Monday, August 27, 2012

ILTA Session, Using Document Management Systems for Knowledge Management


Richard Krzyminski
Chris Boyd - Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC
Eric Hunter - Bradford & Barthel, LLP
April Brousseau - Stikeman Elliott LLP

Formal Description:

There is a wide spectrum of document management systems that can be used creatively to promote knowledge management initiatives.  We'll hear from firms using iManage, OpenText and Google Apps, and examine how they have leveraged the DMS in their efforts.

April Brousseau

April is discussing very traditional document-collection KM.  Stikeman Elliot published KM content has its own client/matter numbers, searched through Reccomind.  KM content flagged within document management system.  Search allows filter and collection creation.  
One lawyer transferred boxfuls of paper articles into a locked-down personal collection of scanned documents.  
Stikeman sample documents system relies on "canned" searches in Recommind to access up-to-date samples.
They have set up alerts for people accessing content.  She's had to call a few people who have been printing out lots of samples, it lets her provide targeted help.

Rick Krzyminski

Search is impossible in iManage 8.5.  They have a KM database using SharePoint search, allowing search by different metadata specific to model documents.  Handshake has indexed the KM iManage library.  
As in regular SharePoint search, there is no filtering possible.  Every practice area seems to want its precedents organized differently.  
Set up a litigation pleading system that took advantage of "getting the first copy free."  Their system allowed lawyers to submit .pdfs for electronic filing.  The same system allowed filing access.  
Chris Boyd
The challenge is not finding current documents, but finding past precedents.  They want to market and sell all of the relevant firm experience.  Lynne Simpson's point that law departments want KM to focus on getting law firm lawyers to work as efficiently as possible.  
They combine DMS, Enterprise Search, and a Pleadings Index.  Their experience is that attorneys aren't very good at applying metadata, and are primarily required to apply a matter number.
The Pleadings Index is primarily a chronological ranking of each final signed pleading.  Seeing the final signed .pdf is really important for litigators and helps the case team get their documents quickly.  
Case profile detail is maintained at the matter level.  Secretaries are asked to maintain the case profile data.  The detail can be used for firm experience search, firm precedent search, 
Precedents can be filtered by judge or court, and can also find out what happened in the case (did we win that motion to dismiss?)  
Eric Hunter
He's got a TRON / mafia theme going on.  Has picked up the level of energy quite a bit.
He moved his firm entirely to the internet for document management.  They are working with a UK vendor to build a DMS on top of Google Drive.  Traditional shared sites are great for sharing information.
If we're going to bring clients into our DMS.  He was inspired by John Alber's session last year "Making the Impossible Engagement Possible."  Google+ is essentially an internal social network for his firm where lawyers can also share information with clients.  They are using archived hangouts. 
A big black eye on the whole Google approach is that you can't search contacts, calendars, documents, and social content.  They are forming relationships with other vendors like HandShake.  
People had questions about the problem with too much substantive good stuff being in the email system and ever getting filed or searcheable.  One audience member has mandated email filing within 2 weeks, "file it or lose it."

Users don't put every substantive email, they wait for the conversation.  
Risa Schwartz suggests that email doesn't go easily into a DMS.  It's better to have an enterprise search that searches wherever the email is.  

No comments: