Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Ross Ipsa Loquitur

By: dmc-admin//June 23, 2004//

Ross Ipsa Loquitur

By: dmc-admin//June 23, 2004//

Listen to this article

Prosser

Ross Kodner

“Knowledge management” — the way normal people would define this phrase would be something like: “Um … it’s like … about managing knowledge, right?” For lawyers, mention the concept and invariably they will say something like, “It is how you organize what you, and anybody else associated with your case, know about the matter — in a way that allows you to process the raw information into a coherent understanding of the facts and issues in your case.” Sounds more or less simple, doesn’t it?

The problem is that the phrase “knowledge management” — now the darling trendy techno-tag du jour, has been used commercially, and even journalistically, to describe everything from the process of cataloguing saved documents to traditional case management to storing documents in repositories on the Internet.

Knowledge management (KM) has become a sort of the “translucent blueberry-colored iMac” of the software industry — everybody thinks it’s cool.

Many legal-market-focused companies release products that claim to be in the KM genre. Very few people have ever actually used it, but more and more people are beginning to think they need it — without even really being able to wrap themselves around the concept of what knowledge management is.

Scary, huh?

Well if you’re not scared yet, you should be because we certainly are. My goal here is to develop a concept of knowledge management and explore how useful it could be to practicing lawyers. After attempting to define the concept, I’ll explore how this new thing fits into the average lawyer’s practice as a collection of productivity tools.

To help sort all of this out, I’ve created an imaginary techno-friend called “Sparky” (don’t worry, I am taking my meds — it’s just a helpful literary device):

Sparky: I’ll start by defining what I think is not knowledge management software.

Ross: One second. You said “knowledge management software.” Do you think that the KM concept is strictly limited to specific pieces of software?

Sparky: As we work through this, we’ll probably see that KM is a mix of software tools and processes that help lawyers manage case information. So KM is more than just software. But I’ve got to start somewhere with a tangible thing our readers can grab onto.

Here are the things that I think are not KM software:

  • The program that you use to enter custom information about your clients, such as date of birth, social security number, next court appearance or notes about their case. I think we all know that as “case management” software. Case management software is used to track the details that allow you to properly manage the progress of your case and control the content of the output.

  • The program that turns your depositions and trial transcripts, your exhibits and your other discovered documents into a searchable database for the purpose of pre-trial preparation and use at trial is “litigation management” software.

Ross: I see where you’re going here. Here’s another application that is another one of these “something-management” systems that is not what we see as KM: the program that names, catalogs and files your incoming and outgoing letters, pleadings and other papers, and then later lets you retrieve your work product in a “Westlaw/Lexis/Google-like” fashion is “document management” software.

Sparky: To a certain extent, those types of programs do some knowledge management. Case management programs may allow you to attach supporting documents, pictures and other files to case notes, and to sort them according to various criteria, or even search them with queries. Document management software, including the “lite” imaging-oriented versions that ship with scanners often have similar features. Those programs help you to organize the actual information so that it can be easily retrieved. Your litigation support software may go the next step and allow you to create timelines or outlines of your case, with supporting notes and documents attached.

Ross: What you just said sounds to me like various forms of “knowledge” that is stored, tracked and retrieved electronically by lawyers and their staff every day.

What I think is that all those something – management systems,” when all taken together and viewed from a big-picture perspective, I think that together they are KM. Where they become knowledge management is the point at which all those systems: case managers, litigation managers, document managers, together begin to help you marshal all of the information that you have culled from your clients, witnesses, depositions, investigation, research, and even from brainstorming with your trial team or your practice group colleagues. In other words, they are all the infobits you have before you gather your thoughts together to form an overall picture of your case.

Where this becomes particularly effective is when it (“it” being defined perhaps as an overriding piece of powerful, super-savvy search software, or a new work procedure) allows you to actually record your observations, concerns, questions, ideas, strategies, institutionalized legal knowledge, “street smarts,” legal and factual issues and any other information which helps you to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of your case.

Knowledge management is the ability to gather and reach information of all types stored in your system, regardless of its electronic or paper form. Let’s say that all that case-related information that lawyers have to process can be viewed in layers. In other words, KM is the top layer and the other “M&
#146;s” (litigation, case and document management) all are sub-layers under the overall KM umbrella.

Sparky: So all we’re really talking about is the idea of warehousing all our institutionalized case information — in whatever form it might exist, and then applying both an office workflow process and some super smart search software that can help us mine that data and find what we need.

For a long time I’ve thought that the technology tools lawyers have been using to streamline and support their practices just plain worked the wrong way. What I mean is that the PC tools lawyers have had to use haven’t necessarily worked the way lawyers think. They’ve been “application-centric.” In other words, we have to spend time figuring out what program to click on when we want to look at the electronic transcript of an expert witnesses deposition. We have to waste valuable mental energy thinking about how to work the PC to get what we want, instead of just focusing on doing our work.

Some programs or the ways in which more modern programs can be used have become “task-centric.” I think that what lawyers have always wanted from their computer systems has been the ability to just do their work — better, faster, cheaper with the computer’s help — but fundamentally to get their client’s work out the door.

Ross: Ultimately, the lawyer doing this couldn’t give two hoots about what software applications are needed to access this potpourri of different kinds of information.

What they want to do is have their computer system figure out what program needs to be launched to look at a certain piece of information or access a certain kind of document instead of having to figure it out themselves. They want the focus of their computer-using experience to shift from having to think about what program they need to thinking about the information they need to use to do their work and let the computer figure out the best and quickest way to put it in front of them.

