When you do an online search for, “what does an in-house legal department look like,” office images show people sitting around a table with laptops, papers, notebooks, pens, etc. None of it looks very technology- or data-driven.

But to anyone who thinks legal departments can’t be data-driven powerhouses, I have one word for you: Moneyball. That’s right, this baseball story is the perfect example of how you can use data-driven decisions—even in the most unconventional places—to drive success.

If you’re a sports fan or like inspiring stories, then you probably already know the story behind Moneyball the book, and later, the movie starring Brad Pitt. Just in case, here’s a quick recap:

When the Oakland A’s General Manager, Billy Beane is challenged with budget constraints, he decides to use deeper, data-driven strategies to recruit undervalued baseball players. Instead of relying on batting average, height, and weight normally associated with certain positions, Beane looked at in-game activity, such as how many times a player made it to base and scored a run. In the end, his data-driven team-building strategy led the Oakland A’s to win a record 20 consecutive games.

So what does all this have to do with legal departments? Billy Beane used data-driven decisions to build a winning team. Turns out, so can legal departments, using data from their vendor management solutions to build a winning team of outside counsel and law firms. In fact, baseball and vendor management overlap in several areas.

Managing Your Vendor Team

Every baseball team has a manager who oversees and is responsible for game strategy, lineup, practice, instruction, and more. Vendor management allows you to be the “team manager” of your vendor lineup with a holistic view and metrics into vendor costs, matter type distribution, efficiency, diversity, timekeeper performance, and more. These detailed metrics help you evaluate, comment, rate, and score firms, giving you the data you need to better manage and evaluate the value you receive from vendors.

Picking the Right Vendor

On a baseball team, all players have their designated position to play—a place on the field where they have proven to excel. With vendor management, you have a structured, data-driven process that shows which vendors excel at which type of legal work. With easy-to-use scorecards, you can quickly identify top, average, and low performers, making it easier to choose your key players.

Working as a Team with Your Vendors

To be successful in baseball, or any sport, the team has to work together as a cohesive unit—collaboration is essential. Vendor management makes it easier to collaborate with outside counsel and firms on matters, invoices, documents, fees, and even early payment terms. As result, you build a team roster of trusted relationships that are productive and rewarding.

From baseball to vendor management, data offers a tangible way to manage, monitor, and measure performance. For a law department, it’s important to build a winning team of vendors that it can count on to deliver results. And today, we have the technology to help in-house legal departments score unlimited homeruns using reliable data from vendor management solutions.

Some small tweaks to your RFP process can make a big difference in your results. Ideally, you want a process that both the buy and sell side find productive and efficient. That’s not always the case in many RFPs we are seeing today. Here are five questions to consider before you hit send that will help you have a better experience.

1. Did we provide the law firm enough time?
   If you are managing a large preferred panel RFP for 10+ practice groups, you should be providing the law firms a minimum of 3 weeks, and 5+ will get you the best responses. Giving a law firm only two weeks to complete a large panel RFP means you will get lower quality, rushed responses thrown together with no cohesion. If you want to ask questions that require partner time to respond to, you need to provide them time to manage their current client workload. If you are issuing a RFP for a specific matter, that’s a different timetable altogether. We typically see anything from 24 hrs to a week or more for matter specific RFPs. A good rule of thumb for the large preferred panel RFPs would be, whatever time you think it will take to add at least another week of cushion to your project schedule.
2. Did we provide ourselves enough time to manage the Q&A process? (Panel RFPs only)
   Some legal departments underestimate the volume of questions they will get back from law firms during the Q&A process when managing an RFP with dozens of firms. Some will be complex questions that will need input from the general counsel or others in the business team and you may have only provided yourself 48 hours in the RFP schedule. Once you commit to answering one, you have to answer all of them. What then happens is law firms often can’t start the response until you have provided answers ultimately leading to an extension needing to be granted.
3. Did we provide enough information?
   If you want a law firm to be able to provide a thoughtful response on a fee proposal, outside counsel guidelines or their recommended legal strategy, you need to provide them with enough background information. The biggest complaint you will hear from law firms is how can we answer question X, if they didn’t tell us Y. That goes for not only pricing but also for practice coverage and overall scope of work. For example, If you are asking for a firm to bid on your IP work, and they have never done work for you in that area before you will need to open the curtain a bit if you want responses of any merit. Otherwise you will get marketing fluff that all will sound very similar.
4. Did we create a path of communication with the marketing contact?
   At some point of your RFP process you should be collecting the name of the marketing or responder contact. Having another contact beyond the lawyer will eliminate potential bottlenecks and allow for a much better flow of information between the issuer and responders during and after the RFP process. This connection beyond the relationship lawyer allows for that process to happen more effectively. The marketing team will be the most effective way for you to collect relevant information from the law firm – they know who to contact and what the firm does and doesn’t have available. Sometimes a 30 second phone call with the marketing contact clarifies a question that otherwise would have led to 12 pages of unnecessary information.
5. Did we ensure the responses won’t be overwhelming?
   A well-crafted RFP needs to find the balance of how to collect the right level of data to help you make a decision, but not so much that the RFP review and scoring process becomes overwhelming. It’s a great idea to use word counts and page limits – but you also need to be realistic. If you are asking a law firm to describe why they may be a better choice then their peer firms – it’s next to impossible to do that in fewer than 250 characters. If you have dozens of practice groups being included in the RFP, consider the fact there are many firms who will respond in all areas. You want to consider different strategies to find that middle ground of collecting content that helps you set the table for the decision making process while not being overwhelmed with 100 page responses.

