Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Perkins Coie Automates Calendaring Process With Aderant CompuLaw
With almost 900 lawyers in 19 offices across the United States and Asia and having just celebrated its 100-year anniversary, Perkins Coie represents companies across a wide range of industries and stages of growth ' from start-ups to Fortune 500 corporations. With a substantial case load comes a variety of processes and tasks routinely handled by the firm's support staff and legal teams, including the docketing and calendaring process. While not often viewed as a strategic asset within all law firms, calendaring and docketing is one of the key, core functions performed by the firm for its legal teams and clients.
With the advent of legal-specific court date calculation and rules-based calendaring technologies, firms of all sizes and budgets can tap into resources to assist with the calendaring process, improve efficiencies, and minimize the risk of missing deadlines. This article explores Perkins Coie's calendaring automation challenge and what we have proactively done in conjunction with our Aderant CompuLaw rules-based calendaring technology.
Paving the Way for Calendaring Automation
As with any technology decision, making an informed purchase when it comes to automated calendaring technology is largely based on how the solutions being evaluated address the primary challenges and pain points identified by the firm's selection and technology evaluation teams. Perkins Coie is no different in this regard, and according to my predecessors who oversaw the firm's initial purchase of CompuLaw some years ago, the goal was to automate the manual calendaring process. Increasing the accuracy of court rules and deadlines was paramount.
For example, our calendaring process pre-automation consisted of two dedicated docketing staffers spending upward of 80% of their time entering court dates and calendar items as advised by the firm's legal teams. The system in place was largely a data and information repository (a.k.a., flat docketing) as opposed to a true calendaring solution. In addition to data entry, an attorney had to research specific court dates and validate the accuracy of those dates. This inefficient process not only limited time spent on strategic, case-related matters, but was also error prone since there was never 100% reliance on individual users' research and calculating their own dates. For a growing firm like Perkins Coie, this process did not constitute a viable long term solution.
When it came time to embrace automation, the CompuLaw system was by far the best option for a firm of our size and calendaring requirements. Over the years, the firm has sharpened its view and expectations when it comes to rules-based calendaring technology. Some of this occurred through trial and error with less automated systems as well as gaining a better understanding of what would make our docketing teams more efficient and productive on an ongoing basis. In the case of CompuLaw, the rule sets, matter and document databases, case notes, report functions and comprehensive audit trails are very important to our users. The CompuLaw Information Center also provides a one-stop link to all court rule changes and usage guidelines. Some of the system's most compelling features are the built-in court rules databases and holiday tables for automatic and accurate date calculations. With more than 1,500 jurisdictional databases to source, we know our dates are accurate and have been researched and validated by a dedicated team of court rule attorneys.
Post selection, we strategically rolled the software out to all offices, meaning we assembled a core pilot group starting with the docketing staff, and as users grew more familiar with the technology, we expanded our pilot. As the user base grew so did the documented procedures and protocols that all of our users now rely on.
Since the switch to CompuLaw, the staff using the automated calendaring technology spends less time on the process and focuses more on true docketing. With the help of technology, we have been able to turn our staff with legal experience into true docketing professionals. For example, the time spent on filing a specific motion, especially in an unfamiliar jurisdiction, is now much faster with the help of CompuLaw's court rules. Now, if the legal department has questions about specific court rules, dates, or exceptions, we have an already established and researched rule set to fall back on. Of course, our legal teams appreciate the conciseness and accuracy docketing provides and our docketing team knows that if there are any questions related to certain rules, CompuLaw's rules support department will provide timely and in-depth explanations and background details.
Attorney-Docketing Collaboration
Conservatively estimated, in 2012, Perkins Coie executed more than 100,000 docketing calculations. The number of calculations and reliance on CompuLaw rule sets has gone up dramatically since the initial roll-out, not only because of automation and technology, but also because of increased collaboration between attorneys and their docketing counterparts. Before, attorneys would spend billable time researching the deadlines and simply feed the dates and calculations to docketing, who in turn would enter this information into a centralized data repository. Information was being pushed down and recorded, and speed was determined by workloads, expertise and accuracy in determining deadlines.
With CompuLaw, if there is a deadline discrepancy, the attorney will first reach out to the docketing staff, which will conduct upfront rule research and due diligence. This process in turn is vastly improved by a right mouse click feature in CompuLaw that automatically pops up a window displaying the rule in question and how the date was calculated. If after additional research, the rule origin is still not clear, any staffer can reach out to CompuLaw's rules support department and discuss the rules with the actual attorneys who researched them. Once docketing is satisfied, they present the rule origin findings and validation to the inquiring attorney. Since this type of scenario comes up five to 10 times per week, the interaction and collaboration between the legal professionals and docketing is tremendous and one of the most important features offered by the CompuLaw system and process.
Reaping the Rewards
Currently, about 20%-25% of total firm staff ' primarily secretaries, paralegals and docketing/calendaring professionals ' rely on CompuLaw in some capacity. Deadline production has increased tenfold since implementing CompuLaw, demonstrating the accuracy and reliance on sound calculations and the importance of having dedicated teams of attorneys research rule sets in numerous jurisdictions, many of which the firm previously had no experience or familiarity.
In addition, the productivity of the docketing staff has skyrocketed, since they are no longer spending a majority of their time on data entry, but are instead able to focus on their primary job responsibilities. Some of the other benefits the firm has realized by using CompuLaw include the following:
- Calendaring proactively addresses disaster recovery/business continuity. Accessing calendars online and having redundancies housed in multiple locations greatly aids “business as usual” scenarios after disaster
strikes. Telling the judge that you arrived late for court because your tablet or cell phone got destroyed or lost is not an option. On a related note, maximizing exposure to a central calendar is strongly encouraged. Integrating with other desktop calendars and establishing one cohesive, central, and easy-to-access calendaring system minimizes calendar-related errors and reduces billable time spent on researching rules and calculating deadlines. - Access rules anytime, anywhere. The CompuLaw Web Portal provides anytime, anywhere access to critical dates and deadlines, enabling our mobile legal professionals as well as firm clients to access information when and where they need it. CompuLaw's Web Portal offers the firm 24/7 access to all schedules.
- Leveraging automation. With CompuLaw, Perkins Coie has the ability to preset advance notifications and reminders of all of its important litigation and court deadlines and dates and have those notifications delivered wherever and whenever needed. In addition to synchronization/integration with Microsoft Outlook, the firm can generate e-mails and print reports filtered by case, event, as well as various date ranges; and view on-screen calendars with graphical views of all our attorney's deadlines.
Lance Zimmerman is the National Docketing Manager at Seattle-based Perkins Coie. He can be reached at [email protected].
With almost 900 lawyers in 19 offices across the United States and Asia and having just celebrated its 100-year anniversary,
With the advent of legal-specific court date calculation and rules-based calendaring technologies, firms of all sizes and budgets can tap into resources to assist with the calendaring process, improve efficiencies, and minimize the risk of missing deadlines. This article explores
Paving the Way for Calendaring Automation
As with any technology decision, making an informed purchase when it comes to automated calendaring technology is largely based on how the solutions being evaluated address the primary challenges and pain points identified by the firm's selection and technology evaluation teams.
For example, our calendaring process pre-automation consisted of two dedicated docketing staffers spending upward of 80% of their time entering court dates and calendar items as advised by the firm's legal teams. The system in place was largely a data and information repository (a.k.a., flat docketing) as opposed to a true calendaring solution. In addition to data entry, an attorney had to research specific court dates and validate the accuracy of those dates. This inefficient process not only limited time spent on strategic, case-related matters, but was also error prone since there was never 100% reliance on individual users' research and calculating their own dates. For a growing firm like
When it came time to embrace automation, the CompuLaw system was by far the best option for a firm of our size and calendaring requirements. Over the years, the firm has sharpened its view and expectations when it comes to rules-based calendaring technology. Some of this occurred through trial and error with less automated systems as well as gaining a better understanding of what would make our docketing teams more efficient and productive on an ongoing basis. In the case of CompuLaw, the rule sets, matter and document databases, case notes, report functions and comprehensive audit trails are very important to our users. The CompuLaw Information Center also provides a one-stop link to all court rule changes and usage guidelines. Some of the system's most compelling features are the built-in court rules databases and holiday tables for automatic and accurate date calculations. With more than 1,500 jurisdictional databases to source, we know our dates are accurate and have been researched and validated by a dedicated team of court rule attorneys.
Post selection, we strategically rolled the software out to all offices, meaning we assembled a core pilot group starting with the docketing staff, and as users grew more familiar with the technology, we expanded our pilot. As the user base grew so did the documented procedures and protocols that all of our users now rely on.
Since the switch to CompuLaw, the staff using the automated calendaring technology spends less time on the process and focuses more on true docketing. With the help of technology, we have been able to turn our staff with legal experience into true docketing professionals. For example, the time spent on filing a specific motion, especially in an unfamiliar jurisdiction, is now much faster with the help of CompuLaw's court rules. Now, if the legal department has questions about specific court rules, dates, or exceptions, we have an already established and researched rule set to fall back on. Of course, our legal teams appreciate the conciseness and accuracy docketing provides and our docketing team knows that if there are any questions related to certain rules, CompuLaw's rules support department will provide timely and in-depth explanations and background details.
Attorney-Docketing Collaboration
Conservatively estimated, in 2012,
With CompuLaw, if there is a deadline discrepancy, the attorney will first reach out to the docketing staff, which will conduct upfront rule research and due diligence. This process in turn is vastly improved by a right mouse click feature in CompuLaw that automatically pops up a window displaying the rule in question and how the date was calculated. If after additional research, the rule origin is still not clear, any staffer can reach out to CompuLaw's rules support department and discuss the rules with the actual attorneys who researched them. Once docketing is satisfied, they present the rule origin findings and validation to the inquiring attorney. Since this type of scenario comes up five to 10 times per week, the interaction and collaboration between the legal professionals and docketing is tremendous and one of the most important features offered by the CompuLaw system and process.
Reaping the Rewards
Currently, about 20%-25% of total firm staff ' primarily secretaries, paralegals and docketing/calendaring professionals ' rely on CompuLaw in some capacity. Deadline production has increased tenfold since implementing CompuLaw, demonstrating the accuracy and reliance on sound calculations and the importance of having dedicated teams of attorneys research rule sets in numerous jurisdictions, many of which the firm previously had no experience or familiarity.
In addition, the productivity of the docketing staff has skyrocketed, since they are no longer spending a majority of their time on data entry, but are instead able to focus on their primary job responsibilities. Some of the other benefits the firm has realized by using CompuLaw include the following:
- Calendaring proactively addresses disaster recovery/business continuity. Accessing calendars online and having redundancies housed in multiple locations greatly aids “business as usual” scenarios after disaster
strikes. Telling the judge that you arrived late for court because your tablet or cell phone got destroyed or lost is not an option. On a related note, maximizing exposure to a central calendar is strongly encouraged. Integrating with other desktop calendars and establishing one cohesive, central, and easy-to-access calendaring system minimizes calendar-related errors and reduces billable time spent on researching rules and calculating deadlines. - Access rules anytime, anywhere. The CompuLaw Web Portal provides anytime, anywhere access to critical dates and deadlines, enabling our mobile legal professionals as well as firm clients to access information when and where they need it. CompuLaw's Web Portal offers the firm 24/7 access to all schedules.
- Leveraging automation. With CompuLaw,
Lance Zimmerman is the National Docketing Manager at Seattle-based
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.