Year: 2019

Legal Department Operations Survey 2019 Results are Out

Onit is once again a sponsor of the Legal Department Operations (LDO) Survey. In its 12th year, this survey is the leading barometer for trends in legal operations. Onit Founder & CEO, Eric M. Elfman, contributed an article to the survey results package. Please read that article below and download the full survey results here.

Driving Disruption in the Legal Department: Legal Ops and Technology Lead the Way
By Eric Elfman

Legal operations is all about optimizing the legal department’s ability to grow and protect the company it serves. As such, legal departments are seeking a higher level of operational excellence. This is evidenced by their embrace of innovation, increased demand for automation of repetitive tasks and a workflow-centric approach and understanding of how to use technology to create operational wins.

Driving efficiencies and containing costs are two key reasons that legal operations is important and is growing so quickly. Legal departments were forced to adopt a more operationally focused mindset as a result of the Great Recession. The 2008 downturn was so severe, and efficiency and cost-cutting were considered so critical to the survival of the business at large, that it was no longer acceptable to spend freely. Since then, C-suites have increasingly been making their law departments behave more like other business units. This ultimately led to the rise of a profession dedicated to bringing business discipline to the law department: legal operations.

Legal department operations professionals (LDOs) handle the management of vendors, systems, strategic planning, technology, knowledge, financial issues and the myriad other tasks that plague the legal department. Legal operations are all about optimizing the legal department’s ability to support the business and is a multi-disciplinary function that optimizes legal services delivery by focusing on twelve core competencies. The competencies, developed by CLOC, are divided among three levels: foundational, advanced and mature.

Cost control and cost management have always been among the legal department’s greatest challenges. Economic downturns in recent decades served to exacerbate the “do less with more” mindset. In order to meet these intensifying challenges, many departments began increasing the workload of existing resources or bringing on more in-house lawyers. Others have built and started executing technology roadmaps. Technology has been optimizing legal operations in several key areas. Workflow and automation of processes deserve a spot at the top of the list. Data analytics is also important, as analytics can demonstrate the value of technology in the department and the value of the legal department to the business. Technology is assisting with the competitive bidding process on certain types of cases. Automating many routine tasks can shave hours off any busy schedule. Collaboration using  technology gives a whole new meaning to “working together.”

Today’s state-of-the-art technology allows all stakeholders from anywhere in the world – including legal departments, other service providers, and members of the corporation’s accounting team and business units – to be on a single platform. Technology will increasingly play a prominent role, as more LDOs are discovering they can better fulfill their mission by leveraging well-chosen technology solutions to automate processes, track legal spend and deliver key decision-ready information. The increasingly robust alliance of legal ops and technology is now helping to forge the future of legal operations in amazing ways we could never have imagined a decade ago. Onit purpose-built our technology platform to help drive this alliance and enables customers to execute their technology roadmaps over time.

Interested? Request a demo now!

LegalOps Highlight: News, Trends and Legal Technology Vol. 5

The LegalOps Highlight is a bi-weekly blog series that features relevant news, market trends and legal technology updates from the legal ecosystem. The content is curated from legal and business trade publications, consulting and analyst firms, and Onit | SimpleLegal partners, customers and subject matter experts. Be sure to subscribe and follow Onit and #LegalOpsHighlight on LinkedIn and Twitter for updates!

Highlights


Enthusiasm Gap Persists Between Law Firms and In-House CounselLaw.com: Enthusiasm Gap Persists Between Law Firms and In-House Counsel
While law firms are reminiscing about a year of increased demand during this bonus season, corporate legal department numbers show they are looking toward a future recession and having to cut spending back. Even though law department spend is a concern even outside of the prospect of hard times on the horizon, only 40% of law departments responded to an Altman Weil survey saying they increased their budgets, with 38% of departments saying they’ve cut their budgets in the past year (up from 27%). Despite 2019 being a demanding year for law firms and corporate legal departments, Gretta Rusanow of Citi Private Bank’s Law Firm Group mentions that legal matters will still need to be attended to regardless of how departments and firms configure their budgets.



The Insider Guide To What In-House Lawyers WantAbove the Law: The Insider Guide To What In-House Lawyers Want
As we have mentioned in this blog series before, legal matters are becoming more business-centric and corporate legal departments are increasingly selecting solutions and ALSPs based on how much they fit in with their business’ needs. This Above the Law column says that in-house lawyers don’t just want a service provider that can do the work but want a more full-blown partnership that act on their client’s needs rather than reacting to them. It also asserts that this type of partnership ends up being mutually beneficial as the work providers might be doing could open up whole new revenue streams from previously unknown capabilities. We couldn’t agree more!



In-House Counsel Say They Have Higher Workloads Than Last YearLaw.com: In-House Counsel Say They Have Higher Workloads Than Last Year
According to a report released by alternative legal services provider Konexo, 63% of in-house lawyers report feeling more stressed about their workloads than they did last year, with common pressures being costs, lack of resources and team culture. Even though legal technology has been helping law departments work more efficiently, respondents also cited issues with technology onboarding and the need for them to serve as business partners within their companies. It probably won’t come as a surprise that respondents recommended more holistic approaches than the use of point solutions to make departments more efficient and better equipped for their growing demands. Again, we couldn’t agree more!



Permanent Verification — The Best Blockchain Use Case for LawyersBloomberg Law: Permanent Verification — The Best Blockchain Use Case for Lawyers
We’ve been hearing about blockchain technology and the hype around it since the Bitcoin boom a couple of years ago, but it would be unwise to completely dismiss blockchain as a hype machine without addressing how it can be used for legal contract management. This article says that because blockchain ledgers are especially strong at maintaining authentication the technology has great applications for contract management software and allows lawyers to spend less time on clerical aspects of their contracts. This article contends that as data gets more valuable, blockchain has proven itself to be especially useful for legal records management, and blockchain contract management solutions should definitely be on every lawyer’s radar in the years to come. See what you think!



