CMS Adoption Rate Should Be Higher

During the fall of 2009, the Legal Technology Institute at the University of Florida Levin College of Law conducted an extensive nationwide survey of the legal profession regarding its use of case, matter and practice management system software. The Executive Summary of the 2010 Perfect Practice' ' Legal Technology Institute Case, Matter, and Practice Management System Study is available at www.law.ufl.edu/lti.

The 2010 CMS Study was co-sponsored by Client Profiles, LexisNexis, Thomson Reuters, InsideLegal.com, Legal Files Software, Omega Legal Systems, PerfectLaw Software and Synaptec Software. The survey asked 75 questions, many of which were specific to the respondents' use of case, matter and practice management systems (“CMS”). The questionnaire was sent out to thousands of randomly selected legal professionals throughout the U.S. A total of 341 completed and qualified surveys were returned.

Reasons for Slow Adoption

The CMS Study reports that only about one-third of the legal profession uses a case or matter management system. This is only slightly up from 25% when the Legal Technology Institute asked the same question 10 years ago in our 2000 ASP (Application Service Provider) Study. LexisNexis had conducted an internal research study in 2009 and found that “in the micro law segment, almost 50% of the respondents claimed to use nothing while 12% to 33% claimed to use something else, like a manual system or Microsoft Outlook. Law firms with more than 20 attorneys had a higher adoption rate of matter management solutions.”

The promise of computerized case and matter management is that all client- and case-related information is in a single location, accessible by everyone with authorized access. No more “who's got the file,” or “what's the status of this case.” No more duplicative data entry in multiple locations (different users' directories) in multiple formats (databases, spreadsheets, Word documents and Outlook calendars). Thus, less non-billable time spent looking for documents and case information.

With a technology that promises so many benefits to the legal profession, why is the adoption rate not higher? Interesting statistic, so we set out on a journey to try and answer that question. There are many possibilities, including the overall cost of the CMS, the complexity of using a CMS, the fact that a CMS may change the way lawyers practice law, and the culture of the law firm or legal department.

John Kanoski, CEO of Legal Files Software, Inc., says: “Implementing a CMS is a process that attorneys should not enter into lightly. Many attorneys have either never used a CMS before or have had a previous experience that didn't go well. If an office has not previously used a CMS, there can be an unrealistic expectation that all the information will magically appear. In the case of attorneys who have used a CMS before and had a difficult time with it or it failed to meet their needs, there can be strong resistance to implementing a new system. To be successful with CMS, an office needs an implementation game plan that's tailored to their needs and assistance from people who have experience rolling out and supporting similar customers.”

Not Fully Utilized

I recently spoke with an attorney in an IP law firm in North Carolina. She reported that while her 10-attorney firm has used case management for several years, she didn't feel like the program was fully implemented. “The benefit is that we now have all client and case information in a single system. However, the frustration I personally have is that I know the system can do more.” The firm does have a “CMS Administrator,” but this person is also a full-time paralegal, thus whatever changes need to be made to the system typically drop down on the priority list, since time spent on administrative projects is non-billable.

The CMS Study reflects this situation in a couple of questions for those respondents already using a CMS. For example, of those using a CMS, more than two-thirds (68.5%) of the respondents reported they first purchased a CMS “to become more efficient.” More than half (56.5%) of the respondents reported they were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their CMS. Only 12% reported they were “not satisfied.”

There are a handful of “core” functions within a case or matter management system. This includes an address book, a calendar, a case database, case notes, document assembly and a report writer. Case management systems have a lot more functions, but those are considered the basics and all case management systems have this functionality. Most law firms already do these things in one form or another. For example, most of the legal profession uses Microsoft Office for calendar, e-mail, and address book functions. Most of the legal profession uses Microsoft Word for word processing (or document assembly). For many, there really is no single, case database ' all data is kept in the aforementioned systems or in the client paper file.

This is how lawyers have worked for many years. In other words, the legal profession has been using different applications to accomplish these basic case management functions, and many lawyers don't want to take the time to “unlearn” their current systems and “learn” a new one. When asked what the “primary perceived barriers regarding use of CMS,” 37% of the CMS Study respondents reported “the current method works and is not worth changing,” and 26% reported they “don't see the benefits of a CMS.”

I spoke with another attorney in a 35-lawyer firm in the Southeast. They've been using case management software for a little over a year, and while most attorneys and staff use the system, there are still a few holdouts. “We realize that a case management system could improve things, but we don't necessarily like the changes to our practice. The financial management piece works well ' attorneys and paralegals like the timekeeping system and the client reports, but the front office falls short of our expectations.” The firm is primarily transactional with a few litigation partners; the litigation side seems to use more of the case management functions than the transactional side.

