Posts Tagged ‘brightleaf corporation’

friend of b.leaf in the news

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

Just read this week’s Corporate Counsel magazine and was very pleased to find a nice article about Brightleaf’s former outside counsel, Sarah Reed, and her move back in-house at Charles River Ventures.  We knew we were going to like Sarah when she apologized for being five minutes late to our first meeting at her Lowenstein Sandler offices because she had run thirteen miles to get there as part of her training for an upcoming marathon.  We knew we were really going to like her when she proceeded to sit down after that run and give us about twenty hours worth of product and legal advice over the next 45 minutes.  Overall, Sarah did a superb job for Brightleaf and we were sorry to see her move on.  But, it sounds like from this piece like she’s really happy at CRV.  So we’re happy too…even if her move left us alone and without local representation in this cruel, cold world.

 

small-tripage

Two days; two articles

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

Yesterday, Mass High Tech wrote us up as an emerging legal technology trend.  Today, American Lawyer sat down with our latest hire, Lynne Zagami, and talked about how Brightleaf represents a change in the traditional BigLaw economics and may be emerging as a new way for really talented young lawyers to work.

Lynne, a former Proskauer/ Brown Rudnick associate, is Brightleaf’s new Director of Client Strategic Processes.  She’ll be working with our large firm clients to help them automate the way they create and approve and manage their transaction documents and free themselves from the strictures of their exisiting economics.  Lynne’s previous life gave her an up-close look at the some of the labor-intensive sausage factory processes that corporate clients increasingly disfavor in their outside counsel.  Now she gets to help re-form those processes.

We’re fortunate to have Lynne on our side.  BigLaw’s loss is our gain…which is ultimately BigLaw’s gain too!.

Article here.

small-tripage

b.leaf in Mass High Tech (again!)

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

Another nice mention in Mass High Tech today–this time in Jim Shakenbach’s article on the use of automation technologies to manage growing regulatory and paperwork burdens.

Full article here.

small-tripage

b.leaf from our intrepid embedded 2L correspondent

Monday, September 28th, 2009

Note: Akshara Kannan was a completely great 2009 Brightleaf summer intern.  We miss having her around.  But here’s the next best thing: during the year, she will occasionally share her thoughts here on how contemporary legal education is preparing her for the changing world of legal employment.

When I began my summer internship at Brightleaf Corporation I had just survived the infamous 1L year of lawschool. I knew Rule 12(b)(6), res ipsa loquitor, and all of the other things 1Ls think make or break their careers.  But most importantly, I knew that the economy would pick up by the time I graduated and I would be fine. How did I know this? When I entered law school, they said that 94% of their graduating class had a job within 9 months. The world needed lawyers and I was going to be one. After all, I got good grades, made the National Trial Team and I was in a Clinic. I had big dreams of running down a Manhattan street in my power suit on my way to some major law firm where I would work my way up the ranks. There was no reason for me to worry, right? Wrong.

I came out of my internship with a completely different frame of mind. The idea that I would need skills that law school didn’t give me had never crossed my mind before then. Didn’t they want us to be prepared for our future careers? How had I never heard about the inefficiencies of law firms? How did I not know about the economics of firms?

In trying to answer these questions, one professor came to mind. My 1L Property professor had been the only one who had taken the time to talk to us about things we would need to know. In the “Last Ten Minutes” we would discuss a variety of issues, from interviewing to billable hours. So, I went back and picked his brain one more time.

He had spent years working for a big law firm down in D.C. While he was there, he suggested document automation to his firm and oversaw the implementation. Now, he teaches his Estates class how to use the system to quickly make documents from templates. So, I asked him why other classes or even law firms never discuss that? He responded with another question. What was your major in undergrad? I immediately saw where he was going with this and quietly mumbled “political science.” And there it was. Most lawyers do not have a background in science and are not as receptive to the use of technology as a result.

He also explained that this was the same basic reason as to why many law firms are not managed well. The skills we use as lawyers do not always translate to management skills. Does it really make sense that the lawyer with the most billable hours should end up running the firm? As much as it pains me to admit it, probably not.

