its largest office is in Chicago.
  • Steptoe – an international firm with more than 500 lawyers and other professionals in offices in Beijing, Brussels, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, Palo Alto, Phoenix, and its main office in Washington, DC.
  • Lathrop & Gage – a US firm with over 300 lawyers in 11 offices from Boston to Los Angeles, with its main office in Kansas City, Missouri.
  • Stewart McKelvey – a Canadian law firm with more than 200 lawyers in six offices throughout the Atlantic region of Canada. Its largest office is in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
  • Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt – a firm with over 150 lawyers in seven cities in the Pacific Northwest. Its main office is in Portland, Oregon.
  • Bilzin Sumberg – a Miami-based firm with more than 100 lawyers, serving clients throughout the United States and around the world.

Based on our experiences using these templates with over 100 law firms, LegalBizDev consultants are working with each license holder to create a strategic plan that fits each firm’s unique culture and resources, including tasks, objectives, and timelines to assure that lawyers use these tools. The results they achieve will be described in this blog in coming months.

The concept of just-in-time training is old news in most professions. For example, when people need to use an unfamiliar feature of Microsoft Word, very few would consider taking a class or looking it up in a book. They simply find the exact information they need in online help, precisely when they need it.

But the adoption of just-in-time training techniques has been slower in the conservative legal profession. Law firms love precedents, and many did not begin to think seriously about legal project management (LPM) until 2010 when Dechert, a firm with over 800 lawyers, announced that they had held traditional training classes with all their partners in this emerging field. This led to a wave of imitation, with numerous firms conducting training classes, then publishing press releases announcing their success.

There was just one problem with all of these traditional classes: few lawyers actually changed their behavior and applied the principles they learned in class. As the chair of one AmLaw 200 firm told me in an interview for my book Client Value and Law Firm Profitability, “Every shareholder and top level associate [at our firm] has had a full day of project management training. I’d like to tell you they use it, but they don’t (p. 180).”

Long-term readers of this blog know that LegalBizDev has, from the very start of the LPM movement, maintained that the best way to change behavior is for motivated attorneys to directly experience immediate LPM benefits and then become internal champions who spread the word. The most efficient way for lawyers to experience those benefits is to work one-on-one with a personal coach. This is one type of just-in-time training, since it uses the tools and templates in our Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide to focus on each lawyer’s immediate needs. Our web page includes several case studies showing exactly how this approach has worked.

But until recently, the piece of the puzzle that’s been missing has been an extensive library of online LPM tools which lawyers can access anytime, anywhere. It is time consuming and costly to develop and test LPM tools and templates, so to date the only available online tools have been limited to a few templates created by individual firms.

LegalBizDev has now taken the next step in the just-in-time training approach by offering licenses to use electronic versions not just of the tools and templates published in the fourth edition of the Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide, but also of additional new tools and templates that we will continue to develop and release every three months. These tools and templates make it possible for lawyers to better plan budgets, define scope for new matters, improve client communications, and improve efficiency in other areas by simply looking up what they need when they need it. Our goal is to create the single definitive online resource for the latest information on LPM and to keep adding to it as the field grows.

Instead of paying to reinvent the wheel, these six law firms and others that license these materials in the future will start from a proven foundation of what’s worked at other firms, and what hasn’t, based on six years of development, research, and testing with over 100 law firms.

As soon as just one lawyer who is responsible for a large engagement accesses the right information at the right moment, the return on investment will quickly exceed cost by:

  • Increasing the accuracy of an initial fee estimate and the likelihood of payment in full by using the template “15 questions to ask clients to help define scope”
  • Renegotiating a fixed fee by using the template “Prepare and negotiate for approval of a scope change”
  • Using any of the more than 150 tools and templates in this electronic library to increase client satisfaction and/or firm profitability

For more information on licensing these materials for your firm, contact us (info@legalbizdev.com, 617-217-2578) for details, including the introductory discounts we are offering through June 30, 2017.

