Quantcast

Study of Complexity – From Utilizing Alternate Fee’s to Managing Legal Projects

Legal tasks, activities and even matters can be categorized into Simple, Complicated or Complex. Each is distinctly different; however only two of them can be defined, priced and managed.

Simple legal tasks, activities or matters are similar to baking a cake from a mix. You can develop a recipe that is pretty reliable and uses commonly measurements. There are some basic techniques that you need to learn, but after that if you follow the instructions these is a high likelihood of success. Law firm activities that fall into this category are the easiest to price and manage. If I need an estate plan, a SEC filing, or a trademark filed a firm should be in a good position to sell these services at a fixed cost, staff them with less costly people and manage them with checklists. See my blog posting on Checklists.  

Complicated is like sending a rocket to the moon, open heart surgery, or building a skyscraper. After a few successful ones the entire process can be broken down into groups of Simple tasks. There isn’t exactly a recipe, but there can be a detailed and well-structured plan. Since there are more people involved and these people may have different areas of expertise, scheduling and communication become much more important.  In complicated matters unanticipated issues will arise, they need to be dealt with, but in general, with enough experience the parties involved can handle or at least anticipate these and have additional resources on stand-by. Some of these tasks might require a very high level of skill, like the surgeon performing the open heart operation. The fact remains; these can be structured and therefore forecasted and budgeted within a reasonable range. A firm might look at any form of litigation as Complicated, for the most part it can be broken down into a series of relatively Simple tasks. Complicated matters are where a firm will gain the most with Legal Project Management and offering the client an Alternative Fee component to the engagement.

Complex has been compared to raising a child; we know it can be done with what would be considered successfully results. However, the skills and experiences necessary to raise the first child may not pertain to the second child. The second child may require a completely different approach. Complex brings with it the inability to forecast an outcome and lack of control.  What is also unique about Complex is that the tasks to be accomplished, although hard to predict may not rise to the level of expertise as those in Complicated. Budgeting and forecasting Complex is almost impossible, regardless of experience. People handling Complex need to be flexible and not bothered by dealing in an unstructured environment. Matters that are Complex will never easily fit into any sort of fixed fee or real “project management” model.

Law firms can benefit by first understanding their lines of business using the above categories and then by pricing and managing them appropriately.

Legal Project Management – 3rd Big Disconnect

In my June 17th and June 28th postings I discussed the 1st and 2nd Big Disconnects that law firms have with Legal Project Management.

The 3rd Big Disconnect is – “who’s in charge of the project”.

Wikipedia defines Project Management as “ the discipline of planning, organizing, and managing resources to bring about the successful completion of specific project goals and objectives”.

OK, so the law firm has just taken on a major new litigation case and the client is looking for the firm to get staffed up and started immediately. If the firm is representing the defendant there may already be a complaint filed. If the firm represents the Plaintiff, the client is anxious to get the process started.  We have a “billing attorney” identified, probably a senior partner, and this partner will have a pick of key attorneys and paralegals from within the department to assign work to.

Sounds like we are in pretty good shape, how soon can we expect some “action”. But wait … we haven’t selected the Project Manager; we don’t have a Project Plan in place nor a Project “launch date”.

Will the Legal Project Manager really have any authority to “manage a project”? Might this just be an exercise in updating a project planning tool so that the client is pleased that the firm has “project management”. This is the real issue, is the Project Manager really in charge of anything? Well we don’t exactly know any of this yet because there is very little Legal Project Management taking place today.

Firm management should first define and get partner consensus on exactly what role a Legal Project Manager will take before going down this path. Are you looking for someone to track events and activities (a docket clerk?), someone to enter case notes ( a paralegal?) or someone to actually make decisions and manage a case?

E-Billing Let’s Law Firms Develop a True Costing Model

The 3 Geeks posted an interesting atricle titled:

The ‘Fuzzy’ Difference Between Case Management & Legal Project Management

One of the points made by Bruce MacEwen was that e-Billing was a great case management tool due to the use of task codes. I’d like to take this a step further and say that e-Billing allows a firm to finally determine a “cost” for providing a unit of service which can then be used to intelligently price future work.

E-Billing has been the overall driving force behind the use of task codes (including phase and activity codes) to quantify a discrete measure of legal service. The codes allow both a firm and client to finally dissect services down to tasks and sub-tasks levels with actual costs involved. The roll-up of thousands of tasks from many firms has allowed large corporate clients to model their exposure to risks and potential legal costs to resolve their issues. Unfortunately law firms for the most part have not seen the benefit of doing the same roll-up and modeling internally.

Law firms need to know their costs beyond grossed-up utilization and realization calculations. Most of the calculations done today at firms are merely compensation or firm profitability related. Knowing than an attorney has an “effective rate” of $320/hr. which is $50 less than his “standard rate” or that this attorney has a 95% utilization and 92% realization does nothing to determine the cost and later the profit of doing an actual task of work.

