TOPIC:- ARTICLES ON CHANGE & KNOWLEDGE

MANAGEMENT

SUBMITTED BY:- EHESAN MOHAMMED

2nd YEAR MBA
P.G. DEPT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
P.A. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

SUBMITTED TO:- Mrs. ARATHI B.M

LECTURER
P.G. DEPT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
P.A. OF COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
MANGALORE

SUBMISSION DATE:-07-05-2011
 Knowledge Management in the Law Firm
by Wendy R. Leibowitz

The landscape of knowledge management is a little more sophisticated than it was a few
years ago--or cluttered, depending on your point of view. People have jury-rigged contact lists,
databases of clients organized by industry or billing partner, and intranets containing frequently
(or rarely) used documents. But much of the information is in plain word processing formats, and
sometimes the databases don't really do much, except to inundate people with every scrap of
information, some of it outdated, that the firm possesses about a client or industry. It's as if firms
have "bought into" the concept of knowledge management (KM)--the need to capture knowledge
and share it effortlessly among anyone in the firm who needs it to avoid reinventing the wheel--
but have no idea how to implement it.

Enter Justin Szlasa, executive vice president of Hubbard One; Steven Manton, practice
development specialist at New York's Shearman & Sterling, and Catherine Donovan, formerly a
corporate partner who is now the administrative partner running Akin Gump/Axiom Legal. Their
KM forum, entitled, Knowledge Management: It's Not Who You Know, It's Knowing What and
Who You Know: Putting Institutional Knowledge to Work, overcame its clumsy title to provide
new information to make knowledge management a reality for many firms.

"The goal of knowledge management," began Mr. Szlasa, "is to put your knowledge to
work at the service of clients." In theory, large firms, which have more sources of knowledge,
should have more captured knowledge at their disposal, but that's just a theory, he emphasized.
Can your firm put together a proposal in a day or two for new business from, say, MCI? Can you
easily discover where you refer, say, criminal work that your firm does not handle?

It's important to identify the roadblocks to knowledge management, said Mr. Szlasa, and
figure out how to get around them. He identified the following common obstacles:

1. Information, anyone?
 Attorneys do not share information. There is no incentive to share information, and some
penalties for doing so at some firms: attorneys, after all, are paid to know things that others do
not. A partner might see another partner as a competitor for the same client.

The effects of this aversion to sharing are widespread, said Mr. Szlasa. Client relationship
software might fail--why should an attorney share an exclusive client? Model documents are
hoarded.

2. Long-term what?

There is little long-term planning in law firms, and the tenure of information officers or
client manager officers (CMOs) is notoriously short. Knowledge management assumes and
requires a long-term plan, especially as attorneys with decision-making power tend to be close to
retirement. Once they leave, if there are no systems in place, their knowledge and business
techniques tend to walk out the door with them. And without continuity, any technology or
knowledge project will lose its sponsorship, if it is dependent on a sole sponsor.

3. Information, please--but good information

Most law firms are drowning in information, but much of the information may be
unreliable or outdated, particularly contact information. The effort to weed the wheat from the
chaff takes an enormous effort, absent a consistent knowledge management system, and high-
value time is spent on low-level tasks. "It's like maddeningly, constantly fighting small fires,"
said Mr. Szlasa, rather than working on fire-prevention tools and education.

Four Must-Haves for the Big Picture

Catherine Donovan then presented four "must-haves" for law firms to begin
implementing knowledge management systems successfully.

First, there must be clearly-articulated business objectives, she stressed. That way, the
success of a system--its return on investment--can be evaluated and measured.
 Secondly, there must be partnership support, and it must go beyond lip service. Law
firms are hierarchical places, and the top of the hierarchy must "buy-in" to the concept and the
implementation for KM to be successful. Further, senior management must realize that KM is a
change agent, and they must know how to manage that change, she said.

Thirdly, there must be concrete incentives to share. You have to tap into human behavior,
she said, as the "Blue Flag" system implemented by the British firm Linklaters did. The
contribution of individual attorneys to the "expert systems" that the firm offers over its Web site
are part of the performance reviews and compensation of the attorneys, said Ms. Donovan.

Finally, the technology must be simple and personally useful. It sounds like an obvious
point, but it is an important point.

The Big Picture, said Ms. Donovan, requires a law firm to have a vision. Where is the
firm and where does it want to go? What resources are needed to get there? The goal of a
knowledge management system, she explained, is to capture and share the firm's best work
product, and develop a customized system that is easy to use, user-defined and maintained, and
accessible from outside the firm. She outlined the expected benefits: a more efficient practice,
better training, and better integration of practice areas across the firm, resulting in better (and
presumably more lucrative) client service.

Ms. Donovan said that many document-sharing programs emphasize how important
sharing is for other lawyers at the firm, or for the firm as a whole, but "most people don't feel
altruistic--they feel they're getting something from the [KM] system," she said. Lesson:
contribute for yourself--to take advantage of the organizational structure of KM software, or to
be compensated for a model document-- and everyone will benefit, she said. A successful KM
system must be set up so that people can use it easily, overcoming any cultural hurdles against
sharing.

Recognize that there will be early adopters, mainstream adaptors, and laggards, she said.
Work first with the early adopters, ironing out difficulties, and don't expect 100 percent
participation. Advertise the benefits of sharing knowledge loudly and often.
 The final panelist, Steve Manton, had implemented a KM system first in the 20-person
marketing department in his law firm, Shearman & Sterling. "It was a good place to start," he
said. "We could set the pace, educate ourselves, make mistakes, establish best practices and sell
the concept" before facing the firm.

The first step was to conduct a "knowledge audit" in the department, he said. "What
knowledge did the marketing department possess, and what happened to it?" They carefully
inventories the attorney information, brochures, research, practice group objectives, pitches and
RFPs, transaction databases, marketing projects, and so on. The goal of the system was to "catch
the information going out and that coming in."

The second step was to categorize the information. It was tedious, he acknowledged, and
took about two months to divide the work into the type of work, company and partner; then into
practice groups; then finally into industry focus and region. The more refined the categories, the
more easily retrieved the data can be.

Even pooling the data was a knowledge management exercise in itself. The department
worked on a common Excel spreadsheet, which the firm already had. The problems they
experienced were those faced by tech projects in the firm as a whole: some people didn't
participate; there was no responsibility for seeing that the documents were accurately
categorized, and no reward for those who did more of the tedious contributions. "As we
developed the tools in the department, we had to figure out how to solve these problems, " noted
Mr. Manton.

He finally "sold" the project as "the path to more interesting work." Once everyone
realized the project could help them, the road grew smoother. Once the documents were all
organized in the Excel spreadsheet, Mr. Manton removed the old system of files and ticklers,
forcing everyone in the department into the new KM system.

Mr. Manton's mantra was, "Keep it Simple and Use What You Have," which may reflect
the status and budget of most KM projects--not to mention the marketing department at many
firms. It took his department four or five months to complete the system in the department, he
says.
 Overall, the panel was practical and refreshingly frank about the problems people faced.
No one has time. Senior partners don't use technology. Using negative personality traits, such as
peer pressure and envy, can help spread KM systems through more practice groups across the
firm, noted the panelists. If there are senior partners who don't use technology, work with their
secretaries. "Don't pull your hair out over hold-outs," said Mr. Manton. "But some of the hold-
outs, including senior partners, can become innovators."