Could Baker & McKenzie Have Saved $150 Million Last Year?

Proper technology, process, and training could have saved Baker & McKenzie clients $150 million last year.

, Law Technology News

   | 6 Comments

Proper technology, process, and training could have saved Baker & McKenzie clients $150 million last year, asserts D. Casey Flaherty.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Kel Mohror

    Stuart Kay provided an extensive framework for planning the adoption of document assembly and its core engines, templates.

    His emphasis that the transition was "only possible because the core team included lawyers who had transitioned into technology, who could make accurate assessments of usability and business acceptability of key processes, features and interfaces" bears close adherence by those practitioners who want to achieve similar technology success.

    They need not be "geeks," but they do need to be hotly inquisitive about the capabilities of legal tech for reducing the drudgery (and the errors that plague such tasks) of document creation.

  • Shirley Crow

    One more comment, Mr. Flaherty. I note that Kia Motors is not yet a member of ILTA (International Legal Technology Association). ILTA would be delighted to welcome the Kia Motors Law Department into membership, and there is no charge for the first year of membership for law departments. As part of your membership, you would enjoy the opportunity of finding out more about how law firm technology managers promote productivity with technology, and to in turn provide them with feedback on clients' needs for technological collaboration. Here is a link:

    http://www.iltanet.org/MainMenuCategory/Members



    Best regards,

    Shirley Crow

  • Shirley Crow

    Mr. Flaherty, it is certainly true that adopting templates and training personnel how to use them, rather than deploying a "bare" installation of Office, results in significant productivity gains for law firms. It is also true that law firms that deploy a bare installation of Office are rare if not non-existent. I agree with your premise that those preparing documents for clients should do so properly and efficiently. I'm very glad to hear that my colleagues at another law firm had such a successful upgrade to Office 2010, and that Stuart Kay took the time to analyze the economic benefits of using a template (and presumably integrated macro) system. I want to assure you that successful upgrades and use of the productivity tools described are the norm for law firms, not the exception.

    Best regards,

    Shirley Crow

  • Casey F.

    Even if I (the client) don't realize all the savings, at least they are spending that time on higher value-added work. Good, perfect, not enemies.

  • The Last Honest Lawyer

    The bigger question will be whether Baker passes these savings through to their clients. My inherent cynicism of BigLaw leads me to believe that Baker took these steps, not to bring savings to their clients, but rather, to maintain their bloated PPP's. While templates will invariably save time for the lawyers, my guess is that clients won't see any reduction on their bills.

  • Bobby B

    Let's say, hypothetically, that the $150M savings is high. In my 25 years in the industry, the last 15 in training and development and a few years now in legal ops, I don't know a single firm willing to waste one-quarter of the estimated $150M. Productivity, though not always easy to measure, is the key word in this piece. Clients are increasingly savvy to the issue of efficiency as it relates to the law firms they work with. The days of the lumbering law firm are drawing to a close. The keen legal expertise of their lawyers can only take them so far. Refined processes and the expanded use of technology can help firms remain nimble and better meet the needs of their clients. With flat rate billing becoming increasingly prevalent, efficiency is key. Combine expertise with a high level of efficiency and productivity and those pre-bills will have fewer and fewer write-offs each month.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202609855368

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.