March 22, 2017

Lessons learned reviews – Part 2 of 2

By Jim Hassett and Gary Richards

After action reviews

According to the ACC Value Challenge Briefing Package, law firms should “Conduct after action reviews at the end of each matter to help continuously improve performance” (p. 8).

The concepts are basically the same as the questions discussed above, but the details of the process and the term “after action review” originated in the US Army. This approach is organized around four key questions:

  • What was supposed to happen?
  • What actually happened?
  • What were the positive and negative factors?
  • What have we learned and how can we do better next time?

Jeff Carr has written and spoken extensively about how lawyers should adapt after action review concepts. (Jeff has worked with Valorem Law Group since retiring from his position as General Counsel at FMC Technologies in 2014.)

In an interview published on the ACC Value Challenge web page, he notes that:

It is important that the process focuses on continuous improvement as opposed to dwelling on the past. To do so, the team leader presents first and bases the comments on what they could have done better (as opposed to what other team members might have done differently). This helps avoid an accusatory and adversarial meeting that becomes a “blame game.”

One element of the approach is the “hot wash,” a simple brainstorming session that solicits comments at the end of a matter and classifies each under two columns: What went well, and Take a look at.

Ron Friedmann described in his blog how Carr used this approach in a conference several years ago at Georgetown Law School:

In a session lasting less than 10 minutes, Jeff led the audience in a review… He divided [a] flip chart vertically in two. On the left, he made a column for “What went well” and on the right for “Take a look at.” The idea is to get fast, brainstormed, uncensored audience comments on what worked well and what could be improved. He spent two minutes laying out simple ground rules (e.g., say what comes to mind, think of positives as well as negatives, as scribe he would write down whatever was said without judgment)… In just minutes Jeff filled several sheets with many helpful comments.

In a comment at the end of Friedmann’s blog post, Jeff Carr wrote:

The technique is called “The Hot Wash” and came from a brilliant podcast series known as Manager Tools. I highly recommend this podcast series to all managers—but especially to lawyers leading teams for, as we all know, most of us never had any training in project management, people management, or people development, upward management, shop floor management—or for that matter, playing nice in the sandbox.

We [also] do a more formal after action process as well at the conclusion of every legal matter. We call that L2A2 (“Lessons Learned/After Action”) where we examine procedural improvement (what could the team do better) and substantive improvement (how can the organization avoid similar problems, or continue to do what went well). The team leader always goes first and talks about what he/she could do better (not what others could do better). In theory and practice, this gives the group permission to focus on improvement as opposed to criticism of team members. It’s not about fame, not about shame, but rather how you play the game!

More questions to ask

The following list of questions was inspired by Jeff Carr’s ACES (Alliance Counsel Engagement System) Report Card, a system FMC Technologies developed to calculate performance fees awarded to outside counsel, based on their grades on six key factors:

  • Understands goals
  • Expertise
  • Efficiency
  • Responsiveness
  • Predictive accuracy
  • Effectiveness

If you plan a longer review, some or all of these questions could be adapted to your situation:

  • Would you ask us again to do this kind of work?
  • How likely is it that you would recommend that a colleague hire us?
  • How well did we understand and meet your legal objectives?
  • How well did we understand your business strategy and help you meet business objectives?
  • Did we provide practical real-world advice and solutions?
  • How would you describe our substantive legal knowledge and expertise?
  • Did we use the best team to meet your needs?
  • Were all deadlines met?
  • Did we handle changes in your needs promptly and effectively?
  • Were team members available when you needed them?
  • Did we proactively take the lead when needed?
  • How well did we communicate?
  • Did we do a good job of explaining risks?
  • Did we keep you informed and avoid surprises?
  • Did we manage fees and expenses well?
  • Were our original budgets and estimates as accurate as possible?
  • Was the total project cost fair and appropriate?
  • How could we do a better job of delivering value?
  • Did our work meet or exceed your expectations?
  • How would you rate our overall performance?

