“Everybody knows” that lawyers are backward when it comes to technology (except perhaps concerning email and their iPhones). A very interesting and revealing article in the December Law Technology News recounts Kia Motors’ four part test administered to a selected associate from each of the law firms bidding for Kia’s business. Presumably the associate was selected as being one of the firm’s “power users.”
The test was designed, said the article, to evaluate a number of items, including:
• Lawyers’ proficiency with the Office suite, including their ability to sort, filter and clean up documents.
• Use of protocols and best practices for preparing written work product.
• The availability of best practice templates, forms and checklists.
Nine major firms participated. None of them passed the test. So Kia is requesting a 15% reduction in fees (presumably to compensate for the inefficiency, not to say incompetence, of the firm). Of the nine firms, only one was outside the AmLaw 200, and that one did the best.
Over the years, I have repeatedly tried to get my larger clients to implement form banks, templates, various forms of boilerplate documents, and so on. And I have repeatedly failed. Now while I have a number of templates (for letters, memos, invoices, etc.) for my consulting practice, I really don’t have a lot of boilerplate or forms. The reason is simple: as a solo, I have everything in my head. I know that I used a particular provision in a retainer agreement with such and such a past client. When a firm grows past a couple of attorneys, however, “having everything in my head” breaks down (which is one reason why firms need document management).
Document assembly, in whatever form it takes, is one of the greatest forms of productivity enhancers a firm can implement. See my blog of last July on this subject.
But there is another moral to this story, and that is the 15% fee reduction. In essence, this is a penalty Kia seeks impose for inefficiency/incompetence. But look at it from the reverse side: the firm that did best on the Kia test was the smallest. In short, a small firm can implement a variety of forms, boilerplate, templates, etc. that will make it more productive than a larger firm (and these are also easier to implement in a small firm than a larger one). Kia says 15% more productive.
So the question is not, can you afford to take the time to implement some form of document assembly, but can you afford NOT to take the time to make your form more productive?
The test was designed, said the article, to evaluate a number of items, including:
• Lawyers’ proficiency with the Office suite, including their ability to sort, filter and clean up documents.
• Use of protocols and best practices for preparing written work product.
• The availability of best practice templates, forms and checklists.
Nine major firms participated. None of them passed the test. So Kia is requesting a 15% reduction in fees (presumably to compensate for the inefficiency, not to say incompetence, of the firm). Of the nine firms, only one was outside the AmLaw 200, and that one did the best.
Over the years, I have repeatedly tried to get my larger clients to implement form banks, templates, various forms of boilerplate documents, and so on. And I have repeatedly failed. Now while I have a number of templates (for letters, memos, invoices, etc.) for my consulting practice, I really don’t have a lot of boilerplate or forms. The reason is simple: as a solo, I have everything in my head. I know that I used a particular provision in a retainer agreement with such and such a past client. When a firm grows past a couple of attorneys, however, “having everything in my head” breaks down (which is one reason why firms need document management).
Document assembly, in whatever form it takes, is one of the greatest forms of productivity enhancers a firm can implement. See my blog of last July on this subject.
But there is another moral to this story, and that is the 15% fee reduction. In essence, this is a penalty Kia seeks impose for inefficiency/incompetence. But look at it from the reverse side: the firm that did best on the Kia test was the smallest. In short, a small firm can implement a variety of forms, boilerplate, templates, etc. that will make it more productive than a larger firm (and these are also easier to implement in a small firm than a larger one). Kia says 15% more productive.
So the question is not, can you afford to take the time to implement some form of document assembly, but can you afford NOT to take the time to make your form more productive?
Comments