Peter Owen Litig Secretary Director, Lights-On Consulting Limited

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