The Cost Factor

There is also a perception that a CMS is too expensive and only the large law firms can take advantage of these systems. Kanoski explains: “CMS, like any technology purchase, is viewed as a cost center, a capital expense, and if it fails, the attorney is out that money. From a law firm perspective, attorneys cannot bill this expense back to the client, so changing the status quo and taking on a productivity-improvement project ' with no guaranteed results ' can be intimidating. Predicting a realistic return on investment can be challenging, especially if the firm is not replacing a legacy system, therefore making it more difficult to understand the many and varied benefits that will come with a CMS.”

Another “primary perceived barrier regarding use of CMS” was “the cost of maintaining a CMS,” as reported by 34% of CMS Study respondents.

LexisNexis also believes it may be a perception of time. “To get the most out of a case management system, a firm must be willing to invest time and resources to implement the system so that it works the way the firm works and does what the firm needs. Firms that invest time to optimize workflow, train their staff, and leverage the features of a CMS maximize their ROI and payback.”

So where does this leave us? Why is there more of a resistance to case management systems (front office) as opposed to time, billing and accounting (back office)? Time and billing is pretty clear-cut. Lawyers and paralegals do the work, track the time and get it into the system, then go through their billing process. Hopefully, they get paid. The process is the same for almost everyone who bills by the hour, no matter what type of law they practice.

'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It'

Managing caseload and client work is a totally different process, however, and everyone practices law differently. Some attorneys track their cases on the computer in some fashion, while others continue to use paper calendars. A lot of attorneys use their e-mail Inbox to keep track of the work done for clients. I've worked with law firms in the past where lawyers within the same practice group may use different software applications to manage their cases ' that's the culture of these firms and technology efficiency may not be a priority for them.

A lot of analysts, including myself, know that a case management system can help a firm improve their bottom line in many ways, but when it comes down to a busy practice, lawyers (even though they know it can improve their practice) are often reluctant to change. LexisNexis' independent study also showed that a large number of legal professionals understand the benefits of a CMS but have a manual or proprietary system that works “good enough.” In their minds, the investment in ' or benefits of ' a new CMS doesn't outweigh what “they put up with” or “do without” while using their manual or proprietary systems.

Looking back on the 2010 CMS Survey, one of the questions I wished we had asked of the respondents was their billing method: hourly, flat-fee, contingency or value-added. I believe that would have also brought more insight into how the culture of the firm plays a role in whether case management was a success or not.

The best advice I, or anyone in this field, can give the legal profession is to understand that purchasing a case/matter management system is not only a financial investment, but it must be a time investment. These systems are flexible and can, for the most part, be configured to work the way your firm works. There are tradeoffs, sure, but the tradeoffs are small in comparison to the benefits your firm can reap when properly implementing a case management system.

During the fall of 2009, the Legal Technology Institute at the University of Florida Levin College of Law conducted an extensive nationwide survey of the legal profession regarding its use of case, matter and practice management system software. The Executive Summary of the 2010 Perfect Practice' ' Legal Technology Institute Case, Matter, and Practice Management System Study is available at www.law.ufl.edu/lti.

The 2010 CMS Study was co-sponsored by Client Profiles, LexisNexis, Thomson Reuters, InsideLegal.com, Legal Files Software, Omega Legal Systems, PerfectLaw Software and Synaptec Software. The survey asked 75 questions, many of which were specific to the respondents' use of case, matter and practice management systems (“CMS”). The questionnaire was sent out to thousands of randomly selected legal professionals throughout the U.S. A total of 341 completed and qualified surveys were returned.

Reasons for Slow Adoption

The CMS Study reports that only about one-third of the legal profession uses a case or matter management system. This is only slightly up from 25% when the Legal Technology Institute asked the same question 10 years ago in our 2000 ASP (Application Service Provider) Study. LexisNexis had conducted an internal research study in 2009 and found that “in the micro law segment, almost 50% of the respondents claimed to use nothing while 12% to 33% claimed to use something else, like a manual system or Microsoft Outlook. Law firms with more than 20 attorneys had a higher adoption rate of matter management solutions.”

The promise of computerized case and matter management is that all client- and case-related information is in a single location, accessible by everyone with authorized access. No more “who's got the file,” or “what's the status of this case.” No more duplicative data entry in multiple locations (different users' directories) in multiple formats (databases, spreadsheets, Word documents and Outlook calendars). Thus, less non-billable time spent looking for documents and case information.

With a technology that promises so many benefits to the legal profession, why is the adoption rate not higher? Interesting statistic, so we set out on a journey to try and answer that question. There are many possibilities, including the overall cost of the CMS, the complexity of using a CMS, the fact that a CMS may change the way lawyers practice law, and the culture of the law firm or legal department.

John Kanoski, CEO of Legal Files Software, Inc., says: “Implementing a CMS is a process that attorneys should not enter into lightly. Many attorneys have either never used a CMS before or have had a previous experience that didn't go well. If an office has not previously used a CMS, there can be an unrealistic expectation that all the information will magically appear. In the case of attorneys who have used a CMS before and had a difficult time with it or it failed to meet their needs, there can be strong resistance to implementing a new system. To be successful with CMS, an office needs an implementation game plan that's tailored to their needs and assistance from people who have experience rolling out and supporting similar customers.”

