The number one reason for this lack of ownership mentality is that “most lawyers aren’t raised to think of the practice of law as a business,” says Elaine Fitch, of Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch. “They become lawyers because they want to be lawyers, not business owners.”

This in turn leads into the personality traits of the kind of people who select law as a career. Many lawyers become lawyers precisely because they do not see themselves as future business owners, but rather as practitioners of a craft. “Their personal commitment to their craft is what often allows them to be great at what they do,” notes Joshua Driskell of Lagerlof. “When stepping into an ownership role, they might often feel as though they have a less intimate connection to their practice.”

Another obstacle to developing an ownership mentality is lack of training. Most law schools do not include any education or training in the business of law, and that is unfortunate. “The consequences of the lack of this training often shows up down the road,” says Brian Temins of Minden Gross. “Making the transition to owner isn’t as easy as just changing a title — training and preparation need to go into it.”

Indeed, adds Bijal Vakil of Allen & Overy, having business acumen “is just as important for obtaining work and retaining it.”

“Most lawyers aren’t raised to think of the practice of law as a business. They become lawyers because they want to be lawyers, not business owners.”

Often firms are not intentional about exposing their lawyers to the business side of the firm. And this problem starts early because many law firms encourage young attorneys to focus on developing their legal skills, rather than on developing a book of business. As their practice builds, these lawyers tend to focus on getting their legal work done, and perhaps never develop and understanding of why they do what they do. Instruction on why the work matters to the client, and how lawyers’ time is billed and collected, as well as how new work comes to the firm, may broaden attorneys’ focus beyond the day-to-day legal work.

Another possibility to consider is that an attorney may, in fact, already have an ownership mentality, but the more senior attorneys are not allowing him or her to express that. If senior partners insist on doing things the way they have always been done, or are not welcoming toward new ideas, other partners will have little incentive or opportunity to demonstrate an ownership mentality.

What’s a firm to do?

Many law firm leaders that were interviewed emphasize “drawing back the curtain,” and involving more attorneys in the business of the firm. This approach requires transparency and education at all stages. Tom Segars of Ellis & Winters recommends starting early by “involving young lawyers at every step of the initial client intake and billing processes, including conflicts checking, initial consultations, discussing terms of engagement, preparing an engagement letter, and editing invoices.”

David Lackowitz of Moses Singer, agrees, saying that transparency means sharing information. “Just like in other industries, [the attorneys] should be provided with data about lawyer productivity, revenue, expenses, hiring and firing, strategy, goals, etc.,” says Lackowitz, adding that such information given to attorneys at the beginning of their careers is the first step in creating an ownership mentality.

Too often, however, firms keep financial information within a small, tight circle. In some larger firms, even seasoned partners may not have access to important financial information. Instead, firms should share as much information as possible to encourage ownership mentality among their lawyers. “When people understand the mechanics of the business and feel like they have skin in the game, they are more likely to work harder for [the firm] rather than just themselves,” observes Sean Dolan of Evans & Dixon. Information is power and can lead to open discussions and improvements to the overall firm.

Law firms should start this process early by involving associates in the client relationship. This simple commitment goes a long way towards instilling an ownership mentality. When associates see how clients use and value their work — including knowing that the client has paid the bill for the work — associates then feel a sense of ownership to the client relationship.

Involving associates in the entire project creates a sense of ownership, while simply assigning tasks insures they develop purely a task orientation, explains Mickey Maher of Hecht Solberg. “If a younger lawyer hasn’t experienced the opportunity to take ownership of matters or some piece of client relationships, the lawyer will be less likely to take ownership in the enterprise of the firm over the course of his or her career,” Maher adds.

Indeed, firms should take this one step further — let younger lawyers play significant roles in hearings, depositions, trials, and more, especially as they become more senior. Introduce them to clients and encourage clients to contact senior associates directly with questions.

Heather Linn Rosing of Klinedinst observes that “the things that law firms can do to instill an ownership mentality in those up for partnership are the same things that firms can do to promote retention.” These include fair compensation, wellness programming, a commitment to the community, and a mechanism for employees to express their opinions and participate in the betterment of the organization.

Many of the leaders interviewed also emphasized the importance of active mentorship by senior lawyers, as well as active sponsorship for attorneys, and especially for women and diverse attorneys.

Promoting teamwork

While it is often challenging to motivate lawyers to participate in activities beyond their normal billing hours, firm activities that promote bonding, teamwork, and cross-selling are valuable in reinforcing ownership mentality. Involving lawyers on firm committees, such as recruiting, can help to instill an ownership mentality within them, says Heidi Yernberg of Jayaram Law. This activity brings “[the] entire team into operational issues from the beginning, involving associates in a wide range of areas, from project management and workflow to reviewing bills and budgets, to fostering business development relationships, encouraging thought leadership and more,” Yernberg says, adding that group activities, no matter what they are, instill a connection and sense of responsibility to others in the firm.

Developing a strategic plan, with the input of all attorneys and staff, is a way to encourage involvement and ownership. The plan should be consulted and reviewed on a regular basis, so that all stakeholders can see how it is being utilized to determine the direction of the firm.

“When people understand the mechanics of the business and feel like they have skin in the game, they are more likely to work harder for [the firm] rather than just themselves.”

Indeed, Mary Vandenack of Vandenack Weaver encourages her lawyers to develop their own practice plan and “that plan should be incorporated into the firm plan.”

At Ellis & Winters, a North Carolina-based litigation and commercial real estate firm, they take it further by having their director of Client Services & Business Development work with each attorney to develop an individual plan for business development, focusing on the lawyer’s interests and strengths, while holding each lawyer accountable for implementation.

