LJN Newsletters

To increase the effectiveness of our network of attorneys, efficiency and collective strength, and eliminate duplicative legal costs we needed to leverage the resources and intellectual capital of this national team of attorneys. Our solution was ultimately a two-pronged approach: First to provide counsel with technology to enable collaboration and sharing of resources in real time; and second, to gather the data to analyze the effectiveness and efficiencies of counsel and identify, encourage, and enforce best practice collaboration.

In 1789 and afterwards, when colonies became states, most state legislatures passed 'reception statutes.' These often forgotten parts of state law history 'received' the common law of England as of that date and, more importantly, empowered the courts to develop the common law in light of 'reason and experience.' See Victor E. Schwartz & Leah Lorber, Judicial Nullification of Civil Justice Reform Violates the Fundamental Federal Constitutional Principle of Separation of Powers: How to Restore the Right Balance, 32 Rutgers L.J. (2001). Over the past 240 years, legislatures have retrieved the right to make law, including property law, commercial law, divorce law, and almost every other civil field. There is one vestige, however, where courts still make law ' the law of torts.

Say Knowledge Management in non-KM circles ' especially in law firms ' and you're likely to get a blank stare. This is often because the mission of knowledge management has not been communicated to stakeholders, or the term has been used so broadly that it no longer means anything. One way to overcome the 'what is KM?' challenge (and to gain great credibility for someone in my position) is to be able to respond to a well-defined need with an equally well-focused solution.

Malware (Wikipedia): Malware is software designed to infiltrate or damage a computer system, without the owner's consent.
Nothing can be more disruptive, costly and frustrating than being a victim of malware. Being the victim of an attack can be particularly devastating in terms of lost productivity for attorneys and staff, missed filing deadlines, reduction in billable time and loss of client confidence.

When a jury hears an argument, how do you know if they're getting it? They may start out conscientious and alert with good intentions about performing their civic duty, but that enthusiasm may dissipate throughout the trial and adversely affect the decision-making process. Like it or not, attention spans wane, boredom creeps in and life gets in the way all the while you're trying to win your case.

Consider this not unimaginable scenario: Opposing counsel calls for production of a confidential memorandum that details your impressions of the case and trial strategies. This is clearly protected as core work product, right? Not necessarily. In fact, if you shared the memo with your testifying expert in a federal court case, the answer is 'probably not.' Perhaps even more troubling is the following situation: On cross-examination, your expert is asked to reveal the content of confidential oral communications between you and your client to which he was privy in his capacity as a testifying expert. Once protected by the virtually impenetrable shroud of the attorney-client privilege, these types of communications also may now be discoverable if the testifying expert 'considered' the information in forming his opinions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).

As firms strive to differentiate themselves through marketing techniques and stave off mergers through network affiliations, they are gearing up alumni programs to net referrals and maintain positive relationships with former employees.

Confronted by increased competition and changes in the way expense conscious corporate clients procure legal services, law firms are responding by building capacity ' increasing their size through aggressive lateral hiring and acquisition. It is an appropriate response; driven by the market perception that in order to compete today for global corporate business, it is imperative that the modern law firm be large enough to handle both commoditized work as well as provide high end counsel, deep enough to handle any and all matters that a company may face, and streamlined enough to take advantage of technological and other economies of scale. But the myriad of market-based arguments that enable the creation of these large partnerships with hundreds of partners beg the question: 'Now that we've built the infrastructure, how do we truly distinguish ourselves in a manner that actually confirms these assumptions and secures the business?'