1
Introduction
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
I served on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Kitty Hawk on the flight deck as an aircraft director or Yellow Shirt. Yellow Shirts are the Rulers of the Flight Deck because it is our job to move multimil-lion-dollar aircraft around the flight deck without running over people, without running into other aircraft, and without blowing anyone overboard.
Aircraft that land on carriers have a tail hook that is ex-tended down prior to landing. The hook catches one of four ca-bles stretched across the flight deck bringing the aircraft to a full stop within a short distance. Pilots landing on carriers are in-structed to apply full power after touch down in case they miss the landing cable. If the pilot catches the gear, he reduces power immediately.
When the aircraft does land at about 150 mph and takes a cable, it comes to a complete stop within about 200 feet. At that time, a Yellow Shirt called a gear puller moves into the landing area into the pilot’s view, instructs him with hand signals to raise his tail hook, and directs him out of the landing area so another aircraft directly behind him can land.
This one particular day, I was the gear puller. It was a beau-tiful day, cloudless with a bright sun; the type of day you appre-ciate being outside. The flight deck was as busy as I have ever seen it, with aircraft launching off the bow catapults and aircraft landing between launches. The Kitty Hawk has an angled deck, so aircraft can launch off the bow catapults at the same time as other aircraft land on the angled deck. After several planes had landed and I directed them out of the landing area, I went back
to my position as gear puller. On the catapult next to me was an F-4 Phantom jet in full afterburner ready for launch. About that time, an A-7 Corsair jet was coming in for a landing and I was getting ready to move to my position. The A-7 pilot must have thought he had missed the landing gear cable and gave his aircraft full throttle. But he had actually caught the landing gear and, ap-plying full throttle, was lifting his jet into the air about ten feet off the deck.
Let me pause here and tell you that Aircraft Director training in the Navy involves watching dozens of training films, most of which depict jet crashes— before, during, and after the crash. At that moment, I remembered every sin-gle training movie I had seen and it was not a pretty sight. Seeing the plane up in the air with the cable caught in the landing hook, I knew the plane would slam down into the deck with pieces and flames flying all over and guess who was the closest. There was not much I could do. So, let me point out the options here:
1. To my left, about fifteen feet away, was an F-4 in full afterburner.
2. To my immediate right, about three feet away, was the Pacific Ocean, sixty feet below.
3. Behind me, about five feet away, was the Pacific Ocean, sixty feet below. 4. In front of me was an A-7 Corsair in the air hooked to the landing gear
cable, about fifty feet away, about to slam down on the flight deck. At the time, I thought had two choices (funny how I have thought about this incident many times since):
1. Become instant toast.
2. Find out if Davy Jones really does have a locker.
Well, I am here today, and God and I are pretty tight. Here is what hap-pened: I jumped up (a natural reaction). About the time I was deciding to find out if Davy’s Locker was for real, the Launch Director on the catapult saw me and immediately instructed the F-4 to abort the launch (a dangerous instruc-tion, to say the least). The A-7 with the hook did slam down onto the flight deck, but no damage, no flying debris, no fires, nothing but a scared pilot (and a scared gear puller). Talk about being between a rock and a hard place!
T
here is a point to this story. Many times when dealing with legal technology, especially complex computer software, those who are assigned to be the tech-nology guru for a law firm or a law department should be in the know, but often are not. They are like new pilots when it comes to computers and tech-nology. If you do not stay on top of the technology and how your firm can best use it, you will often find yourself between a rock and a hard place. There is no easy way out, other than to become learned in the field. Our kids are moreknowledgeable about computers and technology than we are, but that is no excuse. We all use technology to some degree.
This does not mean that lawyers need to be computer engineers, but it does mean that if someone is going to make a major decision about comput-ers and a future investment for the firm or law department, that pcomput-erson or per-sons needs to be held accountable. And that, my friends, is why you need to be knowledgeable about the legal technology industry.
There are resources to help you learn and better understand technology and how it is used in the legal profession. These not only include books, mag-azines, and newsletters, but also legal technology conferences such as the American Bar Association TECHSHOW, the incisive LegalTech conferences, and state and local bar conferences. Other online resources include the Amer-ican Bar Association’s Legal Technology Resource Center (LTRC at www.abanet.org/tech/ltrc), the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA at www.iltanet.org), and the Legal Technology Institute (LTI at www.law.ufl.edu/lti) at the University of Florida Levin College of Law.