Both law firms and legal operations departments will have better experiences and get better results when the RFP provides ample time, asks smart questions and allows law firms a platform to highlight their competitive advantages.

Matthew Prinn is a Principal with RFP Advisory Group, a consulting company that specializes in RFPs for the legal industry. For more tips on the RFP process, check out RFP Advisory Group’s recent webinar we hosted with the Association for Corporate Counsel: How to use an RFP as a tool to manage outside counsel.

We’ve met with more than 50 clients in the past 12 months and have enjoyed a front seat to the transformation happening across legal departments. Our meetings have reinforced that CLOC’s 12 core competencies are not stagnant and continue to evolve in their application and impact. Here is a taste of what we are seeing you all accomplish. You can use these to plan your next project, benchmark with your colleagues, and to continue to show the value that you bring to your legal departments and companies.

Financial Management: This has evolved into so much more than simply reporting on spend or managing to the budget. Legal departments are overlaying spend against key objectives of the company to ensure that the allocation of legal resources aligns with the strategic priorities of the company.

Vendor Management: We started with preferred vendors and negotiating favorable pricing. Legal departments are working with vendors to solve common challenges in technology, ediscovery, and more. They are also asking vendors for data dashboarding to spot trends and inform future action.

Cross-Functional Alignment: Legal operations roles are often filled with business professionals from within the company, including finance, products and IT. These hires bring with them relationships and institutional know-how, and allow companies to repurpose people, process, and technology used in the business for use in the legal department.

Technology & Process Support: Legal operations is changing the culture of legal departments by driving the adoption of technology and incorporating process-driven workflows into serving the business.

Service Delivery & Alternative Support Models: This is not just about insourcing versus outsourcing. It is about right sourcing the work to ensure that tasks are assigned to the right resource. This allows everyone on the team to focus on the high-impact and high-value work. Legal operations professionals are shining a light on churn and helping legal departments to stop doing tasks that don’t bring value.

Organizational Design, Support & Management: Legal operations departments are no longer behind the scenes. The groups are front and center within legal departments and the business. Legal operations professionals are increasingly leading pitch meetings, panel selection, fee negotiations, and outside counsel evaluations, and have more optics into organizational changes impacting their legal departments.

Communications: Together with their GCs, legal operations departments are helping accelerate change and are creating innovation fluency about the company’s business and legal industry. At legal department meetings, they are highlighting how technology is transforming their business, mapping legal goals to innovation objectives of the business, and are training on skills core to legal operations. At legal department retreats, they are changing the curriculum to include design thinking sessions, technology updates, and data metrics discussions. They are also bringing together outside counsel to share innovation success stories so that they may be replicated across all firms supporting the company.

Data Analytics: Using data, legal operations is changing the conversation about value. What is the business goal for the matter? How will success be measured? Are legal resources aligned to the business’s strategies? Legal operations departments are driving the creation of dashboards to spot trends, inform future action, and identify missed opportunities. They are also capturing knowledge about the performance and use of their outside counsel. This includes tracking who at what firms have done work in particular areas for the company, working toward a future where legal operations can provide predictive analytics on who is best suited to solve a specific problem for the business.

Litigation Support & IP Management: Legal departments are partnering with IT to bring even more of the ediscovery lifecycle in-house. Teams from information security, IT, internal investigations, and legal operations are working together to show how particular license offerings can reduce spend exponentially. They are using advanced features to identify risk before litigation and are reducing their digital footprint with their vendors by 50 to 90%.

