denotes premium content | Jan 8 2009 Feature
posted 17 Jan 2007 in Volume 1 Issue 1
Making knowledge work
Knowledge management has become a familiar term in the legal profession, but where it was once considered a document-centric discipline, it has become an essential component of a firm's business strategy and culture. By Kate Clifton
While corporate organisations operating in both the public and private sectors have provided us with numerous knowledge-management (KM) trailblazers, the legal profession has often been described as rather slow when it comes to embracing – and promoting – KM activities. The reasons for this are the usual suspects: law firms are, historically, resistant to change and new ways of thinking. Their traditional, set-in-stone management structures and pre-occupation with the chargeable hour have made the KM transition somewhat tricky, to say the least.
At the end of the day, however, law firms are essentially knowledge-based organisations; their main selling points being knowledge and expertise in any, or numerous, practice areas. So, KM – although perhaps not always in the guise that we are familiar with – has existed within firms from the earliest days of legal practice. But it is only in the past few years that firms have really started to sit up and take notice, and innovate in this area. Now, the general view is that KM is an instrumental element of a firm’s business strategy and something that should be nurtured – and invested in. “The ship is turning, but it’s a huge tanker and it’s taking a while,” says Carol Aldridge, head of KM and information services at UK firm Burges Salmon. “Once firms truly understand KM, and partnerships are fully behind it, they will never swing away from it.”
From know-how to KM
KM has existed largely in an uncoordinated way at most firms for years. Juliet Humphries, a consultant at Pierian Spring Consulting and formerly director of KM at international firm Linklaters, acknowledges the firm’s first foray into the discipline – and the first time that know-how was referred to in a formal context – as the establishment of a know-how committee in the late 1960s. This body was charged with looking at ways to encourage knowledge sharing between lawyers throughout the firm. These first tentative steps towards a more knowledge-orientated culture were evident at many firms, and the term KM has gradually become more widely used.
According to Humphries, this shift was particularly evident through the 1980s, as larger – especially magic circle – firms began to increase in size and expand into new markets. It was more apparent to firms that there was a requirement to formalise some of the internal knowledge sharing, along with the view that as increasing numbers of partners and younger lawyers were recruited, they needed to ensure they had more support staff on hand to assist them. There was a necessity for more thorough training and better documentation – for example, standard-form documents, and around the mid to late 1980s, many of the larger firms began looking at databases and precedents. Firms were becoming more aware that effective know-how enabled lawyers to speed-up their processes and do work more efficiently. Fixed-fee work, for example, where all the necessary documentation is required within just a few days to ensure fast turnaround, was improved by the better understanding of legal issues and faster access to the necessary information, bought about by know-how strategy.
This growth, coupled with changing economic conditions, pushed know-how and, indeed, KM into the spotlight. Although the term wasn’t necessarily valid – in fact, it was almost ‘counter productive’ well into the 1990s – there was a gradual realisation among firms that many of the theories behind it made sound business sense and they began to question which KM principles could be introduced into the law-firm environment. “Law firms are incredibly profit driven,” says Humphries. “They will only ever invest time and resources in worthwhile causes. Knowledge management has become the umbrella for many different knowledge-driven activities aimed at increasing profitability and improving client relationships.”
A natural evolution
Driven by a general movement towards increased professionalism in law-firm management, KM staff are moving away from the more traditional know-how role. Whereas previously this concentrated on keeping lawyers up to date with the law and ensuring they had the most relevant precedents and information to deliver legal advice, there is now more of a focus on the business aspects of running a modern-day firm. KM gives people the tools and information they need to better understand exactly what their firm does, and how.
Lucy Dillon, director of KM at
People are now approaching Dillon, detailing the way in which they work, and asking exactly what she and her department can offer – what is in the tool kit to enable them to work faster. “There is a sense now that KM isn’t soft and fluffy and at the margins of a law firm’s activities, but that these tools can be effective in enabling us to deliver a higher quality product to our clients,” says Dillon. “This is great, as it’s putting us right at the centre of the business.”
At Burges Salmon, Aldridge is approaching KM in a more holistic way than previously, with KM and information services operating under the same umbrella. This means that the firm can make the most of both its internal – PSLs – and external – systems such as
This model of more business-focused KM is certainly gaining momentum and PSLs and other KM support staff are increasing in prominence across the majority of firms.
Accordingly, more money is being invested in systems to back up strategies and manage content. “People are beginning to realise that there is a need to invest in documents and know-how databases,” says Dillon. “When these systems are effectively maintained and updated, they really help you out. If you come across a particular issue and the database has been kept up to date, you can see an immediate benefit.”
However, encouraging lawyers to engage in KM activities is not always as easy as it sounds.
Cultural barriers
One of the main challenges faced by KM professionals is enthusing busy fee-earning lawyers to get actively involved in activities such as knowledge sharing and data input. “Lawyers are fairly high achieving and like doing the client work, but are not so keen on the knowledge-type work,” says Humphries. “PSLs can try to help facilitate people to contribute know-how, but it’s a battle without fee earners’ cooperation. Very few firms find it easy to get all their fee earners to contribute their knowledge.”
Resistance to KM activities can be attributed to the very nature of legal work, where the chargeable hour remains the key motivation for most practising lawyers. While they are happy to pursue the professional development side of things, when it comes to spending time on non-chargeable activities, many lawyers are unable to see precisely ‘What’s in it for me?’. This is affected even more by the fact that lawyers are renumerated for their legal work, which doesn’t encourage them to engage in additional activities.
“A lawyer would rather exceed their chargeable hour target by 200 hours per year, than spend one extra hour of investment time,” says Aldridge. “They often don’t think that partners are interested in KM, they don’t see it as career progression, and sometimes see it as more of a soft option.”
Similarly, when it comes to technology roll-outs, lawyers can be equally suspicious. “Lawyers will be very concerned – and the document assembly tool is the perfect example – that you are giving them a system that will take away a skill they’ve developed over years,” says Dillon. “They will always worry whether ‘it will do the job as well as I can’.”
Most difficult, she adds, is when a piece of software is implemented, which the KM department really wants everybody to use, and it receives a cool reception. In those instances, Dillon’s team encourages feedback so that they can proactively address any issues and explain the benefits of the system to ensure that any sceptics are bought back as quickly as possible.
One area in which many firms are making strides is re-assessing their reward and recognition processes to engage lawyers. Burges Salmon now reinforces its KM culture with an ‘investment time initiative’, where sharing knowledge and taking part in knowledge-based activities are promoted as being as valuable to the firm as chargeable activities. This message is backed up by the inclusion of assessments and rewards for KM work – to the extent that it is included in annual appraisals, where lawyers are asked whether they have been meeting their investment targets.
Top-level buy in, of course, is another key factor. “There’s nothing PSLs or the KM team can do without the partnership – it’s vital,” says Aldridge.
Setting aside cultural issues and resistance, the legal know-how environment looks set to become more integral to the success of law firms and, while still grappling with certain problems, knowledge professionals can look forward to a number of developments, both technological and cultural (these will be assessed in future cover features), which will exert a positive influence on the activities that they are involved in. The KM revolution within law firms is picking up speed.