This book is intended to help you better understand the concepts of case and matter management systems, software developers in this industry, de-tailed information about these systems, and, most important, how to suc-cessfully implement a case or matter management system in your law firm or law department.
The History of Computerized Case Management
System Software
The first commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) computerized case management system was the Personal Injury/Case Management System (PI/CMS), com-monly called “pick ems.” It was created in the mid 1980s by Al J. Cone, a per-sonal injury lawyer practicing in Florida and Legalsoft Corporation, a software development company. The system was developed and marketed by Shep-ard’s/McGraw-Hill and was programmed using the old Btrieve database en-gine, an older DOS-based system. It included a Rolodex, a calendar, a propri-etary word processor where the user could merge client and case data into a word processing template, and the ability to create reports. It was extremely clunky compared to systems available today, but it combined basic case man-agement functions into a single system.
Keep in mind, this system was developed and sold around the time Word-Perfect 5.0 was taking over the legal word processing industry, the top com-puter system was an AT&T Model 6300 with a 10MB hard disk drive, a whop-ping 640KB of RAM memory, a 5 1/4 inch floppy disk drive that held 360KB of
data, and a 15-inch monochrome CRT monitor using either amber or green text. Best of all, the AT&T Model 6300 sold for only $5,000. The printer of choice was the Hewlett Packard HP LaserJet Series I laser printer that printed about eight pages per minute.
Around this same time (mid 1980s) there were several other software com-panies developing case management software including:
◆ Chesapeake Interlink, Ltd.—PINS (1985)
◆ Cycom Data Systems, Inc.—CityLaw/CountyLaw (1985) ◆ Synaptec Software, Inc.—LawBase (1986)
◆ Client Profiles, Inc.—Client Profiles (1987)
◆ ADC Legal Systems, Inc.—Perfect Practice (1987) ◆ Software Technology, Inc.—CaseMaster (1988) ◆ LegalEdge Software, Inc.—LegalEdge (1988)
Law firms and law departments were just migrating off the old Wang, NBI, and IBM DisplayWrite word processing systems and, if anyone had a local area network (LAN), it was most likely a Novell NetWare network or a LANtastic peer-to-peer network system.
The World Wide Web Internet, as we know it today, did not exist and there was no such thing as electronic mail. To get files from one computer to an-other, staff would copy files onto a floppy disk and walk them over to copy onto another computer—this was commonly called the “sneaker net.”
PI/CMS was the first case management system and what I consider the first generation of case management. Case management systems are cur-rently, in my opinion, in their fourth generation. The first generation tied a case database to document generation, albeit its own built-in word processor. The second generation brought integration of the database with WordPerfect. The third integration, we called co-opetition, brought integration with com-peting companies such as a case management system that integrated with a different company’s time, billing, and accounting system or a document man-agement system.
The fourth generation that we are in now, brings workflow into the mix. The ability to automatically route items, tasks, documents, and events to cer-tain people based on their role in the case or matter. Case and matter man-agement systems have come quite a long way and, in my opinion, still have a little way to go. This new workflow concept is not new in the computer in-dustry, but it is a fairly new concept in the legal software industry.
Defining Case Management, Matter Management, and
Practice Management System Software
There is often confusion in the legal industry as to what exactly case man-agement system software is and what it is supposed to do. There are many definitions of what they should do and they are as varied as those trying to define it. However, we do know that lawyers must keep track of various cases and matters in the office. We also know that computers can do the job of tracking cases and matters better than hand written notes, journals, and index cards. But, on the other hand, computers cannot talk with the clients (though we sometimes wish they could) to determine specifics about the case or matter. That is the job of the lawyer and staff. Let the computer do the grunt work and manage the data so you can do what you do best—represent your clients to the best of your ability.
Let me see if I can clear it up. Here are Adkins’ definitions of management system software:
◆ Financial management systems are your time, billing, and accounting
systems, often called the back office system.
◆ Case management systems manage cases (duh), but are typically geared
toward litigators who handle cases. These systems are strong in track-ing and managtrack-ing case-related information.
