1 / 24

Peter Owen Litig Secretary Director, Lights-On Consulting Limited

LITIG Case & Matter Management Review. Peter Owen Litig Secretary Director, Lights-On Consulting Limited. Format. Present Litig Survey to set scene Panel questions Open it up to audience. Panel. Julie Berry Director of IT - RPC Mabel Evans Head of IT Services - FFW Andrew Honey

emmly
Download Presentation

Peter Owen Litig Secretary Director, Lights-On Consulting Limited

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. LITIG Case & Matter Management Review Peter Owen Litig Secretary Director, Lights-On Consulting Limited

  2. Format • Present Litig Survey to set scene • Panel questions • Open it up to audience

  3. Panel • Julie Berry • Director of IT - RPC • Mabel Evans • Head of IT Services - FFW • Andrew Honey • IT Development Manager – Bond Pearce • Jeff Wright • Partner and I&T Director – Morgan Cole

  4. The Survey • Litig survey for members initially • Now public • Interviewed 20 firms (18 Law firms) • 11,000 people • £800mm T/O = £40mm IT budget ! • ITD + Head of case / Entourage (inc lawyers)

  5. Key Areas • Case Management • Matter Management • Suppliers • The Technology • Reporting • Views and issues • The Future (via panel and audience)

  6. Survey Statistics • 100% case / 80% matter mgt • >70% use Citrix • >60% linked had PMS so 40% have not!!!! • Only 44% have tight integration with PMS • Only 20% use BA’s • 40% have in house Dev team • 20% felt it essential for ROI / 100% were stuck with it! • 33% positive to hosting, SaaS or outsourcing CMS • Only one done it

  7. Case Management • 3 Main approaches: • COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) – PODS, Frameworks • Were restrictive, now getting better • Used by firms who want to avoid development • If it came ready made with a PMS it was generally used as-is • Case/Workflow products • Close IT / BU working and increased use of BAs • In house development • Many regretting using bespoke developments • Results in large teams • Difficult to "unpick”

  8. Case Management • Drivers • No surprises – high volume, fixed price • Billing • Nearly always done from the PMS fed by CMS • Consolidated in CMS then passed to PMS • Rarely transferred at a matter level

  9. Case Management • Issues • Performance • Database designs – trade off? • Doc assembly – complex, still way to go • Overcoming them – work arounds / dev • Integration • PMS integration poor • PMS provided CMS winning out on integration by far • Result is CMS sometimes "Islands" to solve a need = ↓benefits • Others • Resources hard to get for proprietary systems • The truth about "you don't need programmers“ • Unable to get FE face time • Practice group guessing client’s needs

  10. That’s case

  11. Matter Management • Taking off? • Matter management developing • Economic downturn is a driving force • Still some resistance to "dumbing down" legal work • Legal services act concerning some • Move to fixed price driving efficiency

  12. Matter Management • Change in "customers" ? • Property remain a key customer for non litigious drafting • Employment and Litigation more interested in Doc Auto • Focus of practice groups moving to project management • Focus still legal work • Spreading to Finance and Administration

  13. Matter Management • Drivers? • Making headcount savings • Improving efficiency and profitability • Move towards task and schedule orientation • getting less push back from fee earners • Drive by clients to fixed price work • matter management required to allow measurement and reporting

  14. Matter Management • Problems – Similar to Case • Access and time with the right FEs • Documenting existing process • Linking systems from different suppliers • Old PMS systems exacerbating the problem – poor APIs • DMS interfaces easier • Global best of breed systems not integrated well with legal apps • Document assembly poor • Progress and Informix databases present more of a problem • Having to develop own warehouse and MI systems

  15. Now ... suppliers

  16. Suppliers • Varied in view - excellent to very poor • Usual issues of - you have to be a flag ship or big buyer to get help • Mergers causing problems • No best practice advice – only technical help • The "no code required claim" lambasted - only simple things • Integration requires coding • PMS suppliers win out on integration • Legal pedigree case solid but under delivering esp. on Doc Gen • Gartner MQ – expensive and “clunky” but fully featured • There are lots!

  17. Technology

  18. The Technology • Upgrading older systems varied from "we don't" to "easy" • Result is systems "get old" and processes are not most efficient • If it isn't broke... Mentality • Front end and back end systems too close • Upgrade costs high • Upgrades break integrations set up by Law firm • Lack of confidence in upgrades

  19. The Technology • Best Practice • Systems not naturally designed for IT best practice • Dev, Test, Live set-ups don't exist • No built-in data migration • Some poor code release mechanisms (manual) • Testing harnesses hard • Too many permutations to test • Delivery • Citrix a preferred method to reduce testing on desktop configs

  20. Key Issue - Reporting • Absorbs lots of effort (FE and IT time) • Driven by clients, lots of changes of requirements. • Reporting requirements of clients becoming more complex • Delivery mechanisms more various • No standards developed (e.g. panel managers). • Reporting systems condemned as not being strong enough • Mainly Crystal but a move towards MS Reporting Services • The key is ensuring the workflow captures the data • The capturing of internal MI on the increase – assess profitability

  21. What’s happening now? • Interviewee views • Lots to do in this area • Driven by clients, efficiency, profitability • Recession has lit the blue touch paper • More a fizz than bang • Matter management now on the agenda • Which products? • Firms are watching the market • Most were staying with what they have and standardising • Non “end-to-end” tools now an interest

  22. The Future? • WWFS move was seen as positive by most firms • Most were watching developments • Hoping for excellent integration (Office/ Sharepoint, other) • Nervous about seduction via EAs - hidden costs later. • Suppliers adopting it – Aderant, Flosuite, FWBS, Lexis Nexis • BPM on Sharepoint emerging – but crossover not understood • Opensource not getting a look in

  23. SaaS / Outsourcing • Conceptually accepted but only one firm implemented • The main issue perceived was integration • It was noted that PMS providers offering hosted solutions perhaps removing the problem • Competitive advantage fears - generic systems not giving the advantage over others • IT was a clear marketing tool in the case space • No interviewee knew of any SaaS BPM solutions • SaaS BPM not currently on the roadmap for interviewees • Outsourcing was not ruled out • Most sceptical of outsourcing delivery of their key USP

  24. Panel • Julie Berry • Director of IT - RPC • Mabel Evans • Head of IT Services - FFW • Andrew Honey • IT Development Manager – Bond Pearce • Jeff Wright • Partner and I&T Director – Morgan Cole

More Related