Dennis Kennedy

Technology Law and Legal Technology. Dennis Kennedy is one of the few technology lawyers who is also an expert on the underlying technologies. Dennis an award-winning leader in the application of technology and the Internet to the practice of law. gives you access to a wide variety of Dennis Kennedy's resources on legal technology, his writings, his well-known blog, DennisKennedy.Blog, and information about how you can have Dennis speak to your organization or group.

Dennis Kennedy is one of the most knowledgeable legal technologists you will find. - Michael Arkfeld.

Dennis Kennedy, a lawyer and legal technology expert in St. Louis, Mo., has been a significant influence in the ever-evolving relationship between lawyers and the Web. - Robert Ambrogi

Archive for the ‘4G Legal Technology’ Category

Looking Back at (and Looking Forward from) ABA TECHSHOW 2009

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

Episode 2 of The Kennedy-Mighell Report Podcast is now available at its new home on the Legal Talk Network. In this episode, Tom and I talk with our guest co-host, Adrian Linares, about our take-aways from the recent ABA TECHSHOW 2009.
As I mention in the podcast, TECHSHOW reminded me of one of the recurring themes in my work – that legal technology (and information technology in general) is always more about people than it is about the technology. I recommend that you give the podcast a listen to hear our reactions to TECHSHOW and about some of the social aspects of legal technology today. Note also that we are looking for audience questions to answer in future podcasts.
I’ve been meaning to write a wrap-up post on my TECHSHOW experience, and this seems like a good place to do that.
As I first made my way to the TECHSHOW floor, I immediately saw Tom Mighell and Adriana Linares at the Conference Concierge booth and I felt like everything was in the right place in the legal tech world. From there, it was on the Twitter session and the three-day whirlwind that my TECHSHOW visits have become. I think that I did a good job of trying to visit with everyone I could, but if I missed you, it wasn’t for lack of trying, just a shortage of time.
My one disappointment at TECHSHOW was not getting much time on the exhibit floor to visit with vendors. I had a great conversation with Rick Borstein of Adobe about some ways to use Acrobat 9 (think portfolios and RSS feeds) and have some great suggestions to try. Otherwise, I got the chance to visit with my RocketMatter pals, Larry and Ariel, JD Supra, TotalAttorneys, Clio and Thompson West. I learned some interesting things, some potentially practice-changing, but didn’t get a strong sense of where the vendors are at today. As others have mentioned, electronic discovery is definitely a big item these days on the vendor floor.
As I was lamenting the lack of exhibit hall time I had on Friday afternoon (as the exhibit hall neared closing time), I ran into my friend, Andrew Sandler, at LegalQB, who was busy at work shooting videos of vendors and creating a virtual exhibit hall. You could go to the LegalQB site and mouse over vendors on the floor map and get info and see videos of vendor reps answering basic questions about products and services. The idea is that, at your own pace and without being bothered by sales pitches, you can learn about a vendor and come to the booths that interest you armed with basic knowledge and knowing what questions you have. Cool idea. Even cooler, LegalQB plans to make that info always available outside the conference setting. Andrew shot some video of Tom and me talking about our book and podcast that will be up on the LegalQB site. Give LegalQB a look.
I really enjoyed the three presentations I gave, two with Tom Mighell on topics related to our book, The Lawyer’s Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies, and one with Joel Alleyne, who was excellent to work with as a co-presenter, on a “client-focused” approach to collaboration. I’ve put up stripped-down black-and-white versions of slides from two of the presentations on SlideShare (here and here) as an example of how you can use this online tool to share presentation slides. There was a fair amount of twittering during the sessions and legal blogger extraordinaire Allison Shields has a nice summary of one of the sessions.