Knowledge Management: In response to the needs of the business, especially during periods of rapid growth, legal operations departments are creating on-demand, self-service legal solutions for their internal customers. To do so, they scope what the business needs, how much of the need requires interaction with a lawyer, and what portion can be solved with automation and standardization. These solutions are driven by playbooks, AI and legal bots.

Information Governance & Records Management: Legal operations departments are creating programs that provide the business better access to information so that it can harness data for a strategic advantage and, in some cases, monetize that data. They are driving the creation of policy and procedure that is practical and enhances service to the business. They are also complying with emerging data privacy laws and protecting against data breach and the associated reputational damage.

Strategic Planning: Legal operations leaders are reporting directly to their general counsel and are helping set the strategy and goals for the legal department. They increasingly have a seat at the table and are measuring their achievement and performance against the established goals for the legal department.

As an important aspect of vendor management, outside counsel billing guidelines are a foundational element of the CLOC Core Competencies. Billing guidelines are one of the key components of good, strong relationships with vendor partners—but sometimes those partners miss the mark by engaging in common billing violations that could hurt your organisation.

Unfortunately, corporate legal departments (CLDs) are all too familiar with this challenge. As billing guidelines become more complex, CLDs are discovering more guideline violations from their outside counsel, some of which can be hard to spot with manual invoice review processes. Often these violations are inadvertent, and the law firm may not even realise that they’re out of compliance with your guidelines. Meanwhile, the CLD is subjected to spend leakage that can result in the loss of millions of dollars per year.

That’s a problem, especially when general counsel around the world are increasingly expected to run their CLDs like a business unit. Corporate legal teams need mechanisms to help them easily identify where the leakage is coming from, and when a billing violation has taken place.

Look for These Typical Violations

It helps to be able to identify the most common violations and their potential impact on the organisation. According to data derived from Wolters Kluwer’s ELM Solutions’ LegalVIEW® BillAnalyzer data, here are five violations that can have a direct impact on CLDs’ bottom lines:

Block billing: Block billing homogenises multiple tasks into a single billing entry. Block billing makes it difficult to correlate work to specific matters. That, in turn, makes it tough to discern how long it took to complete a particular task—a useful guideline that CLDs can use to estimate the length of time and money that should be allocated for similar projects in the future.

Vague task descriptions: Lawyers tend to like a lot of detail in everything, including the invoices they receive. Invoices with vague descriptions lack specificity about the purpose of the tasks completed. Phrases such as “case management,” “attention to file,” or “prepared for staff meeting” billed for 12 hours obscure the details of the work done and can make it difficult to reconcile timekeeping hours or determine compliance with billing guidelines. Ambiguous billing descriptions cannot fully illustrate the connection between the work your outside counsel is doing and the value that they’re adding (or not adding). All of which hurts your ability to display accountability to your organisation’s C-suite.

Violation of core billing guidelines: Certain line items may not follow a CLD’s core billing guidelines. Examples can include duplicate or excessive line item charges, up billing (rounding up time entries to the hour or half-hour, rather than in increments of 1/10 of an hour, which can lead to overbilling), or anything else that may be considered in conflict with the CLDs’ billing policies.

Matter management: Matter management violations occur when a firm disregards a CLD’s alternative fee arrangements or flat fees for a specific matter, or when they bill to the wrong matter. Often, these violations are completely unintentional, but they must be flagged to ensure billing is attributed to the appropriate matter and adheres to whatever fee arrangement is in place.

Late invoices: CLDs are being asked to become highly assiduous when it comes to controlling spend and budgets. Prompt payment of invoices helps keep things on track from a financial perspective. Unfortunately, many firms do not issue invoices on time, often waiting 31 days or more to send out bills. Just as in one’s personal life, a late bill is often considered a surprise bill, and a delayed legal invoice can create challenges for CLDs that are trying to effectively track, budget and plan their expenses.

Bill review processes that use technology to automate and analyse invoice data can flag potential violations and improve compliance with greater speed and accuracy. CLDs can be alerted to potential discrepancies quickly to avoid revenue leakage and maximise their ability to become profit centers for their companies.

If you’d like to learn more about current priorities and trends among general counsel and legal departments, see this summary of the GC Barometer 2019 findings.