◆ Matter management systems manage matters (duh) but, again, are
typi-cally geared toward transactional and corporate lawyers, who do not really deal with cases, but handle matters. These systems are typically stronger in document assembly for document intensive practices. ◆ Case and matter management systems are often the same application
and the term is more market-driven than anything else. If the develop-ers are courting litigators, they are more likely to call their software case management. If they are courting corporate or transactional lawyers, they are more likely to call their software matter management. They basically do the same thing and have the same functionality as case management systems.
◆ Document management systems manage documents. But do not be
de-ceived. They not only handle word processing documents, but they also handle spreadsheets, graphics, emails (and attachments), PDFs (Portable Document Format) and voicemail. Document management systems can handle almost any type of file on the computer system. ◆ Now, the pièce de résistance is practice management system software—
software that manages the entire practice. It includes components of time and billing, accounting, case/matter management, and document management. Ahh, finally, an all-in-one system, a truly complete front-Defining Case Management, Matter Management, and Practice Management 5
office/back-office system. Figure I.0 details a full Practice Management System complete with email integration and a digitizing environment.
Questions Always Asked at the Beginning of a
Technology Book to Help Determine Just How
Inefficient Your Office Is
How many active cases or matters do you currently handle? Can you take on more and still give your current clients the service they need and deserve? Is your current workload cumbersome and a burden? Do you feel like you work too much and seem to only get a little done each day?
There is no average number of cases that a lawyer can handle. Some law-yers juggle dozens (sometimes hundreds) of cases at one time. Other lawlaw-yers may only handle one or two complex cases or matters at a time. Most of the workload is handled between the lawyer, the legal assistant, and the secre-tary, each with an assigned piece of the case. But can you take on more client work without adding staff?
When you need information about a particular file, how long does it take you to find it? First of all, how long does it take you to find the file? How much non-billable time do you and your staff spend looking through a file for a sin-gle piece of information such as an address, a phone number, a fax number, or an email address?
Do you know the status of all your cases or matters? If a client calls about the status of his or her case, do you have to research this information before returning the call to the client? And do you get tired of apologizing to the client when you do finally get around to returning the call? I do not mean to sound condescending, but the truth is these are complaints I hear from lawyers and their staff all the time.
These are some of the problems that computerized case and matter man-agement systems attempt to solve. In the past several years, many software companies have developed products that allow the lawyer and staff to handle more of a caseload without making a hefty investment in additional staff. There are dozens of legal software developers that handle some type of case or matter management ranging anywhere from a simple calendaring system to a fully functional and integrated practice management system. Many of these companies are detailed in Section 2. Others are listed in the Appendix.
Tools like case and matter management systems permit lawyers to be more accurate, more responsive, avoid wasted efforts and time, and spend more time on the interesting parts of their legal practice. The important point to remember is that there are a variety of case management systems that can assist you. You can probably find one that will fit into the way you already practice law. The difficult task is to decide which case or matter management system is right for you. Perhaps even more difficult is understanding the many different features and functions available in these systems and determining which features you need.
That is the mission of this book—to help you better understand comput-erized case and matter management systems and how to successfully imple-ment them into your law firm or law departimple-ment.
Case Management the Old Fashion Way—Manual
Those firms who successfully automate case management already have a solid manual system in place with plenty of checklists, dockets and ticklers, and organized file management. Knowing where the file is at all times and being able to quickly access information within the file is crucial to effective case management. I have said it before and I will say it again, “You can’t auto-mate CHAOS!”
One of the biggest problems law firms and law departments face is organ-izing records and files. Multiple copies of multiple documents in multiple places are one problem. A common example is a Rolodex system. Most firms use Microsoft Outlook for email, contacts, and calendaring. A firm with twenty lawyers probably has twenty different sets of contacts, one for each lawyer in his or her Outlook address book. If a client’s address changes, how long be-fore all Outlook address books are updated to the current information? Will they ever all be up-to-date? Can you spell f-r-u-s-t-r-a-t-i-o-n when the law firm sends out holiday cards?
Managing your caseload typically takes a great deal of administrative time and effort to gather and organize basic information from the client. Checklists help you gather the information you need, but you may have multiple check-lists for each case, and they are typically located with the paper file. The more cases you handle, the more time you spend on non-billable, administrative tasks. If you bill clients by the hour, then efficiency may not be a priority, at least for now. You have probably dealt with clients who question your billing practices for tasks that may seem administrative to the client. For plaintiff’s contingency-fee lawyers and corporate lawyers, administrative tasks are a waste of time—you do not bill for them. The time you spend look-ing for files or calllook-ing (or writlook-ing) a client for a status update does not gener-ate any income.
