A primer on core law department technology
This article is the first in a series that will focus on strategic technology planning for law departments
October 08, 2012 at 05:00 AM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This article is the first in a series that will focus on strategic technology planning for law departments. The series will describe the core elements of a strategic technology plan and walk through the various types of technology to consider. Because the most effective strategic technology plan considers the entire technology landscape and creates a vision for the overall architecture as well as a roadmap to get there, this article begins with the end in mind—what might the technology landscape of a law department look like once all elements have been put into place?
The following diagram represents the technology components that may comprise a law department technology landscape.
The innermost circle represents the technology most commonly found in law departments, and therefore, can be described as core law department technology.
Office applications: These are the email and word processing applications (including spreadsheets and presentation software) in which lawyers and staff members spend most of their working day. This software is almost always dictated by corporate standards, and as such, many of the additional core tools tend to be driven by compatibility with these applications.
Document management: Document management (DM) is the tool that enables the legal team to store, share and find documents produced and received in the course of their work. A DM system may be a stand-alone system, a module within another system or even a simple process that leverages existing storage locations (network drives). In many cases today, DM incorporates email management and storage. Some of the most common concerns among lawyers are the volume of documents and email as well as the ability to find historical documents. The DM system typically addresses these concerns.
Matter management: A matter management (MM) system is the hub for identifying, categorizing and measuring a department's work. Matters may be cases, transactions, regulatory activities, projects or other elements of work conducted by the department. Historically, the matter management system has been used as an electronic case file to store information about a matter, such as when it was opened or closed, who is working on it, the description of the work, important dates and the current status. Today, the MM system tends to be more a management tool for understanding workloads and generating key performance indicators on everything from efficiency to value to costs.
E-billing: The e-billing (EB) system is the corollary to matter management. Once a separate but integrated system, today, e-billing is usually offered as a module tightly integrated with matter management. An EB system allows the department to receive invoices from legal service providers electronically. In doing so, the department is able to more easily audit invoices for compliance with billing guidelines as well as track, measure and control outside costs. Whereas e-billing used to be a tool used only by larger law departments, with all the recent emphasis on cost containment, even mid-sized and smaller law departments are taking advantage of this functionality to augment outside counsel and vendor management programs.
Practice tools: The phrase “practice tools” is used loosely to describe what could be a wide variety of applications relevant to the type of work in which a law department engages. Litigation-heavy departments that bring work in-house may require litigation support or e-discovery tools. IP-heavy organizations may require an intellectual asset management system. Transactional practices may choose to invest in a contract management system (if the company has not made one available at a corporate level). Finally, companies in regulated industries may see the law department adopting its own system for tracking regulatory activities.
A good law department strategy begins with identifying and strategizing the core tools most relevant to the department. At the very least, these tools should work together. Ideally, they should be formally integrated to create a matter-centric view of legal information produced and stored within the department. Once the department lays the foundation for tracking and supporting the day-to-day work activities, then the strategy may look to value-added components that address specific requirements such as business intelligence, risk management and knowledge management.
Next month's article will lay out the core elements of a strategic technology plan.
This article is the first in a series that will focus on strategic technology planning for law departments. The series will describe the core elements of a strategic technology plan and walk through the various types of technology to consider. Because the most effective strategic technology plan considers the entire technology landscape and creates a vision for the overall architecture as well as a roadmap to get there, this article begins with the end in mind—what might the technology landscape of a law department look like once all elements have been put into place?
The following diagram represents the technology components that may comprise a law department technology landscape.
The innermost circle represents the technology most commonly found in law departments, and therefore, can be described as core law department technology.
Office applications: These are the email and word processing applications (including spreadsheets and presentation software) in which lawyers and staff members spend most of their working day. This software is almost always dictated by corporate standards, and as such, many of the additional core tools tend to be driven by compatibility with these applications.
Document management: Document management (DM) is the tool that enables the legal team to store, share and find documents produced and received in the course of their work. A DM system may be a stand-alone system, a module within another system or even a simple process that leverages existing storage locations (network drives). In many cases today, DM incorporates email management and storage. Some of the most common concerns among lawyers are the volume of documents and email as well as the ability to find historical documents. The DM system typically addresses these concerns.
Matter management: A matter management (MM) system is the hub for identifying, categorizing and measuring a department's work. Matters may be cases, transactions, regulatory activities, projects or other elements of work conducted by the department. Historically, the matter management system has been used as an electronic case file to store information about a matter, such as when it was opened or closed, who is working on it, the description of the work, important dates and the current status. Today, the MM system tends to be more a management tool for understanding workloads and generating key performance indicators on everything from efficiency to value to costs.
E-billing: The e-billing (EB) system is the corollary to matter management. Once a separate but integrated system, today, e-billing is usually offered as a module tightly integrated with matter management. An EB system allows the department to receive invoices from legal service providers electronically. In doing so, the department is able to more easily audit invoices for compliance with billing guidelines as well as track, measure and control outside costs. Whereas e-billing used to be a tool used only by larger law departments, with all the recent emphasis on cost containment, even mid-sized and smaller law departments are taking advantage of this functionality to augment outside counsel and vendor management programs.
Practice tools: The phrase “practice tools” is used loosely to describe what could be a wide variety of applications relevant to the type of work in which a law department engages. Litigation-heavy departments that bring work in-house may require litigation support or e-discovery tools. IP-heavy organizations may require an intellectual asset management system. Transactional practices may choose to invest in a contract management system (if the company has not made one available at a corporate level). Finally, companies in regulated industries may see the law department adopting its own system for tracking regulatory activities.
A good law department strategy begins with identifying and strategizing the core tools most relevant to the department. At the very least, these tools should work together. Ideally, they should be formally integrated to create a matter-centric view of legal information produced and stored within the department. Once the department lays the foundation for tracking and supporting the day-to-day work activities, then the strategy may look to value-added components that address specific requirements such as business intelligence, risk management and knowledge management.
Next month's article will lay out the core elements of a strategic technology plan.
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
© 2025 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 AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
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