Tom and I did a roundtable session on collaboration tools, where we experimented with some “unconference” techniques. After introductions, we found that two of the attendees were actually on opposite sides of some matters. We took the opportunity to break into groups and discussed what, to me, is the hardest, but very common, collaboration situation – collaborating with people on opposite sides. While I’d characterize the success of the experiment as mixed, the planned 5 to minute discussion went much longer and people had some good ideas. I learned a lot. Then we discussed some questions about confidentiality and encryption, Google Docs, SharePoint and some other specific tools.
As a presenter, doing three presentations in a row reminded on the need to hydrate, hydrate, hydrate, and to protect your voice, especially on the night before. I was a little lacking in both departments, but left with my voice pretty much intact.
We gave away copies of our book – meaning the book and the new 2009 update on CD – at each of my sessions. After very limited success with the “trivia question” approach last year, Tom and I have done the book giveaways by finding the person in the audience who is newest to the legal business. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by how well this approach works (it always narrows down to one; trivia questions often draw many simultaneous hand-raisers). The rest of the audience stays interested and there is a good feeling in the room for the winner. Several people came up to me after sessions to say how much they liked this approach.
We heard from several sources that collaboration was a hot topic and that our book sold well. That’s always good to hear. As I mentioned, there’s a new CD update for 2009, with a new chapter of tips, new developments, forms, audio and more. We also took advantage of the opportunity to lobby our ABA publishers to release the book as a Kindle experiment. I’m not sure that we made much progress, but let Tom or me know if you would be interested in a Kindle version of the book and we’ll keep pushing our publisher.
The Sessions. For many years, my friends have discouraged me from attending their sessions, saying “you already know this.” That’s not really true, but I know what they mean. I’ve noticed that I attend fewer sessions at conferences, in part because the best learning really does happen in the hallways and lobbies outside the sessions. I also have a unique position where I can talk to many of the speakers outside the sessions, especially at TECHSHOW where many of the speakers are friends, but for any attendee, access to speakers at TECHSHOW is second to none and one of the big plusses of the show.
There were two sessions I attended that I wanted to note. The first was the Twitter session at the start of the conference. While, admittedly, sitting by Jordan Furlong was guaranteed to result in Twitter shenanigans, and it did, it was fascinating to observe the twittering during the session and how the #techshow hashtag moved up to the #3 trending search term on all of during the session. While I liked the session, my sense by the end of it was that I’d probably focus more on the whys, hows and so whats of Twitter if I ever presented on the topic.
The other session, which I think was the centerpiece of the conference, was Richard Susskind’s keynote speech. I posted my notes from the session here, so I won’t go into any detail here. A few conclusions – buy the book (The End of Lawyers?), read the book and discuss the book with others. I enjoyed getting a couple of chances to chat briefly with Richard. I compare the book favorably to Tom Friedmann’s “The Earth is Flat” in that pulls together and synthesizes a lot of important ideas that people have been tossing around, systematizes those ideas in highly understandable ways, and provides a single point of entry for those new to the discussion. The presentation was excellent on so many levels and gave me many touchpoints to tie into my presentations the following day.
Probably my favorite part of the move of TECHSHOW to the Chicago Hilton has been the willingness of the TECHSHOW chairs and ABA Law Practice Management Section to open up a suite to attendees to hang out in the evenings. As I mentioned before, the access to speakers is a huge selling point of TECHSHOW.
Anyway, I spent more than a few hours at the suite on the evenings I was there and appreciated the chance to talk to others about technology and other topics. On the first evening, I found myself in a great conversation with Marc Lauritsen, Jordan Furlong and Ariel Jatib in which we were trying to predict what the next wave of lawyers’ use of the Internet would be. If websites were generation one, and blogs were generation two, was Twitter the start of generation three? Maybe. We went well beyond that and the conversation was worth the trip for me. The Twitter length summary of what’s next from our conversation – audio/video (the easy answer), SMS as a platform, and automated decision-making / legal risk management.
Thanks to Adriana Linares, Kevin O’Keefe, Ed Adams (my “boss” for my ABA Journal tech column) and others who organized events like Beer and Blawgers, the great dinner events, and other activities. One of my favorite TECHSHOW moments was at the Beer and Blawger event, where bloggers/twitterers who knew each other by reputation got to meet in person for the first time. It was funny and cool at the same time to hear people shouting, “Oh my God, you’re @legaltypist!” or @econwriter5 or other Twitter handles. It was also fascinating to see the difference in approach of people who brand their names on Twitter (e.g., @denniskennedy, @tommighell, @jimcalloway) as compared to those who use handles.
Tom and I hosted a very nice dinner at Catch 35, a very good seafood restaurant with a very memorable bread pudding dessert, where we talked about Kindles and a bunch of other topics. Thanks to all who signed up for our dinner.
The last day of sessions ended with the speaker luncheon and the passing of the torch from the current board chair, Laura Calloway (fabulous job, Laura!), to the next board chair, Debbie Foster, and the first meeting of the new board. As a former board member, I always enjoy that tradition.
On Saturday afternoon, I had the rare chance to sit down and talk for a couple of hours with my friend and honorary cousin, Dan Pinnington, something we haven’t had the chance to do for a few years. Dan, along with Reid Trautz, has co-written a new book , The Busy Lawyer’s Guide to Success, which is chockful of law practice management tips (more than 700) and is a must-read. Lots of great info in it and they have a website for it at
I made the comment in my presentations that, especially because of the economy, TECHSHOW was a gathering of the right people at the right place at the right time on legal technology. I suspect that the ideas, relationships and energy generated by TECHSHOW 2009 will one day be seen to have played an important role in the evolution of the practice of law toward the ideas some of us loosely call Law 2.0.
Toward that end, I end by pointing to the continuing Twitter conversation that began at TECHSHOW and has keep going at a great pace ever since. It can be found by searching for “#techshow” (or just “techshow”) at You can even join in this conversation by adding the hashtag #techshow to your related tweets. It’s definitely a space to watch.
A big thank you to everyone for making this one of my best TECHSHOWs of the ten or so I’ve attended. As I said, legal technology ultimately is more about people than technology.
[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (]
Check out the new The Kennedy-Mighell Report Podcast on the Legal Talk Network.
Follow my microblog on Twitter – @dkennedyblog; Follow me – @denniskennedy
Now Available! The Lawyer’s Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies: Smart Ways to Work Together, by Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell. Visit the companion website for the book at Twitter: @collabtools
Technorati tags:

Liveblogging Susskind’s Keynote Presentation at TECHSHOW

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

Wanted to try my hand at liveblogging, which is really blogging your notes from a session: Let me know what you think.
My notes on session:
At the end of these economic difficulties, the legal landscape will not return to “normal,” instead it will be drastically changed.
KPMG mission statement – we exist to provide value from our knowledge to our clients. Lawyers must look for ways to find new ways to produce these values.
Clients want client dispute avoidance, not dispute resolution.
This means next wave for lawyers is legal risk management.
Understand the fundamental difference between automation and innovation. Not computerization what we already do but to making new things possible.
In other words, the best way to predict the future is to invent it.
The key is turning ideas into action. Some of these ideas have been around for a while.
“Fit for purpose” legal profession.
Inhouse legal counsel are under significant pressure – something has to give. I.e., clients want “more for less.” This is a fundamental premise.
Note the coming reality of external investment in law firms in the UK.
Two possible strategies:
1. Efficiency strategy – cut costs, move toward commoditization, multi-sourcing
2. Collaboration strategy – cost sharing, harnessing collaborative IT, online community
Disruption beyond imagination
Bespoke vs. Commoditised – Custom vs. commodity
A path:
Bespoke -> Standardized -> Systematized -> Packaged (packaging your knowledge) -> Commoditized
Legal expertise as product. Eversheds as a model
Many see packaged knowledge as anathema
Commodity in the sense of legal services is a metaphor. An online information service is his example of commodisation in legal services.
Another path:
Hourly fees -> flat fees -> free
Innovation seems to happen in the systematized and packaged areas for Susskind. Most firms see that they are and want to stay in the bespoke area. Has bespoke become just a romantic vision of what we think we are as lawyers?
Clients, on the other hand, generally want to move away from bespoke and toward commoditization.
In other words, client work needs to be rethought.
Clients – cut costs, make costs predictable, quality improves (via standardization and systemization)
Watch for this axis to largely flip (in terms of percentages in each category over the next 10 years)
Multi-sourcing – using the least costly of many potential sources of services and/or the bringing together of multi-sourced work into coherent single product.
Susskind has 12 ways of multi-sourcing (NOTE: this is a key section of his book) e.g., insourcing, outsourcing, home sourcing, open sourcing, co-sourcing, leasing, computerizing, no-sourcing (not devoting legal resources/effort to low risk areas)
Law as project management.
Tendency among lawyers (outside this presentation room) that Google and BlackBerry is their technology. And belief that legal profession is the one area that will not be impacted fundamentally by the Internet and technology.
The interesting point (at least to me) is are we starting to see early impacts/symptoms of Singularity effects (e.g., Vinge and Kurzweil).
As technology comes to heart of our lives and work, no reason to believe law will be exempt.
Change is accelerating.
Another set of examples – Social networking, online communications, mass collaboration
[NOTE: It’s fascinating how our collaboration book is a handbook for using the practical tools that will power these trends in the profession. Don’t know if we were especially prescient or lucky. Or both.]
The key is how to apply these techniques (online communication, collaboration, social networking) in the legal profession.
Ten disruptive (in the Clayton Christiansen sense) technology for legal profession (listed in his book).
Four examples:
1. Closed client communities (collaborative) – Network of solo practitioners or clients
2. Online dispute resolution
3. Embedded legal knowledge
4. Electronic legal marketplace
Traditional pyramid model and shape of law firms will change dramatically
“What parts of lawyers’ work can be done differently?” Answer truthfully.
If we see ways Internet can destroy our business, shouldn’t you be doing that? That’s the challenge.
For what will lawyers be needed? A more fundamental question.
Deep expertise (legal) and complex communication.
Note that complexity and expertise can be modeled. Modeling is a key concept.
Lawyers tend to exaggerate level of creativity (across the board).
Direct contact is diminishing in many areas
Future jobs for lawyers
Expert trusted adviser
Legal knowledge engineer
Project managers
He calls what is coming is an incremental revolution toward an IT-enabled legal profession and a fundamental change in the way legal services are delivered.
[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (]
Follow my microblog on Twitter – @dkennedyblog; Follow me – @denniskennedy
Now Available! The Lawyer’s Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies: Smart Ways to Work Together, by Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell. Visit the companion website for the book at Twitter: @collabtools
Technorati tags:

Are Lawyers Doing Work That Should Be Done By Machines?

Thursday, April 19th, 2007

Good question. Important question. Maybe the Big Question.
Ron Friedmann offers his insights into the question in a post about an article in which Cisco’s Mark Chandler raises the question in the context of document review in electronic discovery.
The money quote from Ron:

I’ve written previously that the choosing the best document review approach – US contract lawyers, offshore lawyers, or software – is an empirical question. Chandler adds anecdotal evidence that computers do better than humans, at least considering cost.

I ruminated a bit about the question outside the context of electronic discovery in one of my favorite posts on this blog from 2006.
The money quote from that post was:

At TECHSHOW 2005, Marc Lauritsen was reviewing the histroy of legal technology and made a comment about tasks that it made sense for computers to do and tasks that it made sense for humans to do. It struck me then, and does even more so today, that part of the reason we see dissatisfaction and burnout in the legal profession is that, arguably in many cases, lawyers are still doing work as humans that should at this point be done by computers, [rather than having computers do the work to free them up] to do more of the creative things that play such a big part in being a lawyer. Properly understood, we should be trying to use technology to enable us to move in that direction.
In his email, Gates says: “In this New World of Work, repetitive, uninteresting tasks like moving data from one system to another will be automated and employees will focus much more of their time and creative energy on work that generates real value and growth.”