Internal review meetings

In addition to your lessons learned discussion with clients, it can also be helpful to have a meeting strictly of your internal team to increase team efficiency and morale. For firms that have a formal knowledge management system in place, meetings like this can be especially helpful in capturing insights and experiences that can be of great value to the firm in the future.

Obviously, some of the questions you ask in an internal meeting will be different from those you would ask a client. In the book, Implementing Value Pricing, Ron Baker provided a long list of questions for such meetings (p. 317), including:

  • What could we do better next time?
  • Did we add value for this customer?
  • Did we have the right team on this engagement?
  • Did this engagement enhance our relationship with this customer?
  • What other needs does this customer have and are we addressing them?
  • Did we learn any new intellectual capital that we could leverage across other customers?
  • Should we communicate the lessons on this engagement to our colleagues and how?

The last two questions can yield important knowledge management results, including exhibit formats, checklists, briefs, innovative arguments, and more. And, as noted on the web page Knowledge Management Online:

Effective knowledge management should dramatically reduce costs. Most individuals, teams and organizations are today continually “reinventing the wheel.” This is often because they simply do not know… what is already known, or they do not know where to access the knowledge. Continually reinventing the wheel is… a costly and inefficient activity.… Knowledge management… should also dramatically increase our speed of response as a direct result of better knowledge access and application.

A final thought

Given the potential benefits of a lessons learned discussion at the end of every important matter and at critical junctures in large matters, why would anyone ever skip this step?

Because you are already too busy on the next matter? Because you hate to put time into non-billable activity? Because you feel awkward about discussions like this?

In the long run, these are terrible answers. As the legal profession becomes ever more competitive, lawyers who fail to find time to understand what clients want and need today may find themselves with a whole lot of free time tomorrow.

This post was adapted from LegalBizDev’s new LPM Tools and Templates.

March 15, 2017

Lessons learned reviews – Part 1 of 2

By Jim Hassett and Gary Richards

Some lawyers hold meetings at the end of every significant matter to review what worked, what didn’t, and what could be done better the next time. In large matters, they also conduct these “lessons learned” reviews after completing each significant milestone or phase.

These discussions are a learning opportunity and a marketing opportunity. Such a discussion can enhance your relationship, help you learn more about what an existing client values most, and enable you to provide more value. If a large matter is at a pivotal point, a mid-course review and redirection could be the difference between success and failure. Could you possibly think of a better way to develop new business?

The lessons learned review could be long or short. You could hold a formal group meeting and send the questions in advance, or you can simply ask your client some of the questions below. If you think of this as marketing, it will be obvious that it is better to have the discussion in person, maybe even over lunch. The phone can be a good second choice, but email is a distant third. You want to get people to open up and speak freely, and that is unlikely to happen via email.

The length and formality of the process should depend on the size and significance of the matter, your relationship with the client, and on how much work they are likely to have for you in the future. This section lists a number of different questions you might ask. In many cases, the first two will be enough.

The two most important questions

Unless there is a major open issue requiring an immediate joint review, or a client requests a lengthy discussion, we recommend that you assume that clients have little time to spare. This may mean limiting the debrief to two simple questions:

  1. What did you like about the way we handled this matter?
  2. What could we do better?

The first question is a classic “easy to answer” opening. Ask this one first, because it will get people talking freely.

The second question is the one you really care about, since you are likely to learn far more from criticism than from praise. No matter how much clients like your work, they can always like it more. And in today’s highly competitive environment, it is in your interest to turn every client into a raving fan.

If the second question opens the door to a laundry list of complaints, do not get defensive. Do not argue, disagree or explain your position. In fact, at most lessons learned meetings you should say very little and listen more than 90% of the time. Keep probing for more information. These meetings are designed not to understand reality, but rather to understand the client’s perception of reality. Because when it comes to client satisfaction and new business, perception is everything.

When clients raise problems, you need to reassure them that things will be better in the future. But in most cases you should not get into the details at the initial discussion. You need time to think about the best way to solve the problem, and to assure client satisfaction. So be prepared to say something like, “That is an important issue. Let me talk to a few people about the best way of preventing that from happening again, and then I will get back to you.”

