Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Peter Owen Litig Secretary Director, Lights-On Consulting Limited LITIG Case & Matter Management Review.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Peter Owen Litig Secretary Director, Lights-On Consulting Limited LITIG Case & Matter Management Review."— Presentation transcript:

1 Peter Owen Litig Secretary Director, Lights-On Consulting Limited LITIG Case & Matter Management Review

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 Other issues What does not work well? –Failing to de-skill teams meaning costs remain high –Resistance from users / departments! –Integration / getting data in and out - often have to pay suppliers to build it –Development very resource hungry swelling IT teams

21 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

22 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

23 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

24 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

25 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


Download ppt "Peter Owen Litig Secretary Director, Lights-On Consulting Limited LITIG Case & Matter Management Review."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google