2. The User Guide Series: "How To Plan"
Planning has separate components, with a focus on agreeing to an acceptable range of outcomes with the client.
November 04, 2022 at 09:16 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Lean Adviser
Or, "You Can Jump In With Both Feet and Wing It, or You Can Create A Plan"
Let's assume that everyone is on board with the idea that lawyers need a plan. Some lawyers go about this intuitively and when challenged they'll say "sure I have a plan, it's in my head." Sometimes that's true. Sometimes the "plan" is to wing it and see what breaks.
If we can agree that having a plan is essential, isn't it better to have one which has a structure, which addresses all essentials, which the client has seen and approved, and which is in a document for the entire team to access?
The issue isn't whether to plan, but how to plan. If you are part of a team or on your own, and you have responsibility to create the plan for an assignment, where do you start? The instinctive answer is "I'll read whatever the client has sent me and do some legal research, that's my plan."
Lean Adviser has a better way. Once you've seen the Lean Adviser method and tools, you'll get how easy it is to pick up and implement, you'll see that it's better for the assignment, better for the client, and safer for the firm.
In the Lean Adviser universe, planning has separate components, with a focus on agreeing to an acceptable range of outcomes with the client. This work — and this conversation — isn't just about goals. It also covers resources, an initial investigation piece, how to develop a strategy, what tactics to deploy, and how to build a clear process plan.
You can drop into Lean Adviser for short lessons and tools on any of these key pieces. Or you can jump in feet first, without a plan, wing it and see what breaks.
Here's our drop-down of the separate components of planning you'll find in Lean Adviser:
- Agreed Range of Outcomes, first impression 'The Blunt ARO'
- Initial Investigation
- Resources – Creating Budgets, Assigning Assets
- Strategy
- Tactics
- Process Charting
- Agreed Range of Outcomes, agreed goals 'The Sharp ARO'
Done right, planning for a legal assignment is cumulative in nature, each step adds to the mix and informs the next one as illustrated below:
RELATED TOOLS:
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Narrow Path Back From Disbarment: 'You Have to Really Want to Be a Lawyer Again'
5 minute readNew Jersey Law Journal Names Mike Zogby Office Managing Partner of the Year
2 minute readClimate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
Trending Stories
- 1'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 2Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 3These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 4'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
- 5Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250