July 1999
|
|
July 1999 |
|
Classifieds |
Making it Work for You By Mary Lahr Schier
|
|
|
Considering upgrading your technology? Here are some suggestions from the lawyers at Peterson Fishman. Who got the mouse rolling? This makeover started as a project of the MSBA Technology Committee. |
Soon after the Uptown law firm of Peterson Fishman Livgard and Capistrant hired Wells Anderson to help them upgrade their computer system, the four law partners talked with the consultant about what they wanted. Not surprisingly, -- we're talking four lawyers here, after all, with four different practices and four diverse work styles -- Anderson heard four distinct answers. Founding partner Dennis Peterson wanted a better way to keep track of billable hours, since his real estate and business practice involves a high volume of quick-turnaround work for many clients. Fay Fishman works mostly for disabled people suing the Social Security system. She has many clients and most of them pay her a contingency fee. Billable hours matter much less to her, but she wanted a quicker way to know what work her paralegal and secretary had already done for a client. Partner Tracy Capistrant serves on the board of the National Organization of Veterans Advocates, which communicates via e-mail. With only one computer in the office with an Internet connection, Capistrant often found 40 messages for her in the firm's lone e-mail box. She needed better e-mail and Web access and also wanted a better way to print the firm's accounting information from her computer. Partner Paul Livgard relies less on technology than any of the other lawyers and was not sure he needed -- or had time to deal with -- additional technology. But the partners agreed on one thing: They were tired of schlepping disks from computer to computer to get work done.
"It's typical for lawyers not to know what to do first (in a technology upgrade)," said Wells Anderson, the lawyer turned computer consultant who worked with Peterson Fishman on the firm's upgrade this spring. "It's also typical that a narrow problem with technology drives the desire for an improvement." The disk dilemma had prompted months of discussion within the firm about whether it should link its 12 personal computers with a network that would allow lawyers, paralegals, and secretaries to easily share documents and information. The idea of establishing a network had been considered for a couple of years by the firm, and Peterson Fishman had intentionally purchased computers with Pentium processors and network capabilities. But the firm had not taken any action on its technology needs until the lawyers saw an advertisement in Minnesota State Bar Association publications seeking a small firm to volunteer to undergo a "technology makeover." In exchange for financial help with a technology upgrade, the firm agreed to be the subject of this article and provide a case study for attorneys who are unsure of how to approach technology improvements. "The Technology Committee had a sense that many lawyers are muddling through as they upgrade technology. They aren't really sure what to do first or what to do next," said Mike Trittipo, MSBA director of technology. "The way technology companies sell computers and software, it's very easy to get seduced into buying an expensive system without really thinking about how it will improve your practice." "We didn't think we had a chance," Fishman said of the makeover contest. "We thought they were looking for either a firm that was more advanced than us or much less advanced. We were in the middle-ground." It was the firm's "typicalness" and the steps it had taken to improve technology that made it a good candidate for a makeover, Trittipo said. |
Mary Lahr Schier is a freelance writer based in Northfield. She writes frequently on business and legal topics. |
|
|
The Subject Firm Peterson Fishman is like many small firms. Founded in 1987 by Peterson and Fishman, the firm has a general practice in a thriving Minneapolis neighborhood. Its partners do family law, real estate, and probate work in addition to pursuing niche practices in Social Security, Medicare, and veteran's law. The firm owns the building in which its offices are located and partners participate heavily in business and neighborhood associations in Uptown. It promotes itself to clients as offering quality legal work done quickly and at reasonable prices. In addition to the four partners, the firm employs one associate lawyer, one paralegal, three legal secretaries, two law clerks, a receptionist and an investigator. While Peterson had used computers in his law practice since the early 1980s, the firm has never been on the cusp of technology. When Capistrant joined the firm in 1991 after working as an associate at a large firm, she was surprised that Peterson Fishman owned only two computers used by secretaries. Capistrant brought in an old Apple computer from home because she was accustomed to drafting documents on the computer. Slowly the firm had upgraded, always buying its computers one or two at a time, usually on sale from a computer superstore. "I don't think we spent more than $1,000 on any of these machines," said Capistrant. In 1996, after a long internal debate, the firm switched from DOS-based WordPerfect 5.1 to WordPerfect for Windows.
Once selected for the technology makeover, Peterson Fishman evaluated proposals from several technology consultants, both locally and nationally. The firm wanted a consultant familiar with law-firm issues and they preferred a consultant based in the Midwest because of the potential cost of travel and their limited budget. After evaluating a half-dozen proposals, they chose Wells Anderson Legal Tech Services. A former litigator, Anderson had always been interested in ways to "use technology to eliminate busy work." While working as an in-house counsel for Prudential Insurance in the 1980s, Anderson initiated several pilot programs that increased technology use and "transformed how the company managed its legal department," he said. Three years ago, Anderson left the law to start his own technology consulting business. Anderson's understanding of how lawyers work and how technology could help them was clear to the Peterson Fishman partners, who also liked having their consultant nearby. Said Peterson, "Since we are not especially technologically literate, we've had questions come up that seemed simple, but we really needed an answer from him." Once hired, Anderson interviewed each of the support staff and attorneys in the firm to determine how the firm operated and what its technology needs were. "It's very important for me to ask them a lot of questions," Anderson said. "What is not working right? Where would you like the practice to be different?" Involving support staff is crucial because they tend to understand better how work flows and where bottlenecks occur. Anderson's questions also get at practice issues. "A technology upgrade like this presents an opportunity to break the link between an hour worked and $150 or $200 brought in the door," he said. "In other businesses, an hour worked is a cost. With law firms, it's a source of income." A technology upgrade "doesn't mean billable hours will drop," Anderson said. Poor use of technology often causes attorneys and staff to work unbillable time. "Most lawyers don't feel right billing when there are snafus or things are delayed," he said. "They are not going to bill clients for standing at the copier after hours." Improved technology tends to reduce unbillable hours, and it also helps attorneys capture better the time they do work. Lawyers tend to switch from task-to-task and client-to-client throughout the day, often interrupting one client's work to take care of a problem for another client. By using their computers to keep track of clients and cases, lawyers find they are better able to record the work they do for each client. They also can integrate their calendar and timesheet, so that a 30-minute client meeting on the lawyer's calendar is recorded on the timesheet as billable with a quick click of the computer mouse. Some electronic timesheets also give lawyers a graphical representation of their day. "It's a lot easier to see what you did that was not recorded when you have a picture of the day," Anderson said. Some lawyers see a 20 percent jump in billings as a result of a technology upgrade. |
|
|
Balancing the Cost The Peterson Fishman firm was convinced of the potential benefits of upgrading, but was not sure how much of an upgrade they could afford. After discussions with the firm, Anderson developed a four-point recommendation that could be implemented entirely or in pieces. The foundation for the upgrade required creating a network among the firm's 12 computer workstations. The firm needed to purchase a file server with Windows NT 4.0 software to handle documents, data flow, and a tape back-up system. They also needed to run new cables to physically link the computers to the file server. Price tag: $9,100. Unlike most firms, all of Peterson Fishman's old computers could be connected to the network. The cost savings were significant but it took some finagling to get the system to work. For instance, when the firm bought its computers, partners assumed that "network compatible" meant each of the computers had a network interface card (or NIC). None of them did. However, Technology for Business, the firm hired to install the Peterson Fishman network, was able to find NIC cards that worked with each of the computers and that worked together. "They either did a good job buying computers or were lucky or both," said Anderson. "In most law offices, less than half of the computers can be used after a significant upgrade." The installation of the network was not as difficult as the attorneys expected. Each lawyer needed to vacate his or her office for less than half-a-day as technicians ran the wires for their computers. The firm also had to repair a small section of wiring that technicians discovered had been bitten through, probably by mice. The benefits of the network were immediately apparent. Not only did the staff no longer need to run disks from desk to desk and machine to machine, but also lawyers and support staff could communicate more effectively. Peterson explained that typically, from dictation to final form, a document passes between him and his secretary several times. In the past, he often had on his computer or in paper form an old version of the document. Now, when a client calls, Peterson calls the document up from the network and knows he is seeing the most recent version. Confidentiality issues were addressed by giving each employee a password, although the lawyers joke that the small staff knows each other so well they could all guess each other's password. In addition, private folders were created to store information like salaries, partner draws and other financial data. Anderson's second recommendation involved giving each computer Web access and e-mail. By connecting via a high-speed DSL line, attorneys and staff could each have instant access to the Web and e-mail from their own computer. Anderson located an Internet service provider that handles the mailboxes and provides the e-mail server for the firm. The firm did not have to install its own e-mail server, and saved several thousand dollars, but still has the appearance of bigger organizations by having its own e-mail domain name. The system cost $4,880, which included staff training on Web software, handling e-mail, safe computing on the Internet, and sources of legal information available on the Web. Capistrant had been the biggest promoter of Web access within the firm, but other lawyers have found it surprisingly helpful as well. Said Fishman, "Recently I was on the phone with another attorney who was looking for some information on Social Security. I knew it was on the Web, and while I talked with him I went to the Web site, found the information he needed and faxed it to him from my computer. All of a sudden, I have the whole world at my fingers." Anderson recommended that the firm's third priority be the installation of a customized version of Time Matters, a client, calendar, and case management system. The system works well on networks, allowing lawyers and support staff to schedule themselves better, keep track of clients and individual cases, and coordinate their activities. The system also complemented the time and billing software (TABS 9) that the firm uses. The system sounded great, especially to Peterson, but the expense of $6,742 on top of all of the other expenses for technology this spring, was more than the partners were willing to bear all at once. They had not budgeted a significant amount for technology this year. The MSBA upgrade was an opportunity they had not anticipated. "The case management system I would have liked, but not for that money," Peterson said. Anderson's final recommendation was that the firm set up a Web site to advertise itself. The site will include profiles of the lawyers and their expertise. Because the firm's clients include many disabled people, who tend to be Web savvy, Fishman believes the Web site will be a practice builder. At $2,500 for design, publication of the site to a Web hosting service, and listing of the site on major search engines, the firm decided to implement this recommendation as well. "It's cheap advertising," said Peterson. |
"Some lawyers see a 20 percent jump in billings
as a result of a technology upgrade."
