Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

Presenters: Simon Chester Rick Klau Ron Friedmann

Background Material by Ron Friedmann Prism Legal Consulting, Inc 5151 10th Rd N. Arlington, VA 22205 703.527.2381 ron@prismlegal.com Simon Chester Heenan Blaikie LLP 200 Bay St., Suite 2600 P.O. Box 185, South Tower, Royal Bank Plaza Toronto, ON M5J 2J4 416.643.6905 schester@heenan.ca Rick Klau Socialtext 235 Churchill Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 650.323.0800 rick@rklau.com

It's easier than ever to communicate and work with your clients, experts, and co-counsel using the Internet. VoIP, instant messaging, video conferencing, extranets, and deal rooms provide new and efficient ways of interacting and collaborating with others, all from the comfort of your office. Learn about the latest in online communications tools and utilities, and how to keep them secure.

ABA TECHSHOW 2005 March 31 April 2, 2005 Chicago, Illinois www.techshow.com

IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 2

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................4 The Impact of Technology on How We Communicate ..............................................................................5 Instant Messaging ..............................................................................................................................................6 New Ways to Reach Out to Clients IM Updates ..................................................................................6 Wall St. IM Records Requirement and Future E-Discovery Issues.......................................................6 Remote Data Display ........................................................................................................................................7 Video Conferencing ......................................................................................................................................7 Voice Over Internet Protocol Telephony..................................................................................................7 Extranets .............................................................................................................................................................8 Deciding on an Extranet Strategy ...............................................................................................................8 Are Extranet Standards Required?..............................................................................................................9 A 2003 Effort to Standardize Extranets in the UK .................................................................................9 A 2004 Effort to Standardize Extranets in Australia ...............................................................................9 A Critique of the Australian Extranet Standardization Effort..............................................................10 Getting Extranets Right .............................................................................................................................11 Good Extranets Meet Client Needs, Offer Functionality and Content..............................................11 Extranets at Work at Shaw Pittman LLP.................................................................................................11 Extranets at Work at Morrison & Foerster .............................................................................................12 Should Law Firms Roll Their Own Extranets? ..................................................................................12 Say Aloha to the Wiki......................................................................................................................................13 Tag is it! .............................................................................................................................................................16 tins ::: Rick Klaus weblog...............................................................................................................................19 Matter Centric Working: Letting Lawyers Work the Way They Want to Work ....................................19 The Matter Centric Attorney Desktop.....................................................................................................20 Managing Firm Know How.......................................................................................................................21 Preserving Records......................................................................................................................................22 Business Implications .................................................................................................................................23

Table of Contents

IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 3

For this session, we have brought together a variety of articles and commentaries that each of us has written over the years which touch on communication and collaboration over the Internet. Two of us have been active bloggers for a number of years and we have extracted from the blog sites recent postings that comment on some of the technological and practical challenges faced when we use advanced technologies as we practice law.

Introduction

First lets set out a conceptual framework in which we can make some practical distinctions between the various tools. The framework is a simple one, which turns on asking does this technology communicate from one or from many, and to one or to many, and is the communication in real time that is: is it synchronous. We suggest three variations: Synchronous communication is two-way: the parties are present at same time and all can contribute and collaborate

Asynchronous communication is two-way: parties are not present at same time, but all can contribute and collaborate Publishing which is primarily designed as one way.

How do the various tools and technologies fit in?

In our session, were going to talk about all of these, bearing in mind that in all cases the clients needs and the lawyers business purpose should drive the decision which to choose. Sometimes cutting edge technologies may be available but less than optimal for the task at hand. For example, in developing todays presentations we could have resorted to web-based conferencing or shared work spaces. Instead, a traditional phone conference, with files being continually shared over email worked quite well enough. IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 4

From Strategic Legal Technology Blog, by Ron Friedmann, 11/20/2003

The Impact of Technology on How We Communicate

As technology has evolved over the last few decades, we have an increasing choice for how we communicate: writing a letter and having it delivered, leaving voice mail messages (intentionally, by calling at off hours), e-mailing a message, transmitting a fax, sending an instant message, or posting information to an extranet. The mode of communication is not just about how information is transmitted. The mode has many other implications. Two examples help illustrate this point.

First, consider e-mail. We take it for granted now of course. But around 1994 I co-wrote (and had published by American Lawyer Media) an article extolling the virtues of using e-mail to communicate. At that time, many lawyers objected to e-mail and thought it would never amount to anything. Granted, cross-organization e-mail required complicated gateway connections at the time (this was pre-Internet for general commercial purposes). Among the benefits I recall pointing out were:

communicating asynchronously (meaning the recipient did not have to be there to receive the message), copying multiple parties, keeping a written record (a sword that clearly cuts two ways in litigation), attaching files, and crystallizing ones thoughts for the benefit of the recipient (in contrast, for example, to the rambling voice mail message). I contrasted e-mail to voice mail, which offered some of these benefits, but burdened the recipient with often rambling thoughts and the need to take notes. Second, a friend told me a story this week about PowerPoint. She was asked by colleagues to write a memo explaining a particular issue. As she started writing, she realized that the memo would end up being long and detailed. Moreover, she realized that no matter how she argued the points, some readers would not get it and others would disagree. And she found it was taking way too much time to write. So instead of going down that path, she decided to respond to the request by writing a PowerPoint presentation and e-mailing it. This allowed her to communicate the main points and to provide some context and support. She reasoned that this would suffice for most of her audience and for those who did not believe the points, they would not be convinced by a memo version and would call her anyway. This anecdote crystallized the idea for me that communication is deeply affected not just by the transmission method (e.g., e-mail versus voice) but also by the presentation of content (e.g., written memo, e-mail text, PowerPoint, or Visio diagrams). For better or worse, many business people are now accustomed to PowerPoint presentations and find memos longer than one page tedious. Lawyers who want to provide outstanding service to clients should consider carefully both how they transmit and how they present information. While there is no right or wrong answer, different choices are appropriate for different circumstances. Lawyers should be attuned to the mode and presentation format by which their clients would like to receive different types of information. IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 5

New Ways to Reach Out to Clients IM Updates

From Strategic Legal Technology Blog, by Ron Friedmann, 6/26/2003

Instant Messaging

Yesterday I noticed an ad in the Wall Street Journal for a new service that delivers news and quotes via instant messaging (IM). I tried it just now and it seems pretty useful and unobtrusive, at least so far.

