BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT TO IMPROVE YOUR FIRM

USING BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT TO IMPROVE YOUR FIRM

The goal of any law firm, regardless of size, should be to manage important activities such as client intake as a process-managed enterprise in order to maximize efficiency and minimize professional liability risk. Using BPM allows for the design of controls into the practice which act to consistently and repeatedly execute those processes at the highest level of quality and care of the client while maintaining a focus on firm safety and economic vitality.

As law firms adapt to changing economic realities which often times forces a firm to try to do more with less (staffing for example), it’s incumbent upon the firm to implement effective strategies to try and increase productivity, contain overall costs, optimize business efficiencies and manage and mitigate risk. Recognizing this requirement is a first step toward launching a pilot project initiative to address and standardize processes involved in everything from checking for potential conflicts to managing the calendaring activity or controlling new client accession in order to make these critical pathways work as well as they can. In addition to supporting the strategic effort of the firm, the focus of this project should be on streamlining operations, clarifying responsibilities, further developing the metrics involved in resource allocation; all of which is in turn designed to correspond and be responsive to the growth, development and evolution of the firm.

Approach

This is a business approach to law firm management which meets the challenges of the 21^st Century. The key to managing a successful law firm environment is to understand the processes which are the DNA of the organization.  For the practice to work at its optimum level, the actions such as these need to be quantified, then modeled, measured and monitored. Intake and related activity is an important element of the practice, and the core processes involved in this practice requirement is the focus of this project. The initiative is advised so as to create a streamlined methodology for managing the process from initial conflicts checks all the way through the process including economic analysis, retainers and billing formulas. Going through the process of evaluation itself should identify opportunities which will lead to reduced waste, provide management with greater operational visibility and transparency and improve support for individuals responsible for managing the activities involved; all the while tightening management controls and reducing the professional liability risk which is always a primary concern.

The process management approach which this effort contemplates should both define as well as document the smallest of detail(s) associated with the whole of whatever process is to be evaluated. It will begin as a series of  interviews with key “stakeholders” (those most intimately involved in the process) and focus on areas associated with the matriculation of a new file, the various tasks involved, as well as the roles associated with performing those tasks; all of this being documented so that it can be evaluated.

A highly experienced core team, comprised of a Partner(s), a member of accounting, a key Associate perhaps, the non-lawyer individuals most involved in managing operation at present, a project manager (who will be charged with “directing” the effort (can be a member of the team) and (possibly) an outside consultant, will then analyze the current state of the process.  The new practice model will be achieved by defining the important roles, applying appropriate strictures, incorporating lessons learned as well as creative thinking techniques. The outcome of this initiative should be the application of these “best practices” in the integration of people and practice requirements with an overlay of technology. This will provide for an infrastructure which can then be monitored and controlled, while providing world class client care while taking the sensibilities of the attorney population into consideration. 

Pilot Project

A pilot project is suggested which can be used to test and validate any process in the firm including litigation support, marketing efforts and so forth. A communication plan should also be developed and implemented in order to manage the changes assumed to be necessitated by the finding of this examination. The self same core team would review and refine the processes until they are at the qualitative level which reflects the firm’s expectations. At that point, depending upon the success of the result, the process management overlay can be used across the spectrum of firm activity including but not limited to the management of a new file or the handling of a transaction matter as just two examples. The process of the review itself should help re-vitalize the firm efforts, make individuals understand that they are part of an important activity and create a positive bond among the “players”.

Copyright 2013 BERMAN & ASSOCIATES Contact: tberman@bermanassociates.net

Internal Case Reporting in a law practice

Case Reporting: A Necessity in Avoiding Professional Liability                            

Small and medium sized law firms (and sometimes those much larger than that) often have little in the way of transparency in the manner in which there is oversight in the way that lawyers manage their case work. In smaller firms there is always the impression among partners that they are aware of the cases managed by others. That is unfortunately often not the case. In a recent example, a law firm suffered several millions of dollars in claims and was required to return hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees to clients after the facts relating to a partner’s misfeasance and omissions were discovered.

In this case, according to the partners involved, there were no warnings of a problem. (Of course, the staff told a much different story.) This was a firm of just 23 attorneys with only five partners. The firm billed its time on a monthly basis and each month the lawyers were obliged to return their “time” either electronically or by paper forms which were then input by staff. The partner in question was notorious among staff about his refusal or inability to get his time into the system. The actual requirement was that time be made available for input on a weekly basis but that was never the case with his contribution. The staff (billing clerk, office manager and his secretary) all tried to assist him in comporting with the rules but he resisted their efforts and the upshot was that his time was always late and never available until even after the appropriate cut-off date.

This firm had no real case reporting requirements and the only time that cases were discussed were at lunch where the partners met almost every day thus giving the impression (erroneously) that they “knew” what was happening in the cases. Actually, whatever information was discussed was purely at an attorney’s volition. There were no systematic updates required on each case. The handling of the case was left up to the individual. To make matters worse, many of the cases in which this individual was lead attorney had no other attorney assigned so that there was no “wingman” involved to keep issues from becoming a problem and no staff who could assist in keeping matters under control.

Without going into more details of the issues involved here, suffice it to say that the reality of his case management was 180 degrees from how he portrayed it.  In fact, the lawyer was an undiagnosed diabetic and was an alcoholic. He was having trouble working on his cases and when the senior partner received a call from his oldest client who told him that the other partner had missed a Hearing, that was the first that he knew of a problem. From that point on, things unraveled quickly.

In fact, the partner in question had, as it turned out, fabricated his billings for at least three months. There had been virtually no work done on any of his files. Sadly, he was frozen in his office unable to do much of anything.

The lesson is not really an uncommon one. Another example occurred last year when a lawyer handling plaintiffs cases had a similar problem with drugs and alcohol. In that case, however, the firm actually was aware of his “problem” but failed to take appropriate action and allowed the individual to continue in his practice with “his word” that things were “OK”. The jury is out on what kinds of claims/losses may be involved in that situation. The point is, however, that Case Reports are a necessity in a law firm no matter what the size may be. Regular reports should be a requirement. Further, no case should ever be assigned to an individual lawyer without another lawyer and/or staff person having the same information available to them contemporaneously.

Here are suggested requirements for a case report. Every open file in the firm should have one and they must be updated at no more than every sixty days. Here are some ideas to include on a litigation matter report:

OPENING CASE DATE:                                                               

ASSIGNED ATTORNEY:

NAME OF OPPOSING COUNSEL:

COURT/JURISDICTION:

DATE LAST REVIEWED:

SUMMARY OR CONCLUSION OF THAT REVIEW:

CURRENT ASSESSMENT IF DIFFERENT:

ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT (INCLUDING RESERVE):

ORIGINAL BUDGET ESTIMATE:             

EXPENSES TO DATE:

CURRENT POSTURE:

TIME EXPENDED TO DATE:

ESTIMATE OF TIME TO CONCLUSION:

SPECIAL ISSUES OR DIFFICULTIES WITH THE FILE:

The Rule of every firm should be to insure that every file is reviewed on a regular basis. This isn’t a matter of trust among partners, it’s a realistic understanding that not everyone is able to manage their cases the way they should be managed all of the time. The firm should provide this support as an understanding of the reality of the practice.