And for those who provide outside counsel work such as insurance de-fense, carriers are looking for law firms that efficiently use computer technol-ogy. Budgeted costs and competition for defense litigation are becoming the trend, instead of the billable hour. And with the insurance industry’s move to-ward managed care for the legal profession, which incorporates Uniform Task-Based Management (see Appendix), you can bet you will be paid for what the insurance company determines is reasonable for the task, not necessarily the amount of time required to spend on the case. Efficient case and matter man-agement is essential—case and matter manman-agement systems are the key.
You must also keep in mind that the information you gather now using a manual method is the same information you will gather using a computerized system. That will not change. What will change are the methods by which you use the information once it is input into the case management system.
Reasons to Consider Case Management Systems 9
The computer is very efficient in managing information, and many devel-opers incorporate record and file management into their systems. But it is im-portant to realize that the old adage, “Garbage in, garbage out,” is true even with a computerized system. If the data is not entered properly, the informa-tion and reports will not be accurate.
Reasons to Consider Case Management Systems
Law firms and law departments deal with many different types of information, deadlines, and documents during the life of a case or matter. Organization is really the key to effective case and matter management. Using a computer helps to make case and matter management more efficient and, therefore, the lawyer and support staff should have the ability to handle more cases. The fol-lowing are several reasons most lawyers consider using case management systems:
◆ Increase caseload without increasing staff ◆ Manage deadlines
◆ Check statute of limitations ◆ Check conflicts of interest
◆ Share case and client information in-house ◆ Improve staff productivity and teamwork
◆ Improve responsiveness and client communications ◆ Reduce malpractice insurance rates
Purchasing any type of law office automation system, whether it is com-puter hardware, software, training, or services, must be looked at for increas-ing long-term efficiency, not simply an overnight whim. Law firms that typi-cally charge by the hour (and get away with it) may not find benefits in becoming more efficient. However, clients are weary of billing by the hour and are demanding that lawyers be more efficient. If they do not find it with you, they may find another lawyer.
Clients can also benefit from a law firm or law department using a com-puterized case or matter management system. Any user with access to the system can instantly review the status of a case or matter without relying on the physical file. An anxious client on the telephone can get an immediate an-swer. All this information is available because all users input data at various times during the lifetime of a case or matter.
Perhaps the most important benefit of all is employee morale. While some managers and supervisors do not recognize the benefits of having happy campers, the benefits are doubled when you have happy and productive
em-ployees. No more waiting for information from the lawyer, it is now available at any time, day or night, simply by having it on the computer system.
Practically speaking, case and matter management systems are most ef-fective when used by the entire staff: lawyers, paralegals, legal assistants, and secretaries—anyone and everyone associated with the case. With the right case management system, processes previously carried out separately by in-dividuals at different times and, therefore, cumbersome are now united under one technological umbrella, allowing lawyers to move from one area of the program to another without having to switch to different software applica-tions every few moments.
I love it when I hear stories of lawyers asking their legal assistants to find a piece of information about a case and then being told to “look it up on your OWN computer.” This may sound disrespectful to the lawyer, but those who successfully implement a case management system include everyone on the team.
Return on Investment
Over my years of consulting with the legal profession, I have been privy to many different technology implementations and the costs of these implemen-tations. It is not brain surgery—you simply take the total cost of the imple-mentation (which includes the software, the hardware, the installation, the in-tegration, the conversion, the training, and the annual maintenance and support) and divide it by the number of users in the law firm or law depart-ment. That gives you a technology cost per user.
Law firms and law departments can also calculate a Return on Investment (ROI) in a number of ways. When the lawyers are on the billable hour, the ROI is typically calculated on how much additional billable time can be gained by using a computerized case management system. Based on my years of experi-ence working with law firms and law departments of all different practices and sizes, the average lawyer can easily recover at least fifteen minutes additional billable time per day with a well-implemented case management system.
For support staff, the return is higher since lawyers often ask staff to lo-cate client information and documents. Much of this wasted time is spent looking for files or information within the paper file or on the computer in dif-ferent users’ directories. Many lawyers will commonly admit to more than fif-teen minutes a day but, for purposes of this ROI calculation, we will use fiffif-teen minutes for the lawyer and thirty minutes for the paralegal.