|
|
|
"Not only did the staff no longer need to
run disks from desk to desk and machine to machine, but also lawyers and
support staff could communicate more effectively."
|
Getting the System in Place The firm's technology upgrade will be completed later this summer as lawyers and staff are trained on their new equipment. The firm also intends to purchase and install the case management system later in the year. Overall, lawyers and support staff like the new system, but it has not been perfect. The addition of so much new software has slowed Fishman's computer significantly. The firm may have to replace that machine soon. Having been through the process, the firm highly recommends the use of a technology consultant. The consultant can help a firm define its problems, Capistrant said, and often save the firm money far beyond the consulting fees. Recently, for instance, the Peterson Fishman attorneys experienced difficulty with their document scanner. They thought they needed a new scanner, a $1,000 expense. After discussing the situation with Anderson, they discovered the real problem was the software in the scanner. The firm could upgrade that for $99. Said Peterson, "We spun our wheels for years. Once Wells came in,
we got going." |
Considering upgrading your technology? Here are some suggestions from the lawyers at Peterson Fishman.
Get a consultant. You wouldn't advise your clients to spend thousands of dollars on a legal matter without representation, so take your own good advice. Hire someone who knows what they are doing to help you make a significant technology investment. Make sure the consultant understands fully what your current problems or frustrations are, what improvements you want from your system, and what your budget is for the project.
Use a consultant who understands your business. Technology consultants are fascinated with machines that are the fastest and the best, says Tracy Capistrant of Peterson Fishman Livgard and Capistrant. A consultant who understands your business and legal needs will be most useful and will help you evaluate the costs and benefits of your options.
Ask for a tiered proposal. You may not be able to upgrade your system all at once. A good consultant will give you a series of options and costs and tell you which ones will give you the most benefit for the dollar and which ones need to be done first.
Get your hardware in order. Hardware can be the most expensive part of an upgrade. Consultant Wells Anderson suggests that firms replace one-quarter to one-third of their computers each year.
Don't wait too long. It's true that computers and software will be cheaper and better six months from now, but if you wait too long to upgrade the cost and disruption of your work routine will be greater.
Make sure training is included. Super software and fast machines are no help if your staff does not know how to make the most of them. A good consultant should provide training, and the best training sessions are tailored to your needs and may even be conducted in your office.
Last fall, the MSBA's Technology Committee discussed the difficulty many solo lawyers and small firms have staying on top of technology. Clearly, better technology can improve a firm's efficiency, but the investments can be daunting. To help lawyers learn more about how to upgrade technology, the committee offered $5,000 to a firm willing to participate in a "make-over." After reviewing applications, the Technology Committee chose Peterson Fishman Livgard and Capistrant of Minneapolis. The initial plan was for the firm to invest the money in developing a plan for the upgrade with a technology consultant.
However, as members of Peterson Fishman began working with consultant Wells Anderson, the lawyers decided that the MSBA's contribution would be better spent on the upgrade rather than consulting fees. In addition, the expense of the technology upgrade was greater than either the MSBA's committee or Peterson Fishman anticipated. Instead, the firm and the MSBA decided that MSBA would contribute 40 percent to the cost of the firm's upgrade. The firm spent about $10,000 on its upgrade and MSBA contributed about $6,000, bringing the total cost to $16,000. The cost figures used in the accompanying story represent the costs Peterson Fishman would have paid without any assistance from MSBA.