Penn Law Keeps Its Name — For NowLaw.com: ‘Penn Law’ Keeps Its Name — For Now
In an earlier edition of the LegalOps Highlight Blog, we shared an article about how Penn Law students voiced concerns over the swift change in name to Carey Law. Since then, University of Pennsylvania’s law school has agreed to gradually rebrand to Penn Carey Law by 2022 in efforts to recognize the recent large contribution by the W.P. Carey Foundation. This return from the earlier name change shows that the school’s administration has listened to the hundreds of student and alumni voices and recognizes the prestige of Penn Law.



California’s New Data Privacy Law Bring U.S. closer to GDPRTechCrunch: California’s New Data Privacy Law Bring U.S. closer to GDPR
We’ve been covering the CCPA for a little while now because of its implications on data collection and management. It’s also important to note that the CCPA has different language on what it considers personal information under the law, and the writing also shows what companies could be fined for violations. The new law (and others being proposed by other states) shows that the US is on its way to meeting the standard of privacy legislation set by GDPR and gives lawyers an idea of the information management matters they may have coming to them.

Webinar Recap: Mastering Rate Card Season with Analytics

Bodhala hosted its first live webinar on Dec. 10, 2019

Presented by Bodhala team members across Client Success, Marketing, and Product, legal leaders from around the world joined the live webinar. The webinar covered two hot-button topics: using big data analytics to uncover best practices and pitfalls to avoid when negotiating annual rate card increases with outside counsel. We highlight many of those pitfalls in our two new white papers, The Hidden Staircase and The End Of Excel Hell.

The webinar recording and presentation slides are now available here.

“Big data analytics are revolutionizing how corporate legal departments negotiate with their panel law firms, and we’re glad to share how in this webinar,” said Bodhala SVP & Head of Client Success, John Maloney. “One of the most irritating pain points for our clients is the yearly dread that comes with annual rate negotiations. Bodhala’s free and new rate card RFP platform alleviates that pain by leveraging machine learning to surface the best possible outcome for your legal department.”

Maloney explained that the webinar stemmed from seeing countless clients struggle to negotiate annual rates with panel firms, a process fraught with confusing concepts. Recognizing this universal challenge, Bodhala developed a learning series on RFP rate card negotiation, starting with what we call the “Hidden Staircase” of law firm rates.

Still, several barriers exist to getting the best possible rate, and most of them cannot be easily overcome by legal department staff. Bodhala created a whitepaper to help professionals apply our best practices for rate negotiation and navigate out of “Excel Hell.”

Bodhala’s powerful big data analytics are designed to make these processes easier. Our platform streamlines all of your RFPs in one dashboard, giving your legal department an unparalleled, 360-degree view of past spending and unmatched projection ability for the future. 

“Today’s webinar was a huge success and very exciting for us as a business,” said Kyle Johnson, Head of Marketing. “Our unique ability to pull proprietary information out of the Bodhala platform and share it with our audience proved to resonate – as was shown through the lively conversation throughout the presentation.” 

Among the interesting questions and discussion points, here are three of the top takeaways from this discussion:

  1. On average, organizations allocate 75% of their outside counsel spend to seven firms. When focusing on your rate card RFP process this year, focus the bulk of the work on prioritizing your top seven firms.
  2. According to the audience polls, the majority of companies represented at the webinar did not use a formal rate card RFP process (only 30% did so). Of those that did use a formal process:
    • Over half spend somewhere between 40 – 60 hours per RFP.
    • The majority have 5 – 10 panel firms.
    • The group was split almost evenly between members of the Legal Ops and GC / AGC teams.
    • The average outside counsel spend falls into the $25m – $50m range.
  3. By leveraging Bodhala’s free rate card RFP platform, companies are expected to reduce the time they spend running rate cards by one-tenth (~5 hours) with better results. Those who add on Bodhala’s analytics platform are able to experience even more positive outcomes, keeping their annual spends in check and ensuring compliance by the law firm.

Bodhala is a groundbreaking legal technology platform created by lawyers to transform the half-a-trillion dollar global legal industry. Our platform refines organizational processes by empowering your legal team with deeper insights that allow you to better analyze, interpret, and optimize outside counsel spend, trailblazing a new era of legal market intelligence.

Navigating through confusing concepts like annual rate card RFP negotiations is just the beginning. For more information on how Bodhala can revolutionize your relationship with outside counsel, and how to optimize your legal spend, set up a demo today at https://www.bodhala.com/demo-bodhala.

Like what you’re seeing?

Shoot us an email at [email protected], and let’s talk about how to get started.

5 Common Challenges Facing Contract Lifecycle Management: How to Overcome Them

Businesses that implement a seamless contract lifecycle management (CLM) process compress their time to revenue, mitigate risks by having fewer contractual exceptions and increase customer satisfaction. But managing the lifecycle of a contract – from request and creation, review and approval, to execution and renewal — involves a lot of departments, and those departments often don’t have access to the same systems. But there are other hurdles to overcome, such as these five common contract lifecycle management challenges:

  1. Speed vs. Control
    The biggest source of friction in the contract lifecycle comes from the balancing act between speed and control. Because contracts are so critical, legal’s preference is to examine contracts in extreme detail. Sales often has a different interest, pressuring legal to get out of the way so deals can close faster. The main business challenge becomes moving contracts through quickly but with enough oversight to effectively manage company risk.
  2. Lack of Visibility
    Part of what exacerbates the speed vs. control dilemma for legal is a general lack of visibility into contract terms, obligations and value. If you can’t see it, you can’t control it. This becomes a major pain point because agreements outline the terms of the value exchanged, and if you can’t ensure you are getting the right value for your deals, money is slipping through your company’s fingers. Lack of visibility is an especially serious problem for expiring contracts and renewals.
  3. Inconsistent Legal Language
    It’s important to be consistent in the use of terms and language in your contracts. Gaps in standardized language can introduce risk or confusion. If you can’t determine if your contracts contain accurate language, or what is different between contracts, lawyers might have to get involved in every single deal. This is not only inefficient but also increases the risk of being non-compliant or leaving revenue on the table.
  4. Information Silos and Manual Processes
    Managing all of the necessary steps in your contract process is hard enough internally across several departments. The complexity of managing contracts increases exponentially when you have to manage contracts across several office locations, time zones or languages. The ability to have everything centrally located with changes tracked in real time becomes critical. Human error, bottlenecked contract cycles and limited process control can increase risk dramatically when contracts are managed manually. Automating contract management helps companies improve control and visibility and significantly shortens contract creation time.
  5. Inability to Manage Changes
    It’s important to have a mechanism for managing changes over time. You need to be up to speed on renewal dates, pricing changes, emerging legal requirements and other events that will require you to speak to your customer/vendor specifically about your contractual relationship. Your ability to manage the contract, particularly changes over time and the renewal process, will have a direct impact on your customer retention rate.

So what can we do to meet these contract lifecycle management challenges head-on and with limited resources? You guessed it: technology is the clear winner in this category. The profound impact of technology on CLM is gaining momentum globally as more companies are realizing its extensive benefits as a business value driver. These cloud-based solutions offer painless integration, user-friendly interfaces, increased workflow and reduced costs across the board. Collaboration in handling projects is becoming more prevalent and sought-after, and CLM software companies have responded in kind by injecting more collaborative functionality into their products, another benefit of the SaaS model.

The best CLM solutions offer an array of features and benefits to fit organizations of all sizes and needs. A contract lifecycle management solution should offer complete control and visibility of your customer contracts, in all stages from review to approval to execution to renewal. The best CLM solutions simplify the submission, review, approval and management of contracts in one easy to use tool. Team members should never have to search their inbox or hard drive for the latest version or keep an Excel spreadsheet to manage their contracts. Powerful business analytics and reporting engines are additional hallmarks of the best CLM solutions, and are crucial in helping team members with their reporting, configuring notifications and other tasks.

Another important consideration in the value of CLM is how high the cost of non-compliance with regulations can be, and CLM is well-prepared to assist with this. Efficiency and transparency in reporting is another much-welcomed feature of these solutions, as well as the ability to flag possible problematic contracts before they reach the execution stage. Collaboration is a key ingredient in any operation involving many people, and contract management is a good example. Oftentimes, solution providers miss the mark (or ignore it altogether) on collaboration ability in their software. The interaction of multiple stakeholders such as legal professionals, attorneys and accountants requires that the CLM solution enable and encourage collaboration from inside and outside of the organization. Team members are then able to leverage knowledge from one another, and in turn be more productive and conserve the amount of time spent on projects.

If you’d like to see a demo of Onit CLM, click here.

A Busy October and November for Onit

Onit has been quite busy the last couple of months (which is nothing new for us). Besides our daily mission of creating cutting-edge enterprise workflow solutions, here are a few other things we’ve been up to.

Onit and SimpleLegal Host a Webinar

Onit and SimpleLegal hosted a webinar, The Future of Legal Operations: Market Trends, Change Management and Predictions.  As a part of this webinar, legal industry leaders Eric M. Elfman, CEO of Onit, and Nathan Wenzel, CEO of SimpleLegal, and leading Legal, Risk and Compliance Analyst, Ryan O’Leary of IDC presented on the evolution and future of legal operations and discussed how chief legal officers and legal operations professionals are digitally transforming the industry with process efficiencies, technology and change management.

Strategic Alliance Between PERSUIT and Onit

Onit partnered with PERSUIT, a process automation platform for engaging outside legal counsel, following the launch of Onit’s Strategic Alliances Program. Read the Press Release

Onit Claims Position #249 on Deloitte’s Tech Fast 500

Onit again ranked on Deloitte’s Technology Fast 500™, a ranking of the 500 fastest growing technology, media, telecommunications, life sciences and energy tech companies in North America. Onit recorded growth of 441% percent during this period and came in at #249. Read the Press Release

Onit Moderates Session at Corporate Legal Ops Forum

Onit moderated a session titled Emerging Trends in Legal Operations at the Consero Corporate Legal Ops Forum in Florida. Panelists included legal operations professionals from Prudential, McDonald’s, Morgan Stanley, Bio-Rad Laboratories and Jabil Circuit. Read More

Strategic Alliance Between Duff & Phelps and Onit

Duff & Phelps has become Onit’s first Strategic Alliances partner with level 4 certified resources. A global advisor that protects, restores and maximizes value for clients, Duff & Phelps has 22 Onit-experienced resources, 16 of which are Onit certified. The Onit and Duff & Phelps relationship extends beyond the United States into EMEA, where they are one of Onit’s leading implementation partners. Read the Press Release

Strategic Alliances Program Launch

Onit unveiled its new Strategic Alliances Program. This program is Onit’s premier initiative to establish and support external alliances that promote growth and success for our clients and partners; the principles of which are strategy, transparency, accountability and rigor. This remarkable new program addresses the needs of not only Onit’s trusted partners, but of our clients as well. Read the Press Release

Onit CEO Eric M. Elfman Wins the Rice Business Alumni Award

Onit CEO Eric M. Elfman won the Rice Business Alumni Award. This prestigious honor was bestowed on just six individuals this year. Eric won in the category of Industry Excellence in Technology. Read More

Onit Participates in the ACC Annual Meeting

Onit participated in the ACC Annual Meeting in Phoenix, October 27 – 30th. There were opportunities to see demos of our solutions, and learn more about the recently launched Onit Contract Lifecycle Management product. Subscribe to the Blog for Alerts about Future Events

Onit Holds Second Customer Forum of 2019

This year’s second Onit Customer Forum was held November 5-7 in Houston. This is a bi-annual event designed to foster collaboration and learning among peers. Onit’s customer community is focused on sharing best practices and driving innovation. Attendees heard case studies from customers in a variety of industries and received the latest updates on product roadmaps and strategy. Request an invitation to the next forum by emailing [email protected]

 

Onit’s CEO Eric M. Elfman Wins Rice Business Alumni Award

We are excited to announce that Onit’s CEO and co-founder, Eric M. Elfman, has won the Rice Business Alumni Award! This prestigious honor was bestowed on just six individuals this year. Eric won in the category of Industry Excellence in Technology.