About Wolters Kluwer

Wolters Kluwer’s ELM Solutions is the market-leading global provider of enterprise legal spend and matter management, contract lifecycle management and legal analytics solutions. We provide a comprehensive suite of tools that address the growing needs of corporate legal operations departments to increase operational efficiency and reduce costs. Corporate legal and insurance claims departments trust our innovative technology and end-to-end customer experience to drive world-class business outcomes. The award-winning products include Passport®, the highest rated ELM solution in the latest Hyperion MarketView™ Legal Market Intelligence Report; TyMetrix® 360°, the industry’s leading SaaS-based e-billing and matter management solution; CLM Matrix, named a “strong performer” in the 2019 Q1 CLM Forrester Wave report; and the LegalVIEW® portfolio of legal analytics solutions based upon the industry’s largest and most comprehensive legal spend database, with more than $130 billion in invoices.

You can have any color you want, as long as it’s black. Ford’s Model T was a classic example of a market-creating blue ocean strategy that allows companies to unlock new demand. For centuries, people were content with horse and buggy until Ford showed people what they were missing.

Currently, some in-house lawyers fear the idea of having the outside counsel engagement process wrapped up into the auspices of their enterprise’s competitive bidding policies. However, they desire all the benefits that competitive bidding provides. Namely, driving for more competitive rates, obtaining cost predictability, and gathering qualitative insights into how the firms plan to strategically approach the engagement. So, why the disconnect?

“I think that it is a good concept and could work well for simple, repeatable cases, but all my cases are really complex commercial litigation matters so I don’t think an RFP really makes sense for me,” If only I had a dollar for each time I heard that excuse….

Today, the role of legal operations has been more frequently tasked with finding opportunities to run RFPs and this task can be challenged by push-back from managing attorneys. While there are many use cases for RFPs that include establishing a panel of firms company-wide or by practice area to properly align the selection of firms with their greatest area of expertise, among other considerations, bidding to select firms for a specific case is less common. There are many common misconceptions amongst managing attorneys about competitive bidding aka RFPs aka Sourcing on a matter-by-matter basis. The most frequently cited misunderstanding is that RFPs and competitive sourcing only work for commoditized work and that the greater the risk or complexity within the case or project, the less workable the case is for an RFP. However, RFPs are a great means for selecting firms in complex litigation matters for 3 key reasons:

1. More Competition and Firms’ Desire to Work Big Cases

The first reason complex litigation matters are ideal candidates for RFPs is that they are big and sexy… No, seriously. The complex nature of the work necessarily means that there is likely to be a greater amount of work involved. With more revenue potential for the firms, there is a greater incentive for firms to provide added discounts in order to earn the selection. Also, firms want the assignment so they can tout high-profile case outcomes to other clients. Therefore, a competitive selection process is more likely to be fruitful in these cases than in simple projects because firms want the business more and are more willing to lower their fees to win the assignment. This can lead to multi-million-dollar savings for the client in a single RFP. Clients completely lose out on these savings by sticking to the status quo – simply selecting their panel firms at preexisting, “discounted” rates.

2. RFPs can account for ambiguity and define price in case of change

Projects don’t have to be simplistic in their scopes of work to be candidates for an RFP. RFPs can be set up in a way where you account for the ambiguity that comes with complex litigation matters. One of the reasons that hourly billing is so pervasive in the legal industry is because of the ever-changing nature of litigation matters, whose timelines are heavily dependent on external variables – such as the whims of the judge. For this reason, the industry has (despite all its proclamations to the contrary) resisted AFAs. It’s just easier to get the firm started and have them bill you at what you’re told is ‘competitive’ hourly rates (but do not really know for sure?). However, the rate is only half the equation. And negotiating an hourly rate can be like squeezing the center of a tube of toothpaste – as the rate decreases, the firm can easily make up the difference on the backend by billing more hours.

Selecting a firm immediately without requiring the firm to submit a fixed fee proposal amongst competing firms causes the client to lose all leverage. Once the firm is engaged and the longer they are engaged, the less leverage the client has to negotiate a lower rate or to implement an AFA later on. That’s because firms know that the learning curve to bring in a new firm would be costly to the client. For this reason, its critical to run an RFP at the start of a new matter or project so that you can obtain a fixed fee proposal that provides price predictability for the duration of the case. In contrast, hourly budgets are horribly inaccurate and provide zero price predictability. With a fixed fee proposal obtained in an RFP, clients can get the total price while defining the types of changes that would trigger a “material deviation” (for example – a 30% increase or decrease in the number of these 5 key activities). After defining these triggers, the parties can also agree on how much it will cost to add additional activities into the scope (i.e. $100,000 for each additional motion to dismiss) and how much the total will be reduced if they are removed from scope. In this way, you can use the RFP process to obtain overall price predictability whilst also ensuring that you have an easy mechanism for making adjustments.