And finally, accountability is a large part of this process — and often, it is the hardest part of the equation as managing partners often have difficulty holding their partners accountable. “I would give them actual business responsibilities,” says Marco Antonio Gonçalves of Veirano Advogados in Brazil. “A make them accountable for [those] responsibilities, as well as for what is expected from them as a firm partner in the long run.”

To reinforce what it means to be a partner, Fairfax, Va.-based patent law firm Harrity & Harrity conducts partnership skills training that requires new partners to meet with the managing partner on a bi-weekly basis to review scenarios, such as hiring or firing an employee, or how to deal with a potential malpractice issue. When a partner has an ownership mentality, they hold themselves accountable because they want their firm to improve and succeed in every way possible.

Clearly, creating an ownership mentality among firm partners is not easy. Often, all a law firm can do is provide training, resources, opportunities, and support. It’s up to the individual lawyers and partners to fully embrace being a law firm owner and all that it encompasses.

While all of these reactions are normal, remember that critical feedback is not personal; it’s integral to business. It’s critical to our legal practices and the business of running a law firm that we are always learning, growing, and developing, especially if a particular behavior has a negative business impact. The key is to understand the situation objectively, try to resolve the issue, and then move forward. With shifts in the way we communicate, feedback can be a great gift to many senior-level attorneys.

Certainly, receiving difficult information can be a challenge. When you handle a negative situation graciously and calmly, however, your demeanor and professionalism will be noticed and appreciated. More importantly, you the gain the ability to pivot in the best direction possible for you and your organization.

Communications strategies

With that in mind, here four tips that may prove useful the next time you find yourself at the receiving end of constructive (and possibly uncomfortable) feedback.

1. Stay engaged in the conversation

It’s common to tune out feedback — and even mentally map out the counterargument before hearing someone out. That’s why many of us shut down or become closed off when presented with negative information. When this happens, we give off nonverbal cues through facial expressions and body language that show we’re not engaged in the conversation. Yet, this is a guaranteed way to rapidly escalate the conversation from constructive to destructive.

Because a conflict cannot be resolved until the situation is understood and addressed, it is important to stay open and actively listening. That way, you can be part of the solution and help everyone find a way to move forward. Keep your face neutral, your arms uncrossed, and your mind open.

2. Keep emotions out of it

Shock, anger, and embarrassment are all common reactions to bad news or criticism. In fact, many people may experience an entire range of emotions when presented with negative information at work. And while these reactions may be considered normal, unfortunately, they only serve to escalate an already negative situation.

By remaining calm and emotionally regulated, you can maintain a professional presence and offer solutions to help determine the next steps.

If you feel the conflict has arisen from misinformation, feel free to make that correction — but stick to the facts. Making excuses or placing blame will only cloud the issue and make it difficult to make headway. Further, it may seem like you aren’t taking responsibility but are instead throwing others “under the bus.”

3. Ask to reconvene

Not every conversation has to be resolved in a split second. Take a break and ask to reconvene once you’ve had a chance to review the details. Separating yourself from the situation will allow time to regulate your emotions, process the information, and start to come up with productive solutions or next steps. And if you have to share the bad news with others, taking time to review the situation can be even more important.

Your ability to remain emotionally regulated and handle feedback well will make it easier for your team or clients to model your behavior and provide a more straightforward path forward for everyone involved.

4. Look for the positive

As unpleasant as it may be, try to remember that constructive criticism, negative feedback, and difficult conversations are all key opportunities for growth. Each time you find yourself at the receiving end of bad news, try to see what you can gain from the situation.

For example, if the issue comes from a client, take time to listen and ask questions. The client may appreciate your openness to their feedback and your desire to improve. If you’ve hit a challenge within your firm’s partnership, having an open conversation will help you build trust and develop the relationship, as well as maintain a healthy work culture for others.

If your client is leaving you for a new firm, ask them why. If they’re committed to moving on, they still may be able to offer insight that will help improve your engagement with your other clients going forward. Being receptive to critical feedback will help establish you as a highly respected lawyer within your field, as well as one who is always trying to be responsive to their clients.

If the bad news comes internally, work together with your colleagues to see if they can share their suggestions on how they could have handled the situation differently. Use these scenarios to strengthen your relationships internally, possibly gaining information that may help you in the future.

Importantly, don’t be afraid to ask for constructive insights from both higher-ups and junior members of your team. Each perspective can contribute knowledge that helps create and refine best practices for your firm.

Responding with grace

When you respond to challenging feedback with grace and open communication, others will come to see you as a confident and emotionally intelligent person — one that they will be more likely to seek out in the future. You will also help create a psychologically safe work culture in which people aren’t afraid to give constructive feedback.

Remember that no one gets to the top without facing conflict multiple times throughout their career. What sets the best professionals and leaders apart is the way they handle these uncomfortable situations.

So, the next time you find yourself in a difficult position at work, remember to stay engaged and open to discussion, separate yourself and process your emotions, and accept feedback with grace and poise. These tips will help you navigate tricky situations confidently and allows you to continue growing and developing your key relationships internally and externally.

Receiving constructive feedback professionally and with grace is one step towards building communication and strengthening relationships among your colleagues and clients. For more on how internal collaboration can enhance your firm’s standing in clients’ eyes, check out our recent Thomson Reuters Institute Insights podcast.

While many senior associates value the flexibility that comes with remote work, junior associates want to know what their future career path will look like and are more likely to value being in the office, gaining face time with the partners who will help craft that future.

Associate development was well established prior to 2020 — associates largely knew what was expected of them, partners had been through the process many times before, and the pattern was pretty set. The global pandemic, however, upended that process. First, the shift to fully remote work, then the struggles with the start-stop progress on return-to-office practices and the increasing prevalence of often work-in-progress hybrid working structures dramatically shifted the process. Indeed, in many respects this fall might be the first year in many years where the associate on-boarding process resembles the past.