Eric’s award profile reads in part “His career shifted to a focus in technology and he founded DataCert, Inc., a spend management software and services company. Under his leadership, DataCert grew from a small, entrepreneurial organization to a leading provider of corporate legal technology. Eric also co-founded Onit, a legal project management software company that specializes in solutions that simplify business process automation and productivity. Over his career, Eric and his companies have been recipients of numerous high-profile awards and distinctions, such as the 2002 Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year for Emerging Technology, Four-time Inc. 500 Listing, and Multiple-year Inc. 5000 Listing. In addition, Eric currently serves as a member on the Rice Alliance for Technology & Entrepreneurship Advisory Board.”

Established by the Jones Graduate School Alumni Association (JGSAA), the Rice Business Alumni Awards annually recognize alumni for outstanding achievements in their professional fields and exemplary leadership. Recipients of these awards embody our four pillars of alumni engagement: community, philanthropy, volunteering and life-long learning. This means that when reviewing nominations, the selection committee took into special consideration those alumni who exemplify and consistently engage in supporting their communities through networking, philanthropy, volunteering and a demonstrated passion for learning.

Read more about Eric’s win.

CLM Management Software: Is Yours Driving Business Value?

The rising need to reduce, eliminate, or mitigate risks related to legality, financing, and procurement is driving the contract lifecycle management (CLM) market growth. Additionally, CLM software allows users to maintain documentation related to pricing, dates, and information regarding internal & external entities involved and signatories. The growing demand for a central repository for efficient contract lifecycle management software among enterprises across various sectors is proliferating CLM market growth. The profound impact of technology on how contracts are managed is gaining momentum globally as more companies are realizing its extensive benefits as a business value driver.

We need a CLM solution that goes far beyond the basic necessities. We need a solution that offers a number of ways to drive business value. CLM should help organizations maximize the value from their core contract assets. In our new white paper, A Roadmap to Evaluating Contract Lifecycle Management Technology, we offer some useful insights about:

  • CLM Market Trends
  • Sources of Business Value
  • Features and Benefits of the Best CLM Solutions

The market for best of breed contract lifecycle management solutions has grown significantly in recent years and all signs indicate that this momentum will only increase in magnitude in the near and long term. Companies now expect more than just the basics in a CLM solution; they want a system that not only handles all the workflows involved in contract management, but also a solution that drives business value. Learn how to identify the most important business value drivers to look for in a contract lifecycle management solution in our white paper.

Download our new white paper, A Roadmap to Evaluating Contract Lifecycle Management Technology.

Bodhala Rate Card Negotiation Series- Part 2: Escape Excel Hell This Rate Card Season

At this point, you have lined up your annual rate card notices from your panel law firms. Now it’s time to make sense of what’s there and make it work in your favor.

As we discussed in the first part of this series on RFP rate negotiations, every year, clients face complex rate schedules with budget implications that are often unclear. Starting from the street rates down to relationship discounts and write-offs, we call this process for arriving at a final yearly rate the “Hidden Staircase” of legal billing.

Even if you completely understand the Hidden Staircase, the entire process can quickly fall apart and cost you serious money if you can’t analyze the rate cards to ensure you’re getting the most bang for your buck.

And let’s face it: human analysis falls short when you’re seeking an apples-to-apples, market-based approach to the responses you receive. Even getting the data itself causes confusion – some numbers live in multiple Excel files, some arrive via PDF, and others are sent in the body of an email to one colleague, but not another. It’s a mess for legal operations to handle, but that’s where Bodhala can help. With our proprietary Rate Card RFP platform, your team can quickly collect and organize all rate cards in one place. We collect the data in minutes, giving you transparency on your past spend and the visibility to compare the rates of your panel firms. It’s the best way to ensure you’re getting market value for services.

To fully understand the rate responses from your firms, you must consider the factors that can affect your company’s spend throughout a given year:

  • Practice areas – For any business, the mix of work is an important variable in understanding the impact of rate card increases. An M&A increase may have a disproportionate impact on the budget of a PE firm compared to a litigation increase – and vice versa for an insurance carrier.
  • Matter complexity – Which of your corporate matters are seen as routine, like drafting a tech licensing agreement, versus more complex M&A?
  • Timekeepers used – Are partners and associates being matched to their appropriate skill level or seniority across firms?

These factors are the biggest drivers of rate fluctuation. They disproportionately cause billing spikes as the year moves forward.

Historically, in-house legal teams have tried to analyze these factors on their own, losing hundreds of hours of staff time, causing headaches galore, and suffering from diminished eyesight due to countless hours staring at Excel sheet after Excel sheet.

At this point, negotiation is nearly impossible if a company is not empowered by a data-backed solution. Forward-thinking general counsels focused on corporate and legal innovation capable of meeting challenges in the market, recognize the need for a shift in the process. They understand the importance of using analytics to make reviewing rate card RFPs more efficient and to enable running accurate simulations against historical spend.

Spreadsheets and PDFs have clear and immediate limitations. When you consider the resources required to have just one staff person assigned to this endeavor plus one salaried employee – it becomes clear that the cost impacts can be alleviated with data analytics.

TAKING STEPS TOWARD TRANSPARENCY

If your team is still stuck in Excel Hell this rate card season, don’t worry, there is still light at the end of the tunnel. We’ve compiled a set of guidelines to help you understand what you need to look out for when you and your staff review law firm rate responses: 

  • Practice area consumption
  • Timekeeper consumption
  • Rate changes
  • Normalizing partner & associate definitions
  • Partner & associate matriculation
  • Discount normalization
  • “Special” volume-based discounts

PRACTICE AREA CONSUMPTION

  • Understanding the rate changes in the context of consumption of practice areas from previous years
    • Rate cards (within a firm and across comparable firms in the space) need to be applied to the volume of expected services (M&A, litigation, funds, broken deals, etc.) to understand the impact of law firm proposals.
    • In order to determine the volume expected, review the historical spend from previous years. Do you plan on this remaining consistent? Can you model known changes?

WANT TO KEEP LEARNING?

Download our free white paper to understand the rest of our data-backed and time-tested guidelines for understanding your RFP responses. You’ll also see a real-life example where our data saved a global bank millions on their rate negotiations.