A few years ago, most law firms would have scoffed at the idea that they would regularly send email updates to clients or allow their clients to sign up for subscription alert services from the firms web sites. Yet many firms do this today. So, is IM the next wave? Will law firms begin to emulate the WSJ and deliver legal news via IM? Arguably legal news and analysis requires some thought and reflection and therefore is not appropriate for IM. I suspect those same arguments were made about e-mail years back. The point is not necessarily just speed - its operating in the medium clients find most congenial. I now have a WSJ buddy name on my AOL IM list. I can send a message ("main") to receive a menu of options or a message containing my menu selection to get headlines ("1) or quotes ("2). Firms that want to occupy a high share of mind of their clients should consider a service that emulates what the WSJ is doing. For clients who use IM, having the firm name right there on the buddy list (or equivalent) can be a powerful awareness builder. And if that client has a legal question. well, Ill let you fill in the rest.

Wall St. IM Records Requirement and Future E-Discovery Issues

From Strategic Legal Technology Blog, by Ron Friedmann, 6/20/2003

Yesterday both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal reported that NASD will now require its members to save instant messages for at least three years (just as they must e-mail messages). The same articles mention that NYSE had imposed the same requirements on its members earlier in the week (which, if it was reported, I missed).

If saved IM records ever become subject to discovery, they will just add to the already large volume of digital data that lawyers must review. I suspect that e-discovery vendors are happy about this! Im not sure that IM e-discovery raises unique issues. But if Wall Street IM usage is typical, abbreviations and shorthand is rampant. Moreover, since IM interactions may follow a phone call, email exchange, or hallway encounter, they may reference events or things that, standing alone, are not all that clear. I suspect that therefore applying automatic analysis and screening techniques in ediscovery to IM will be even more challenging than it is to other digital data. There are specialized vendors that say they can help. For example, Cataphora says it can help put this type of information into context (meaning relating it to other documents and records) and H5 says it can help give meaning by pre-filtering based on issue definitions. I was also surprised that both papers did not give this more press. The NYT devoted four column-inches in a corner tucked away on page C6; the WSJ about eight on page C4. I suppose that reflects my limited perspective on whats important! IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 6

Remote data display is used to project common images on remote computers, using a centralized control. Its most typical application is in remote internet-based continuing legal education, where the technology can be used to share a PowerPoint presentation, to move together through a common sequence of websites, or to demonstrate an application.

Remote Data Display

In a law firm collaboration, it can be used most easily to share whiteboard sketches and text, or to provide end-user assistance or training.

The next step beyond that is interactive data collaboration, where both parties are jointly browsing the web, jointly working on whiteboard diagrams or collaborating on updating a document. Remote control tools include VNC, Timbuktu or Remote Administrator. A new program to check out is Remote Task Manager. Shared browser work can be conducted via SurfNChat, PowerCall WebAnytime and cuSeeMe. Deal rooms fall into the category of persistent virtual work spaces, where remote parties (whether clients or co-counsel), can remotely elaborate on a project or activity, sharing a common work space for: Documents Email discussion threads or archives Digital objects Notes PowerPoints Website designs Outlines

Video Conferencing

At Heenan Blaikie LLP, we use video conferencing equipment extensively for internal management, client team, and part mental meetings, and have found that it has significantly reduced the need for inter-office travel. The digital video equipment becomes transparent after a while. Were using the Polycom ViewStationFX videoconferencing system, which integrates video, voice, data and web access.

Voice Over Internet Protocol Telephony

While the rise of email has certainly reduced our time on the phone, any lawyer knows that the telephone remains an essential tool for practice. With VoIP, telephone calls can be made and faxes sent over IP-based data networks, with amazing service and a cost/benefit that will appeal to any bean counter. VoIP converts the human voice into digital files into an analog signal which is then sent through IP or data packets over the Internet. When the other partys computer receives the files, it decodes the packets back to analog or voice format, so they can hear your message (or read,for a faxed document transmission). IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 7

While using the Internet as a backbone for telephony may seem to offer simply cheap long distance, the results of integrating telephones into law firm computer networks are much more profound. Since every phone message is a digital file, it can be shared, stored, transmitted, and analyzed in the same way as any other digital file.

Simon Chesters old firm McMillan Binch, the firm is just one year into the adoption of the implementation of a Cisco VIOP phone system. The phones are remarkably programmable, so that the phone screen becomes mechanism for transmitting internal phone directories, the client database, and personal preferences. Your VIOP phone is as personal to you as your computer desktop settings. It can be plugged in anywhere on the internet, whether in another office within the firm or in a hotel across the world.
Calendar

Collaboration

Instant Messaging Video Conferencing

Web Application

email

Audio Conferencing

than sound

Telephone Services Voice Messaging

Coupled with a microphone headset, the computer can function entirely as a telephone, and eliminate the need for a separate piece of hardware. On such soft phones, the difference between email and voice messaging resides simply in the fact that one employs text characters, rather waves.

The audio quality is unbelievably clear, no matter what the distance, since there is no line degradation unified messaging mean that everyone can use one inbox for voice messages and e-mail. Since lawyers are on the road so much, getting access to voice messages through one's email is a great feature. Another nice thing with the soft phones is the ability to have it work and auto dial the cleints through the client database. No lawyer at McMillan Binch has has yet abandoned a phone set to fully embrace soft phone technology, because its not yet completely practical. You can only trust MS Windows to a certain extent - in other words, if your PC crashes, you lose your phone. It is nice with a wireless network since your PC and phone follow you everywhere.

Extranets
Deciding on an Extranet Strategy
From Strategic Legal Technology Blog, by Ron Friedmann, 11/29/2003

Derek Smith and Peter J. Ozolin of Paul Hastings provide a good overview and analysis of law firm Extranets in Are Client Extranets Worth the Expense? published in the National Law Journal (December 1, 2003) and at law.com.

They explain that Extranets are not necessarily a client relationship builder. Before building (or buying) an Extranet, law firms need to define what their goals are and what the economics of IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 8

establishing and maintaining the Extranet will be. The article also describes three kinds of Extranets - turnkey, litigation support and management, and customized - which can meet differing needs. This is a useful article for law firms thinking about Extranets or for law departments that are considering asking their outside counsel to establish one.

Are Extranet Standards Required? A 2003 Effort to Standardize Extranets in the UK

From Strategic Legal Technology Blog, by Ron Friedmann, 6/19/2003

In the current issue of Legal Technology Insider, Charles Christian reports that guru Richard Susskind has revealed the existence of a new legal technology initiative by nine major investment banking groups, including Deutsche Bank and Barclays Capital. The objective is to agree [on] IT standards for the electronic delivery of legal services, so their in-house legal departments will eventually only have access [to] one system, rather than the present situation where one bank may face separate login and operating requirements for as many as 200 different law firm extranets and virtual deal rooms. Susskinds article appears in the June 17, 2003 online edition of the Times Online (London).

In his article, Susskind reports that nine leading global investment banks in London [l]ed by Deutsche Bank and Barclays Capitalhave called upon five leading City law firms to work with them. The five are Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, Freshfields, Linklaters and Simmons & Simmons. He suggests that it would be best for a third party such as a legal publisher to deliver the common hub. This announcement does not surprise me. I have thought for some time now that if law firm extranets do succeed, they will sow the seeds of their own destruction. In a presentation I gave, The Future of Technology in Law Practice to an ABA section in May 2002, I argued that clients that actively use law firm extranets (1) tend to use more than 1 firm, (2) its too hard to use multiple extranets, (3) there needs to be a single, uniform system, (4) law firms will need to upload data to a common place, and (5) data transfer standards will develop. I agree with Susskind that it may be difficult to achieve this goal with multiple law firms. Two years ago, LawCommerce.com announced an initiative to create a common deal room standard. A press release appeared on Yahoo about this June 18, 2001 and a similar one is still available at LawCommerce. As far as I know, the major technology initiative to create a world wide standard for Online Deal Rooms did not develop much traction. My last comment is that the potential third party providers extend beyond legal publishers. For example, IntraLinks provides a common extranet platform.

A 2004 Effort to Standardize Extranets in Australia

From Strategic Legal Technology Blog, by Ron Friedmann, 9/26/2004

I have previously written that if law firm extranets succeed, they will sow the seeds of their own destruction. Clients will not want to use multiple systems; instead, a single interface to multiple IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 9

outside counsel will be required. Along these lines, Charles Christian, in Legal Technology Insider, reports on a new effort to standardize extranets. In the 16 Sep 2004 issue, Christian reports that Telestra (the largest Australian company) has created an extranet system that a company called nSynergy now provides to 45 companies in Australia. Moreover, nSynergy has opened for business in the UK.

nSynergys LegalNet product, according to the companys website, is a common platform that offers collaboration features, status on all open matters, a way for clients to requests quotes for new matters, extensive reporting, and project tracking. An article in Australian publication Lawyers Weekly, The Online Brief Manager (21 Nov 2003) provides some interesting background on the history of the project.

Christian also reports that nSyngergy offers LegalNet free to law departments. This could lead to a situation similar to e-billing, where GC receive a service for free but firms pay fees and invest substantial internal resources (see my recent posting on e-billing). Long-term, I believe that the most flexible and best solution to the issue of sharing data is is adoption of data standards and common technology such as web services. Also, a standards approach strikes me as a good way to avoid what seems like the messy economics that arise from giving product and services to GC for free. Theres no such thing as a free lunch applies here. The goal should be to reduce total system costs and share the savings. I worry that free really means creating extra costs and shifting costs, rather than reducing them.

A Critique of the Australian Extranet Standardization Effort

From Strategic Legal Technology Blog, by Ron Friedmann, 10/5/2004

I recently posted about a new, single platform Extranet from Australia called nSynergy. Three reliable sources in Australia suggest this is probably not going to take the market by storm. The reports from my sources: Apparently, Telstra continues to use the predecessor system to nSynergy and none of the major Australian law firms use the product. Australian general counsels are testing the system but corporate IT and purchasing managers are not keen on supporting a sourcing system unique to legal. It is focused primarily on law firms reporting fees in a standard format; it appears effectively to transfer the administrative burden from GC to firms. nSynergy offers the software free to GC - seeking revenue by charging firms. But some GCs are a little concerned about the potential for hidden costs such as training and hardware, and for fees in the future. Beyond paying fees, firms are reluctant to use it because that would require re-keying data from existing systems

In light of these comments, it seems to me (1) the report referenced in my prior post may be out in front of what is actually happening and (2) if the real goal is fee tracking, which was not clear to me from that report, it seems GC should use one of the several established e-billing services.

Ill take this occasion to re-state two of my favorite themes: First, I think the concept behind nSynergy - a single platform or data standard for sharing data among lawyers and clients - does make IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 10

sense. And second, while such sharing - whether it is documents, billing, or project status - is useful, it is not likely to generate huge savings. Bigger savings will flow from examining how lawyers work and changing processes so that costs are actually reduced.

Getting Extranets Right Good Extranets Meet Client Needs, Offer Functionality and Content
From Strategic Legal Technology Blog, by Ron Friedmann, 1/16/2004

This week I had the opportunity to see a demonstration of an AmLaw 100 firms client-facing Extranet. Extranets have been much discussed but the evidence suggests little used. One reason I suspect usage has been low is that many Extranets dont do that much. The one I saw this week, however, was impressive in its design and functionality.

This firm has done a good job thinking through the business and design issues of Extranets. The firm acknowledges that ideally an Extranet would be hosted by the client and visited by multiple outside counsel. But they rightly point out that the reality is that most law departments dont have the resources to build and host their own Extranets. So this firm set out to build an Extranet that its clients would find useful - and succeeded. The Extranet includes numerous features such as share documents, matter management (e.g., docketing), contacts, tasks, and reporting tools. The interface and functionality varies, depending on the matter type. For example, both the navigation links and content are quite different for transaction versus litigation. In some areas of the Extranet, the firm has also included value-added features such as annotated form documents and best practice checklists.

This firm has gone beyond merely providing Extranets as we usually think of them. It also reports that its Extranets are, in some instances, instantiated as corporate law department Intranets. That is, employees in some companies use a corporate law department legal Intranet. Some of or the entire Intranet is actually hosted and administered by the law firm. The firm reports that they do monitor usage and use the tracking data to improve the site and to go back to the client if usage is lower than expected to understand why. Based on the URLs I saw, it appears the firm has built the entire system using Cold Fusion. All in all, I was quite impressed with what I saw. While I have no information about client reaction, if I put myself in clients shoes and saw a similar demonstration, I would be impressed.

Extranets at Work at Shaw Pittman LLP

From Strategic Legal Technology Blog, by Ron Friedmann, 7/18/2003

Many law firms offer their clients extranets. Anecdotal evidence among law firm knowledge managers and IT professionals is that clients do not use them very much. Perhaps that is because most extranets are focused on exchanging documents. For that, e-mail will do (or at least that is the view of most lawyers).

My July 12th post described how Morrison & Foerster created a popular extranet by populating it with a patent docket. Earlier this week, I had an opportunity to see how another firm, Shaw Pittman IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 11

LLP, has created extranets that are used because they do more than share documents. Three examples are noteworthy.

For a large real estate company, the firm uses an extranet to track the clients multiple legal entities and each entitys property holdings. The same system also tracks key dates for rights and obligations in leases. For both the firm and the client, the extranet is the sole and central repository for this information. For a large financial services company, the firm hosts an extranet for a particular type of highvolume transaction. Most transactions have multiple parties and require multiple types of documents. The extranet tracks all parties and documents and uses checklists to make sure each deal is complete. And finally, for a retail franchise operation, the firm uses an extranet to assist its client in trademark enforcement. There is a relatively high volume of potential or actual infringements. The extranet is used to manage background research, the issuance of cease and desist letters, and followup to the letters. Shaw Pittman LLP develops its extranets using Lotus Notes/Domino, which it adopted in 1996. The firm has a group of Notes/Domino developers who know how to use the platform to quickly create easy-to-use customized systems to meet specific needs.

It is clear that all of these systems are used regularly by the firm, its clients, and third parties. And that regular use demonstrates the value of the technology to help cement client relationships.

Extranets at Work at Morrison & Foerster

From Strategic Legal Technology Blog, by Ron Friedmann, 7/12/2003

Many law firms have established extranets designed to share documents and other information with clients. The anecdotal consensus among law firm technology managers is that neither clients nor firm lawyers have used these extranets as much as had been expected. The generally accepted explanation for this is that lawyers - both inside and outside counsel - are wed to e-mail and do not want to bother with multiple interfaces.

In the current issue of Law Technology News, the CIO of Morrison & Foerster, Jo Haraf, describes in The Killer App? (note, free registration required to view full-text) how her firms extranet evolved. The initial extranet was not used much. But when the firm put its patent docket on the extranet, clients were excited and started using the extranet regularly. With the success of the patent docket in hand, MoFo is moving to make its litigation docket available via the extranet. Technology is an important tool for law firms to master in serving clients. Achieving success, however, is not necessarily easy; first attempts do not always work. But those firms that listen to their clients and to new ideas generated internally and that are willing to keep trying can succeed.

Should Law Firms Roll Their Own Extranets?

From Strategic Legal Technology Blog, by Ron Friedmann, 4/24/2004

Recently I have learned of not one, but two law firms that have commercialized extranets, creating separate entities to market products and services. IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 12

In my last posting on Extranets, I suggested that law firm Extranets are more touted than used. I do not have good data on actual usage, so my anecdotal impression may well be misplaced. And I do know a handful of firms whose Extranets are used regularly and extensively by clients. Judging by their action to create separate entities to market extranets, at least two law firms perceive that a market exists for additional, legally-focused extranets. Tom Baldwin, formerly consultant to Foley & Lardner and now CKO of Sheppard Mullin, alerted me to Haynes & Boones hbconnect Extranet, which has created separate entity, ClientConnect to offer customizable Extranet services. Separately, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP has created a subsidiary called Xerdict, which also offers customizable Extranets. It will be interesting to see how these two offerings fare in the market. It seems to me a competitive space, with offerings by Hummingbird, Interwoven (owner of iManage), Documentum (owner of eRoom), and Intralinks, among others. The market does not seem to be crying out for additional choices. There is, of course, always the possibility of the proverbial better mousetrap. If I were advising a law firm about selecting an Extranet product, I would focus first on functionality, including ease of use and administration. Another consideration is the company offering the product - its stability, focus, market position, and incentives. It can be hard enough to evaluate a software company that is purely free-standing; it would seem even harder to evaluate one affiliated with a law firm.

Say Aloha to the Wiki

By Rick Klau (A version of this article originally appeared in the April, 2004 issue of ABA Law Practice Management Magazine.) A Web site can be an ever-expanding white board for group collaboration. And were talking quick.

Visit the home pages of most software vendors these days and youll see a lot of talk about security. Buzzwords will pop out at you: audit trails, authentication, identity and so on. Many IT directors will tell you that a system that can be locked down is a system that can work. The vendors want to provide you with stuff that makes that happen. In fact, you dont hear vendors talking about a lack of securityindeed, to do so would be heresy.

That may be about to change. Meet the wiki, the technology that makes your blood go cold when you first read about it. So lets get that out of the way: A wiki is a Web site that anyone can editat any time. And anyone can do so anonymously. In other words, the page could say one thing this morning, then someone could swing by, and two minutes later the page could say the opposite thing. Sound like a formula for effective collaboration? Shockingly enough, it is. (Okay, thats behind us. Read on to figure out why the anyone-anytime edit philosophy makes sense.)
Origins of the Species:What Is It?

IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 13

Wiki is Hawaiian for quick. And its the notion of allowing users to quickly and easily edit Web pages that sets wiki technology apart from other collaboration environments. Wiki is the name of an application as well as a concept. There are countless wiki program clones available online that offer similar functionality. While wiki will celebrate its 10th birthday next year, it has its origins in a database effort from Carnegie Mellon University dating to 1972. Wiki was under the radar of most Web users for much of the past decade, and its only in the past year that its use has started to skyrocket among casual users. In hands-on terms, a wiki is a very simple Web application installed on your Web server. Early implementations were completely open, allowing anyone to edit and having no notion of capturing who made what changes (unless the person annotated those changes himself or herself). But todays wiki applications do include user management to track who does what. The point of a wiki is to create an electronic white board, whereby any user with access to a browser can view what others have written and can add their own comments, edit others mistakes and contribute to the conversation. The telltale sign of a wiki system is the Edit button that appears on a Web page: Click on it, and youll have the ability to change the text on the page.
Why Bother with It?

Consider how a law practice could put this technology to use to foster knowledge sharing. If you think of a wiki an ever-expanding white board, you start to get an idea of how it might enable groups to share information, organize that information and, over time, correct and enhance the groups collective knowledge base.

Most people, when they first hear about it, assume that this capability makes wikis vulnerable to digital graffiti artists, who can swoop in, write whatever they want, then go away. While thats certainly true, there are practical ways to limit this. First off, if the goal is to work among a team, you can always put the wiki behind a password so that only those people who have authorized access to the wiki site can edit its content. In addition, there are a number of different wiki implementations, several of which explicitly incorporate some advanced user and rights management so that only allowed individuals can make changes to content.
Does It Work?

Ive written before about the trend in moving from centralized software management to decentralized software. The most obvious example of this is the weblog phenomenon, which took a previously highly centralized function (Web publishing) and turned it upside down. Anyone could publish a weblog, for little to no money and without any of the steep learning curve that accompanies the bigger, centralized applications. Wikis also decentralize the process of collecting and sharing knowledge among a group. Now, go back to the white-board analogy:What if, to use a white board, only one person could be in the room at a time? That person would write something on the board, leave the room and tell a friend (or group of friends) to go take a look. Then, one by one, theyd each enter the room and take a crack at improving on the original contribution on the board. IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 14

Hardly a way to collaborate, is it?

Yet thats exactly the model in use when people create documents, send them to others and ask the individuals to send back comments. A wiki changes this model. Not only do you have the ability to edit content that you see, but you can create new pages, link among page and use many other traditional Web tricks (hyperlinks, display graphics, attached files and the like) collaboratively. Now the white-board analogy breaks down, because no white board in the world can do that.
Exploiting Wiki Technology

To take advantage of all a wiki can enable, it helps to be familiar with wiki markup. Based on the assumption that average users dont know all about HTML, wiki implements some text-based shortcuts to make using the system easier. Mixed capitalization. If you want to automatically create a new page linked from where youre typing, type NewPage. (No spaces between words, please.) The wiki application automatically recognizes this as a page name. When you click on Save, youll see your in-place edits and a link to the NewPagewhich will start out blank. This is useful when you have multiple pages that are related to each other, but need to be separate pages instead of one long page.Wiki will automatically link the pages together. Hyperlinks. You can create hyperlinks to other content, on the wiki or anywhere on the Web. This is typically accomplished by putting square brackets around the URL, such as [www.abanet.org]. Tables. Rather than remember how to code tables, you can just put lines between cells, for example:
|Cell 1 | Cell 2 | Cell 3|

The wiki will automatically format this content as a table, with as many rows as necessary. Bullet lists. Rather than use the code, just use asterisks, and the wiki will format your text appropriately. There are other conventions that many wiki engines (the term popularly used to refer to wiki applications) will follow. Once installed, the wiki will give you plenty of documentation on using its tools. Note that some wiki systems use different variations on the concepts above; most will include edit tips, or suggestions for formatting, which should answer how to adjust the formatting within that system.

IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 15

Why It Works

I started out by talking about security (or the lack thereof). Well, wikis succeed in part because they do not impose a lot of restrictions on users. Groups, it turns out, are quite good at regulating themselves. The big advantage to a wikithat anyone can edit means that inaccuracies get corrected quickly. Also, people who contribute good information on a regular basis become wellknown (and respected) in the group. Plus, anyone who is new to the group has a terrific archive of knowledge shared by the group that will get the new individual up to speed. And quick(ly).

Tag is it!
By Rick Klau A few years back, taxonomy was the knowledge management buzzword. (See? Even buzzwords like KM can have their own buzzwords.) A taxonomy, the thinking went, was the holy grail for a law firm seeking to leverage its knowledge. The law firm would classify its knowledge, creating categories for every practice area, every subject, every jurisdiction. In short: once completed, the firm would have a complete map of the kinds of things it knew, making the sorting and retrieval of that knowledge a simple process. But like the challenge inherent in taxonomies the requirement of thoroughly classifying everything was precisely why so few law firms have been successful in implementing them. An effective taxonomy requires tremendous commitment on the part of the law firm, and not just from the IT staff. To be useful, it must reflect what the lawyers know, and therefore required the time of the lawyers the same have little time to spend on non-billable work (especially when it concerns technology). In The Innovators Dilemma, Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen describes how many new technologies develop: by delivering less functionality that customers arent asking for. (Doesnt make much sense, does it?) Looking at a number of technologies that developed over the 80s and 90s, Christensen pointed out that in each case, the newer technology was not what the customers were asking for, and often came out of a tangential business need. By serving the lower (and less expensive) end of the market, these displacing technologies grew and eventually represented a threat to the established companies. A new technology is emerging on the Internet not to solve law firms knowledge management needs (a market rife with expensive products and law firm budgets in six and seven figures), but to solve a bookmarking problem? (As in your browser bookmarks.) Sure enough. Tagging the basics Visitors to http://del.ici.ous (a service far easier to pronounce than to type) can create a free account, where they can start bookmarking websites they visit. When a site is bookmarked, IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 16

Delicious asks you for some words to describe the site. Each word becomes a tag and each tag becomes its own category that lets users navigate through their bookmarks. Unlike the taxonomy approach mentioned above, there is no relationship (hierarchical or otherwise) among tags. In fact, once you realize that Delicious is designed to be a social service, you start to see the opportunity for chaos: you have no monopoly over what tags describe a particular website. Take a CNN.com story about the weather in Chicago as an example. Once I see it, I may add the tags chicago, weather and snow while someone else may add the tags illinois, accumulation and windy. In a traditional, top-down view of knowledge management, this is fundamentally broken: either the article in question is about Chicago, weather and snow or illlinois, accumulation and windy. Or a combination of the two. But not either one or the other. There has to be one, agreedupon view of what the article is (and what it means), or there will be uncertainty and confusion. Tagging A Window Into Your Colleagues World Except that it turns out there isnt uncertainty and confusion. When I use Delicious to look at sites Ive bookmarked, I can see how I categorized the site, as well as how others have. In this sense, I get to see angles to the site I may not have realized. I see alternative perspectives about what the site means to others. And, thanks to the magic of hypertext, I can navigate through those alternative tags to view other sites that are similarly categorized. Rather than force a group to agree in advance on what terms matter, a service like Delicious lets the group instead focus on which content matters. The categories exist as representative of the content, rather than the other way around. Broad tags like Chicago can include weather, restaurants, real estate anything. And narrow tags like accumulation will ordinarily contain targeted info specific to that concept; in both cases, the possibility of finding things you didnt already know about is quite high. Since the goal of any good KM collaboration strategy is to spread the organizations knowledge among all participants, this is a good thing. This bottom-up way of adding order to the content (not vice versa) proves to be a very effective process for not only classifying the content, but also for identifying which categories are in fact interesting to the group. Delicious is not alone. A photo sharing service flickr not only encourages users to upload their pictures (thats been done for years by companies like Ofoto, Shutterfly and others), it encourages users to tag their pictures. Should you choose to share your pictures (that is, make them publicly viewable), suddenly viewers can browse photos by tags. These are consumer services, but lets return to Christensens hypothesis in The Innovators Dilemma that disruptive technology often comes from the lower end of the market. As of this writing, a major endorsement of the tagging phenomenon comes from Technorati, a company that grew up around indexing RSS feeds from weblogs. IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 17

Technorati Tags Exposing Connections Among Tags Technorati is a service that shows the linkages among conversations on the Internet. Weblog A links to Weblog B, which links to Weblogs C & D. Those links represent connections that Technorati indexes, then represents on its website. Anyone visiting Technorati can find related weblogs lets say you like Ernie the Attorneys website, but didnt know about Bag & Baggage (the excellent weblog from Denise Howell). Thank to Technorati, all youd need to know was Ernies web address; plugged into Technorati it will reveal all weblogs that link to Ernie. This alone is useful. A new feature from Technorati now also indexes tags. Rather than just show links between websites, Technorati now also shows links between tags. This allows you to navigate from one weblog to another based on the category the weblog author chose to apply to the content. Technorati also indexes tags from flicks, del.ici.ous, as well as Socialtext wikis (disclosure: I work for Socialtext). If youre interested in a particular tag, go to http://www.technorati.com/tag/techshow. Youll see every bookmark from Delicious that users tagged with the techshow tag, all photos from TechShow, all blogs mentioning techshow in their category, and any public Socialtext wikis that include a techshow category. Suddenly, the lack of a hierarchy is no impediment to finding related kinds of content regardless of where that content is stored or who categorized it. (And unlike traditional systems, where the author dictates how the content is categorized, Delicious and flickr let each individual viewing the page decide how to categorize the content, increasing the likelihood that subsequent visitors will see it.) To fully understand why this concept of tagging matters, and what it means for how individuals and organizations will use the web in the near future, read David Weinbergers provocative Small Pieces, Loosely Joined. (Weinbergers own encounter with the competitive displacement of the web browser in 1993 a threat to his far more capable software is recounted in the books preface, available online here.) And finally, a new buzzword To my co-panelist Simon Chesters utter horror, theres even a buzzword for this phenomenon: folksonomy. Wikipedia has a good definition and list of resources here. I predict well see enterprise applications (that is to say, commercially produced software based on these concepts targeted at businesses) within the next six months. One thing is certain: whether Im right or not, the tags that others use to describe this article on my blog (brilliant, foolish?) will tell the story better than I could. [Simon Chester ripostes Thomas Vander Wals coining of folksonomy as a term to use many to many collaboration to generate meaningful relationships is interesting and profound, but its an inelegant neologism to join the Old Saxon word folc with the Greek nomia. Fowler in Modern English Usage at p49 says To create barbarisms is a grave misdemeanor; and the greater the need of the word that is made, the greater its makers guilt if he miscreates it. But after all we lost the battle on the word television let folksonomy rule.] IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 18

tins ::: Rick Klaus weblog

Selected posts on collaboration and wikis: Category Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Collaboration Title The Long Tail Year of the Enterprise Wiki Saving Money and Time with Wikis Wikis Entering the Mainstream KM Individual vs. Organizational IT Innovation in the Next Decade Federal Government Worst at KM By Far Knowledge is Not a Zero Sum game MITRE and the Thank You Database Seven Myths of Knowledge Management Date 1/10/05 1/6/05 6/4/04 5/28/04 7/19/04 5/26/04 4/28/04 8/30/02 9/3/02 7/26/02

Other good samples: Posts by category: o KM o Innovation o Business Strategy o Technology

Matter Centric Working: Letting Lawyers Work the Way They Want to Work
NOTE: Communication is nothing without substance. Though this session focuses on methods of communication, it is critical to remember that much of what lawyers communicate is substantive. The article was published in KMWorld magazine (July/August 2004). By Andrew Pery and Ron Friedmann Law firms operate in an increasingly competitive environment. First, globalization requires firms to reach beyond their traditional boundaries, forge alliances internationally, and practice in multiple specialized areas of the law. And second, the pressure to improve realization rates has never been more intense. To meet these challenges, firms must use their intellectual capital as a strategic resource. This means firms must provide lawyers with a single interface to all client and matter information. Systems such as document management, legal research, records management, financial reporting, IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 19

and collaborative tools must be integrated. Moreover, know-how must be systematically captured, managed, shared, and re-used.

Firms should integrate previously disparate systems and capture know-how in the context of matter life-cycle management, as illustrated below. Upon intake, a new matter must be reviewed for possible conflicts. If cleared, it is assigned to a practice area, categorized by topic, and a matter folder created. The matter folder contains all related documents, e-mail correspondence, and billing information. Ideally, it should be pre-populated with key dates (docketing data) and relevant precedents. There should also be an easy way to designate documents for re-use (knowledge management) or for retention (records management). Partner views of the folders should include financial reports about the client and the matter. In many instances, information will be shared with clients or co-counsel and must therefore be accessible via collaborative technologies.

Managing the work explicitly in its natural life-cycle, providing access to all the information about a matter in a single interface, and capturing re-usable know-how all contribute to better client service and higher realization rates.

The Matter Centric Attorney Desktop

The old paradigm of the application-centric desktop is fading; instead, firms must provide a content-centric view. Lawyers do not care that e-mail systems manage messages and document management systems manage documents they want to see all related information in a single, logically organized interface. Consequently, many firms use a portal or Web browser-based solution. Others view Microsoft Outlook as the key because lawyers use it so much and it is now easy to include in the Outlook folder tree documents or folders from the document management and other systems. UK-based Allen & Overy LLP, one of the worlds top global law firms with 4,800 fee-earners and staff in 23 countries, is implementing a global virtual file called Omnia using the Hummingbird Enterprise portal, document and knowledge management capabilities. Dave Burwell, A&Os CIO says, Omnia offers our attorneys an interactive matter-centric view of the firms matter, know-how and client information within a single browser interface. Fee-earners anywhere in the world can interact with the virtual file that contains all information related to a particular matter including documents, e-mail and paper correspondence, time, billing and contact information. As a result, our fee-earners and staff are better able to manage work in progress, improve productivity and service our global client base more efficiently. IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 20

The matter-centric view is especially useful for managing work in progress, including documents, e-mail, and financial data. This view is also a natural way to facilitate collaboration outside the organization because co-counsel and client permission to access information is generally determined at the matter level. Another benefit of the matter-centric and life cycle approach is the potential to automate tasks. This may include work flows that automatically create certain documents and that pre-populate new items with matter metadata. For example, client information created during the matter in-take may be automatically populated to the client matter folder once the firm completes the conflicts check. Once the client matter folder is generated, the assigned lawyers are notified of the new matter and have immediate access to critical information.

Managing Firm Know How

Commonly referred to as knowledge management, firms are recognizing the importance of fostering a knowledge sharing culture as a means toward better client service and improved realization rates. Many firms today consider knowledge management as a cost of doing business rather than an optional achievement.

By organizing and categorizing firm work product into practice areas or topical categories a firm can gain several benefits. For example:

Quicker ramp up of new lawyers via access to a library of best practices; Faster delivery of services, particularly standard commercial transactions by re-using precedents; and Preserving and protecting the collective firm know-how as lawyers leave the firm. There are two approaches to capturing firm know-how. One is an automated approach that uses software to identify and find useful documents. Another is to rely on a more manual, human-driven editorial process. The two are not mutually exclusive and a blend is often best. Automated tools can sift very large document collections to find a small subset but the subsets returned are often too large and contain too many false hits or do not provide any context.

In the human approach, dedicated workers identify useful documents, save them to a separate database, and describe the context in which they were used. Many law firms, especially in the United Kingdom and Australia, have practice support lawyers or knowledge managers whose primary job this is. At Allen & Overy LLP, the firm designed its know-how system to encourage information sharing among the staff. The know-how system contains more than 20,000 items including precedents, best practices, advice and templates. In addition, Dr. Burwell says, We have streamlined our process in order to ensure documents are classified correctly. The key to the implementation is to ensure that the knowledge management tools and practices are tightly integrated into the day-to-day business of the fee earners. One specialized legal-market product, AdvanceKnowledge by ii3, Inc. of Toronto, offers an approach that greatly facilitates the manual approach. Tight integration with the Hummingbird Enterprise document management system and a built-in workflow make it easy to submit IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 21

documents to a separate repository. Moreover, during the submission process, a lawyer or knowledge manager can easily enter contextual information, associate related documents and information (e.g., key contacts), and categorize the material into a taxonomy. The system even identifies expertise based on the number of submissions by category, which in turn, provides an incentive to submit documents.

McCarthy Tetrault, the largest law firm in Canada, has used AdvanceKnowledge and Hummingbird Enterprise document management for several years. In the course of rolling out the product, the firm also took many measures to motivate lawyers to submit documents. George Takach, the McCarthys partner who spearheaded this effort, says that using AdvanceKnowledge has made a huge difference for our firm. We no longer talk KM we really do it. Between the software and work practices we established around it, lawyers regularly contribute content and, more importantly, describe the context of deals, cases and other matters. This makes it easy for other lawyers to find valuable know-how quickly, which means better service and greater efficiency for our clients. The use of broadcast e-mail to find documents or expertise has fallen off dramatically. AdvanceKnowledge allows us to extract much more value from our document management and CRM systems.

Preserving Records

Managing firm records has several dimensions: ensuring business continuity, complying with legislative mandates relating to records retention, and planning for the potential discovery of digital data in litigation.

Records management should be an integral component of a matter centric attorney desktop. The client matter folder should have embedded rules by which documents are classified in accordance with pre-defined retention practices. Automated triggers or workflows that declare a document a record invoke these retention rules. Declaring a document a record means that it cannot be modified (it is an authentic record) and it must be maintained for a specified period of time. E-mail management is a special challenge for law firms because lawyers rely on it so heavily for substantive, client-related issues. Which messages should be preserved and which ones not? Increasingly, automated techniques allow classifying and categorizing messages into client matter folders that meet predefined classification criteria. Rules engines can infer in which matter folder the message belongs and how it should be classified for retention purposes. Automated approaches do not eliminate the need for human review, but they do help in the initial process of distinguishing between irrelevant and vital records. Effective records management practices means less onerous discovery expenses should litigation occur. The absence of a formal document retention policy can result in dire consequences. For example, there have been cases in which exculpatory evidence was not allowed into evidence because of problems in how documents were retained. Automated approaches do not eliminate the need for human review, but they do help in the initial process of distinguishing between irrelevant and vital records.

IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 22

Business Implications

The days of law as a genteel profession are over firms now run as businesses. Recent mergers and failures of large firms have surprised even long-time observers. Growth and profitability are the new mantras. Many firms now take marketing and business management seriously, hiring highly compensated Chief Marketing Officers, emphasizing cross-selling, tracking profit and loss at the practice group level and shifting from low-margin to high-margin work. Leveraging firm know-how is an effective tool to promote the firm. Client matter information is often re-purposed around practice centric content that links the firms domain expertise to precedents. Legal research content then is published to the firm extranet, as a service to existing clients and as a marketing tool for attracting prospective clients. The challenge for law firms is to generate incremental value from an inherently scarce resource time. Application-centric computing is giving way to a data-centric model; at the same time, firms are capturing matter-specific work to create shareable and re-usable knowledge bases. This transformation may change the way firms generate value and maximize realization rates. Hourly billing may give way to value-based billing (for example, fixed fees). Partners have the potential to scale their practices by having junior lawyers deliver the high quality service by re-using precedents and best practices.

Viewed in the competitive context and pressure to generate profits, the matter centric way of working is not just a desirable model but an imperative. Conventional wisdom once held that firms should not invest in knowledge enabling processes unless there is cost recovery for these initiatives. This premise is no longer valid. Such investments ought to be considered as a cost of doing business. ### About Hummingbird Hummingbird is the leading provider of practice management solutions for law firms and corporate legal counsel. Hummingbird is a market leader with 53% market share of top grossing law firms globally.

Hummingbird recognizes that firms have different ways of working and different infrastructures to support. Hummingbird strategy is to provide a flexible environment that supports how lawyers work, based on configurable matter and practice centric views of firm work product and know-how, accessible from a wide range of user interfaces. The architectural foundation of Hummingbird Enterprise is to provide single point of access to a suite of applications that are highly integrated. For more information visit us at http://www.hummingbird.com/legal_kmw04 About The Authors Andrew Pery is Chief Marketing Officer and Senior Vice President of Hummingbird Corporation. He has over 20 years of marketing experience in the software industry. Andrews experience encompasses product marketing, brand strategy, mergers and acquisitions with both pre IPO and publicly traded companies. Ron Friedmann is the president of Prism Legal Consulting, which helps law firms with the strategic use of technology and legal market software companies with marketing and strategy. He is a lawyer IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 23

by training and has held senior management positions at two large law firms and two legal software companies. E-mail: ron@prismlegal.com. Simon Chester Ron Friedmann Rick Klau

IN 02 Come Together, Right Now: Using the Internet to Communicate and Collaborate

March 31 April 2, 2005 Page 24