Important question. Maybe a Law 2.0 question.
[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (]
Learn more about legal technology at Dennis Kennedy’s Legal Technology Central page.
Technorati tags:

Litigation 2.0

Thursday, October 19th, 2006

Litigation 2.0. So it begins.
I told the audience at my presentation on electronic discovery trends last June at the Legal Tech West Coast conference that on the morning of my presentation I had a bit of an epiphany about where electronic discovery was going as it moved toward its next evolutionary stage. I sketched out a few notes that morning on where I saw it going. Then I had a near “Jerry Maguire” moment and, until my better judgment prevailed, nearly scrapped my prepared presentation and rewrote something new called “Electronic Discovery 2.0.”
I set aside the notes and haven’t yet returned to them, although you will pick up some of the ideas here and there in my recent writings on electronic discovery. They are, to me, some of the most interesting ideas on legal tech that I’ve had, but haven’t yet written about.
Litigation 2.0
In the last few days, however, these ideas have come back to me with renewed life. In part, that’s because of a conversation I had with John Thickett of the Tusker Group about their approach to outsourcing electronic discovery work and processes, and the implications of that outsourcing. In part, it comes from podcasts I’ve listened to featuring Andy Kessler, the author of The End of Medicine (podcast link), and C.K. Prahalad (podcast link).
But, mainly, it’s from the recent conversations Matt Homann, JoAnna Forshee and I have had about the next public LexThink! conference, which have focused on the topic of a new kind of conference on electronic discovery.
Litigation 2.0
In keeping with the LexThink approach, we wanted a conference that was innovative and different, that was both intensely practical and allowed people to consider the big picture and deeper implications. Ideas moving to action.
I kept pushing us to look at what was happening in the trenches. Let’s face it, the most interesting things happen at the points where different fields intersect and with the people working at those intersections. To me, that’s the world of litigation support and litigation support managers – right at the point of intersection of IT, client concerns and the practice of law.
So, we’ve been turning over that idea and working it into form.
Litigation 2.0
Yesterday, we decided that this area would be the focus of the next public LexThink conference in early Spring 2007.
We absolutely did not want to do another electronic discovery conference that academically covered Zubulake and the new amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There’s plenty of room for those and many of them are quite good. But that’s not our territory.
We want to explore what the changing environment means for people who need to make decisions and get things done in the real world and have excellent insight into where all of this is taking us. It’s best to focus on these topics in ways that help people do their work better, make their lives easier, and help them learn together and form communities with people facing the same issues.
That’s a discussion that has to happen. And it needs to involve lit support managers (in law firms and corporations), lit support and electronic discovery vendors (the tool makers), the helpers and consultants, the clients, judges, and lawyers too. I’ve long wanted to participate in that discussion, but now I believe that we can facilitate it as well.
Litigation 2.0
As usual, the discussion came down to deciding on a name that was big enough and broad enough (and short enough) to hold what we wanted. Using “electronic discovery” or “lit support” is too limiting. We’ve always had the idea of “summit” floating around this project, but, yesterday, even that didn’t feel right.
It’s a big change in the process of happening – not necessarily moving into new territory but recognizing that the territory we inhabit has already begun to change. Think of “paradigm shift” in the classic Thomas Kuhn sense of the term.
Announcing Litigation 2.0 – the conference, the concept and the conversation.
Details to come.
[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (]
This post brought to you by LexThink!(R) – The Legal Unconference. Ask us about private LexThink retreats and conferences for your firm, business or organization. Coming soon – a new public LexThink event. Watch for details.
Technorati tags:

Denise Howell on VRM and VLFs

Thursday, September 7th, 2006

Reed Smith’s loss is our gain. Denise Howell has been writing the best stuff I’ve read in along time about the intersection of law and technology on Bag and Baggage, Between Lawyers and her newest blog, the highly-recommended Lawgarithms.
I wanted to single out her post today on Between Lawyers called “VLFs Should Embrace VRM.” part of an ongoing discussion we’re having over there about virtual law firms and related issues. I’ve listened to two of the three parts of the podcasts she recommended (and found myself longing for a stronger hand at the editing controls on the podcast, but I think my patience will be rewarded in part 3). For those who prefer reading to listening, start with this post from Doc Searls.
The VRM (vendor relationship management) notion, simplified as “the user is in control,” when applied to law has some resonance with the idea of “fourth generation legal technology,” something I posted about and haven’t yet returned to and developed in writing.
It’s a subject I’m really looking forward to discussing with Denise, the rest of the Between Lawyers group, and others. Maybe we can do a podcast on the topic.
[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (]
Like what you are reading? Check out the other blogs where I post – Between Lawyers (feed) and the LexThink Blog (feed).
Technorati tags:

Document Assembly as Disruptive Legal Technology

Wednesday, August 30th, 2006

Darryl Mountain pointed me to an online pdf version of his new article, “Disrupting conventional law firm models using document assembly,” in the International Journal of Law and Information Technology.
From the abstract:

Document assembly software is a technology that is fundamental to disrupting law firms. This article uses the framework set out by Clayton Christensen in The Innovator’s Dilemma and subsequent books to examine the range of business models that use document assembly software, from those that are sustaining in relation to law firms to those that are disruptive in relation to law firms. It looks at three barriers that slow down the pace of disruption: a shortage of the right people, rules against unauthorised practice, and inadequate capitalisation of law firms. These barriers will be overcome on a piecemeal basis as disruptive forces advance and undercut the billable hour.

Darryl is one of the truly innovative thinkers in the legal profession and I highly recommend this article. The article is based on a presentation Darryl gave last year (I wrote about it here) and the lively discussion that followed.
The article reminded me about that conversation and some follow-up thoughts I had on the insurance aspect of what Darryl is discussing, something I may write about in the near future.
Another great article from Darryl that I hope reaches a big audience. It will give you much to think about.
[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (]
Learn more about legal technology at Dennis Kennedy’s Legal Technology Central page.
Technorati tags:

Bill Gates Sends Me an Email That Pulls Together Some Ideas I’ve Been Thinking About Recently

Wednesday, May 17th, 2006

I received an email from Bill Gates today. Well, so did thousands of others, I’m sure, but I’ve always wanted to start a blog post off like that. Unlike many who received it, I would bet, I read it from beginning to end. I encourage you to do the same.
The email is called “Beyond Business Intelligence: Delivering a Comprehensive Approach to Enterprise Information Management” (note: URL for this email will likely change in the future, so check the archive of emails at that link) and, in it, Gates offers some thoughts about the next ten years.
I like the email because I noticed that Bill and I are thinking along the same lines. For example, he ends the piece with:

“As we look ahead to the next 10 years and the promise of the New World of Work, I believe we are on the verge of an idea that is even more powerful: the age of friction-free innovation.”

Friction-free innovation. Matt Homann and I have been talking about and working on improving innovation in professional services for the last year-and-a-half through LexThink. It’s nice to be on the same page with the richest guy in the world.
That aside, however, I recommend that you read this email. It’s not too long, and I’m intrigued by the vision of the future of technology sketched out there.
There are a number of ideas that caught my attention.
1. The yin/yang notion of information overload (which we all know) and information underload, a way of looking at the other half of the equation of how technology seems to leave us so unsettled these days. He says: “The other problem is something I call information underload. We’re flooded with information, but that doesn’t mean we have tools that let us use the information effectively.”
He goes on to sketch out those tools and the business priorities they must address: Productivity; Collaboration; Business intelligence; Workflow optimization.
People who talk to me these days about where legal software needs to go have certainly heard these four topics from me a lot lately, especially the fourth one.
2. Gates, in some comments that I’m not necessarily sure are directed at Google (although I’m sure that’s the way some will take them), mentions “enterprise-enabled search” as one direction we must go. If you’ve talked to people facing the gargantuan issues involved in records management, compliance, information governance and electronic discovery, you will know that “enterprise-enabled search” is not a buzzword du jour. It focuses on some real issues that must be addressed sooner rather than later.
3. Gates also mentions, almost in passing, knowledge management in the context of “enterprise-enabled search.” This goes back to business priorities. Are we managing information just for litigation purposes (e-discovery) or just for regulatory purposes (compliance) or should we take the opportunity to extend and close the circle and use that information in creative, positive and broader ways? Again, this is a theme that has been filtering into my presentations on electronic discovery and information lifecycle management.
4. Sharepoint Server as a platform. I’ve given two presentations in recent weeks on legal technology trends in which I highlight ten trends. One of them is the growing interest and likely uses of Sharepoint Server in law firms. Gates, in his email, sketches out the role Sharepoint Services may play and points to something new called Knowledge Network for Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007. He says, “Another new technology aimed at streamlining information access that should be available in the near future is an enhanced search tool called Knowledge Network for Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007. This add-on will track expertise and relationships in an organization so information workers can quickly connect to people with the right skills and knowledge.”
5. At TECHSHOW 2005, Marc Lauritsen was reviewing the histroy of legal technology and made a comment about tasks that it made sense for computers to do and tasks that it made sense for humans to do. It struck me then, and does even more so today, that part of the reason we see dissatisfaction and burnout in the legal profession is that, arguably in many cases, lawyers are still doing work as humans that should at this point be done by computers, freeing them up to do more of the creative things that play such a big part in being a lawyer. Properly understood, we should be trying to use technology to enable us to move in that direction.
In his email, Gates says: “In this New World of Work, repetitive, uninteresting tasks like moving data from one system to another will be automated and employees will focus much more of their time and creative energy on work that generates real value and growth.”
And that should be the money quote for this email.
My point here is not to say, “hey, Bill Gates and I are thinking a lot alike these days,” but to say that there are some trends, forces, needs and tools that are starting to come together. Some of these I had noticed; some I hadn’t. But the email frm Bill Gates helped pull together a lot of different pieces in a very helpful way for me. Some may say that nothing in here is all that original, but it is the synthesis of these ideas and the vision and direction that is revealed in the email that is original and. to me, quite exciting, even if it might be ten years away.
I invite you to read the email and see what impact it has on you.You can subscribe to these emails from Gates from the page you will find the email.
[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (]
This post brought to you by LexThink!(R) – The Legal Unconference. Ask us about private LexThink retreats and conferences for your firm, business or organization.
Technorati tags:

Introduction to the OODA Loop and its Business Implications

Thursday, March 23rd, 2006

I mention John Boyd’s OODA Loop on this blog from time to time. OODA is an acronym for Observe – Orient – Decide – Act. I’m fascinated by the OODA Loop literature and the discussions around the topic.
Chet Richards, one of the leading thinkers on the OODA Loop, has recently made available his PowerPoint slides for a briefing that explains the OODA Loop. The presentation is an excellent introduction and I especially recommend it to anyone who wonders what the heck I’m talking about when I mention the OODA Loop.
I also recommend it to those who might like to join a conversation with me about the implications of the OODA Loop in the practice of law and Law 2.0.
Perhaps an even better introduction to the business implications of the OODA Loop and Boyd’s thinking bbis Richards’ Certain to Win PowerPoint presentation (with lots of notes).
If you want to dig deeper into to this very rich vein, I thoroughly recommend Robert Coram’s Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War and Chet Richards’ Certain to Win.
[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (]
This post brought to you by LexThink!(R) – The Legal Unconference. Ask us about private LexThink retreats and conferences for your firm, business or organization. Coming soon – LexThink Lounge – April 19, 2006.
Technorati tags:

What’s Your Dangerous Idea?

Thursday, January 5th, 2006

I highly recommend Dave Pollard’s great post called “Blinded by Science: What’s Your Dangerous Idea?” In the post, Dave takes a look at a recent collection of essays from prominent thinkers discussing their favorite “dangerous ideas.”
Dave, a little disappointed by the essay collection, offers ten dangerous ideas of his own that I guarantee will get you thinking.
The money quote:

Why are these ten ideas ‘dangerous’? Because they threaten deeply-entrenched ideas and strongly-held, widely-held beliefs. Because those who they threaten will do almost anything to prevent them becoming widely accepted. And because they’re actionable. Take them as your own and they will change what you think, believe and do.
What’s your dangerous idea?

I’m thinking that my Fourth Generation (4G) Legal Technology idea, once I get it fully thought out, will become my dangerous idea in my little niche of the world.
What’s your dangerous idea?
Technorati tags:
[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (]
This post brought to you by LexThink!(TM) – The Conference, Re-imagined. LexThink! – Think big thoughts, do cool things, change the world. Ask us about private LexThink retreats and unconferences for your firm, business or organization.

What is Contract Life Cycle Management and How Does it Fit into Legal Technology and Law 2.0 in 2006?