3. RFPs allow clients to set expectations for staffing and strategy upfront

A third reason RFPs are great for selecting firms in complex litigation matters is that they help the client set expectations early on. Expectations can be defined in the RFP in several areas such as a client’s preferred staffing mix, definition of a successful outcome, and preferred vendors and billing guidelines. Further, clients can define the level of seniority that it prefers to handle various tasks (for example – no first- or second-year associates on expert depositions). This allows the firms to provide pricing based on common assumptions so that the client can truly compare apples-to-apples total fee proposals. Also, it ensures that the client has set the right expectations before the work begins, which allows them to avoid time-consuming and difficult conversations that might occur during hourly invoice review.

You can have any AFA you want, as long as it’s competitively bid

Although the terminology, “Request for Proposal,” comes from procurement, where the purchase of commodities used to be the department’s only charter, the process is something that greatly benefits corporate law departments. An RFP doesn’t have to be a 60-page, lengthy exercise that is designed to evaluate whether a company “qualifies.” It can be a short 5-10 question template with pricing obtained at the phase and/or activity level that is sent only to panel law firms that the client has already ‘pre-qualified’. This streamlined process can then be replicated on a matter-by-matter basis such that panel law firms get into a rhythm of bidding for each case and can provide their best price during periods when they have their greatest capacity – creating a win-win scenario for both the firm and the client. By dispelling the misconceptions about the proper use of RFPs, the legal industry can move away from the misery-induced billable hour and towards a fair, transparent selection process. Clients can let the market dictate the true price of the work. This would allow them to spend less time worrying over hourly rate hikes and invoice review while achieving the budget predictability that CFOs have been asking of their GCs for decades.

About PERSUIT

PERSUIT™ is a Software as a Service (“SaaS”) company specializing in legal services sourcing technology. Founded in early 2016 by Jim Delkousis (a former BigLaw partner), PERSUIT was designed to be easy enough for in-house attorneys and law firms to use with little to no training. The tool is self-service enabled and is an out-of-the box, cloud-based software application, providing corporate law department attorneys the ability to launch Requests for Proposals (RFPs), Requests for Information (RFIs), Hourly Rate Information Requests, Panel Counsel Inquiries, and Alternative Fee Arrangements (AFAs). Each request type can be set up to drive price competition amongst participating law firms such that true market price is achieved. PERSUIT is reinventing the way companies engage with outside counsel with a mission to Kill the Bill(able) hour in favor of outcome and value-based fixed and certain pricing models. Have questions? Reach out to David@persuit.com or visit our website at https://persuit.com.

If your organization is spending seven figures each year with external legal service providers, chances are you sometimes struggle to spot legal billing violations.

This is understandable given the volume of invoices to be reviewed, the density of information on each invoice, and the lack of time in-house teams can devote to the task. But these violations can easily add up to 10% or more of the total invoice amount — even if you’re using a traditional e-billing system or invoice review vendor to manage compliance.

To get a better sense of where your next cost savings opportunity could be hiding, here are five legal billing violations that we frequently see eluding even the most diligent legal departments.

Work in excess of 8 hours per day

The Brightflag team’s all-time favorite legal billing violation is a customer being invoiced for 26 hours of work by a single timekeeper — in a single day. (Must have been a great multi-tasker!) Most organizations now impose a limit of eight to 10 hours of work per day per timekeeper, both to ensure that quality of work remains high and to avoid incentivizing a culture where billable hours are maximized at all costs within their partner firms.

Enforcing this simple guideline can be deceptively complex. Invoice line items may not be presented in chronological order, requiring the reviewer to turn back and forth to count the number of hours per day. There are also likely multiple timekeepers on each invoice. Then, some law firms may insist on submitting narrative descriptions that span multiple days of work.

All these factors contribute to a tendency for reviewers to settle on a number that’s “close enough.” On larger invoices, though, that latitude may translate to thousands of dollars in unnecessary expense.

Modern e-billing systems can now address this issue by automatically comparing each timekeeper’s hours per day to your organization’s agreed limits, identifying violations you can act on. Ideally, these tools enable you to approve the invoice with reductions, or reject the invoice to be corrected, without any human intervention. As a result, you genuinely can maximize legal billing compliance while minimizing administrative work.

Ratio of partner to non-partner time

Corporate legal teams invest considerable time and effort into conducting panel reviews. One common area of focus is agreeing on appropriate hourly rates for each timekeeper. Far less attention, however, is given to the ratio of partner time to non-partner time on any particular matter. So while an organization may have negotiated hourly rates with a particular blended rate in mind, this target can be difficult to match in practice.

As with the previous example, spotting this legal billing violation manually would require a significant amount of data entry (and creative maneuvering) in Microsoft Excel. Many legal teams end up ignoring the problem, as a result, except in extreme circumstances. This is another missed opportunity to better manage costs. But just as important, the lack of visibility into who is doing the work now will make it tougher to make informed resourcing decisions in the future.

Most invoice review systems summarize work performed by timekeeper seniority, with the best tools tracking trends over time and alerting you to invoices on which the ratio of partner time to non-partner time is unreasonable. From there you can start to benchmark law firm performance by blended hourly rate.

Excessive internal communication

It’s understood that law firms need to communicate internally in order to deliver quality results for their clients. At the same time, some law firms seem to be far more efficient in their collaboration than others. For this reason, most organizations cap billable internal communication at 10% of each invoice to incentivize the right behaviors.

But while “internal conference with R.G. and C.T.” is easy enough to spot on an invoice, calculating the percentage of fees that this represents and comparing it to your billing guidelines is cumbersome at best. The problem only compounds when law firms find — shall we say — creative ways to describe internal communication. At this point, even traditional e-billing systems have a hard time keeping up.

A.I.-based approaches are starting to find more success in identifying and correcting this common legal billing violation. Machine learning can identify obvious examples of internal communication (think keyword searches for “internal”) as well as less obvious examples that otherwise would be missed. The result is significant cost savings through stronger enforcement of the intended rule.

Multiple participants in meetings

One benefit of outsourcing matters to law firms is gaining their expertise and experience in a very particular practice area. As a condition of the higher associated hourly rates, clients have a reasonable expectation that the lawyer assigned to the matter will be largely self-sufficient. So their billing guidelines tend to permit only one participant in each meeting or call to bill for his or her time (usually the most junior timekeeper).

In cases where law firms have multiple participants in meetings, the corresponding narrative descriptions rarely follow one another on the invoice. This means that reviewers have to keep track of the descriptions they’ve read, referring back to earlier line items and pages to cross-reference. And if each timekeeper happens to use different wording to describe the same meeting, even a diligent reviewer can miss the duplication.

Once again, A.I.-based invoice review solutions offer new hope. Because machine learning doesn’t depend on matching exact words or phrases, it’s far more likely to correctly identify meetings with multiple participants. These systems can then apply an organization’s guidelines to invoices automatically by, for example, removing fees associated with all but the most junior timekeeper’s line item for the meeting.

Incorrect tax applied

Legal services are subject to taxation in most every business territory. Naturally, organizations will want to pay not too little, as this would be a risk to the business, and not too much, as this would be an unnecessary expense. Most reinforce this desire with billing guidelines that require their law firms to submit invoices with taxes correctly calculated prior to their being paid.

This process is a steep challenge for legal teams operating in multiple jurisdictions. It’s all too easy for a law firm to apply an incorrect tax rate, or for an invoice to be reduced without the tax being recalculated.

These simple errors can introduce significant friction into the relationship between the legal and finance teams. And in this scenario, your software may not come running as readily to your rescue.

Most e-billing implementations are centered in the United States — a country in which legal services aren’t subject to taxation. As a result, many tools on the market still lack basic functionality for managing global tax compliance. Those with a more worldly perspective, on the other hand, are now able to synchronize tax rates with finance systems of record, check legal invoices automatically for compliance with these rules, and return non-compliant invoices for correction.

Short-term advice

Now that you know the ins and outs of each type of violation, here are five actions you can take to stop errors from slipping through your system:

1. Organize your invoice review workflow so the people most familiar with the work performed are given an opportunity to spot discrepancies. Think beyond seniority level.
2. Discuss variations in accounts payable practices with your finance team. For example, some regions may require corrected invoices versus short-paying invoices.
3. Set clear expectations with your law firms regarding billing enforcement and dispute resolution processes. Structure will help sanity prevail.
4. Use an e-billing system that’s customized to your organization’s own legal billing guidelines — ideally one that goes deeper than basic keyword matching.
5. Monitor billing behavior by generating regular reports on invoice compliance and discuss the results with your law firms. They may appreciate the data more than you think.

Long-term perspective

Controlling spend is one of the clearest indicators of operational efficiency within corporate legal departments. It’s also a continuous fight that won’t be won with a single tactic. By focusing first on stronger billing compliance, though, you’ll position yourself for faster progress.