Download The Full Guide

Shoot us an email at [email protected], and let’s talk about how to get started.

DIE GESCHICHTE DES LEGAL E-BILLINGS – TEIL 1: FRÜHE TREIBER UND HINDERNISSE 

Obwohl es sich keineswegs um neue Technologie handelt, hat sich in der Welt der elektronischen Rechnungsstellung (oder e-Billing) in der Rechtsbranche in den letzten 10 bis 20 Jahren viel getan. Die Pioniere auf dem e-Billing-Markt waren Anbieter, die im Auftrag von Unternehmensjuristen arbeiteten. In den späten 1990er Jahren waren es vor allem Investmentbanken und Versicherungsgesellschaften mit Hauptsitz in den USA, die in Europa Legal e-Billing Software einsetzten. Bald darauf wanderte der Markt nach Europa über, wenn auch auf Betreiben von US-Unternehmen. Im Folgenden werden wir die Geschichte des Legal e-Billings näher beleuchten und auf die frühen Treiber und Hindernisse für die Einführung eingehen.  

Die frühen Treiber des e-Billing-Marktes sind auch heute noch relevant. Verschiedene Unternehmen und Jurisdiktionen befinden sich einfach in verschiedenen Stadien ihrer e-Billing-Reife. Die sogenannten „Early Adopters“ sind es, die die Entwicklungen in der Branche vorantreiben, um einen Mehrwert aus ihren Kanzleibeziehungen ziehen zu können. Diejenigen, die noch am Anfang ihrer Entwicklung stehen, werden feststellen, dass diese frühen Treiber für sie derzeit von Bedeutung sind. In den Anfängen der e-Billing-Software in den USA hatten die internen Rechtsteams damit begonnen, ihre Rechnungen formell zu überprüfen und Abrechnungsrichtlinien und -regeln für ihre Anwaltskanzleien festzulegen, die diese einzuhalten haben. 

Ein Branchenexperte meinte damals: „Die Überprüfung der Rechnungen von Anwaltskanzleien sollte eine Vielzahl von Vorteilen bieten, einschließlich der Identifizierung von Firmen mit hohen Rechnungen im Vergleich zu anderen Beauftragten  oder normalen Branchenstandards, der Aufnahme von Gesprächen mit externen Firmen zur Verbesserung der Abrechnungspraktiken und zur Erreichung von Rabatten oder besseren Tarifen, sowie der Bewertung konkurrierender Anwaltskanzleien zu Zwecken der Bindung und Auswahl.“ 

BEISPIELE FÜR ABRECHNUNGSPROBLEME BEI RECHNUNGSPRÜFUNG SIND: 

  • Nichteinhaltung der Abrechnungsregeln/ Richtlinien für die Rechnungsstellung 
  • Überschreitung des Kostenvoranschlags oder des Budgets ohne Genehmigung 
  • Doppelte Zeitabrechnungen und Abrechnung unzulässiger Auslagen 
  • Unzureichende Delegation von Arbeit, z. B. Aufgaben, die von überqualifizierten Honorarkräften ausgeführt werden oder übermäßige Kontrolle 
  • Schlechte Abrechnungsverfahren, z.B. übermäßige Bündelung von Aufgaben 
  • Vage Rechnungsbeschreibungen, z. B. „Überprüfung von Dokumenten“. 

Der stark händisch geprägte Prozess der Rechnungsprüfung wurde daher in Standards und Software umgewandelt, die die Kanzleien dazu verpflichteten, ihren Mandanten die Rechnungsdaten in elektronischer Form über ein System eines Drittanbieters zu übermitteln. Dies gab dem internen Anwalt die Möglichkeit, die Rechnungsdaten zu analysieren und geeignete Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, die in der Regel auf die Einsparung externer Kosten abzielten. 

Aus einigen frühen Studien in den USA ging hervor, dass dies durchaus möglich war. So sagte Suzanne Hawkins, ehemalige Senior Counsel von General Electric (GE), dass Legal e-Billing dem Unternehmen im ersten Jahr der Nutzung über eine Million US-Dollar an Rechtskosten erspart habe und dass jede interne Rechtsabteilung in der Lage sein sollte, mehr als 15 % ihrer Kosten einzusparen, indem sie falsch berechnete Auslagen und unzulässige Zeiteinträge erkennt. Kevin Harrang, stellvertretender General Counsel bei Microsoft, meinte ebenfalls, dass Legal e-Billing Microsoft geholfen habe, die Ausgaben für die Rechtsabteilung jährlich um zwei Millionen US-Dollar zu senken. PLC‘s General Counsel-Umfrage aus dem Jahr 2007 ergab, dass 10 von 15 Rechtsabteilungen angaben, ihre Investitionen in e-Billing innerhalb der ersten 12 Monate nach Einführung wieder amortisiert zu haben. Durch die Fähigkeit der Kosteneinsparung, ist der ROI der Legal e-Billing-Software bis heute sehr einfach nachzuweisen. 

Der ursprüngliche Grund für die Einführung der elektronischen Rechnungsstellung und eines formellen Verfahrens zur Überprüfung der Rechnungen war zweifellos die Verwaltung der Ausgaben für Rechtsberatung (oder Legal Spend Management). Die Erfahrungen in den USA haben jedoch gezeigt, dass die verbesserte Qualität der Daten und damit die Möglichkeit, den Legal Spend in allen Kanzleien zu analysieren, eine wesentlich fundiertere Diskussion mit externen Beratern ermöglichte. Das Ergebnis war nicht nur ein verbessertes Ausgabenmanagement, sondern auch ein besseres Dienstleister-Management im Allgemeinen und ein besseres Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis. 

Vor diesem Hintergrund wurden in der Branche zunehmend Forderungen nach e-Billing für europäische Anwaltskanzleien laut. Während Legal Spend Management nur eine untergeordnete Rolle spielte – Rechtsberatung wurde in Europa nicht so sehr als Handelsware angesehen wie in den USA – sahen viele Rechtsabteilungen europäischer Unternehmen in der e-Billing-Software eine Möglichkeit, ihre juristischen Teams weiterzuentwickeln und eine strategischere Beziehung zu ihren externen Beratern aufzubauen. 