Not Fully Utilized

I recently spoke with an attorney in an IP law firm in North Carolina. She reported that while her 10-attorney firm has used case management for several years, she didn't feel like the program was fully implemented. “The benefit is that we now have all client and case information in a single system. However, the frustration I personally have is that I know the system can do more.” The firm does have a “CMS Administrator,” but this person is also a full-time paralegal, thus whatever changes need to be made to the system typically drop down on the priority list, since time spent on administrative projects is non-billable.

The CMS Study reflects this situation in a couple of questions for those respondents already using a CMS. For example, of those using a CMS, more than two-thirds (68.5%) of the respondents reported they first purchased a CMS “to become more efficient.” More than half (56.5%) of the respondents reported they were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their CMS. Only 12% reported they were “not satisfied.”

There are a handful of “core” functions within a case or matter management system. This includes an address book, a calendar, a case database, case notes, document assembly and a report writer. Case management systems have a lot more functions, but those are considered the basics and all case management systems have this functionality. Most law firms already do these things in one form or another. For example, most of the legal profession uses Microsoft Office for calendar, e-mail, and address book functions. Most of the legal profession uses Microsoft Word for word processing (or document assembly). For many, there really is no single, case database ' all data is kept in the aforementioned systems or in the client paper file.

This is how lawyers have worked for many years. In other words, the legal profession has been using different applications to accomplish these basic case management functions, and many lawyers don't want to take the time to “unlearn” their current systems and “learn” a new one. When asked what the “primary perceived barriers regarding use of CMS,” 37% of the CMS Study respondents reported “the current method works and is not worth changing,” and 26% reported they “don't see the benefits of a CMS.”

I spoke with another attorney in a 35-lawyer firm in the Southeast. They've been using case management software for a little over a year, and while most attorneys and staff use the system, there are still a few holdouts. “We realize that a case management system could improve things, but we don't necessarily like the changes to our practice. The financial management piece works well ' attorneys and paralegals like the timekeeping system and the client reports, but the front office falls short of our expectations.” The firm is primarily transactional with a few litigation partners; the litigation side seems to use more of the case management functions than the transactional side.

The Cost Factor

There is also a perception that a CMS is too expensive and only the large law firms can take advantage of these systems. Kanoski explains: “CMS, like any technology purchase, is viewed as a cost center, a capital expense, and if it fails, the attorney is out that money. From a law firm perspective, attorneys cannot bill this expense back to the client, so changing the status quo and taking on a productivity-improvement project ' with no guaranteed results ' can be intimidating. Predicting a realistic return on investment can be challenging, especially if the firm is not replacing a legacy system, therefore making it more difficult to understand the many and varied benefits that will come with a CMS.”

Another “primary perceived barrier regarding use of CMS” was “the cost of maintaining a CMS,” as reported by 34% of CMS Study respondents.

LexisNexis also believes it may be a perception of time. “To get the most out of a case management system, a firm must be willing to invest time and resources to implement the system so that it works the way the firm works and does what the firm needs. Firms that invest time to optimize workflow, train their staff, and leverage the features of a CMS maximize their ROI and payback.”

So where does this leave us? Why is there more of a resistance to case management systems (front office) as opposed to time, billing and accounting (back office)? Time and billing is pretty clear-cut. Lawyers and paralegals do the work, track the time and get it into the system, then go through their billing process. Hopefully, they get paid. The process is the same for almost everyone who bills by the hour, no matter what type of law they practice.

'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It'

Managing caseload and client work is a totally different process, however, and everyone practices law differently. Some attorneys track their cases on the computer in some fashion, while others continue to use paper calendars. A lot of attorneys use their e-mail Inbox to keep track of the work done for clients. I've worked with law firms in the past where lawyers within the same practice group may use different software applications to manage their cases ' that's the culture of these firms and technology efficiency may not be a priority for them.

A lot of analysts, including myself, know that a case management system can help a firm improve their bottom line in many ways, but when it comes down to a busy practice, lawyers (even though they know it can improve their practice) are often reluctant to change. LexisNexis' independent study also showed that a large number of legal professionals understand the benefits of a CMS but have a manual or proprietary system that works “good enough.” In their minds, the investment in ' or benefits of ' a new CMS doesn't outweigh what “they put up with” or “do without” while using their manual or proprietary systems.

Looking back on the 2010 CMS Survey, one of the questions I wished we had asked of the respondents was their billing method: hourly, flat-fee, contingency or value-added. I believe that would have also brought more insight into how the culture of the firm plays a role in whether case management was a success or not.

The best advice I, or anyone in this field, can give the legal profession is to understand that purchasing a case/matter management system is not only a financial investment, but it must be a time investment. These systems are flexible and can, for the most part, be configured to work the way your firm works. There are tradeoffs, sure, but the tradeoffs are small in comparison to the benefits your firm can reap when properly implementing a case management system.