Connie Brenton, NetApp
David Cunningham, Winston & Strawn LLP
Jeffrey H. Franke, Yahoo, Inc.
Gregory Kaple, Kaiser Permanente
Jeff Schwarz, Polsinelli PC
SHARING PRACTICE METRICS FOR
LAW FIRMS AND LEGAL
DEPARTMENTS, NOW AND IN 2020
Tuesday, September 1
1:30 – 2:30 p.m.
IN SEPARATE WORLDS
Efficiency vs. Profitability
Law Departments Law Firms
MIRROR IMAGES
Efficiency = Profitability
LEGAL ECOSYSTEM
• Different People at the Table
– CIO
– CFO
– CMO
TIPPING POINT
• The tipping point is the critical point in an
evolving situation that leads to a new and
irreversible development.
Law Department Law Firm
1 Total Internal & External Spend 1 Matter Budget
2 Spend vs. Budget 2 Profitability
3 Staffing / Resource Utilization 3 Billable Hours / Utilization
4 Vendor Performance 4 Peer Benchmarking
5 Savings 5 Performance Quality / Client Results
6 Matter Time to Completion 6 Client Satisfaction
7 Performance Quality 7 Firm Citizenship
8 Training
WHAT WE’RE MEASURING
USE OF ANALYTICS
Law Department Law Firm
1 Understanding spend to minimize
spend (opportunities to save)
1 Understanding partner / firm
performance
2 Benchmarking against industry
rates
2 Benchmarking against industry rates
3 Increase efficiencies 3 Increasing confidence and accuracy
of budgets
WHAT’S ON THE HORIZON
• Napa Conference – Standards for
the industry
• CLOC
• CIO-CLOC
WHAT WE MEASURE
IN-HOUSE DEPARTMENT METRICS
Total Dept and
Practice Area
Spend
Billed Hours,
Fixed Fees,
Staffing Ratios
E-Discovery
Review
Efficiency &
Analytics
Spend by Firm
Vendor or
Service Provider
Performance
Industry
Benchmarks
LAW FIRM METRICS
Matter Budget
Partner
Performance
Client Feedback
Client Wins
Industry
Benchmarks
EVOLUTION OF ANALYTICS
• More and Better Data
• Getting data clean
• Leveraging Technology (Sky, Lex Machina, etc.)
• New Technologies
• Leveraging Analytics Providers and Consultants
• New Audiences (GC, CFO, CEO, COO, Internal Biz Clients etc.)
KPI & DASHBOARDS & QBR
DELIVERING THE MESSAGE
• Dashboards
• QBR’s
• Operations Reviews
• Performance Reviews
• Budget Proposals and Reviews
• Vendor Selection
DASHBOARD METRIC CATEGORIES
Legal Spend
Contract Management
Training
Instant NDA
Electronic Signatures
Department Metrics
(Headcount, Pro Bono, etc.)
LAW FIRM PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
Quantitative Portfolio Analysis
Category Performance Details Score
Staffing Models
• Partner, associates, paralegal mix
2
Staffing Efficiency
• Timekeepers per matter
• Right-sourcing 1
Fees/Costs • Hourly and fixed fees 5
Billing Compliance • Adherence to billing guidelines 3
Qualitative Analysis (27 Respondents)
Category Attorneys & Engineers
Subject Matter Expertise 3.5
Business Alignment 4
Responsiveness/ Accessibility 3.5
Project Management 4
Creativity 2.5
Budgeting Accuracy 3.5
Proactive Execution 3
Communication 1
Partnership/ Trustworthiness 3
Quality and Presentation 3
Results/ Outcomes 3.5
Response Score
Strongly Disagree 1.0
Disagree 2.0
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
3.0
Agree 4.0
Strongly Agree 5.0
SPEND DASHBOARD
KPI DASHBOARD
MATTER BUDGETING
MATTER ACTIVITY DASHBOARD
THANK YOU

Iltacon cio corporate legal operations consortium (cloc) metrics aug 2015

  • 1.
