Facing case management

Many law firms import technology to improve their performance and reduce cost per case and then complain when the solution fails to live up to expectations. They claim the technology has failed to produce an adequate return on investment (ROI) and more frequently than might be expected use of the technology is ultimately abandoned.

Often, this complaint is heard about case management systems. Many law firms assume that the simple automation of procedures in case-handling will mean that cases are automatically conducted more efficiently and cost-effectively. It is not an assumption which they are entitled to make.

Holy grail

What is it that persuades firms that the import of IT is the holy grail of improved performance and more profitability? Many firms go to great lengths to attend demonstrations and take up references from clients of the solution provider. And they may well have seen further demonstrations at the various legal IT exhibitions and tried to make comparisons with other similar systems used by comparably sized firms.

All things being equal, the result should be a satisfied firm and a satisfactory system. Yet, still, when the solution is imported, they find it does not meet their expectation both in terms of its own performance and that of the practice.

What can be the reason? Why should firm A find its case management system generating greater, more efficient and more cost-effective services, while firm B struggles to improve its performance despite the introduction of a new system, not to mention the loss of time and the costs incurred in installation and staff training?

Perception problem

The problem lies in the perception that many law firms have of the function of a case management system. Frequently, the expectation is that once the solution is installed and the correct data is entered, all the fee-earner has to do is to sit back and let the system take the strain. To some extent that is certainly true. The fee-earner certainly does not have to work harder, but case management systems do mean that he or she will have to learn to work smarter. In other words, the fee-earner has to consider how far the import of the new solution, which now performs many of the routine tasks performed by the fee-earner, affects his or her working practices. In short, the firm has to realise that it must adapt its working practices to take account of the capabilities of the new system.

Actually putting the solution in to practice is not simple and requires a completely new approach to the way a firm handles its casework in future. The fact is that, if the system is to deliver the benefits promised, a major re-education of staff at all levels of management will be required throughout the firm. This is because the function of the fee-earner changes. The role becomes that of an administrator and supervisor, rather than an operator in terms of handling a case.

Fee-earner's role

The first step is to examine the traditional role of the fee-earner who handles a case load without any significant support from a case management system '“ and then to examine the impact that the system will have on the fee-earner's functions once it has been introduced. It is a fact that changes have to be made to accommodate a new case management system if it is to provide the necessary ROI to justify its purchase.

The traditional role of the fee-earner, at almost every level within a law firm has been to

• develop and enlarge clientele;
• record billable hours;
• decide upon and undertake dictation of correspondence and preparation of case documentation;
• have the benefit of support from a secretary on a one-to-one relationship;
• personally delegate tasks that are then undertaken by a secretary;
• work according to his or her own timing, preferences and procedures;
• practise on the basis that all work requires and justifies his or her exclusive personal attention and that only routine tasks can be considered for delegation to subordinate
• levels; and
• reject the proposition that cases can be managed on a systematic basis by a technological solution

The work undertaken in the traditional model has been described as 'fee-earner-centric'. Management of case work in this model has been the sole responsibility of the individual fee-earner alone. This role and the responsibilities it assumes entrusts considerable '“ some might argue, undue '“ influence within the firm especially where the firm is dependent on large teams of fee-earners competing in billing targets with each other.

Some firms would argue that there can be no more effective way of generating profit than competitive billing targets. But questions have to be asked. Is this a smart way of working? Is there a better way to harness and exploit the abilities of senior staff who might well have management skills that would serve the practice more profitably and offer the firm more strategic, rather than operational, benefits?

Enter case management

The introduction of case management systems for all types of legal services '“ despite the protests of practitioners, there are hardly any exceptions - revolutionises the role of the traditional fee earner and, challenges the power and influence, particularly of the senior fee -earner.

Automating routine tasks to be performed in the conduct and handling by means of a case management system can dramatically improve the performance of fee-earners, departments and practices, making them considerably more efficient, cost-effective and profitable.

New volume providers, such as Co-op Legal Services will employ these systems in order to sustain the volume of turnover needed to make a profit. Case management systems lend themselves unequivocally to volume supply of legal services. It is this market in which the firms of those reading this are likely to be competing. So the features of case management systems will be needed urgently as new volume providers enter the market, using sophisticated
software.

Culture shock

Earlier, examination of key features of the fee-earner-secretary model revealed a number of inefficiencies, as well as a number of incompatibilities and inconsistencies with the introduction of a case management system. It was seen demonstrably that there would need to be a radical change of approach by fee-earners to the handling of volume caseloads, simply because of the automating features that case management systems offer. The point is that law firms will have to adapt to derive a reasonable return on investment and compete effectively in a market in which many of the processes can be streamlined and automated.

The effect of this change is that case management systems begin to introduce a new culture into law firms. Like it or not, this culture has to be embraced if the case management system is to produce the expected return on investment.

The culture change required is quite simply, but quite radically, a change of working model '“ moving away from the personalised one-to-one model to an infrastructure that is based on teamwork. In other words, all members of a particular department, from the head of department downwards, comprise one team in the handling of the departmental casework.

The fee-earner-secretary model now disappears to be replaced by individuals, all of whom have specific role to play within the team in the handling of a case through a case management system.

Key features of the new model

The key features of this model are a radical departure from the traditional one-to-one working model. In the case management model, the role of fee-earner (essentially an executive who earns fees) disappears. Everyone in the team (not just a fee-earner and secretary or assistant) has access to and a particular role to play in respect of the operation of the system to run the case. As all the data concerning a case is entered in the case management system, the repository of knowledge is now transferred from the fee-earner (and secretary) to the system.

In such a situation, so long as access is authorised, any member of the team is able and entitled to check and act upon data entered in the system. Such a concept is quite impossible in the fee-earner-centric model. Here, the client is managed by the team and not simply by the fee-earner supported by the secretary. Under the new model, all team members are responsible for providing the client with the service required.

Considering more specifically the fee-earner's role, case management systems standardise much of the fee-earner's existing tasks. Obvious examples include: the generation of standard letters; and the compilation of standard forms and precedents. Properly delegated, and under suitable supervision, such documentation can be produced by less qualified staff with equal efficiency.

Moreover, the tasks that can be performed by case management systems do not always fall into the category of routine. Systems can be devised to help with the calculation of special damages in personal injury cases, while in probate and estate and trusts administration, systems can automatically conduct inheritance tax, capital gains tax and income tax calculations '“ all of which were predominantly the province of the fee-earner.

In the new model, the traditional role of the secretary (as opposed to the existence of the secretary) disappears. The fee-earner no longer requires the administrative support that the secretary traditionally offers, because this 'support' is provided by the case management system. The best example of this is the fact that even routine calls from clients enquiring as to progress can now be handled by reference to the data stored on the case management system accessed with online tracking software

In the old model, every fee-earner operates in a uniquely individual way in the management of a case. This often results in inefficiencies, duplication, misunderstandings, lack of co-ordination and a general lack of integration with the needs of a department. The case management system removes this problem and establishes consistency and reliability.

Benefits

Its automated nature means cases are managed and documents are generated consistently and uniformly to a preconceived and recognised pattern. Inconsistencies and inefficiencies are removed. Task lists, key date alerts and other functions that prompt the fee-earner to take action can be automatically programmed into the system so that there should be no excuse for missing, for instance, limitation dates.

Managing cases in such a way provides efficiency, flexibility and a cost-effectiveness that cannot be achieved in the traditional working model '“ and these are the attributes that every law firm will need in abundance in competing in the post-Clementi era.