Die Software war in den USA bereits seit Ende der 1990er Jahre etabliert, die Legal e-Billing Geschichte auf dem britischen Rechtsmarkt aber begann erst ab etwa 2003. 

In den frühen 2000er Jahren bedeutete die Aufforderung eines Mandanten, die elektronische Rechnungsstellung zu nutzen, für viele britische Anwaltskanzleien einfach, eine PDF-Kopie einer Papierrechnung als E-Mail-Anhang zu versenden. Diejenigen, die über internationale Niederlassungen verfügten, konnten auf die Erfahrungen ihrer Kollegen „jenseits des großen Teichs“ zurückgreifen, um sich Rat und Anleitung zu holen, was es mit diesem neuen Geschäftsprozess auf sich hatte. 

Die Realität sah so aus, dass nur sehr wenige Anwaltskanzleien im Vereinigten Königreich über Zeit- und Abrechnungssysteme verfügten, die e-Billing unterstützen konnten, und dass viel manuelle Arbeit erforderlich war, um eine Datei zu erstellen, die für die Systeme der e-Billing-Anbieter akzeptabel war. Das Dateiformat LEDES 1998B war in den USA weit verbreitet, bot jedoch nicht die für eine erfolgreiche elektronische Rechnungsstellung in Europa erforderlichen Funktionen. So gab es beispielsweise keine Unterstützung für die Mehrwertsteuerabrechnung, die Rechnungsstellung in mehreren Währungen oder für Transaktionen mit unterschiedlichen Rechtsordnungen. 

Eine Gruppe von Anwaltskanzleien und Unternehmensberatern – hauptsächlich aus dem Vereinigten Königreich – beschloss, zusammenzuarbeiten und ein modifiziertes LEDES-Format zu entwickeln, um diese Mängel zu beheben. Diese LITIG-Organisation (Legal IT Innovators Group) war federführend bei der Entwicklung des (internationalen) LEDES-Standards 1998Bi, der inzwischen weithin übernommen wurde. 

Selbst nachdem das geänderte LEDES-Format den Anforderungen der internationalen Rechnungsstellung entsprach und somit die Arbeit für die Anwaltskanzleien schneller und weniger manuell machte, herrschte in Europa große Skepsis gegenüber der elektronischen Rechnungstellung. 

Auch wenn eine Rechtsabteilung in einem Unternehmen beschloss, die Vorteile einer Software für die Verwaltung von Rechtskosten zu nutzen und die Zustimmung der Geschäftsleitung, das Budget und die Ressourcen für die Umsetzung erreicht hatte, konnte es immer noch auf große Hindernisse stoßen. Selbst die entschlossensten Mitarbeiter sahen sich mit enormen Hürden konfrontiert, die eine vollständige Einführung von e-Billing verhinderten. Dies führte zu zahlreichen gescheiterten e-Billing Projekten in Europa. 

Im Jahr 2007 äußerte sich Caroline Poynton, Redakteurin der Zeitschrift FD Legal, pessimistisch: „Es gibt viel Negativität in Bezug auf e-Billing-Systeme im Vereinigten Königreich; ein Teil davon wird durch die Erfahrungen in den USA begründet, der Rest liegt in der Unklarheit darüber, wie sich dies auf dem britischen Markt reibungslos etablieren lässt, ohne viel Zeit und Geld zu kosten. Tatsache ist jedoch, dass Legal e-Billing aufgrund der enormen potenziellen Vorteile, insbesondere für große Unternehmen, wohl nicht verschwinden wird. Langfristig müssen die Unternehmen den Wandel annehmen und bereit sein, die notwendigen Investitionen in Zeit und Ressourcen zu tätigen, damit e-Billing funktioniert, wenn sie ihre Kunden behalten und ihre Entwicklung vorantreiben wollen.“ 

Eine solche Unklarheit, auf die Poynton hinwies, war die Frage, wie man die stark regulierte Struktur des europäischen Rechtswesens automatisieren kann, insbesondere die Regeln, die für die Erstellung von Rechnungen gelten. Dieses Maß an Regulierung für juristische Rechnungen gibt es in den USA nämlich nicht. 

Einer der größten Hindernisse in der Legal e-Billing Geschichte im Vereinigten Königreich war die Tatsache, dass nach der damals geltenden Gesetzgebung (Solicitors Act 1974 Section 69) jede an den Mandanten gesandte Rechnung mit einem von einem Partner unterzeichneten Schreiben zugestellt werden musste, damit gegebenenfalls die Anwaltskanzlei einen Kunden wegen Nichtzahlung der Gebühren verklagen konnte. Dies änderte sich im März 2008, als die Commencement Order No. 1 als Teil des Legal Services Act in Kraft trat, die das Erfordernis der Übersendung von Rechnungen auf diese Weise aufhob und damit den Weg für echte elektronische Rechnungen in England und Wales frei machte. 

Daneben mussten noch weitere gesetzliche sowie regulatorische Anforderungen wie z. B. Steuervorschriften berücksichtigt werden. Wiederum am Beispiel des Vereinigten Königreichs zeigt sich, dass viele Firmen sowohl eine gesetzliche Rechnung als auch eine separate Steuerrechnung erstellen. Wenn die elektronische Rechnung beide Dokumente abbilden sollte, mussten diese rechtlichen und regulatorischen Aspekte berücksichtigt werden. Die Kanzleien mussten sicherstellen, dass ihre elektronischen Rechnungen und andere an die Mandanten gesendeten Informationen sowie die e-Billing-Systeme u. a. den Anforderungen der Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), der HM Revenue & Customs, den Datenschutzgesetzen, dem Business Names Act und den EU-Rechnungsstellungsvorschriften entsprachen. Die Kanzleien mussten auch sicherstellen, dass das intermediäre e-Billing-System diese Fragen korrekt behandelt und dass die elektronische Rechnung, die der Mandant sieht, allen einschlägigen Vorschriften entspricht. Da die meisten e-Billing-Anbieter zu dieser Zeit auf die USA spezialisiert waren, gab es viele Hindernisse zu überwinden. 

