The headline, of course, is that AnyLaw doesn’t cost anything to use. Despite the existence of a legal research industrial complex spearheaded by ancient behemoths like Lexis and Westlaw, there is a current drive to make legal research more accessible = less costly, or free. So far, AnyLaw has done the best job of putting its money where its mouth is, by delivering an ad-supported legal research tool. Using AnyLaw for legal research is similar to listening to free music on Pandora or Spotify; ads are present, but not distracting. At the home page, the search feature appears, with an ad at the bottom of the page; within search results: ads are on the right side of the page, search features are on the left.

Of course, ‘free’ is only a part of the equation: even free solutions have to work well, to merit consistent usage. And, AnyLaw works well. Full coverage of state and federal case law precedent is supplemented by responsive live filters, linked citations and real-time updates. You can easily tweak searches on the fly, or follow chains of case precedent. Users can filter for particular court systems via the main search page, or from within search results. There is also a download feature for case text, as well — since lawyers love to cling to paper documents. All those features are not only free, but don’t even require a login. If you join AnyLaw (provide an email address, and create a password), you’ll also be able to save (or, ‘favorite’) cases, which will then be accessible later, at your account, under the ‘My Stuff’ tab. This is less an inducement to solicit email addresses, and more of an answer to the reality of having to create a personal storage unit for the cases you wish to go back to. Saving search results is a key component to modern legal research, and AnyLaw offers that ability via its ‘Save’ feature.

For lawyers who are tired of haggling over research fees, with an end result of saving pennies on the dollar for a significant budget line item, AnyLaw is the answer for eliminating that overhead cost altogether. Of course, AnyLaw also has significant ramifications for access to justice (A2J) — not only because it offers legal aid lawyers a legitimate free research tool, but also because it provides DIY legal clients with a no-cost research alternative. Since cost is not a barrier with AnyLaw, it has the potential, as a research tool, to better connect lawyers and law firms with legal consumers.

. . .

AnyLaw is free to use; and, there’s really no excuse to not at least try it today! Start here.

I do think that the vast majority of solo and small firm lawyers have a good sense of how to run a business.  The failure is often in the execution.  Development usually does not go beyond the business plan stage, if it ever even gets there.

Businesspersons often think of creating systems, and then choosing programs to run those systems.  The question is usually not asked in the reverse.  Hence, ‘here’s my paperless workflow, what system should I use now’ is a more common application than ‘I bought Adobe Acrobat, let me build a paperless workflow around its functions’.  I would submit that the second arrangement might be the better formulation.

If, in defining your law firm’s communication methodology, you based that determination on how you would use Slack, as an internal and external conversations driver, you might discover a more seamless approach than if you stumbled upon it later. If it’s true that a law practice management software is the most important product a law firm can invest in, doesn’t it make sense to choose that anchor software first, and then create your workflows based on its features?  Isn’t this a better approach than choosing the same old software, because you don’t want to test anything else, and then complaining, after you start using it, that it doesn’t do what you want it to do?  One of the reasons lawyers don’t like to adopt new technology (even when it’s better) is because they don’t want to undergo a learning curve.  Selecting a software product with a full understanding of its features, and building your practices around that, reduces or eliminates that learning curve.

With the current focus on attorney competence related to technology, taking a more proactive approach to software choice and implementation not only makes sense from an efficiency perspective, it may also be a new and improved way to ward off malpractice.

. . .

Liner Notes

‘Keep on Tryin’’ by Timothy B. Schmit

No, I’m not holding up a sign, and talking about the end times.  I am, however, addressing software versions.  Even now, I regularly run across law firms that operate different versions of local applications.  So, maybe three different vintages of Adobe Acrobat, with different settings and different costs, all ostensibly meant to do the same thing: manage PDFs.  Now, you might be thinking to yourself, ‘Hey, I have, like, seven different versions of Adobe Acrobat – it’s all good in the hood!’ However, running that many different versions of a software can be problematic, for a variety of reasons.