Still, hybrid working continues to raise challenges, especially around the idea of ensuring that associates are being brought along in a timely manner. Beyond that, firms may also have several classes of associates for whom development has been such an issue that those associates might be behind where their predecessors would have been at the same stage in their careers. It’s no one’s fault, it’s just reality.

Setbacks in associate development not only impair the career potential for associates, but they can also have an appreciable, if sometimes hard to quantify, effect on law firm finances. Research from the Thomson Reuters Institute has found that “getting up to speed” and “correcting an associate’s work” are two of the largest sources of “unbilled time” for lawyers — time that could be billable because it’s done on client matters, but for whatever reason, is never actually billed out to a client. The costs associated with associates getting up to speed can easily exceed $10,000 in unbilled fees per associate, every year; while the time partners spend correcting their associates’ work can well exceed $40,000 per partner annually. Spread across an entire firm, this is a massive potential financial hit.

So how can law firms get their new associates on board while, hopefully, getting existing associates to move further along their own career development paths?

Using the SMART approach

It’s vital to be organized and methodical in approaching the answer to that question. Litigation associates must learn litigation-specific tasks such as legal research and writing, deposition and questioning skills, discovery management, and general oral advocacy skills, along with more general skills required of any lawyer such as how to manage matters, time, and most importantly, clients.

Different levels of experience will require different benchmarks, of course. For newer associates, the focus will be on more foundational tasks and basic litigation skills. Midlevel associates should be equipped to handle increasingly complex tasks with a much lower level of supervision. They should be able to independently handle basic litigation tasks and keep a matter moving in line with specific case strategy objectives. Senior associates should have command of litigation tasks and may even be ready to directly manage other associates’ work on matters, or even handle simple matters on their own.

To arrive at these benchmarks, however, law firms must develop and implement attainable and trackable goals for associate progress. The corporate world loves to talk about SMART goals — Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound; and it’s not a bad habit for law firms to embrace, either.

Of course, attention will have to be paid to the variety of skills needed among the different practice groups and legal matters. For example, litigation associates will obviously require development of different skill sets than will the transactional associates; but all associates should know what skills they should gain and the metrics they are expected to achieve, beyond just billable hours.

This means that frequent check-ins regarding associates’ progress are essential. Annual performance reviews, while necessary, are not sufficient to ensure that career development goals are being met. Formal reviews should be planned regularly, preferably quarterly. And while it is often discussed, the need to offer frequent feedback to younger lawyers is essential. If an associate learns about a performance problem for the first time during an annual performance review, it’s less of an issue that the associate underperformed and more of an issue that the firm failed to provide the needed training, guidance, and feedback to rectify the associate’s skills gap.

At this specific point in time in today’s legal ecosystem — an era where many of us are in different places than our work life would have normally placed us — it’s vital that professional career development be flexible enough to “meet people where they’re at.” And to do that requires planning, flexibility, and feedback.

Traditional systems security for years has followed the Trust but verify method in which once users are logged into a system then they are automatically trusted. The emphasis there is on protecting internal systems and information from outside attackers by using firewalls and passwords.

Unfortunately, as technology and attackers have grown more sophisticated, the Trust but verify method has become harder to maintain and less effective. Organizations have had to change their approaches to systems security in order to accommodate traveling users, users that work from home, users that bring in their own devices, as well as cloud-based software, other repositories, and more. The traditional boundaries of a network perimeter are drastically changing.

Migrating to a zero trust model can be done gradually, which is a benefit for smaller organizations that cannot afford a large initial investment.

With the growth of cloud computing, organizations are very globally connected; and their digital information is stored and used in private and public clouds of data and applications. Conventional boundaries for an organization’s network have expanded and become ever more obscure, opening the potential for cybersecurity problems. Zero trust offers a new way of viewing our computers and information that may make securing them easier.

With zero trust, implicit trust is eliminated, and continuous verification is required. By always assuming that a security breach has likely already occurred, a zero trust system will constantly limit access to only what is needed while continuously looking for malicious activity. Zero trust can reduce an organization’s risk from data breaches, ransomware, and insider threats. While zero trust is clearly more restrictive, it can simplify an organization’s cybersecurity defensive posture and provide a more easily secured system environment to better protect the organization’s data and assets.

In a security breach, trust is a vulnerability that is exploited. By eliminating trust as an issue, an organization’s systems become more secure and data breaches are prevented. However, this lack of trust doesn’t mean you don’t trust your users, instead it is akin to requiring users to use a key card every time they access a building.

Zero trust recognizes the reality that today’s computer systems are hostile places. Yet, zero trust is a not a product or an application. It is a set of principles that help you define a cybersecurity strategy based on an acknowledgement that threats exist both inside and outside traditional network boundaries.

The first step with zero trust, as with any new method or technology, is to understand how it addresses your organization’s unique business problems. What outcomes do you expect? How does zero trust address your needs? Without understanding your business needs and problems first, any new method or technology will ultimately fail.

Building zero trust

Migrating to a zero trust model can be done gradually, which is a benefit for smaller organizations that cannot afford a large initial investment. According to the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), many organizations may continue operating their newer zero trust in tandem with their older perimeter-based systems for years. To plan and architect your zero trust network, the following initial steps are suggested:

• • • Start by building leadership trust — You need to seek understanding, support, and input from your firm’s leadership. Management support is critical to a successful transition to zero trust.
    • Define your most vulnerable attack surfaces — Start by identifying your biggest risk areas both now and in the foreseeable future, and work to apply initial zero trust initiatives that encompass processes, people, and your existing technology. Moving gradually will keep your firm from becoming overwhelmed with implementing new technology and policies across entire systems.
    • Map how your data flows — Document how your data moves around your devices, applications, and assets. It is essential to understand this data flow. Who is using it? Where is it coming from? To identify which data flows should not be trusted, you need to know which are critical to your firm and should be allowed. This mapping of data flow is the key to making zero trust work.
    • Harden your identity management — Users are the weakest link in any security system. Review your user authentication process and implement multi-factor authentication and tougher password policies to harden your identity management. Also, implement and regularly review login names and make sure they match active users.
    • Assign minimum rights (least privilege) — Review how your systems and data are secured and assign the minimum rights to the minimum number of accounts needed to access data or systems. The default access should be no access.
    • Whom do you trust? — Build a whitelist of who to trust. This includes users, devices, applications, processes, and network traffic.
    • Micro-segment your security — Dividing your security into smaller segments allows you to minimize any damage in case of a breach or compromise of any one area.
    • Define your zero trust policies — After you have architected your new system, write the needed policies to match. Defining who, what, when, where, why, and how for every user, device, and network that gains access to your system.
    • Monitoring is critical — As you build your zero trust system, it is critical to have an aggressive monitoring system in place. For zero trust to be effective you will need to continuously monitor access and look for any area where trust should be revoked and any unwanted access and be identified.

Zero trust is a journey that will take years to complete. “Never trust, always verify” is a fundamental shift in how we currently think about security, but it is a necessary shift. Security breaches are on the rise, and our old paradigms of security are not working as more devices come online and local networks evolve to cloud networks. Our data is increasingly at risk, and zero trust is a new and more effective way to protect ourselves.

Yet, what is considered an impediment and barrier to KM is often the result of confusing KM with information management (IM).

Instead, KM and IM should be considered more alike in their value systems rather than a competing priority in which an organization must choose between securing information and data versus sharing information and data. In accepting that there are both enablers and barriers to any organizational priority, a strong KM culture includes many of the same enablers that zero trust is tasked with supporting. KM, when it is aligned with zero trust, creates an even stronger KM value in the organization. And zero trust, like KM, succeeds best when working from the position of the four KM enablers: people, process, technology, and governance — as well as a strong organizational policy, which is critical for zero trust.

The successful implantation of KM and zero trust should be:

• • • business focused;
    • supported by senior management;
    • embedded with the strategic vision and principles of the organization;
    • focused on higher value knowledge and higher value data;
    • able to demonstrate measurable benefits, such as competitive advantage and process improvement in tandem with risk mitigation and security; and
    • employed as a full organizational change.

Despite the decades-held belief that most security threats are external, it is inside threats that have risen to become a serious cause for concern, most recently this is due to the extension of network access across mobile devices, cloud users, and employees working in hybrid or fully remote environments.

Behind the emergence of zero trust is a broad concept that applies to technologies, networks, IT architectures, and security policies. This concept holds that users within a network should be treated as if they could pose a threat. Therefore, enterprise resources and data are to be protected individually and access to these resources should be evaluated and analyzed continuously.

The zero trust future

Zero trust is not a particularly unique approach. IT professionals would consider the principles of this model to be a good housekeeping practice for any healthy secure enterprise. Most IT professionals have long taken great pains to design systems that consider inside risk as dangerous as any other risk. Therefore, zero trust systems have been developed to behave as an integrated platform that contextualizes information based on identity and security that has shifted risk measures from traditional perimeter models (e.g. firewalls) to one that is identity-centric. Through this process, key questions emerge, such as who has access to what information? When do they have access? How much access is given, and what business purpose does their access support?

This identity-centric approach is consistent with KM mapping. KM mapping outlines the business challenge of what we know with strategic goals that can then be supported with KM interventions, such as a knowledge base, intranet, sales wikis, and CRM platforms. Additionally, to be successful, both KM and zero trust require agreed-to measurable outcomes.

This simplified explanation of zero trust in a KM world is consistent with KM values that improve business agility which brings with it the priority of protecting internal data and internal assets.

Strategies to overcome perceived KM barriers brought on by a commitment to zero trust overlay with the implementation of zero trust models. These strategies include:

• • • mapping “need to know” information (KM) alongside “need to secure” (zero trust);
    • finding common alignment with strategic goals;
    • outlining business objectives and agility with business security; and
    • agreeing upon measurable benchmarks and outcomes, remembering that i) not all measures are monetary values; ii) not all measures should be targets; and that iii) common solutions can be identified to overcome “imposed” targets.

Much like KM, zero trust is a new mindset that requires sweeping changes to be implemented effectively. On the surface this seems daunting, but after evaluating KM and zero trust, both can be implemented to improve organizational value and effectiveness.

I then read the words on the page, purely for the utility, and my professor bluntly made sure my entire class knew it. What I took away lacked any substance. Simply, I had missed the point.

The way that we understand literature should be the same way that we understand how teams across law firms and corporate law departments add value. They help tell the story.

When price is not pricing

For any engagement, when a client asks about price, it is very easy for our focus to stay there. Price is about money, which is tangible and quantifiable, which seems straightforward. It is consistent, which makes it a utility. Yet, this is where pricing misses the mark. When we start to define the prices of legal services as a utility, the teams that manage prices will start to be defined the same way.

Pricing teams within law firms, all too often, are held to discrete tasks like rate setting, flat fee pricing, and efficiency, with one mission in mind: boosting profitability. This is a worthy endeavor, of course, as firms see a clear cause and effect that ends in a much larger pile of cash at the end of the day, which partnerships love.

However, any price for law firm services represents what that firm is today and how that firm will deliver value to clients. That said, then the role of the team that sets and manages price has to be deeply ingrained in how the law firm competes and executes its strategy on a day-to-day basis. More importantly, the role of a pricing team has to start with clients in mind.

Pricing is strategy

The law firm of the future will (and should) launch every team and every project by asking the question “How does this help our clients?” This means that empowering a pricing team requires a law firm culture that does not define them as a utility or function, but as a differentiator to advance a firm’s strategy.