Als ob die Probleme mit der Regulierung und Gesetzgebung nicht schon genug wären, hatten die Unternehmen auch noch interne Probleme zu lösen. Diese Probleme verhinderten auch in den USA eine breite Einführung: 

  • FINANZIELLE HINDERNISSE 
    Finanzielle Hindernisse für Legal e-Billing waren weit verbreitet, insbesondere in kleineren Unternehmen. Die Einführung der Software war zeit-, ressourcen- und kostenintensiv, und diese Kosten blieben auch nach der Einführung bestehen. Zu den Kosten des Legal e-Billings gehörten die Einrichtung, die Lizenzen und die für e-Billing erforderlichen Ressourcen aus IT- und Verwaltungssicht. In Anwaltskanzleien konnte es zu einer Umstrukturierung der Rechnungsabteilung, einer Überarbeitung der Prozesse (für das Hochladen von Rechnungen und die Verwaltung von Rückfragen und Zurückweisungen) und sogar zu Investitionen in zusätzliche Systeme zur Unterstützung von e-Billing, wie z. B. Kanzlei-Management-Systeme, kommen, die Akten- und Zeiterfassungslisten erstellen können. 
  • FEHLENDE IT-RESSOURCEN 
    IT-Ressourcen waren ein Luxus, den sich die meisten Rechtsabteilungen nicht leisten konnten und die Einführung des e-Billings reihte sich in die Warteschlange für IT-Ressourcen zusammen mit dem Rest des Unternehmens. Interne Rechtsteams mussten häufig feststellen, dass ihr Projekt hinter dringendere Projekte der IT zurückgestellt wurde. Selbst nach der Implementierung benötigten On-Premise-Lösungen weiterhin IT-Unterstützung in Bezug auf Wartung, Integration, Störungsbehebung und Upgrades auf neue Versionen. 
  • FEHLENDES CHANGE-MANAGEMENT 
    Das Change-Management stellt auch heute noch ein Hindernis dar, war aber in der Zeit der Einführung des e-Billings stärker verbreitet. E-Billing veränderte die Art und Weise, wie Kanzleien ihren Mandanten Rechnungen stellten grundlegend und die Auswirkungen auf Teams, Infrastruktur und Prozesse waren enorm. Da die Vorgänge für den Firmenkunden sichtbar waren und Abrechnungsrichtlinien eingeführt wurden, mussten die Kanzleien in ihrer Zeiterfassung, ihren Berichten, als auch den Aufgaben- und Aktivitätscodes sehr genau sein. Diese Art der Dateneingabe war fremd, mühsam zu erlernen und in vielen Fällen äußerst manuell. Intern war es ebenfalls eine große Herausforderung, sicherzustellen, dass die Teams das System nicht „umgingen“, um ihre Vorgänge weiterhin auf die alte, manuelle Weise zu verwalten. Die Leiter der Rechtsabteilungen konnten sich nicht darauf verlassen, dass 100 % der Ausgaben das System korrekt durchliefen. 

Da viele dieser großen Hindernisse durch Gesetzesänderungen und Softwareentwicklungen überwunden wurden, haben in den letzten zehn Jahren der Legal e-Billing Geschichte immer mehr Rechtsabteilungen ihren Kanzleien den Einsatz von e-Billing vorgeschrieben, damit sie ihre Ausgaben besser verwalten, genaue Budgets aufstellen und strategische Entscheidungen über die Ressourcenverteilung treffen können. Teil 2 befasst sich mit den Veränderungen, die zu einer weit verbreiteten Einführung von e-Billing-Software geführt haben, und zeigt auf, wohin sich die Branche entwickeln wird. 

Aus dem englischen Original-Blog übersetzt.  

A History of Legal e-Billing — Part 1: Early Drivers and Barriers to Adoption

A lot has happened in the world of legal electronic invoicing (or legal e-billing) over the last two decades. The pioneers of the e-billing market were vendors working on behalf of in-house counsel; in the late 1990s, those using legal e-billing software in Europe were predominantly US head-quartered investment banks and insurance companies. This migrated over to Europe soon after, albeit driven by US companies.

In Part 1 of this story, we explore the history of legal e-billing in more detail, highlighting early drivers and barriers to adoption.

EARLY DRIVERS OF LEGAL E-BILLING IN THE USA

The early drivers of the e-billing market remain relevant today. Different companies and jurisdictions are simply at various stages of their e-billing maturity; the early adopters are driving the industry’s developments as they seek even more value from their law firm relationships. Those at the start of their journey will find that these early drivers resonate with them currently. In the early days of e-billing software in the US, in-house legal teams had begun to formally review their legal bills and had laid down billing guidelines and rules for their law firms.

MOST COMMON BILLING ISSUES DURING INVOICE REVIEW:

  • Failure to comply with client billing rules/guidelines
  • Exceeding estimate or budget without authorization
  • Duplicate time charges and the billing of disallowed expenses
  • Insufficient delegation of work, e.g., tasks performed by over-qualified fee earners and excessive supervision.
  • Poor billing procedures, e.g., excessive bundling of tasks
  • Vague invoice narrative, e.g., “document review”

The highly manual process of invoice review transposed into standards and software that required law firms to deliver billing information to their clients in electronic format using a third-party system. This gave the in-house lawyer the tools to analyze billing information and take appropriate action – usually related to saving external costs.

From some early case studies in the United States, this seemed possible. For example, Suzanne Hawkins, former senior counsel of General Electric (GE), said that e-billing saved the company over $1m in legal spend in its first year of use and that any in-house legal department should be able to save more than 15% of its costs by picking up incorrectly charged disbursements and unnecessary time entries. Likewise, Kevin Harrang, the deputy general counsel at Microsoft, said that e-billing helped Microsoft reduce legal costs by $2m annually. PLC’s General Counsel survey in 2007 showed that 10 out of 15 corporate legal departments claimed to have recovered their investment in e-billing within the first 12 months of operation. To this day, e-billing software remains one of the easier investments to prove ROI on due to its ability to save on the bottom line.