That’s what I consider task-centricity.

Sparky: So the next step past task-centricity would be knowledge-centricity or maybe information-centricity. Even with task-centricity, the lawyer in our example still has to navigate through about six different software applications and has to have at least a working understanding of each of them. They would need a word processor, an image management product, a litigation manager like Summation or Concordance, an information outliner/brain-stormer like CaseMap, perhaps a presentation graphics application like Powerpoint or Sanction to see an expert’s graphical presentation, their office’s e-mail program, a Web browser, and the list goes on.

If we move to the next level of what lawyers really want, it would be a single interface that would let them use a common set of commands or use a consistent interface, that would then let them access, view, use, manipulate, organize, print all the kinds of information that a lawyer needs when she preps for her deposition.

Ross: Yes, sort of the ultimate techno-sleuthing tool. A data mining tool that understands many different file types, all sorts of data formats and can sift through piles of electronic information and automatically put it in front of the busy lawyer who needs to see it. That would be true whether that information is in some program on the lawyer’s own PC network or outside their firm on a Web site or in a private extranet or commercial Web-based document repository. And perhaps in a larger firm, it could be found across the firm’s own WAN on a branch office’s network server — consisting of the institutionalized knowledge of the firm’s professionals.

Sparky: I think we’ve got the concept fleshed out. Let’s try and distill it into a working definition that lawyers can really use.

Ross: Knowledge management is a “big picture” approach to organizing, accessing, searching and using electronically-stored information, using a single consistent software interface, without specific need to manage or understand, or even directly use the underlying software applications that are the repositories for that data.

Sparky: I think our next step is to look at how some of the products lawyers may already have in their offices are fulfilling the promise of the KM concept. One of the most innovative and useful KM-focused programs to ever hit the lawyer’s desktop is CaseMap from CaseSoft. CaseMap lets you enter all of the facts, issues, questions, issues and elements of a case into a single database, with appropriate documents or exhibits attached. Then all of that information can be filtered, sorted, evaluated and reported on instantly, whenever you need it.

Ross: CaseMap is really the logical inheritor of a long line of brainstorming and outlining tools, from the old Thinktank and Grandview DOS outlines to the much lamented Ecco Pro, CaseMap is the next step. It’s a thinking and planning tool that all lawyers can use, whether litigators or transactional practitioners.

Sparky: CaseMap is a product of CaseSoft, whose Web site is at www.casesoft.com. Periodically the company posts very interesting “case studies” and product announcements on the Technolawyers listserve as well (www.technolawyers.com). It runs about $500 and is worth every dime in time saved and information gleaned. What about WestKM?

Ross: WestKM is the culmination of a multi-year initiative by Thomson-West and perhaps one of the most forward-thinking legal technology products of all time. Leveraging the Westlaw interface, this system provides a single unified search mechanism that can dig through multiple data types. This product, initially targeted to larger firms comes closest to what many people envision when they hear “knowledge management.” Your local Thomson-West representative can fill in the details.

Sparky: KM is one of those areas where the concept can be so complicated, that the most successful products will be the ones that make it look really easy to use. I really think that this entire area will evolve into the “one interface, all searches” standard.

Ross: I agree. The more I think about this, the more it occurs to me that a pretty significant KM product has been right under my nose for years … my document management system. While I use Worldox from World Software (www.worldox.com — $350 per user
plus $60 per user in annual software maintenance), competitive products like iManage (www.imanage.com and www.interwoven.com) and PC DOCS Open (www.pcdocs.com) would accomplish the same thing.

More and more lawyers and law office staffers are using their document managers to access a plethora of various types of files. For example, firms who have applied my Paper LESS Office concept are building completely contiguous electronic client files. In doing so, they are enabling the knowledge management abilities of their document management system. What this means is that a program like Worldox, working effectively “within” WordPerfect or Word can launch virtually any kind of document–spreadsheets, scanned images of documents, graphical files like photos or slideshows and more. Maybe it actually crosses over into knowledge management.

For that matter, browser-based case/practice management systems such as the Time Matters World Edition, Amicus X from Gavel & Gown Software, CaseManagerPro, RealLegal Case Manager, LegalFiles and others may fit the KM bill also. Using a single unified interface — tapping the universality of Web browsers, a comprehensive range of firm administrative and client matter information including documents, e-mails, case notes, rolodex info, etc. is searchable and accessible. Clearly, fulfilling a central role in the KM concept.

So while knowledge management is a somewhat amorphous concept, it can be defined. What is abundantly clear is that we are witnessing a significant technological shift in the way legal professionals work on their client files. With the transition from application-centricity to task–centricity we are finally beginning to see the bridge between what lawyers expect PCs to do and what they have delivered so far.

We can only hope that the transition to knowledge management is the last step before “neural management” — where we think and the PC understands and instantly bends to our will! While that is probably still a few years away, the growth of true knowledge management will continue completely changing the way legal professionals leverage PC technology.

SPECIAL NOTE: Thank you to Sheryn Bruehl for her contribution to an earlier version of this article.

Ross Kodner is a “recovering lawyer” who saw the light and founded Milwaukee, Wisconsin’s MicroLaw, Inc. a legal technology consultancy and CLE education company which is the Exclusive Endorsed Technology Service Provider of the Milwaukee Bar Association. He consults with and teaches lawyers worldwide about technology. He can be reached at [email protected], via www.microlaw.com and at 414-540-9433.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests