Productive processes: Why your firm needs workflow systems

With around 100 stage-one alternative business structure (ABS) licence applications having been submitted to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) at time of writing, competition for clients will this year reach new heights among UK law firms.

Some responses to the news of the number of applications made have been dismissive of what is perceived to be a small number, but it would not take many applications from the likes of The Co-op or new movers such as LawVest, or perhaps the US-based Rocket Lawyer and LegalZoom to make a massive impact on the legal market.

Discussion about the challenge to come from entities such as these has tended to focus on the marketing spend that they will have at their disposal and how difficult it will be to compete with that. This is undoubtedly true, but dynamic commercial enterprises such as these do not invest millions in marketing just so that they can do the resulting work at only a small profit.

Great attention will be paid to the cost of production and therefore how to take advantage of technology and effectively delegate work to an appropriate level. This will include automated online legal services which, in meeting a generated demand for such services, create a virtual circle of delight for clients by doing more for less.

In this market, law firms are more likely to lose clients by failing to embrace changes to working practices than by an inability to match the marketing expenditure of newcomers with deeper pockets. For some firms, this means making more of the technology already at their disposal, while for others it requires putting their first step on the ladder before it is too late.

Case management systems have been around for a long time now and any firm that is operating without using case management workflow in any part of its business should take an urgent look at its working methods. Consider this: will clients continue to pay for inevitably more expensive work when using technology can drive costs down?

Case for change

At the heart of any workflow system is the ability to capture any piece of information as data and, once captured, use it over and over, without having to create it again.

Thus, for example, once the name and contact details of a client are recorded, producing a letter or email to that person can be done at the touch of a button. Throw in time recording attached to every activity, along with diary entries that are often completely automated, and you have the basis of a very simple workflow system which on its own saves a great deal of accumulated time when multiplied by the number of communications made by the firm during the course of a year.

Case management systems of course go much further than this by mapping out the entire process of a typical case or transaction, tracking all data needed and providing for every step of the process from beginning to end, with the course of the matter being capable of being routed in countless numbers of directions depending upon the vagaries of the work.

Anyone who says that their work is too complex to be capable of a reduction in workflow has not really thought ?about it or is deluding himself. Contrary to popular belief, the useful application of workflow systems is not limited to low-value, volume work, but has a place wherever repetitive tasks are involved. Thus, it has for years been used by enterprising firms in areas such as banking law and ?corporate due diligence.

A similar point should be made about the expectations of clients. Some firms believe they can avoid changing the way they work and therefore how much they charge for it by ditching low-value work, moving more into commercial work and acting for high-net-worth private clients. This hopping around for dry patches of sand while the tide comes in ignores the point that eventually the tide will come in and there will be no more sand left.

Quite apart from the obvious fact that there is only so much work of this kind to go around and a firm not being known for it previously will have a hard job taking it away from firms that have a reputation for it, neither commercial clients nor high-net-worth individuals want to pay over the odds for what is ultimately process-driven work.

Modern systems

If a firm is therefore persuaded of the need to use workflows to its full extent, what should it be looking for in modern systems? The processes described above are the bare minimum to be expected, but some legal software companies have been raising the bar in recent years. This includes the sophistication of workflows, greater marketing capabilities and compatibility with online services.

Workflows should no longer be purely confined to matter management. Every contact recorded in a firm’s database should be recognised by the system in terms of what matters the firm is or has undertaken for him, what relationships he has with individual members of the firm, what relationships he has with other clients and contacts of the firm, what his financial dealings with the firm have been, and so on.

In the back office, it is just as important in terms of efficiency and profitably that repetitive work is not reinvented every time it is undertaken but is systematised. The entire operation needs to be integrated, rather than having standalone HR software, for example. Good modern systems will do all of these things.

Automation is starting to emerge as an interesting facet of workflow technology. This has long existed to some extent, but generally has had to be initiated manually by a lawyer ?or assistant. Now, however, companies are starting to ?enable completely automatic workflows from a particular ?data entry being made or a communication being received ?from a client. Those automated workflows can in turn drive other automated workflows.

Most case management systems grew out of legal accounts software as the client and matter data recorded for accounting purposes became used for communicating with clients and other parties related to a matter. In some cases, the gradual grafting of workflow capability onto accounting systems shows and is exacerbated when companies then try to build a layer of marketing capability on top.

Marketing directors often note that they cannot get the data they need out of their firms’ databases to perform marketing activities in the best interests of the firm. Some companies have addressed this by starting again and rewriting the database with marketing functionality at its heart, while others are emerging without any legacy systems to compromise this capability.

It is in online services where the real difference is likely to be made. Some of this has been reactive in providing, for example, interfaces between a firm’s personal injury case management system and the Ministry of Justice’s portal. This is great so far as it goes, but how much better if the data that a client enters online about his case can be pulled into the firm’s database and then pushed into the MoJ portal? This is what is being made possible by some companies.

Once that principle is established, the only limitation on what can be achieved is one’s imagination and courage. Workflow technologies can run a series of interactions with clients online, making the process highly automated and yet very personal to the client.

Add to these developments device and geography agnostic technology enabling lawyers to work from anywhere and there can be no excuse for firms not to become more efficient and profitable. The hardest part of this is not the technology, but the desire for change and the ability to inspire everyone in the firm to share in and commit to that desire.

martinlangan@legalworkflow.com