Whether spotted violations spare you $100 or $1 million next month, any cost savings are a positive result your colleagues can recognize. At the same time, law firm partners will value the predictability that comes from precise rules and consistent responses.

From GC and CFO to in-house attorneys and outside counsel, you’ll start creating powerful advocates for legal ops innovation.

About Brightflag
Brightflag’s solution for better billing starts with A.I. trained to interpret the true nature, cost, and value of work described in legal invoice narratives. The results are then automatically compared against your billing guidelines to reveal potential cost saving opportunities. Over time, this creates a collection of data-backed insights you can use to inform everything from pricing negotiations to quality of service evaluations.

More is being asked of the modern day corporate legal department than ever before. General Counsel are required to function like a business within a business, optimizing people, processes, and technology to serve the company effectively and efficiently. Legal operations excellence is no longer an option; it must be top of mind.

Whether you’re in a startup or in a mature organization, building a sophisticated legal operations program from scratch can be a daunting task. It takes time away from day-to-day legal duties and requires a heavy focus on business principles. To get it off the ground, many questions must be considered: Why is it necessary? When should you start? Who do you hire? What should you build and buy? How do you manage change and measure performance?

The CLOC Core Competency Reference Model provides a cycle to walk you through the steps in building an effective legal operations function. The CLOC 2018 Conference keynote outlined below focuses on these critical and impactful competencies as pillars when developing your legal operations function, as well as other competencies as you grow the function.

• Strategic Planning
• Technology Process & Support
• Cross Functional Alignment
  & Communication

• Financial Management
• Vendor Management
• Knowledge Management

It’s time to build a legal operations function that bridges your legal department to the rest of the organization

What’s the first thing you need to think about? Start with the big picture and what you’re looking to accomplish in your legal operations function. Your primary goal in building the function should be to enable the business.A well-defined legal operations function follows twin paths of organizational and functional maturity in its growth. Functional and organizational maturity are symbiotic and depend on each other for balance.

• Organizational Maturity: How mature is the organization in relation to people, process, technology, and measurement? A mature organization operates with predictability, process, and precision. Are you reactive or proactive? Organizational maturity includes building out your team and your legal operations organization in a fashion that can serve the legal department.
• Functional Maturity: How mature is your organization based on the prevalence of specific functional areas? As you grow, functional areas may include legal finance, knowledge management, technology implementation, vendor management, etc.

The more mature your organization is along the organizational maturity X-axis, the more opportunity you have to achieve areas of functional maturity. Likewise, increased functional maturity along the Y-axis will allow you to make a better business case to add more people to your organization. It’s challenging to develop both levels of maturity at the same time; however, it’s critical to keep both of these areas in mind as you develop your legal operations department.

In the beginning, as you develop your legal operations function, you may be all by yourself. It’s just you trying to achieve a lot of different goals. As you grow in organizational maturity, you can begin to think about hiring additional functions, like an eBilling specialist. Then, as you develop your organizational and functional maturity, you can hire for additional functional areas.

The CLOC Core Competency Reference Model is designed to show functional maturity in a cycle. Starting at the top with strategic planning, you need to work with your GC to set the strategy for the legal ops function and determine how you will build out that function. Once the processes are nailed down, you can start implementing technology to automate those processes.

Steve Harmon, Cisco, “In my opinion, everything revolves around the hub of knowledge management. You need to have at least a basic level of competency in order to establish the building blocks to address various issues. A robust knowledge management exercise is critical in creating a repeatable, scalable model that will standardize process across the organization.”

Executing Your Kickoff

In the strategy phase, you need to meet with all your key business partners. This is the time to start asking questions in order to understand the issues and pain points faced by each of your strategic business partners. Supporting your business partners is a critical component of your job and you will achieve the greatest success by working in a collaborative, cross-functional way with all the business units.

Ask questions that will enable you to understand each of your stakeholders’ priorities. This will help you determine how the legal operations function will drive the overall business.

Sample questions:

1. General Counsel: Who are our clients?
2. Practice Area Leaders: What are your key processes?
3. Finance: Who are the legal department’s business partners?
4. IT: What is the universe of legal technology in place?
5. HR: How can existing talent serve operations goals?

Leverage Additional Resources
Leverage and identify talent throughout your organization who can help you. Even if you don’t have headcount, there are resources that you can leverage in other departments. Think creatively in terms of who you want to hire for your new roles. The person you hire may not have a legal operations background, but is passionate about operations and about changing the industry.

