The One Thing Missing From Most CLM Platforms
CLMs should be more than just a repository for contracts; they should also provide a means for attorneys and business teams to collaboratively negotiate contracts.
May 29, 2018 at 12:20 PM
4 minute read
Collaboration might not be the first thing that comes to mind when you think of lawyers, but many are discovering the words of poet Mattie Stepanek, that “Unity is strength … when there is teamwork and collaboration, wonderful things can be achieved.”
Even if they don't think of themselves as collaborators, lawyers usually are when it comes to drafting contracts. Contracts often require a lot of back and forth. For attorneys, contract management is one of their key collaboration points.
You might think that contract lifecycle management solutions (CLMs) would provide a means for such attorneys to collaborate. But, in practice, that's not the case. In my experience, most of the collaboration occurs via email. That's because most CLMs are all about the actual contracts—keeping, storing and retrieving them—rather than the contracting process.
That's a missed opportunity. CLMs should be more than just a repository for contracts; they should also provide a means for attorneys and business teams to collaboratively negotiate contracts.
Here's why:
- Any business' contracting process should be collaborative. If you have a CLM that doesn't offer a collaboration solution, then you need to seek another CLM or talk to your CLM provider about adding a collaboration solution. Contract management isn't a zero-sum game like litigation. Research from Harvard Law Distinguished Fellow Dr. Heidi Gardner has found that average revenue per client rises among firms that have a high degree of collaboration. That's because firms charge more for work that requires cross-disciplinary expertise. It should be a collaborative process, not a combative process. In general, lawyers are being asked to do more work in less time than in the past. On the positive side, social media and collaborative tools offer more resources than ever to pool their resources.
- Email overload. Email is a woefully inefficient form of communication. The average worker already spends 28 percent of their workday on email, and workers tend to be more long-winded in emails than in everyday speech. There is also a lot of fluidity within the contracting process that email doesn't handle well. For instance, there are moments in which it makes sense to bring in a new person to the conversation but they don't need to stay on after that. That's awkward in email but easier in chat or in a social platform.
- Avoid reinventing the wheel. Much of the contracting process is about synthesizing rather than creating something from scratch. In theory, the strength of a CLM platform is its ability to tap into institutional knowledge that will save work and enhance operational efficiency. A collaboration platform also lets you tap into knowledge outside your company—something that's more difficult via email as well.
- It drives greater bonds. Studies have shown that one of the best ways to improve morale at your company, or to have a high morale to begin with, is to recognize your employees' contributions. A collaboration platform is an excellent way to achieve this goal. By including employees in the process, managers are implicitly and explicitly ensuring that their employees' contributions are being noted and valued. Collaboration through an enterprise social platform can be a lot of fun and forge stronger bonds between colleagues. These benefits should be obvious to any legal department, but the reality is that collaboration is lacking in most CLMs.
That's changing, however, and it's often emerging lawyers who are realizing the benefits of collaboration. In fact, an American Bar Association survey from 2017 found that 57 percent of lawyers under the age of 40 accessed documents and case-related information stored online.
It is clear that the market is requiring a better, more collaborative solution. Smart CLMs should be listening.
Monica Zent is an entrepreneur, investor, businesswoman and legal adviser to leading global brands. Her most recent venture is founder & CEO of Foxwordy Inc., the digital collaboration platform for the legal industry. She is also founder of ZentLaw, one of the nation's top alternative law firms. She is a diversity and inclusion advocate, inspiring all people to pursue their dreams.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 AllNew Federal Pregnancy Regulations: Five Key Takeaways and Five Key Action Steps for Employers
7 minute readLegal Profession's Mental Health Woes Start to Take Root in Law School, Many Attorneys Say
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
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