How law firms ensure that their pricing professionals become integral to strategy development at the firm, especially at the client and matter level? They should consider three approaches:

1. Empower them — If pricing is purely considered to be a function, then it will be viewed as administrative and, consequently, either as an afterthought or operational task. If instead, pricing professionals are empowered by firm leadership to evaluate, recommend, and implement pricing arrangements then they will be better equipped to determine how pricing scenarios can be aligned with the broader client or matter strategy.

2. Involve them — Including pricing team leaders in firm discussions related to growth opportunities, areas of focus, client relationships, lateral hires, and strategic planning sessions goes a long way to ensuring their involvement. Even if price isn’t a leading consideration at the particular time of these meetings, pricing professionals will be better positioned to provide recommendations when appropriate, as they will understand the bigger picture and their input will be informed through broader considerations.

3. Educate others — Consider all of the business professionals that directly support the practices as an extension of the firm’s pricing team. Familiarize those individuals with how price is a critical part of firm strategy and how it functions as an enabler of business growth.

The goal of these education efforts is to have business professionals consulting the pricing team on a variety of practice efforts, including such areas as:

• • • new business pursuits (business development);
    • market positioning and brand building or awareness activities (marketing);
    • lateral hiring (attorney recruitment);
    • business planning (practice group professionals); and
    • legal project management, knowledge management, and the implementation of new practice technologies that enable the attorneys to practice more efficiently and increase value for clients.

Business professionals from these particular areas within the firm are well positioned to bring in pricing professionals, promote their capabilities, and recommend attorneys to discuss strategy with them. Additionally, as business professionals often lead initiatives that are aligned with the firm’s strategic plan, they must have a deeper understanding of how price is interwoven in all aspects of client strategy.

Consider this: If price is a part of a firm’s brand, shouldn’t that require pricing professionals be included in firm brand strategy discussions and go-to-market plans?

My Kinsman, Major Impact

The law firm of the future will allow all of their teams, not just pricing, to be a critical part of their strategy. This is not just a view that puts clients first, but one that will demonstrate how a law firm delivers value for years to come. This should challenge how we think about our pricing teams.

That day, a university literature professor gave me a masterclass that focusing on the pure utility of words on a page; yet, the lesson led to something simple and fleeting. When I took a step back and observed how all of the pieces fit together, I saw a work of art. The law firm of tomorrow will be doing just that.

In fact, there are already a few forces in place that are working to drive efficiencies into the legal function.

One landmark improvement is the increasing impact of system integrations — often fueled by application programming interfaces (APIs) — in our profession. The more systems exchange data between systems — or present data within the framework of another application (viewing an iManage document via Teams or Sharepoint, for example) — the less time one spends reentering data or switching back and forth between applications.

Another catalyst is workflow technology. Long present in the technology and service fields, these are now increasingly present in legal with many such third-party platforms offering this service, and many no- or low-code providers offering law firms the option of constructing their own workflows. A few key uses of this technology include the legal intake process, moving matters through the litigation process, generating client reports, or the automation of the client electronic billing process.

Let’s take a closer look at three key law firm functions which are strong candidates for automation and process improvement.

1. Automating the processing of court filings

Streamlining the processing of an email Notice of Electronic Filing (known as an NEF or ECF) is a great example of using technology to wrap a process flow around a specific and measurable set of manual or mundane tasks. Accessing and downloading the filed documents, storing them in a document management system, and distributing copies of the notice to the case team and docketing centers, are all opportunities for automation.

Data shows that this work takes 8 to 20 minutes per email notice — the real time is often more because of interruptions. Intelligent automation can deliver scores of hours back to law firms, while processing state and federal court notices and getting the filed documents into attorneys’ hands in a timely manner.

There are already services in this space that offer court notice process automation to get filings from court-to-pleadings index, and from court-to-case teams, often in less than a minute. These APIs and process automation workflows, when applied to manual mundane tasks can help improve staff efficiency, eliminate errors while saving documents, reduce risk associated with delays, and provide visibility into a process that is difficult to manage manually. One law firm recently processed their 100,000th court notice and calculated that the firm saved 13,500 staff hours by automating the process.

2. Improving document generation & data collection

The legal industry has enjoyed the benefits of collaborative systems for many years, as well as no- or low-code approaches to constructing new systems and tools to empower document preparation. The amalgamation of all three of these capabilities in a unique manner is now further accelerating work in this area, allowing end-users to build systems, without programmers, that can collect necessary data and compile it in a manner which will automatically generate the required legal product — a customized, final document.

Imagine the number of times a law firm works with clients to collect information and prepare documents. Common legal documents, such as wills and non-disclosure agreements, are artifacts with which most lawyers are familiar and can conceptualize the benefits. Other types of documents — like deposition summaries, site inspection reports, local counsel matter updates, and many others — can also benefit from automation.

“A meet users where they are mantra helps accelerate the speed with which existing or new documents can be automated, as well is offer real-time tracking and ease of sending reminders regarding these process flows,” says Karl Chapman, CEO of Kim Technologies, one of the companies driving innovation in this space.

That, in essence, does a great job summarizing the value of this class of system — one which supports the conversion of legal documents to web-based forms which, once completed by business partners, then automatically generate the final work product for an attorney. In addition, this process can provide full data analysis through enterprise search, bulk download, or API integration while eradicating large volumes of administrative time typically dedicated to supporting such processes.

3. Enhancing time entry & financial analytical functions

Time entry is one of the oldest administrative tasks in the legal industry. It’s a critical element to the success or failure of the law firm, as every one-tenth of an hour not captured is 10% not billed. Since most lawyers are loathe to perform administrative tasks, however, it’s no wonder that some wait until the last minute to capture their weekly time. Unfortunately, waiting until the end of the week or month guarantees that they will forget some billable activities.

Accordingly, this makes time entry automation an alluring enhancement. By leveraging automated time entry to capture all the work being done by their lawyers, a firm can ensure that all time is captured. Modern time capture solutions seamlessly connect to the corpus of tools routinely used by the lawyer, including emails, phone calls, documents, web research, and more. Indeed, there are two very clear benefits of automated time capture: i) all time is captured automatically; and ii) workers need only complete and save the entry.

“When one digs deep into the math, the business case is ever more compelling,” says Rod Wittenberg, Vice President of Financial Productivity Software at BigHand. “Consider a set of assumptions where the average task is 30 minutes, and each lawyer is expected to bill seven hours per day. The result of that, obviously, is that there are 14 tasks to be entered each day. Then, assume it takes one minute to exit your task and complete the time entry before moving onto your next task. If we round it up to 15 minutes for ease, then you are talking about 3,600 minutes per year of administrative effort to get time into the system. If a system can capture that time automatically, this significantly reduces the administrative burden for all timekeepers.”

Overall, organizations need to understand the massive implications of lost time and the value of automating certain processes like court filings, document generation, and time entry. Law firm leaders want to improve their lawyers’ efficiency and effectiveness at work and in life — to improve the quality of life and offer better financial management within law firms, automating certain manual rote processes can deliver great value.

Ransomware’s first documented attack was relatively rudimentary and delivered via floppy disk containing a malware program in 1989 that told its victims to pay $189 in ransom to a PO Box in Panama. Today ransomware criminals are significantly more sophisticated, thanks to advances in cyber-methods and cryptocurrencies.

The US Secret Service reported a marked growth in crimes involving cryptocurrencies and digital extortion schemes, including ransomware, in 2021. Other reports show that ransomware is fast becoming a tool of choice for far flung cyber-criminals. Verizon, which has been analyzing data security trends since 2008, finds in their 2022 Data Breach Investigations Report that ransomware has increased almost 13% since last year — a rise as big as the last five years combined, and ransomware was present in almost 70% of malware breaches last year.

The people problem

Security experts agree that the human element is a crucial driver of this type of digital threat. Verizon’s report puts a number to it, citing that 82% of data security breaches involve human error — most often employees who inadvertently expose systems to data threats.

“Most ransomware attacks are made possible through the vulnerabilities caused by humans (i.e., the employees of the firm). This is why hyper-vigilance about phishing emails is crucial,” explains Jennie Wang VonCannon, a Certified Information Privacy Professional and Partner with Ellis George Cipollone O’Brien Annaguey. “Many times, it is an employee who clicks on an email which contains malware, inadvertently deploying it onto their computer which then infects the entire network. Or someone enters their login information after receiving an email request to do so, thinking it’s legitimate, and just like that, the malicious actors can enter the firm’s network and encrypt the firm’s data and hold the decryption key for ransom.

Management should educate their personnel about how to spot a scam email and the importance of not clicking on any links or even opening the email, if possible, adds VonCannon. “Depending on the organization’s culture, it may want to conduct regular tests by sending out suspicious-looking emails to keep employees primed to spot a phishing attack.”

Weidlich agrees that many data breaches occur due to employee error, either clicking on a phishing link or through malfeasance, such as stealing data. “It’s crucial to let employees know how important the issue is to the firm,” he says. “Talk to employees, train employees, and view employees as a defense against breaches.”

Depth of your data

A fundamental step in mitigating the harm of a ransomware attack is understanding what data your firm collects and maintains — and the access rights that certain parties have to it.

Trina L. Glass, a shareholder and member of Stark & Stark’s Investment Management & Securities Group, suggests that firms inventory their data to know who has what kind of access. “Prior to implementing controls and procedures to help prevent or mitigate a firm’s risk of a ransomware attack, the firm should first know what data it collects, where the data resides, and who has access to the data,” says Glass, adding that firms also should take steps to reduce copies of sensitive firm and client data.

Indeed, supply chain weaknesses, partners, and vendors pose a unique data risk; and these third-party risks are increasing, according to Verizon’s data risk analysis. Glass says that firms should take appropriate precautions. “Educate and train your employees and third-party vendors on your firm’s information security control procedures,” she explains. “Most ransomware attacks are orchestrated through phishing scams, third-party software vulnerability, and credential stuffing.”

There are several basic IT security measures that firms must take to prevent malware disruptions, including:

• • • • establishing security practices and policies;
      • ensuring software patches and virus protections are current, proactive system protection such as firewalls;
      • encrypting information; and
      • installing two-factor authentication.

What to do when an incident occurs

Should a ransomware incident occur, most law firms already will have a crisis playbook in place that would likely trigger the firm’s lock-down protocols. Communication during this period is critical, Glass says, noting that at this point, firms should activate their incident response plan. “Since you’ve taken the time to implement a comprehensive plan, you will know to whom, internally, to immediately escalate the incident and what details to include in your notification,” she says. “The who should also include law enforcement, your insurance carrier, IT vendor, and outside counsel.”

A forensic analysis of how the risk came about will likely occur soon after discovering the incident. This intervention involves understanding what data and systems were compromised and how and when that happened, VonCannon adds. “If the entire network is encrypted and the firm’s computers [are compromised], firms need to think about getting back online as soon as possible using the up-to-date data backups that they have been diligently keeping so that they can continue operating in the event of a ransomware attack. They should also immediately consult with an expert in this field, such as an attorney with cybersecurity and data privacy experience, who can coordinate the firm’s response.”

Weidlich agrees, and advises that there are three defensive measures firms must immediately take should they find themselves on the receiving end of a ransomware or data security incident. Those include: i) hiring a data-incident firm; ii) hiring a crisis-communications firm; and iii) informing legal authorities since every state has unique laws that must be followed.

The big questions: Transparency & the ransom payment

Two decisions that every law firm must make in the aftermath of a ransomware attack have the potential to divide firm management and will need careful consideration on a case-by-case basis.

The first question on which to achieve consensus is whether to disclose the attack publicly or not. Law firms will naturally be conservative around making public statements and want to minimize liability risk; yet Weidlich counsels that it is possible to communicate a breach in a way that respects those views. “Firms should publicly communicate beyond the legal requirements and standard practice,” he says. “The focus should be on rectifying the situation.” He cautions that any communication must be empathic, and firms can achieve this by acknowledging to clients the inconvenience arising from operational disruption and stating if and how the breach will affect clients and other outside stakeholders.

Second, the firm will also need to determine whether to pay the ransom or not.

Glass cautions that, generally, firms should not be quick to pay ransomware requests. “The FBI… does not support paying ransom in response to a ransomware attack,” she says. “Paying a ransom does not always guarantee that you will receive your data back or prevent future attacks.”

Weidlich observes that ransomware attacks present great difficulty concerning how firms respond to them. “Firms must realize that whatever action they take — whether they pay the ransom or not — they will be criticized,” he explains. “If you pay the ransom, you’ll be criticized for encouraging criminals; but if you don’t pay, you’ll be criticized for not caring enough about clients’ data.” To ensure that all sides receive due consideration, the firm must be clear on why it’s taking the action and be just as clear in communicating that, he adds.

Of course, the best defense against potential ransomware threats is a strong offense. Firms can accomplish this through updated policies and protocols that provide clear guidelines to employees and third parties with system access, regular training and testing to shore up your systems against attacks, and an active crisis-management plan that can validated against known and emerging digital threats.

This should stop us in our tracks. When it comes to law firm pricing and the roles of these teams within law firms, the need for clarity into what pricing is, why it is important, and how these teams add strategic value should be clearly defined.

Your price represents who you are

Understanding if a price is fair starts with knowing what is being bought and sold. Let us start with the fundamentals. If a fair price is the amount that a consumer is willing to pay for a good or service, then that good or service is equally as important as the number itself. For example, if you were to spend $1,000 on a bottle of wine, then knowing whether it is a 1982 Latour or a bottle J. Lohr from your local grocer is the most significant factor you need to know as you buy.

For law firms, the price for an hour of work is incredibly varied, based on years of experience, practice area, geography, and even firm structure. Even with all of this variability in price, clients fundamentally want to understand business value. If a client is paying $950 per hour for a partner’s time, knowing the experience that the partner brings, the work for which the firm competes, the other firms against which the firm competes, and how the firm wins work is essential as the client determines whether the price is fair. A client wants to know what they are getting, and $950 represents all of the intangibles that extend well beyond a CV on a website.

There should never be a time where a law firm is unable to represent clearly the value that its prices represent. “It is what it is…” is not a justification for a price, and responding that “someone else is more expensive” can shift the client’s focus away from value is delivered value and toward the price offered. Anyone negotiating new work for a law firm should understand what their law firm represents, and that’s the first step in creating confident prices — anything else is a means to sow distrust between law firms and their clients.

Price is an important part of firm strategy

A price is representative of what a firm is today and how it can deliver value to clients, but as time goes by, the needs of the marketplace will change and clients will continue to ask if a price is still fair. What happens when a law firm begins to evolve?

All law firms evolve over time, but as that evolution takes place, clients will look to make sure the price they’re paying is still fair. Just because a law firm can do more doesn’t necessarily mean a price increase is warranted. Clients have to understand the “Why” behind the increase.

In every aspect of a law firm’s strategic plan, price will play a role because it is intrinsically linked to what the law firm does. This means that as firms look at new service delivery models, new technologies, new practices, or new jurisdictions they also need to think about how the fair price for those services fits into their current economic model or the model of the future.

Pricing teams enable your business

Entire successful legal careers were once built by making more money based on a relatively simple formula: join a successful firm and then not die. Now, it’s not so simple. Clients, now more than ever, want to create deep partnerships with their outside counsel. And as with any partnership, transparency is key. When clients sign a check to a law firm for its services, they want to understand what they received from the law firm in return. This is where pricing teams can sing.

Do not be mistaken, a pricing team does not simply push prices up in the hope that profits will rise as well. This sort of short-term focus on the part of a pricing team is a firm’s first step towards sowing distrust with your clients. A law firm’s pricing team represents the business and should be clear about why a price should change before it ever does. “Rates go up, because rates go up” is not a viable reason for prices to soar and is a clear sign that the firm may have missed the mark.

A pricing team can be a key component to ensuring that a law firm’s price truly represents what the firm is today; and, over time, that team can also ensure that the price evolves as the firm does. These teams are not just number crunchers; they should be business enablers who are intimately involved in all aspects of strategic planning, marketing, and operations. They should know what the price is and be able to explain, regardless of circumstance, why it is fair. This sort of thoughtful view of a law firm’s identity, competitive landscape, and operating economics is an invaluable asset that will propel good firms toward becoming trusted advisors to the world’s greatest companies.

Price will always be an important consideration for the clients of law firms because it is the one consistent variable in every matter and relationship; however, it is not the only consideration when clients buy legal services. Clients get good value when the price for legal services is commensurate with the level of service & value delivered. Communicating this is more important than ever. When these things are out of balance, client satisfaction will be as well.

This is also where pricing teams can deliver the greatest value for their law firms. My hope is that when law firms talk about their pricing teams, they see them the way clients do — as one of their most valuable assets.

— Brittney Padilla (Attorney Recruiting Manager, Ogletree Deakins)

After a tumultuous few years in which law firms quickly pivoted their summer program plans to meet the demands of an unrelenting pandemic, firms have discovered effective new ways to host summer associates that blend the past with the present, while looking toward the future.