For one, thing it’s more difficult to train/update employees and troubleshoot existing issues.  Internally, someone trying to a question about how to use a program may be flummoxed by the fact that their process (built in one version) may not work for the questioner (who may be using another version).  That issue can also be exacerbated when clients deal with multiple staffpersons, who themselves are attached to different systems.  From a budget management perspective, your replacement table may be all over the board (meaning you won’t effectuate it — because it’s harder to do), and the different payment requirements for different versions means that it will be impossible for you to flatten your cost allocations.  Law firms are also historically bad at updating local software applications.  Not only does that mean that your systems won’t be working as effectively as they could be, it could also leave you exposed to viruses and nefarious data hacks.

Neither is this problem localized to non-cloud-based technology infrastructures.  There are plenty of law firms running different desktop versions of cloud-based software that they also utilize.  For example, there are a lot of law firms that use Office 365, along with other version of Office, all the way down to Office on XP — which is a dangerous thing to do.

This is all so much easier with cloud-based software.  Let the developers worry about the versions.  All you need to know is that, since the software is cloud-based, your version is always the latest version.  Everyone is working with the same tools, in the same way.  Clients are exposed to the same features.  Your payment schedule is synchronized and predictable.

Now, that’s a version of events you can stick to.

. . .

Liner Notes

The Eagles are alright; but, if you’re really talking about the evolution of the pop country sound, Poco is where it’s at.  They’re one of the most underrated bands of all-time, led by one of the most underrated band leaders of all-time: Richie Furay, who is less than famous.

Here’s a smattering:

‘Good Feelin’ To Know’

‘Just for You and Me’

‘Pickin’ Up the Pieces’

‘Grand Junction’

‘You Better Think Twice’

Man, that is SO good.

Know that I do celebrate Poco’s entire catalogue, and could go on — even though I won’t.

If it’s not one software license that gets shared, it’s that law firms are buying fewer licenses that they actually need, forcing users to double up.  Maybe there’s a shared log-in for staff.

Of course, this is less of a problem than it used to be.  Modern software allows for simultaneous log-ins, so no one’s getting booted anymore.

However, there’s one big problem with shared log-ins: it’s so much harder to manage tasks.  If there is a shared license, the name of the user to which that license is associated is irrelevant.  That ‘person’ has become a ‘group’ of people, by definition.  Let’s take that simple example of a shared staff log-in.  If three staffpersons are sharing a license, you’ve essentially made it impossible to assign specific tasks to any one of them, because you’re required to assign those tasks to the group, due to the way you’ve set up your system.  If you want to assign specific tasks to specific staffpersons, and to more effectively manage workflows, you must acquire a license for each of those staffpersons.

Lawyers who want to practice at the top of their law licenses need to delegate effectively.  Only then can you spend the most time performing those creative tasks that lawyers get paid the most to do.  To effectively delegate to individuals, lawyers must provide those individuals with their own software licenses.

The good news is that the cloud has brought down the price of software to such an extent that individual licenses are less costly than ever.

See what I did there: Don’t be cheap up-front, and you’ll make more in the long run.  That’s a beautiful thing.

. . .

Liner Notes

Speaking of which . . .

‘The Long Run’ by the Eagles

This is my jam, actually.

R.I.P. Glenn Frey.

Of course, usability is a two-way street.  Software vendors have to build and update truly useful platforms for law firms; but, law firms must also engage those platforms effectively.  Lawyers must decide to put the effort in to make the most of their use of software.  In the end, software requires data and direction.  Users must submit relevant information, and perform, or set in motion, certain functionality.  The typical lawyer’s dream, of a zero-effort installation, where the new software works just like the old software — right away, avoiding any initial productivity dip — is a fantasy.

In sum, if you don’t want to pay for licenses you’re not using, or if you want to use more than 5% of a program’s functionality, it is incumbent upon lawyers and staff to understand the software they’re attached to, at a more than superficial level.

The following represents a three-point strategery check, to help you figure out whether you’re getting the most out of your software.