While there is no doubt that the initial motivator for e-billing and a formal bill review process was legal spend management, what is clear from the US experience is that the improved quality of data (and, with it, the ability to analyze legal spend across law firms) allowed a much more informed discussion to take place with outside counsel. The result improved spend management, vendor management in general, and value for money.

Against this backdrop, the industry began to see requests for e-billing sent to European law firms. While spend management was a minor driver – law in Europe was not perceived so much of a commodity as in the US – many European corporate legal departments saw e-billing software as an opportunity to refine their legal panels and build a more strategic relationship with their external advisors.

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF LEGAL E-BILLING

Legal e-billing software was well established in the US since the late 1990s, but it didn’t begin to impact the UK legal market until about 2003.

In the early 2000s, for many UK law firms, a request from a client to “do” e-billing meant sending a PDF copy of a paper invoice as an email attachment. Those of us in law firms engaged in the billing systems and processes had a big learning curve to undertake before we could even begin to address the actual systems and organizational changes that would be needed. Those with global offices could draw on their colleagues’ experience “across the pond” for some advice and guidance on what this new business process was all about.

The reality was that only a few law firms in the UK had time and billing systems that could support e-billing, and it required a lot of manual work to produce a file acceptable to the e-billing vendor systems. The LEDES 1998B file format was heavily used in the US but did not support the features required for successful e-billing in Europe. For example, there was no support for VAT accounting, multi-currency billing, or cross-jurisdictional transactions.

A group of law firms and corporate counsel – mainly based in the UK – decided to cooperate, and they designed and proposed a modified LEDES format to address these shortcomings. This LITIG (Legal IT Innovators Group) organization was the leader in developing what became the now widely adopted LEDES 1998Bi (international) standard.

LIFE AFTER LEDES 1998BI – ADDITIONAL BARRIERS TO LEGAL E-BILLING

Even after the modified LEDES format addressed international billing requirements and made the work faster and less manual for law firms, there was considerable European skepticism surrounding e-billing.

Even if a corporate legal team decided they wanted to obtain the benefits of legal spend management software and had achieved executive buy-in, budget, and resources to implement, they could still experience significant barriers. Even the most dedicated teams faced mammoth hurdles that prevented full e-billing implementation, resulting in numerous failed e-billing projects in Europe.

In 2007, Caroline Poynton, editor of FD Legal magazine, made this somewhat downbeat comment: “There is much negativity around e-billing systems in the UK; some of it borne out by US experiences, the rest stemming from logistical confusion as to how this can develop smoothly in the UK market without costing huge amounts of time and money. But the fact is that e-billing is unlikely to go away because of the huge potential benefits, particularly for large corporates. In the long-term, firms are going to have to embrace the change and be prepared to make the necessary investment in time and resources to make e-billing work if they want to retain such clients and progress.”

One such logistical confusion Poynton was referencing was how to automate the highly regulated nature of the European legal environment, mainly the rules that apply in the generation of legal bills. This level of regulation of legal invoices does not exist in the US.

One of the main obstacles to full e-billing in the UK was the fact that under the then-existing legislation (Solicitors Act 1974 Section 69), for a law firm to be able to sue a client for non-payment of fees, any bill sent to the client had to be “delivered under the cover of a letter signed by a partner in order for the law firm to be able to sue for costs.” In other words, so that law firms could remain covered in the event of non-paying clients, this Dickensian-sounding rule – redolent of quill pens and crusty lawyer’s offices – was a significant barrier to full legal e-billing. This all changed in March 2008 when Commencement Order No.1 came in place as part of the Legal Services Act, which removed the requirement for a legal bill to be sent in this way and cleared the way for real e-billing to happen in England and Wales.

It didn’t stop there, though, as further statutory/regulatory concerns, such as tax rules, needed consideration. Again, using the UK as an example, many firms produced a legal “bill” and a separate tax invoice. If the “e-bill” were to replicate both documents, these statutory and regulatory issues would have to be satisfied. Firms had to ensure that their e-bills and other information sent to clients and e-billing systems complied with, among others, the requirements of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), HM Revenue & Customs, Data Protection laws, the Business Names Act and EU billing regulations. Firms also had to ensure that the e-billing intermediary system handled these issues correctly and that the e-bill, as seen by the client, complied with all the appropriate regulations. With most e-billing vendors of the time being US-centric, there were many hurdles to overcome.

As if regulatory and legislative problems weren’t enough, organizations themselves had issues to resolve internally. Such issues prevented widespread adoption in the USA too:

  • Financial barriers to e-billing were common, particularly in smaller corporates and firms. An e-billing implementation was time, resource, and cost-heavy, and this cost continued beyond implementation. Costs of e-billing included setup, licenses, and the resources required to run e-billing from an IT and administrative perspective. Law firms may face billing department reshuffling, overhauling processes (uploading bills and managing queries and rejections), and even investment in other systems to support e-billing, such as practice management systems that could produce matter and timekeeper lists and time recording.
  • IT resources were a luxury not given to most legal departments. The e-billing implementation would join a queue for corporate IT resources and the rest of the business. In-house legal teams frequently found their project pushed back behind more pressing business technology projects. Even after implementation, on-premises solutions require ongoing IT support in maintenance, integrations, troubleshooting, and upgrades to new versions.
  • Change management continues to be a barrier even today but was more widespread when e-billing was new. E-billing fundamentally changed how firms billed clients, and the impact on teams, infrastructure, and processes was huge. As matters would be visible to the corporate client and billing guidelines put in place, it required law firms to be completely accurate with their timekeeping and narratives, right down to the task and activity codes. This data entry level was alien, a drain to learn, and in many cases, extremely manual. On the in-house side, ensuring teams didn’t “bypass” the system to continue managing their matters in the old, manual way was also a significant challenge, and legal leaders could not be confident 100% of the spend was passing through the system accurately.

With many of these vast logistical obstacles overcome by legislation changes and software developments, the last decade has seen more legal departments mandate their law firms to use e-billing so they can better manage to spend, budget accurately, and make strategic matter resourcing decisions. Part 2 explores the changes that have led to widespread adoption of e-billing software and identifies where the industry is headed.