Lay the Foundation of Your Operations Organization
Laying an effective foundation will vary by organization and by priorities. Each of the pillars you select as your foundation will have underlying components. It can be overwhelming at first, but by focusing on the fundamental pillars in the CLOC Core Competency Reference Model, you can make manageable changes.

Mike Haven, Gap, “The 3 pillars for me were legal finance, partner management, and technology, with an overarching umbrella of strategy. Remember, it’s not a sprint, it’s a marathon and you need to focus on the pillars and mature gradually.”

The hardest part of the job is managing change. Things can become more painful before they get better. You might be going live with a new process or technology before the end users have fully adopted the idea. The key to change management is communication, engagement, and credibility.

• Communicate. Explain to both your stakeholders and end users what you are doing and why you are doing it. They need to understand “why” in order to fully engage.
• Engagement. Bring your stakeholders and end users on board with the change early and often. Get their feedback and ideas and make them a part of the change.
• Credibility. Build your credibility early in the process. Start with some quick wins that show value right away.

Examples of Quick Wins:

• Invoice Review: Take the first pass out of your attorneys’ hands to ensure compliance with policies and flag potential substantive issues.
• Workflow Automation: Firm matter, timekeeper onboarding, rate reviews, settlements processing.
• E-Signature: No more “Print, Sign, and PDF”.

Measure Your Traction as You Mature
There are a number of components you can use to measure your success. Spend, timekeeper rate management, invoice review, key matter status, and law firm performance are just a few of components that can be measured. When you first come into a legal department, make sure you measure your baseline, or starting point, for your most important initiatives. As you evolve, establish milestones to show your progression and prove your success.

Acknowledge that you are a service organization to a service organization. Why do organizations have law departments at all? The sole reason for their existence is to enable businesses to design, build, and sell products in a legally appropriate way. Ultimately, legal services must drive results.

How do you decide where you’re going to allocate resources in your department?

One way to allocate resources is to use the Core vs. Context Resource Allocation Model. This strategic method of allocating resources will allow your company to focus on what you do well and outsource the remaining activities to 3rd party firms.

First, determine which activities are mission-critical vs. non-mission critical. Second, decide if the activities are context or core. Finally, determine what percentage of your resources should be allocated to core, mission critical activities and which should be outsourced.

• Mission Critical: Activities that, if performed poorly, pose an immediate risk.
• Non-Mission Critical: Activities that, if performed poorly do not pose a risk
• Context: Activities that are necessary, but not tied to competitive advantage.
• Core: Activities that contribute to competitive advantage.

Examples of Typical Legal Operations Activities

• High stakes litigation compliance: Mission-critical and Context -> Out-task.
• IP Rights: Mission-critical and Core -> In-task.
• Smaller litigation: Non-mission Critical and Context -> Outsource.
• Routine transaction processing: Non-mission critical and Core -> Self Service.

Tools, Process, and Culture Trade-off

The three fundamental components of culture, process, and tools must be balanced when launching your legal operations function. In order to achieve your desired outcome, you need to understand your organization’s current processes and its culture.

Start with process definition. Understand how things are being done in your organization now. Define processes and map them to desired behaviors. Establish measurable metrics that are proxies for those desired behaviors. Process is going to be influenced by both tools and culture in your organization. You need to be nimble and be ready to iterate as new challenges arise.

Then, address the most challenging piece – the culture. How do the people in your organization make decisions? Culture is usually set and hard to change, especially in legal departments. You’ll need to create some motivating reason to persuade people to change the way they do work.

We recommend that you don’t start with tools/technology. It’s very tempting to just throw technology at the problem in order to achieve a quick solution. However, in the beginning we recommend that you focus on the narrowest set of tools that will solve the issues you face. By understanding your process and culture environment, you’ll be more successful implementing the right tools that will solve issues in the long term.

Key Takeaways

• Don’t make this a tools problem. Go through the exercises and develop a strong foundation.
• Start with process definition. Determine what matters to your organization and drive toward measurable results.
• Recognize that you’re not going to be successful until you address the cultural challenges.

Attend a CLOC Institute to learn more about this, and many other topics of interest to legal operations professionals. Are you an in-house legal professional? Join CLOC as a member and be part of the discussion!

Maturity: Emerging

Guide by SimpleLegal

This guide covers 8 areas to evaluate your e-Billing solution to ensure law firm adoption and the most efficient experience for each firm you work with. The evaluation criteria reflects how your law firms will interface with your current (or potential) e-Billing solution, as well as your invoice submission process. 

#ebilling
#AssetType-Guide
#Function-Technology
#Maturity-Emerging(Level1)​​​
#E-billing