Of course, if you do promise to get back to your client with a solution, you must put a high priority on completing follow-up as soon as possible.

If your time is limited, and your clients’ time is too, you can stop here. But if you want to consider more questions, read on.

Two more questions you could ask

If you have time to probe deeper, you can also add one or both of these optional questions:

  1. Working together, how can we improve the value you receive in the future on matters like this?
  2. On a scale from 1 to 10, how satisfied are you with our firm?

The first question is optional and focuses on the issue which is most likely to lead to new business: how to increase perceived value. This is a slight rephrasing of a key question suggested in the ACC Value Challenge Briefing Package (p. 7). Note the phrase “working together,” which stresses the need to align interests and collaborate more closely.

The second question is also optional. There are many ways to phrase effective questions about client satisfaction, but the best way is to ask for a numerical rating, because it forces clarity and frankness.

We ask our own clients this question at the end of every program we deliver, and to be honest, many shy away from giving a number. The client is always right, so if they don’t want to be pinned down with a number, we go with the flow. The important thing is to begin a genuine conversation about satisfaction, and to encourage clients to talk about the things you really need to hear, rather than more comfortable vague praise.

If clients do give you a number, there’s a good chance it will be lower than you expected. The reason is that most people overrate themselves. Psychologists call this the Lake Wobegon effect, named after Garrison Keillor’s fictional community in which “all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.”

The best place to see this effect in the legal community is in a series of surveys published in Inside Counsel magazine comparing ratings of satisfaction from clients and the law firms who serve them. In one such survey, 43% of lawyers thought they were earning an A for their work, but only 17% of their clients agreed. So if you think you deserve an A, you’re probably wrong.

Another way to get at this fundamental issue is to ask, “On a scale from 1 to 10, how likely is it that you would recommend us to a friend or colleague?”

In his business bestseller, The Ultimate Question, Fred Reichheld argues that companies should focus more attention on loyalty by measuring the response to this one simple question. Reichheld and his colleagues at Bain have published several books and many studies showing that companies with high customer loyalty rates grow revenues twice as fast as their competitors. They have also shown that companies can increase profits by 25% to 100% simply by increasing customer retention by 5%.

Clients who rate the likelihood at 9 or 10 out of 10 are called “promoters” and are responsible for generating sustainable growth. You might think 7 or 8 on this 10-point scale would also be pretty good, but Reichheld has found that these people are motivated more by inertia than by enthusiasm. He calls this middle group “passives” and notes that they will often jump to another company at the first sign of a better deal.

The most serious business risk comes from “detractors,” people who rate the likelihood of referrals at 0 to 6 on that 10-point scale. From a strict financial view, many of these detractors may be profitable in the short term, but Reichheld notes that, “Customers who feel ignored or mistreated find ways to get even. They drive up service costs by reporting numerous problems. They demoralize frontline employees with their complaints and demands” (p. 6). 

Eighty percent of negative comments come from this detractor group, and in this age of email and internet ratings, a single complaint can reach hundreds of potential clients in the time it takes to hit the send button. In short, detractors “suck the life out of a firm” (p. 30).

This post was adapted from LegalBizDev’s new LPM Tools and Templates.

March 08, 2017

Value questions to ask top clients

Improved communication can strengthen relationships with top clients. From a project management perspective, this may include not just communicating about the details of a particular matter, but also asking general questions about a client’s perception of value. The questions in this list will be helpful in preparing for these discussions. The idea is to pick a few key questions that fit this situation, schedule a meeting, and let the client talk 80% of the time. Do not argue or object to criticism, just listen.

Direct questions about value

  • How could we increase the value of the services we provide?
  • How satisfied are you with our services, on a scale from 1 to 10?
  • What could we do to increase our rating?
  • What do other firms do that you really like that we don’t do?