Monday, January 2nd, 2006

Michael Kraft and Robert Enholm, in their excellent “GC Tech Wish List for 2006,” talk about contract life cycle management (CLCM) in terms of “applying technology to the contract process from letter of intent through negotiation and execution to performance, amendment and contract renewal.” They also say, “The emergence of enterprise resource planning software over the past decade has helped businesses with “workflow” processes, and GCs are exploring how to apply these principles to the activities of corporate law departments.” And CLCM is one good example.
In short, CLCM is about finding ways to look at the contracting process as a business workflow process that can be tuned in ways that benefit businesses rather than as a series of independent, unrelated legal projects.
It’s a difference that, as they say, makes all the difference.
I’ve been thinking, off and on, about CLCM over the past few years, including most recently in some discussions I had involving a large company that wanted to get some control over a very ad hoc approach they had to generating first drafts of standard documents. The business case for CLCM is pretty easy to make.
When I think about contracts (or other legal documents) as part of a process, I invariably think about the potential role of document assembly.
I’m not surprised that Kraft and Enholm move in the same direction in their article. They say, “‘document assembly software’ is coming to be seen as merely one link in the chain of the contract management process. GCs must be alert to opportunities to use this technology to expedite contract management process.”
The “one link in the chain” is the important part of this quote. Too many people I talk to see the goal of document assembly as being to generate finished documents with a “push of the button.” That’s not it at all. My goal is always to generate significant improvements in generating first drafts – versions of documents that are in “good enough” form that you can start immediately to do custom work and tailoring. People who look for the 100% solution from document assembly are inevitably disappointed and forego the benefits that 80%, 60% or even 20% solutions can bring them.
In a way, they remind me of people who see the benefit of electronic discovery only as a way of finding “the smoking gun.” Long-time users of electronic discovery rarely talk about “smoking guns.” Instead, they talk about the benefits of productivity, efficiency, organization, streamlining, telling a better story and focusing on the key issues. In other words, there are substantial benefits that flow from improved processes and procedures.
Document assembly brings with it a set of similar benefits beyond the “push button drafts” that most people concentrate on. They are similar to those you find in electronic discovery. Kraft and Enholm mention these other benefits: “GCs that effectively adopt these tools can conserve legal resources and time — and contribute to the competitiveness of the company.”
I’ve seen the benefits of document assembly coming in not just efficiency, but standardization, quality control, consistency, training, and effective use of learning from previous deals and documents. In fact, I’ve sometime described document assembly software as a tool for applied knowledge management. As you think in terms of CLCM, you will start to see the role that document assembly might play in the process.
Kraft and Enholm go on to say, “‘Contract process software’ is perhaps an apt label for the products that bridge document assembly and contract management.”
In 2005, Cisco’s NDA Central project (demo and white paper accessible from DealBuilder here (free registration required) has deservedly garnered a lot of attention. NDA Central took an undisciplined method of handling simple legal projects and used document assembly as a tool not just to create legal documents, but to manage and improve a business process with positive business results to the company and improved workflow and higher-value work for the legal department and outside counsel.
Again, Kraft and Enholm, “GCs want help from outside counsel to establish processes and protocols, help draft underlying documents and maintain the systems in our ever-changing legal environment.” Here’s the key to CLCM and the new approaches to using technology in the practice of law starting to be known as Law 2.0 – there are clear benefits to both clients and lawyers. Often, it allows the lawyer to do higher-level work, often the type that the client really wishes the lawyer had more time to do.
Kraft and Enholm provide an excellent, brief introduction to an area that could become as significant to transactional corporate lawyers as electronic discovery is to litigation lawyers. The rest of their article is well worth your while to read as well.
What do I think of the interplay of CLCM and document assembly and the potential that it has? Let’s put it this way, if I spent the whole of 2006 working only on these types of projects, 2006 would be a great year indeed. This is one topic you’ll being hearing more about from me in 2006.
Technorati tags:
[Originally posted on DennisKennedy.Blog (]
This post brought to you by Dennis Kennedy’s legal technology consulting services, featuring RSS and blogging consulting, technology audit, strategic planning and technology committee coaching packages especially for medium-sized law firms (15 – 100 lawyers) and corporate legal departments.