    Connie Brenton, NetApp DavidCunningham, Winston & Strawn LLP Jeffrey H. Franke, Yahoo, Inc. Gregory Kaple, Kaiser Permanente Jeff Schwarz, Polsinelli PC SHARING PRACTICE METRICS FOR LAW FIRMS AND LEGAL DEPARTMENTS, NOW AND IN 2020 Tuesday, September 1 1:30 – 2:30 p.m.
  • 2.
    IN SEPARATE WORLDS Efficiencyvs. Profitability Law Departments Law Firms
  • 3.
  • 4.
    LEGAL ECOSYSTEM • DifferentPeople at the Table – CIO – CFO – CMO
  • 5.
    TIPPING POINT • Thetipping point is the critical point in an evolving situation that leads to a new and irreversible development.
  • 6.
    Law Department LawFirm 1 Total Internal & External Spend 1 Matter Budget 2 Spend vs. Budget 2 Profitability 3 Staffing / Resource Utilization 3 Billable Hours / Utilization 4 Vendor Performance 4 Peer Benchmarking 5 Savings 5 Performance Quality / Client Results 6 Matter Time to Completion 6 Client Satisfaction 7 Performance Quality 7 Firm Citizenship 8 Training WHAT WE’RE MEASURING
  • 7.
    USE OF ANALYTICS LawDepartment Law Firm 1 Understanding spend to minimize spend (opportunities to save) 1 Understanding partner / firm performance 2 Benchmarking against industry rates 2 Benchmarking against industry rates 3 Increase efficiencies 3 Increasing confidence and accuracy of budgets
  • 8.
    WHAT’S ON THEHORIZON • Napa Conference – Standards for the industry • CLOC • CIO-CLOC
  • 9.
  • 10.
    IN-HOUSE DEPARTMENT METRICS TotalDept and Practice Area Spend Billed Hours, Fixed Fees, Staffing Ratios E-Discovery Review Efficiency & Analytics Spend by Firm Vendor or Service Provider Performance Industry Benchmarks
  • 11.
    LAW FIRM METRICS MatterBudget Partner Performance Client Feedback Client Wins Industry Benchmarks
  • 12.
    EVOLUTION OF ANALYTICS •More and Better Data • Getting data clean • Leveraging Technology (Sky, Lex Machina, etc.) • New Technologies • Leveraging Analytics Providers and Consultants • New Audiences (GC, CFO, CEO, COO, Internal Biz Clients etc.)
  • 13.
  • 14.
    DELIVERING THE MESSAGE •Dashboards • QBR’s • Operations Reviews • Performance Reviews • Budget Proposals and Reviews • Vendor Selection
  • 15.
    DASHBOARD METRIC CATEGORIES LegalSpend Contract Management Training Instant NDA Electronic Signatures Department Metrics (Headcount, Pro Bono, etc.)
  • 16.
    LAW FIRM PERFORMANCESUMMARY Quantitative Portfolio Analysis Category Performance Details Score Staffing Models • Partner, associates, paralegal mix 2 Staffing Efficiency • Timekeepers per matter • Right-sourcing 1 Fees/Costs • Hourly and fixed fees 5 Billing Compliance • Adherence to billing guidelines 3 Qualitative Analysis (27 Respondents) Category Attorneys & Engineers Subject Matter Expertise 3.5 Business Alignment 4 Responsiveness/ Accessibility 3.5 Project Management 4 Creativity 2.5 Budgeting Accuracy 3.5 Proactive Execution 3 Communication 1 Partnership/ Trustworthiness 3 Quality and Presentation 3 Results/ Outcomes 3.5 Response Score Strongly Disagree 1.0 Disagree 2.0 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3.0 Agree 4.0 Strongly Agree 5.0
  • 17.
  • 18.
  • 19.
  • 20.
  • 21.