Questions from the ACC Value Challenge

Background: The ACC Value Challenge is an initiative of the Association of Corporate Counsel, “The world’s largest community of in-house counsel, with more than 30,000 members in over 75 countries.” Its goal is to promote “value-driven, high quality legal services that deliver solutions for a reasonable cost.” The questions below were reproduced from ACC’s web page discussion of “How to talk with outside counsel (or clients).”

  • “How can we re-establish trust and improve our relationship, on both sides?
  • How can we assure an adequate flow of work so that outside lawyers understand the client better and can be more efficient in what they do?
  • How can we get junior lawyers better trained, priced at more reasonable levels, practicing law more on the front line, and less likely to leave?
  • How can we better budget and manage costs and staffing?
  • How can we better institutionalize the relationship?
  • How can we evaluate progress and performance?
  • How can we create a culture of continuous improvement, on both sides?”

More questions about client satisfaction

  • What do you like about working with our firm?
  • What could we do better?
  • What could we do to make your life easier?
  • Can you think of any ways we could help clients like you, or new services we could offer?
  • Could we better use technology to be of service to you?
  • What type of status reporting do you like? Weekly? Monthly? Email or phone?
  • Would you recommend our firm to others? Why or why not?
  • If you managed a firm like ours, what would you do differently?
  • How would you rate the quality of our legal product?
  • How well do we listen to your concerns?
  • How well do we understand your goals?
  • How well do we understand your industry?
  • Do we do a good job keeping you informed?
  • Do we explain legal issues in terms that are easy for decision makers to understand?
  • Do you perceive us as genuinely committed to your business success?
  • Do you perceive our lawyers as prompt, responsive, and accessible on short notice?
  • Are our billing statements accurate and complete?
  • Do our invoices include an appropriate level of detail?
  • Do you think our fees are fair and reasonable?

Note: Many of these questions address your service and could easily be reworded to ask how clients perceive other law firms they have worked with in the past. That can be an excellent way to get insights into where competitors are vulnerable.

Questions about client satisfaction

  • In the past, what are some of the things that you’ve liked most about working with law firms, both our firm and others?
  • What have you liked least about working with law firms?
  • When you select outside counsel, what factors are most important to you?
  • When you rate lawyers’ performance, what factors are most important to you?
  • How do you decide when to do work in-house, and when to use outside counsel?
  • What future trends in your business or industry will affect the need for legal services?
  • What are your biggest legal concerns?
  • How would you describe your overall impression of our firm?
  • What mistakes can be made when lawyers don’t understand your business and/or industry?

Big picture business questions

  • What are the biggest challenges that you face in your job?
  • What keeps you up at night?
  • Where do you see your industry going in the next few years?
  • What does your ideal customer look like?
  • What works best in finding new customers?
  • Who are your biggest customers?
  • What is it like to work for your company?
  • Who are the key people you work with?

Active listening questions

These simple prompts can help assure that you let your client talk at least 80% of the time:

  • Tell me more about ____.
  • Would you elaborate on ____?
  • Give me an example of ____.
  • What else should I know about ____?
  • How does ____ fit the picture?
  • Talk to me about your experience with _____.
  • How do you handle _____?
  • What makes this urgent?
  • Why is this important right now?
  • What bothers you most?
  • How tough a position does this put you in?
  • How does this affect you?
  • Why is this important to you?
  • How does that sound?
  • Do I have it right?
  • If you were to go ahead with ____, when would you ____?
  • What else should I ask about?

For a more open-ended discussion of current trends

If you would like to create more specific questions to fit your client’s precise interests, begin by reviewing Paul Lippe’s influential article, “Welcome to the Future: Embracing the New Normal.” Then use your background knowledge of the client to create specific questions about one or more of the trends Lippe discusses: alternate staffing, predictable pricing, defined quality, client intimacy, technology, and process innovation.


This post was adapted from LegalBizDev’s new LPM Tools and Templates.

