Anti-social

I have lost track of how many times this foreword has focused on the application of social media tools for the benefit of law firm knowledge management.

To begin with, there was the seemingly never ending argument about whether or not KM professionals should be including social media tools within their strategy at all. Was it worth the risk? This debate trundled along for months – in fact, it’s one of the few times when readers were getting in touch with me and begging to write their views on the subject. This can put an editor in a very difficult position. While it’s wonderful that people feel so passionately (and in the case of a magazine such as this, you must let the market dictate the content to some extent) it’s also poor form to publish on the same topic over and again.

So, whether or not law firms should jump on the social bandwagon is now a moot point. As Brian Inkster demonstrated with his account of Twitter use at his firm back in April, it’s just the done thing. Social networking and its associated websites are such a huge part of our lives that they are almost omnipresent. And, not just in law firms, there are established business benefits to support their use.

We all know the trailblazers; those firms that have been on the case with social media for years now. The majority of them entered the world of blogs, discussion forums and social networking with an already substantial KM function under their belts. For these firms, social networking was a small way of optimising an already effective know-how strategy, with ingrained systems and processes.

That’s why I have enjoyed speaking to Andrew Woolfson, of Reynolds Porter Chamberlain (RPC), so much this month. When he was installed as the director of a newly created knowledge and capability department in 2010, the firm’s KM strategy was encompassed by a single intranet site and limited PSL support.

In the next few months, Woolfson (in collaboration with social business consultancy Headshift) developed a social media platform that sat on top of the firm’s core business systems. Underpinning that programme was an objective to deliver innovative ways of working, which would in turn demonstrate RPC’s commitment to being a modern provider of legal services.

Part of this commitment, was a focus on the firm’s core strength – its people. For that reason, Woolfson and his team didn’t impose formal training at launch. Instead they provided guidance and stories to encourage people to adopt the tools themselves. And it has worked. You can read about the firm’s social media journey on page 24.

Moving on, quite literally, after seven years with Ark Group (and now Wilmington), this will be my last issue as editor of KIM Legal, as I will be leaving to explore some new challenges. It’s been a pleasure working with all of you who have contributed to the magazine since its launch and I hope that your good work continues. With a bit of luck, I’ll be seeing many of you and Twitter and LinkedIn.

Kate Clifton
Managing editor

Features

People first This article is for subscribers only
At the outset of the process, there was no KM model to speak of and very few professional support lawyers or know-how processes. People tended to share insights and information within the groups that they operated in on a day-to-day basis. While everyone was aware that there was valuable knowledge elsewhere in the firm, the means to tap into those resources and use them for professional or client development were limited. This meant that there was little support for cross-selling opportunities or inter-departmental fertilisation of ideas.

Intuitive search This article is for subscribers only
At KM Legal 2010, we demonstrated our award-winning intranet, MyShepwedd. The key driver for this project was to help address the problem of information overload. We found through extensive scoping that users needed vast quantities of information on a daily basis but found it difficult to find it in an easily accessibly and digestible form.

Learning from the edge This article is for subscribers only
Knowledge professionals must be strategic to their businesses or face extinction. That’s the current mantra. But what do strategically significant leaders require to thrive in today’s volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world? Who are the role models KM professionals can learn from? From my experience those who have operated at senior leaderships levels in the elite Special Forces represent the benchmark.

Behind the times Free
Technological advances in our personal and professional worlds continue at a great pace. Functionalities familiar from the sci-fi of my youth have become the norm, if not outdated. In the legal profession, any short exposure to legal technology vendors and products will demonstrate an investment in ‘putting control in the hands of the modern lawyer’, ‘embracing social software’, or ‘leveraging search and data analytics’.

Directing knowledge activities This article is for subscribers only
Knowledge management (KM) in law firms (in the UK at least) is distinguished by the existence of dedicated professional support lawyers (PSLs). As far as I am aware, other organisations do not rely heavily on domain experts performing permanent KM roles. Implicit in the reliance on PSLs is an expectation by client-facing lawyers that they can deflect certain knowledge activities (for example, precedent drafting, technical training and current awareness) onto PSLs.

Regulars

Time to reflect This article is for subscribers only
When discussing clients’ ‘life in the cold economic climate’, our executive board concluded that we needed to systematically re-examine how we actually do the work. I was excited when one member said: “It’s all about managing knowledge so we’ll leave it with you, Duncan.” Excitement soon turned to panic when I realised the complexity of the task and I was keen to share the load with Alastair Ross, from business innovation consultancy Codexx.

Clear cut This article is for subscribers only
Social media policies need to be as clear as is humanly possible for two reasons. First, they must ensure that the online and offline experiences when dealing with you business are exactly the same. They must set very clear ground rules for tone of voice, what is and isn’t acceptable in terms of client engagement and when to withdraw (sometimes it’s the only option) from a conversation, or escalate a complaint to the next level of seniority.