Lawyers and law schools need to reevaluate what is important in today’s legal world. The advancements in technology and changing business models are lost on most of us. If we don’t make an attempt to catch up, we will fall hopelessly behind on the curve.

Timely notes on legal practice innovation from the Georgia Bar Association (June, 1922)

Monday, August 31st, 2009

 

Plus ça change, plus c’est le même chose.

The more it changes, the more it’s the same thing.

Forgive us if we go a little old-school here.  We were thinking the other day about the application of business practices to contemporary legal practice when we ran across the decidely non-contemporary Report of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Session of the Georgia State Bar Association, held at Tyree Island on June 1-3, 1922.

Yes. 1922.

While we ordinarily pride ourselves on being up-to-date and ahead-of-the-curve, this 87 year-old report caught our attention.  Two of its essays–confusingly, both were entitled “Reports on the Business Methods of Law Firms”–struck us for their clarity of expresion, their business-focus, and the odd timelessness of the issues they presented.

“It behooves us, therefore, to follow the lead of business men and study efficiency, the elimination of waste, the accomplishment of best results with the least effort, and the least expense, and the other principles which are recognized as necessary to the conduct of any successful business in these days of strenuous competition and most earnest endeavor.”
- George Jones, Esquire, of Macon, Georgia (p. 148)

When he’s not using the word “behoove” in gentle admonishment, the author above, George Jones, spends much of his nineteen pages arguing for closely tracked but flexibly deployed billing practices.  As his timesheet (pictured below) shows, Jones was a big believer in lawyers scrupulously recording and reviewing the increments of time they expended on client matters.  But, rather than solely invoicing clients for these increments he argues for a blended approach to billing, preferring to use his timesheets as backup to prove to disbelieving clients that amount of work their matters actually consumed.  

“Everyone will agree that the basis for charging fees is one of the most difficult and unsatisfactory of a lawyer’s problems…I maintain that they are four such bases, stated in the order of their importance:

  • First, Time occupied [billable hour]
  • Second, Amounts involved; [contingency]
  • Third, Character and importance of the questions involved and work done; [matter-based
  • Fourth, Results to clients. [success/outcome-based]

[italic text added]

It is the combination or aggregate of these elements which consciously or unconsciously actuates us in determining what to charge…It is important that clients shall be satisfied with the reasonableness of the charge made ..a client thoroughly dissatisfied with an exorbitant charge is likely to seek out somebody else.” (Jones, pp-144-145)

With the cascade of articles in this month’s trade and popular press about the viability of the billable hour, we thought Jones’ 1922 discussion seemed especially, um, timely.  Like we said: plus ça change…

Check out his state-of-the-1920′s-art billing and matter management system below or see the attached for complete copies of the two “Business Methods” papers.
reports-on-business-methods-in-a-lawyers-office_georgia-bar-association-19221

business-methods-in-a-lawyers-office

Killable billable?

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

Just below the fold on page one of yesterday’s Wall Street Journal is a feature article titled “‘Billable Hour’ Under Attack.”  Its authors, Nathan Koppel and WSJ’s resident law blogger, Ashby Jones, bring to the surface much of what has been increasingly appearing in the print and online trade press over the past eighteen months.  The highlights are basically as follows: 

  1. The downturned economy has exacerbated the already-existing dissatisfaction with the way that law firms charge their corporate clients. 
  2. Some very large clients are using their leverage to drive reform. 
  3. Some lawyers willingly comply with these reforms and have come to appreciate some of the attendant changes in their workstyles.
  4. Other firm lawyers maintain that the frenzy is largely ephemeral and that it will all be business as usual as soon as the economy bounces back to its mid-decade self.
  5. The numbers (alternate-model spending up more than 50% to $13.1B so far this year) suggest that an awful lot of toothpaste is out of the tube already and isn’t going back anytime soon. 