Practice Innovations spoke with a group of law firm summer program leaders — Brittney Padilla, Attorney Recruiting Manager for Ogletree Deakins; Jessica Pixler, Director of Attorney Recruiting at Stinson LLP; and Melissa Berry, Director of Professional Development & Diversity at Lane Powell — about the recent evolution of summer programs and how experimentation, flexibility, and a focus on interpersonal connection can lead to fantastic results.

Practice Innovations: Has the size of your summer program changed in the last few years?

Brittney Padilla: In 2020, we did not host a formal summer program. In 2021, we hosted 21 summer associates across 15 offices. This year our program more than doubled, with 45 summers across 23 of our 53 offices. We expect that trend to continue.

Jessica Pixler: Our summer program size is based on our practice divisions’ projected needs. Our 2021 summer was smaller, but for 2022 we returned to a size typical of our pre-Covid classes.

Melissa Berry: As a midsize firm, our program is smaller, usually about four students. In 2020, we held a virtual program with six summers.

Practice Innovations: How are you balancing hybrid work with the need for in-person interaction this year?

Brittney Padilla: Our firm has a “three days in office, two days flexible” work schedule. Summers follow that same schedule unless the local office decides more in-office time is needed. While in-person interaction is very important, summers also benefit from doing business virtually, which is much more commonplace today.

Jessica Pixler: Stinson’s summer associates are in the office Tuesday through Thursday and can work remotely or in-office Monday and Friday. Attorneys are encouraged to follow a similar schedule to facilitate planned and spontaneous in-person interactions.

Melissa Berry: Our summer associates are hybrid, with most in-office Monday through Thursday. However, because there is no known threshold for the right amount of in-person interaction, we allow individuals to customize and structure their workday and environment to best suit them. This benefits everyone, particularly individuals who are neurodiverse. We also have an open-calendar system that allows people to book in-person or virtual coffee chats.

Practice Innovations: Over the last three summers, what major adaptations did you make to your summer program?

Brittney Padilla: Previously, our local offices guided the summer associate experience. Now our focus is on creating an experience that celebrates local office culture while also fostering connection and belonging across offices. We host virtual events, use word-cloud polling technology to personalize virtual sessions, and recently debuted a summer associate portal on our intranet. There, summers can access information about their fellow classmates along with resources such as previously-recorded associate trainings and our dedicated Well-Being in Law Portal.

Jessica Pixler: We took every facet of our program (mentoring, socializing, completing assignments) virtual; and then, this year, built a hybrid system that capitalizes on the best parts of both virtual and in-person engagement. With our Director of Well-Being, we also incorporate programs, resources, techniques, and guidance to enhance our summers’ well-being throughout law school and into practice.

Melissa Berry: Our program now is more intentional about offering structured classroom and experiential opportunities to connect and learn. We also improved our feedback loop, which helps us evaluate and make micro-adjustments to the program as we go. Hybrid is likely here to stay.

Practice Innovations: Do you think the adaptations you’ve made will remain or is the goal to get back to what your summer program looked like originally?

Brittney Padilla: We’ve adapted our program to produce positive results for the long term, so it would not make sense to go back to the way it was pre-pandemic. We will keep what works in terms of providing summer associates a superb experience that meets their expectations while continually exploring new ways to make their time with us special and meaningful.

Jessica Pixler: The goal of our summer program will always be to provide a realistic picture of life as an associate. As long as our associates are working a hybrid schedule, our summer program will likely provide hybrid opportunities, too.

Melissa Berry: Other than transitioning from being fully virtual to hybrid, the adaptations will remain because they make our program stronger and more resilient.

Practice Innovations: How has what summer associates look for in a summer program changed in the last few years?

Brittney Padilla: With many firms operating under a hybrid model, summer associates are now, more than ever, looking for quality mentorship and training along with collegial cultures that foster connection.

Jessica Pixler: Summers have an increased interest in understanding and experiencing firm culture.

Melissa Berry: Summers are looking for more flexibility in how they work. They also crave more experiential opportunities and a sense of belonging.

Practice Innovations: What does “providing a realistic experience” to summers look like in today’s world?

Brittney Padilla: A realistic experience today might include activities such as virtual hearings or depositions, in addition to in-person events that are both substantive and interpersonal. It also includes guidance on how to have an effective online presence.

Jessica Pixler: We emphasize real-world projects, frequent contact with associate mentors, and a hybrid work schedule to produce a realistic experience.

Melissa Berry: A realistic experience includes learning to adapt real-world assignments to meet client preferences and needs, understanding basics about the business of law, and working in a hybrid model.

Practice Innovations: Are you doing anything particularly memorable or new this summer to celebrate the world opening back up?

Brittney Padilla: In addition to Pride Month and Juneteenth activities, Ogletree Deakins hosted an in-person three-day Associate and Of Counsel Forum in Chicago that our summer associates attended as well. They participated in the full array of programming, including presentations from firm leadership, numerous developmental opportunities, networking events, and a special summer associate reception.

Jessica Pixler: Stinson’s 2022 Diversity Week featured programming on how to be inclusive in an evolving legal work environment. We are also hosting attorney/staff in-person events.

Melissa Berry: To celebrate Pride Month we were thrilled to screen the documentary CURED and engage in a live discussion with the co-director. We also host Summer Thursdays, which offer a chance for those in the office to get together informally in the late afternoon.

Practice Innovations: What lessons have you learned about how to run a successful summer program that you will take with you going forward?

Brittney Padilla: In addition to providing a realistic experience, a successful summer program is all about connection, so that is one of our focuses going forward.

Jessica Pixler: Facing challenges together makes a big difference, and having a strong mentoring program that builds personal connections and encourages open communication goes a long way in summer programs.

Melissa Berry: The pandemic equipped us to roll with change and rethink what constitutes a successful summer program. We have shifted our mindset to embrace uncertainty and ask, “What is possible?”