Assume there are ten lawyers billing an average of $300 per hour, in addi-tion, there are also two paralegals billing an average of $100 per hour. Using a
case management system, the lawyers can bill an extra $750 per day ($300/hour ⳯ 10 lawyers ⳯ 0.25 hours) and the paralegals can bill an extra $100 per day ($100/hour ⳯ 2 paralegals ⳯ 0.5 hours) for a total of $850 addi-tional billable time per day. In one month, using an average of twenty-two workdays, the firm can bill an additional $18,700. In twelve months, that is an additional $224,400 billable time for the firm. To calculate the ROI, simply di-vide the cost of the above ($224,400) into the cost of the software, and you will get the amount of time (usually between six and eight months) of when the system pays for itself. Keep in mind that in most cases, lawyers and paralegals will recover more than the fifteen minutes (lawyer) and thirty minutes (para-legal) as illustrated above.
Case Management System Workflow
Many case management systems are designed to manage case information from the initial phone call through settlement, the so-called cradle to grave cycle. In some applications, case management system developers use the workflow philosophy. That is, the case management systems attempt to emu-late the processes involved in working with information in a law firm or law department environment. Typically, these systems are marketed as customiz-able, as well as the extra educational and consulting efforts required to gain the benefits.
Software developer marketing departments create a wonderful world for case management systems. They are designed around the information flow and flow patterns inherent in the process of practicing law. So they fit the way lawyers really work. The problem with this philosophy is that there is no stan-dard for the way lawyers really work. This is a people service, and lawyers practice law differently. Even lawyers in the same small law firm or law de-partment practicing the same type of law may practice differently.
Workflow is extremely important in case management systems, and there is often flexibility in how the system works within your office. But, like a good accounting system, there needs to be some standardization in the way lawyers use case management systems. A workflow analysis example is provided in Section 3 and is often used during the Needs Analysis and Requirements.
The point is, the way you practice law is different from how another lawyer practices. Be cautious of case management system developers and consultants who claim their systems will not change the way you practice law. Of course it will, because now you are using a computer software program where you did not before. But, with the right case management system, you will find many ways to improve how you practice law.
Case Management Is Not Litigation Management
One of the big frustrations of educating the legal profession about case man-agement is informing these individuals that case manman-agement is not litigation management. Litigation Management software is often called litigation sup-port and deals with the organization, preparation, and presentation of evi-dence in all phases of litigation. These software packages assist the litigator in the organization of applicable law and relevant facts, witnesses, and evi-dence. Many litigation support packages provide full-text indexing of docu-ments and modules for imaging and managing handwritten notes and records. Many also provide management of evidence and trial exhibits. These systems do not have the same features and functions of case management systems. However, there is no reason why a law firm or a law department cannot use both a litigation management system and a case management system if there is a need. Better yet, many case management systems integrate with popular litigation support applications.
Case Management Is Not Document Management
Document management systems are designed to manage the multitudes of documents that may reside on a networked file server. These systems inte-grate with your word processing software and email systems and provide the end user with document revision numbering, full-text indexing, backup, and archiving features for easy administration. These systems do not have the same features and functions of case management systems. Do not confuse document management systems with case management systems. While these are two completely different systems, several case management systems have built-in document management functionality. Many also integrate with exist-ing document management systems. Section 2 provides more detailed infor-mation about case and matter management systems that either include docu-ment managedocu-ment capabilities or integrate with popular third-party document management systems.
Nomenclature Used in this Book
I have defined various management systems earlier in this section. Instead of continuously using the phrase “case and/or matter management system,” I am going to be lazy and refer to these systems as case management systems and use the abbreviation CMS. Got it? When you see the term case management
systems, I am referring to both case management and matter management. If I need to specifically address one or the other, I will spell it out.
Throughout the book, I may use a term or phrase that is technical or a term you may not have heard before. I have attempted to capture these and place them into footnotes somewhere in the vicinity of where they are used. I find this easier to follow and refer to in the text rather than including these particular phrases in the Glossary.
Practice management systems include case and matter management function-ality. Because case/matter management systems are essential to implementing practice management systems, this book discusses them in great detail. There continues to be confusion in the marketplace regarding differences between case management, matter management, and practice management systems software. A complete practice management system should include both front office and back office functionality: case/matter management, document man-agement, and financial management. These differences are further defined in detail in the next chapter.