Our thoughts?  We think this nicely exemplifies one core Brightleaf tenet: that the consumers of legal services like the producers of those services and they like the product; they just hate the production.  Clients don’t mind paying top dollar for direct interaction with their outside counsel.  They don’t mind paying top dollar for the more strategic, knowlege-intensive portions of their invoice.  But they perceive little or no value in the routine, repetitive, and process-based tasks that account for a huge chunk of almost every bill they get.   Intellectually, deep-down, they may understand the necessity of some or all of these tasks, but that understanding is not the same thing as value perception. And when it comes to keeping clients happy about bill-paying–and keeping clients happy in general–value perception rules.

A New Leaf

Monday, July 13th, 2009

A New Leaf.

Hello. Welcome to the Brightleaf blog. We’ll be using this space to share our thoughts on how well-considered process and technology solutions can address the challenges and frustrations faced by business lawyers as they provide legal services to their clients in the changing climate for those services. We hope you’ll check in regularly and share your thoughts with us.

Our premise is simple.

Most business lawyers – both in-house and outside — ply their legal services through the medium of documents. Presently, there is a growing disconnect between the producers and the consumers of these legal services.

If you’re on the “producer” side of legal services, you may discount the disconnect. You might relegate it to the junkpile as the latest iteration of stale lawyer jokes about outside counsel or glib comments about the Legal Department being the company’s “Business Prevention Division.” You might dismiss it as line-item expense griping in a down economy. You may argue that any such disconnect is overblown or that the increasing chatter about it in trade journals and legal blogs is merely a tempest in a teapot…more transient than trend, more client perception than market reality.

But the growing reality is that your clients’ perception is your reality…or will be soon.

What’s the disconnect? Basically, it’s this: the consumers like the producers and they like the product; they just don’t like the production.

Whether you work in a business law firm or a corporate legal department, your clients (external for the firms; internal for the departments) actually like you. A lot. They’re impressed by the knowledge you’ve amassed. They depend on the skills you’ve acquired. They’re desperate for the judgment you exercise on their behalf.

They even like your work. For the most part, your clients interact with your work through the medium of documents. The Legal Departments we speak with are very happy with the work (read: documents) that their outside counsel produces. And the corporate executives we speak with are very happy with the work that their Legal Departments produce.

So, why are they unhappy? Whose fault is the disconnect?

(With apologies to Cassius) At Brightleaf, we believe that the fault lies not in our lawyers, nor in their documents, but rather in the accreted processes that lie between our lawyers and those documents.

Those who consume the legal services that lawyers provide recognize that those services are necessarily a blend of incisiveness and artisanal skill on one hand (the stuff that we all went to law school to do) and repetitive, reiterative processing on the other hand (the stuff that none of us went to law school to do). Consumers actually don’t mind paying for the former. But much of the cost and risk and delay and consumer dissatisfaction surrounding the provision of legal services stems from the inability of the producers to tweeze apart the two types of work.

If you doubt this, try a simple time-motion experiment for yourself the next time you engage in some nugget of document-based work. Take out a notepad, place it next to your computer, and record every process step from the moment you open the task until the moment you close it. Every. Little. Step. When opening a document from (or saving it to) a repository, write a “C” in the margin for each click it takes you to complete that step. If you’re re-typing anything (a filename, an address, a previously used arbitration clause, a closing date that you typed yesterday and have to retype now) that was typed by anyone before, slap a “T” next to it. If you jump between applications, append a big “A” on that process line for each application you use. If you have to print or fax or scan something, drop a big “P’ next to a notation about how many pages and whether you had to leave your desk to complete this step. If you’re taking a step that defies description, like having to re-name a document because your counterparty decided to employ its own nomenclature mid-deal or desperately collating edits made by five people in five different mark-ups of the same document on five different days, draw a star or question mark or an appropriate abbreviation (WTF?) to mark your efforts. You get the idea.

When you’re done, if you’re like just about every other attorney who has performed this exercise, you’ll be stunned by how much of the stuff you didn’t go to law school for that you have to wade through in order to get to the stuff that you did go to law school for.

This is what Brightleaf was built for: to resolve the disconnecting processes that have accreted between the producers and consumers or legal services…the time-consuming stuff that neither your clients nor you (nor, for that matter, your family) are happy about.

See? Something everyone agrees on.