Sherpas in the Low Altitudes.  Gladys Knight had the Pips.  Harold Melvin had the Blue Notes.  Ringo has his All-Starr Band.  Who you got?  Lawyers have traditionally leaned on often-younger, presumably more tech-savvy staff to act as in-house troubleshooters respecting the use of software programs.  If there is a candidate in your law firm, it can be tremendously helpful to have a resident ‘technology expert’; and, if that expert exists mostly to support one program, and if it is a high-use program, like an accounting software or a case management system, then that’s probably all right.  Finding someone on your staff who can perform this role can lighten the load on your IT staff (if you have one), will likely reduce your out-of-pocket support costs and can reduce the time you waste developing unnecessary workarounds.

Yeti in the High Altitudes.  Law firms have often applied the above-referenced formula to graft technology expertise onto an existing staffing infrastructure.  Far too often, however, such a scheme becomes a crutch, allowing attorneys a ready excuse to avoid learning about, and coming to a deeper understanding of, the software they regularly use.  Total reliance on staff, however, is a bad decision at a number of levels.  For one, it decreases your personal efficiency; and, for another, it places you at the mercy of a particular staffperson.  If you have ‘one person who knows how to use the software’, what happens if they want to leave, or if they want a raise?  Also, given new ethics requirements respecting technology competence for lawyers, it could be argued that a totally hands-off approach contravenes, at least the spirit, of those rules, as well as existing rules concerning the supervision of staff.

Knowing When to Call for Help.  Just as there is no perfect software, there is no perfect software user.  Unless you’re the law office equivalent of Bo Jackson in ‘Tecmo Super Bowl’, you’ll need a hand every now and then.  So, you want to be careful to pick a software program that features a robust knowledgebase and support structure, potentially including a paid support component.  Plans will differ for various providers; so, you should ask, and the select the option that works best for you.  If you can’t figure it out, and the support desk can’t help, it may be time to consider a consultant.

. . .

Liner Notes

My understanding is that this would have been the perfect song, if it wasn’t just a tribute.

‘Tribute’ by Tenacious D

There are at least three distinct reasons that law practice management consulting exists as a separate category, or discipline.  First, lawyers are subject to specific, jurisdictional rules of professional conduct, that limit their ability to conduct business.  Ethics rules effect nearly every part of a lawyer’s behavior, such that it is essential to have a grasp on what is allowed (and what is not) in particular jurisdictions.  Second, technology is being built and updated for the legal vertical at a staggering pace; and, it is difficult to wade through options and make effective choices without a broad knowledge of the industry — or without access to someone with that broad knowledge.  Third, lawyer mangers generally lack substantive business training.  It’s hard enough to practice substantive law, without having to grapple with business management issues.  For busy lawyers, practice management consultants can provide answers and a decision-making framework.  For solo attorneys, a consultant may be the only experienced sounding board available.

There are generally two ways that law firms can approach consulting services; and, it depends on their tolerance for sweat equity.  Law practice management consultants can provide answers, and paths to answers, for practitioners who then wish to engage solutions directly.  Of course, not every lawyer is a DIY fanatic; many are busy enough (smart enough? :)) to realize that there is also significant benefit to farming out certain aspects of business management to qualified vendors.  Rather than choosing a technology array and building it out, for example, a lawyer could access a consulting firm, which could build it out and manage it for him, or who could at least recommend a service provider to do that.  The ultimate question for law firms surrounds implementation: Does the law firm wish to learn how to, and then perform the installation itself?  Or, is it more valuable to hire a vendor to perform the particular job, and instead to focus that time on billing?  The question can be repeated for any aspect of law firm business management.

Law firms of every size can access law practice management consulting services at some level; and, it starts with a conversation surrounding needs and desires.  (Though, not a dirty one.)  Starting that conversation with Red Cave is a phone call or email away.  (A clean one.)

. . .

Liner Notes

But, don’t call if you’re not a Warren Zevon fan.

‘Dirty Little Religion’ by Warren Zevon

Enjoy every sandwich.