March 01, 2017

Tip of the month: Fit your reporting style to each client

Make sure you report results regularly to each client in their preferred style, whether that means by email, by phone, or in person. And be sure to determine what level of information each client wants. If you are perceived as reporting too little, clients will see you as secretive, but if you report more than they want, you may be perceived as needy or even incompetent.

February 22, 2017

Key questions project managers should ask

By Jim Hassett and Natasha Chetty, LegalBizDev

Effective project management starts by asking the right questions. While there are hundreds of questions managers can ask, this list summarizes the most critical ones. It is organized in terms of the eight key issues discussed in our Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide.

Set objectives and define scope

  • What business problem does the client want to solve?
  • How does this affect the client’s organizational goals and reputation?
  • Are several outcomes acceptable?
  • What deadlines matter to the client?
  • Are there strict budget limits?
  • Who is the ultimate decision maker?
  • How does the client define success?
  • How will you know when you are done?

Identify and schedule activities

  • How can large matters be subdivided into smaller discrete tasks?
  • Which tasks are on the critical path? That is, which tasks must be completed before others can start?
  • What deadlines will best align the client’s needs with the firm’s interests?
  • What external and internal scheduling constraints do we need to be aware of?

Assign tasks and manage the team

  • Who will be responsible for each task?
  • How long do they think the tasks will take?
  • What help, resources, or support will they need to finish on time, within budget?

Plan and manage the budget

  • How much should be budgeted to complete each milestone in the project?
  • How much was actually spent?
  • If at any point actual spending exceeds the planned budget, what can be done to get back on track?
  • Can savings on one activity be applied to compensate for overspending on another, within the overall budget total(s)?
  • Who are the relevant contacts regarding budget at the client’s organization and what are their needs or priorities?

Assess risks to the budget and schedule

  • What could possibly go wrong that would increase the cost, delay the project, or decrease client satisfaction?
  • How likely is this to happen?
  • How serious would the impact be if it did happen?
  • Which risks should I plan for in advance?

Manage quality

  • Does the client have any concerns about the quality of the work?
  • How should I monitor the quality of work performed by other team members?

Manage client communication and expectations

  • Who is responsible for communicating with the client decision maker?
  • What does the decision maker care most about?
  • Does the decision maker prefer formal reports, informal email, regular phone calls, face-to-face meetings, or another type of communication?
  • Should brief standard reports be submitted every week or month?
  • Which stakeholders does the decision maker need to communicate with in general or on this matter?

Negotiate changes of scope

  • How should I track changes to the work required and their implications for schedule and budget?
  • What criteria should I use to decide when a change in requirements should lead to a client negotiation for additional funding?

 

This post was adapted from the recently published fourth edition of The Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide.

February 15, 2017

Sample litigation statement of work: Early case assessment

By Mike Egnatchik, LegalBizDev, in collaboration with several clients

 

Hypothetical Facts

ClientCo acquired the assets of a company Carpart which manufactures high performance parts for cars. One product line was a battery that goes into fuel cells, which are sold and incorporated into engines of electric vehicles. The asset acquisition agreement (“agreement”) shows the acquisition was of assets only, and the liabilities were expressly not assumed. The agreement also contained representations and warranties that there were no warranty claims against the business. ClientCo paid $50,000,000 for Carpart’s assets, which has been distributed to Carpart’s shareholders.

After the sale, ClientCo also hired the bulk of Carpart’s employees. A customer of Carpart had been complaining to Carpart employees about failures in the fuel cells shortly before the sale. The employees continued to deal with Customer to help determine whether there was a defect in the batteries. Soon after the purchase, ClientCo discarded the battery business, preferring to focus on parts for gas and diesel engines. Nevertheless, some of the employees continued to work with Customer and discovered that the batteries were not compatible with the design of the fuel cells. The fuel cells are beginning to suffer catastrophic failures.

Customer has made warranty claims against Carpart and ClientCo. ClientCo never sold any of these batteries after acquiring the assets of the company. However, Customer had previously sold over 20,000 fuel cells to an electric car company, GreenCar, which installed the fuel cells in all of its 2010 models. When advised of the problem, GreenCar had already produced and sold 20,000 cars. The cost to recall vehicles and install a new fuel cell is $5,000 per vehicle.

 

Legal action

A complaint has been filed by GreenCar against Customer, ClientCo, and Carpart. The lawsuit seeks: (i) direct and consequential damages; and (ii) indemnity from car owner complaints.

ClientCo has asked you for a proposal to undertake this entire representation on a fixed fee basis to defeat all claims. All parties will file cross-claims against each other. While there are many different cross-claims, they will all be adjudicated in one proceeding.

You have explained to ClientCo that it is not possible to provide a meaningfully accurate fixed fee for the entire case at this time, but you have agreed on a fixed fee to perform an early case assessment.

 

Statement of work for early case assessment

In the early case assessment, we will prepare a written report to ClientCo covering:

  • Determination whether the case has merit
  • A cost/benefit analysis of possible legal strategies with likelihood of success for each
  • Cost estimates for recommended options and other phases of the case including:
    • Pleadings and motions
    • Court-mandated conferences
    • Discovery
    • Settlement/ADR options
    • Summary judgment
    • Trial
    • Post-trial motions

This statement of work will include fact investigation and development, review of key transactional documents, interview of key players, legal research regarding potential liability of all parties, initial review of warranty, and contract issues.

This phase will conclude with one or more meetings with ClientCo to review findings and recommended options contained in the report and decide on next steps.

 

Assumptions and exclusions

  • The representation will be limited to the complaint filed by GreenCar and related cross-claims of all parties
  • Specifically excluded are litigation holds for evidence preservation and insurance investigation and tender, which have already been performed
  • No more than 10 hours of interview will be required with key players
  • No more than 20 hours of legal research will be required
  • ClientCo will provide individuals with expertise who will orally summarize technical fact

 

Reproduced with permission. This post was adapted from the recently published fourth edition of The Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide.

February 08, 2017

How to write a statement of work

By Mike Egnatchik and Jim Hassett, LegalBizDev

Legal cases and transactions can have unpredictable aspects, sometimes beyond the control of the best managers and planners. Therefore, flexibility is key. Legal project management is all about tradeoffs, and efficient project managers must be ready to adjust scope, time, and budget as the case or matter evolves. This factor underscores the importance of the primary task at the start of any project: setting your objectives and carefully defining the project scope with the client. Doing so will align mutual expectations and prepare the stage for developing an activity schedule and budget.

A statement of work must fix the boundaries of what is within the reasonably expected scope for the matter and what is not. This is particularly critical if the work is to be performed for a fixed price. The details of contents and format will vary depending on the circumstances, but could include:

  • The client’s objectives
  • Detailed deliverables such as the number of depositions
  • Deadlines or expected timelines
  • Teams and roles, if relevant
  • Assumptions and exclusions
  • Risks
  • Budget or fee as well as payment terms

The first draft of the SOW should be shared with both the client and the anticipated team members for their review and input. You need to understand the client’s goals and expectations and align them with the team’s approach, focusing on the business problem or dispute from which the matter arises and on acceptable outcomes and deadlines for the client.

As the team comes to an understanding of your client’s wants and needs, team members should keep in mind how much each want or need will cost, and whether there is any waste or excess in these expectations. These budgetary considerations may eventually affect the steps and actions taken to complete the matter. Of course the budget is extremely important, so you must be sure to carefully define in writing the anticipated assumptions of your budget and any “carve-outs,” that is, work that will not be included within the fixed price for the agreed scope. And, obviously, the SOW is simply a draft until the client approves it.

Some other helpful steps at this stage are common-sense items such as ensuring that every member of your team is familiar with the final project objective. It can be posted prominently on a bulletin board or online. Also, it does not hurt to remind team members of the client’s objective in regular memos and meetings.

The better your initial statement of work, the more likely you are to meet the client’s objectives. And if things change, the approved SOW will provide a solid basis for negotiating with key client decision-makers before performing work that may require additional funding.

However, remember that the SOW should be as short and simple as possible for managing the process. According to Michael Roster, steering committee co-chair of ACC’s Value Challenge, “When I was general counsel at Stanford, our multi-million dollar arrangements with law firms were covered by a two-page business letter combined with a one-page exhibit describing the carve-outs.”

The SOW is not a deposition or an adverse negotiation, so make sure you don’t over-lawyer it.

 

This post was adapted from the recently published fourth edition of The Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide.

February 01, 2017

Tip of the month: Be sure to define the primary decision maker for each matter

In complex matters, especially with large organizations, there are few things that can waste more time and money than trying to satisfy multiple client stakeholders. In a large legal matter, the general counsel, staff attorney, senior corporate management, line manager, and others may have conflicting opinions and needs. It is tempting to try to keep them all happy, but that is sometimes impossible. It may take effort to pin clients down on who is the ultimate decision maker, especially regarding cost, since multiple parties may have differing agendas. But if you are able to establish a single point of contact as the primary decision maker, it will reduce cost and increase client satisfaction.

 

The first Wednesday of every month is devoted to a short and simple reminder like this to help lawyers increase efficiency, provide greater value to their clients and/or develop new business. This tip was adapted from the fourth edition of our Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide.

January 25, 2017

Engagement letters and statements of work

At the beginning of a new matter, lawyers often specify its scope and fees in an engagement letter. The engagement letter is designed to clarify exactly what work and services are included, and excluded, from a particular matter.

Some states have specific requirements for what must be included in an engagement letter, and many firms have their own requirements as well. For example, in New York State, Part 1215 of the Joint Rules of the Appellate Division requires a letter of engagement in most matters, except for certain exceptions listed in the rule (i.e., an engagement letter is not required if the fee is expected to be $3,000 or less).

From a project management point of view, there is considerable room for improvement in many engagement letters. Consider, for example, this language from the sample letter of engagement published by New York State:

Scope of representation

A claim, dispute or dealings with relating to ______________.

All of our services in this matter will end, unless otherwise agreed upon in a writing signed by us, when there is a final agreement, settlement, decision or judgment by the court. Not included within the scope of our representation are appeals from any judgments or orders of the court. Appeals are subject to separate discussion and negotiation between our firm and you. Also not included in the scope of this agreement are services you may request of us in connection with any other matter, action, or proceeding.

The rest of New York’s two-page sample focuses on fees and client rights. Fee options for the sample include a flat fee, a contingency, or hourly rates.

If a law firm copied the New York State sample exactly and negotiated a fixed fee, they might end up being very sorry when the matter spiraled out of control. They would be better protected if the engagement letter specified timelines and deliverables, such as the maximum number of interviews, pleadings, interrogatories, opinions, and reports, the anticipated scope of travel and research, the use of outside consultants, and so on.

Could a lawyer possibly know in advance how many depositions would be required to settle or plead a particular case? Of course not. But he or she could specify the maximum number of depositions they expected and exactly what would be included within the fixed price.

This failure to provide sufficient detail is quite common. As the executive director of one AmLaw firm recently put it, “The scope of work often contained in our engagement letters is generally no more than one or two lines. Lawyers are missing an opportunity to clearly specify the scope of what is included in each matter and what is not.”

From the client perspective, better specifying the work up front could lead to more predictable costs and a more sophisticated understanding of what they are paying for. From the law firm’s point of view, it could reduce fee disputes, write-downs, and write-offs.

Entire textbooks have been written on how to develop what project managers call a statement of work (SOW), which specifies what a particular project includes and excludes. Lawyers may wish to adapt some of these ideas and write an SOW which could either be included in the engagement letter or be a separate document, depending on the nature of the matter, the lawyer-client relationship, and joint expectations.

 

This post was adapted from the recently published fourth edition of The Legal Project Management Quick Reference Guide.