The development of a “cost” model will help a firm offer any type of Alternative Fee arrangement or bid new work. With enough data the firm will have a perspective on what tasks really cost them and how the roll-up of tasks can build a potential engagement model to price a competitive bid. The model will also help determine which attorneys are most cost effective at each task.

Here is a model that will help firms get started on first understanding the “cost” of doing work:

  1. Use task codes on every line of business within the firm, not just e-billed matters. Most systems let you build your own custom task codes sets that can match any area of law, try and get as granular as possible for each task or sub-task.
  2. Make the use of a task code mandatory for every billable time entry, most systems can easily do this. The specific task code set can be assigned to any client/matter for ease of use by the timekeeper.
  3. Let your system roll-up these, area of law specific task codes into a general set of standard tasks, so that you get a firm wide consolidation of common activities.
  4. Now you can start modeling the average and mean length of time for, say a deposition across the entire firm.  Let your system tell you that for 1,000 depositions the average billable time was 1.5 hours, the utilization (ability to get it billed) was 97%, and the realization (ability to get it paid) was 99%.
  5. Your system can then also further analyze the internal cost for each of these depo’s since we know how the attorney was for each time entry and we know the burdened or unburden cost for an hour of that attorney’s time.
  6. The average cost of a deposition is therefore; attorney true cost/hr . x the # hours required for the deposition.

Here are questions that can be answered:

  • Which attorneys are the most cost effective at certain tasks?
  • Which tasks are tough to make money on or are under-valued by clients?
  • Which types of cases (matters) are we the best at getting high utilization, realization AND are most profitable ?

The assumption is that you have a business intelligence database that will do most if not all of the heavy lifting here and that you gather enough data to make it statistically relevant to the costing model. This same process is what corporate e-billing clients have done on their end to model their cost of services.

Law firms that want to be relevant and competitive in the next decade must have a costing model to generate business as much as a profitability model.

For related information on costing models check out my blog post on June 2, 2010 “What Law Firms Should Learn from Manufacturing Companies”

Legal Project Management – The 1st Big Disconnect

Steven B. Levy has done an excellent job articulating the concept of Legal Project Management, it is trail blazing and fits nicely into the corporate methodology for forecasting and reducing the costs of legal services. To better understand Steven’s thoughts, you can check out his blog and his new book, Legal Project Management: Control Costs, Meet Schedules, Manage Risks, and Maintain Sanity. It’s available on Amazon (full disclosure I haven’t read the book, I’m hoping it becomes available for my Kindle). I’ve met Steven when he was at Microsoft and at various LEDES meetings.

There are many current disconnects between law firms and clients that currently keep Legal Project Management in the category of “buzz words”, like “alternative fees”, “value billing” and so forth. One major disconnect is the fact that project management requires planning, structure and standardization. Law firms don’t like to be held accountable for plans, budgets and standards. Why, the mystery and uncertainty of, for example litigation is how firms make money. Mystery and uncertainty drive higher and higher fees. Transactional work has little mystery and therefore has a commensurate lower fee structure.

Here is an example:

In our business we use an on-line project management tool called @Task to manage our system implementations. We’ve studied enough past projects to develop implementation plans that are flexible enough to meet the unique needs of new clients. The structure of it is similar to phase and tasks used in litigation. The critical components are people, skills, time frames and budgets. As you might imagine even with a great project management tool, there are twists and turns every day that affect the overall plan. The benefit of the tool is to quickly determine how each twist affects the people, skills, time frames, budgets and the final goal. In the example I’m using we have already set expectations with the client that, based on past experience they can expect the project to be completed on time and on budget.  

At the end of the day BOTH RainMaker and the customer want to know the following:

  • Have we delivered the services required on time thus far?
  • Are we expecting to be able to deliver the future services as per the project plan?
  • Have the services achieved the expected results thus far?
  • Are we on budget thus far?
  • What is the estimate to complete the project, and will we remain on budget?

The biggest fear for both parties is that we are 60% done with the project and have used up 90% of the budget. Today, law firms just don’t think this way. The first “Big Disconnect” is that firms fear planning, structure, budgeting and accountability will lower fee revenue. It probably will in the short term and on any single matter. However, in the longer term it will produce more matters. In a buyers market, where there are more lawyers than premium opportunities, providing clients with project management will be a differentiator and drive new business. The road to get there for a law firm will require substantial change.

We’ll look at other disconnects in future blog postings.

Gallery
ist2_7730216-library-tables ist2_11425109-business-woman-with-colleagues-at-the-back ist2_5516813-business-people-joining-their-hands
Blogroll
Follow RainMaker