Page 112 - 2019 - Leaders in Legal Business (q)
P. 112
of product can also be used to construct clause banks and determine “what’s market” within a firm
for deal terms. (Numerous start-ups offer other AI software for other aspects of contracts such as
negotiating contracts or comparing a contract to a corporate standard. These companies typically
target law departments and business users as much if not more than law firms.)
Another new or perhaps reinvigorated class of software is for deal management. This class
of software helps deal teams manage the multiple documents — and their signature pages — within
a law firm and across all parties in a transaction. Brands include Doxly, Closing Folders, and
Workshare Transact.
Not all useful tools are new. A wide range of document assembly tools allows automating
frequently used documents. For corporate law departments, contract management lifecycle
software helps with drafting, storing executed versions, managing rights and obligation, and
anticipating renewal dates.
Even with Technology, Organizations Need Dedicated KM Staff
KM does not happen by itself. Few lawyers complete document profile fields or conduct
after-action reviews. Many give documents titles that have little meaning to colleagues (or to the
author, after a few weeks pass). Machine learning tools for due diligence must be evaluated,
selected, and sometimes trained for a specific firm’s document types. And even with enterprise
search and especially with portals, someone must be in charge of KM. Many law firms have
directors of KM, and some have chief knowledge officers. Note that these roles are separate from
PSLs, who may report to the CKO or to practice group leaders. PSL typically reports (sometimes
directly, sometime with a dotted line) to the head of KM.
KM Remit and Priorities Vary Considerably
KM in law started in the 1990s, usually under a different label, and by 2000, firms were
hiring KM directors or chief knowledge officers. By 2005, it became clear that KM was not a
monolithic discipline — and that it was changing regularly.
A June 2017 survey (that I designed and analyzed) of about 40 KM professionals from 40
large U.S. and Canadian law firms conducted under the auspices ILTA (International Legal
Technology Association — the leading professional group of legal IT and KM professionals)
shows the significant variation in current KM priorities:
97
for deal terms. (Numerous start-ups offer other AI software for other aspects of contracts such as
negotiating contracts or comparing a contract to a corporate standard. These companies typically
target law departments and business users as much if not more than law firms.)
Another new or perhaps reinvigorated class of software is for deal management. This class
of software helps deal teams manage the multiple documents — and their signature pages — within
a law firm and across all parties in a transaction. Brands include Doxly, Closing Folders, and
Workshare Transact.
Not all useful tools are new. A wide range of document assembly tools allows automating
frequently used documents. For corporate law departments, contract management lifecycle
software helps with drafting, storing executed versions, managing rights and obligation, and
anticipating renewal dates.
Even with Technology, Organizations Need Dedicated KM Staff
KM does not happen by itself. Few lawyers complete document profile fields or conduct
after-action reviews. Many give documents titles that have little meaning to colleagues (or to the
author, after a few weeks pass). Machine learning tools for due diligence must be evaluated,
selected, and sometimes trained for a specific firm’s document types. And even with enterprise
search and especially with portals, someone must be in charge of KM. Many law firms have
directors of KM, and some have chief knowledge officers. Note that these roles are separate from
PSLs, who may report to the CKO or to practice group leaders. PSL typically reports (sometimes
directly, sometime with a dotted line) to the head of KM.
KM Remit and Priorities Vary Considerably
KM in law started in the 1990s, usually under a different label, and by 2000, firms were
hiring KM directors or chief knowledge officers. By 2005, it became clear that KM was not a
monolithic discipline — and that it was changing regularly.
A June 2017 survey (that I designed and analyzed) of about 40 KM professionals from 40
large U.S. and Canadian law firms conducted under the auspices ILTA (International Legal
Technology Association — the leading professional group of legal IT and KM professionals)
shows the significant variation in current KM priorities:
97
