2011 law department technology...

ILTA Survey January 2011

2011 Law Department Technology SurveyAnalysis and Results

http://www.iltanet.org

http://www.hgpresearch.com

www.iltanet.org www.hgpresearch.com2011 Law Department Survey2

Hyperion Research and ILTA are

pleased to report the results of the

2011 Law Department Technology

Survey. This biennial survey provides

useful benchmarking and trending

data for understanding the use of technology by

corporate law departments. Conducted in December

2010, the survey was open to all corporate law

departments, both ILTA members and non-members.

The objective of this survey is to gain insight

into the broad range of technologies that support

corporate law department operations. The survey

questionnaire includes baseline topics covered every

year to allow for comparisons and trending on a

year-over-year basis, as well as new topics addressing

emerging trends and technologies.

Note: Not all participants responded to all

questions and some questions allowed for multiple

responses. There may also be immaterial rounding

errors. Accordingly, survey results and analysis may not

add up to 100%.

2011 Law Department Technology Survey





www.hgpresearch.com www.iltanet.org 2011 Law Department Survey 3

SuRvey PARTiciPAnT DemogRAPhicSThe survey was open to any corporate law

department (public or private), nonprofit/charitable

organization, university or government legal office.

The survey was not open to law firms, software

or consulting vendors. We received a total of 54

qualified survey responses; approximately 70% of the

respondents are ILTA members.

Respondents were predominately based in the

United States (88%), with responses also from Canada,

Finland, India, Mexico and the United Kingdom.

Company size, based on revenue, was relatively

distributed across the ranges.

Respondents came from a broad cross section

of industries.

Law Department Peer GroupILTA’s Law Department Peer Group, which includes corporate, governmental, educational and judicial law

departments, connects IT professionals and legal staff in member organizations to facilitate educational

opportunities and networking events. The group strives to deliver educational programming, publications and

other member benefits on topics related to technology and support systems in a law department, including (but not

limited to): contract management; corporate ethics and compliance; risk management; managing outside counsel;

government relations; in-house litigation support; and many more. Its e-group (online community) facilitates

discussions relevant to both the technical and process-related needs of corporate members.



http://www.iltanet.org/MainMenuCategory/Members/PeerGroups/LawDepartment.aspx


oRgAnizATionAL STRucTuReRespondents were asked a series of questions about

their organization, staff size and the role of IT in their

law departments. With regard to IT leadership roles,

only 34% reported having a senior-level (director) legal

IT position; 63% of those have had the position for

5 years or more and 25% for 2 years or less. Legal IT

committees were reported from about one third of

respondents. Interestingly, there was no noticeable

relationship between having a director of legal IT

position and the use of a legal IT committee.

In terms of staff size, we asked about the number

of attorneys, paralegals and other support staff. As one

might anticipate, the staff size generally correlated to

the size of the organization.

50% of respondents reported that they have a

dedicated legal IT group, while the other 50% reported

that corporate IT provides IT support. For organizations

with 50 or more attorneys, 78% reported having a

dedicated legal IT group. 29% of organizations with less

than 50 attorneys reported having a dedicated legal IT

group, while 71% are supported by corporate IT.

STRATegic PLAnning In the area of planning, respondents were split down

the middle with 55% reporting that they do have

strategic plans and 45% reporting that they do not.

Only 16% reported that they have a dedicated

legal IT budget, 39% submit requests to the

corporate IT budget and 45% have a hybrid legal

department/corporate IT budget. When asked

about their legal IT budget for 2011, 50% reported

the same or reduced budgets, while the other 50%

reported budgets that are generally increasing (43%)

or significantly higher (7%).

Document management was reported as the

highest legal IT priority with 83% reporting it as a

high or medium priority. E-discovery was next with

76% reporting it as a high or medium priority. Office

productivity was rated the lowest legal IT priority.

Number of Attorneys

< 10 11 – 49 50 – 149 150 – 250 > 250

Less than $500M 10

$500M - $1B 2 1

$1B - $10B 2 10 1

$10B - $25B 1 3 6 2

Greater than $25B 2 6 3 5

Number of Paralegals

< 10 11 – 49 50 – 149 150 – 250 > 250

Less than $500M 10

$500M - $1B 2 1

$1B - $10B 9 4

$10B - $25B 3 5 4


Number of Other Support Staff

< 10 11 – 49 50 – 149 150 – 250 > 250

Less than $500M 10

$500M - $1B 3

$1B - $10B 7 6

$10B - $25B 1 8 3


50 Attorneys or More 23

Dedicated Legal IT Group 18 78%

Corporate IT Group 5 22%

Less than 50 Attorneys 31

Dedicated Legal IT Group 22 29%

Corporate IT Group 9 71%




ILTA’s 2011 LAw DepArTmenT survey

coRe APPLicATionS AnD TooLSA number of key categories were covered in regard to

core applications. In general, we found that, as compared

to other business functions, law departments may be

underutilizing technology. This provides an opportunity

for law departments to extend the use of technology to

improve their operations and performance.

Microsoft Office is the leader for office

productivity suites with nearly 100% of responses.

IBM Lotus Symphony, OpenText eDOCs, Coredge

COR:Mail and Google Docs were each reported

once. For document assembly, Microsoft Word (not a

traditional document assembly system) was the most

cited solution at 70%, with HotDocs and Adobe in

second and third, respectively.

We only received 33 responses about the

management of contracts and agreements, which

suggests that 38% do not have a system in place.

The most common responses were that contracts/

agreements are handled outside of the law department

(20%) or by a customized system (20%). Only one

vendor, Ariba, received more than one vote.

Workflow systems were not reported as

common (26% affirmative responses). Most

respondents use custom developed compliance

systems, but EthicsPoint is the top vendor solution.

When asked about document management

systems (DMS), nearly one third (29%) of law

departments indicated that they do not have a

DMS. Of those who do have a DMS, there was

a relatively equal distribution among vendors.

When correlated with the priority ratings from

earlier questions, we expect that law departments

will be making a significant investment in their

DMS in the coming year(s).

Office Productivity Suite 30 59% 14 27% 7 14%

Document Management 9 17% 19 35% 26 48%

Matter Management 17 33% 19 37% 16 31%

E-Billing 24 47% 13 25% 14 27%

Workflow and Automation 16 31% 18 35% 18 35%

Intellectual Property Management 28 53% 8 15% 17 32%

Electronic Discovery Systems 12 23% 21 40% 20 38%

Priority

Low Medium High

Here are unique “other” responses for this question:

• Legal hold, Security, Compliance, Knowledge Management, Microsoft SharePoint, Strategy/Architecture

We do not have a DMS 16 29%

Autonomy iManage / Interwoven 15 27%

Microsoft Sharepoint 14 25%

OpenText Livelink / Hummingbird 11 20%

Documentum 9 16%

IBM Lotus Notes 4 7%

FileNet 1 2%

Worldox 0 0%




For matter management systems, nearly one

third (30%) indicated that they do not have a system;

87% of those respondents fall into the small law

department categories of less than 10 IT staff and

10-49 attorneys. Correspondingly, all large law

departments indicated that they have some type of

matter management system.

We found that 62% of respondents use an

e-billing system. 38% are without an e-billing

system, which appears to contrast with the general

discussions about the importance of managing

spending in law departments.

In the area of intellectual property systems, 40% of

respondents do not have one. Of those with a system

in place, 11% developed a custom system, 16% use

Thomson, 9% use Computer Packages (CPi) and 9 %

use CPA Memotech.

With regard to e-discovery and legal hold,

responses were spread across more than 14 different

We do not have a matter management system 15 30%

We have an in-house custom developed system 10 18%

CT TyMetrix 7 12%

Bridgeway eCounsel 5 9%

Mitratech TeamConnect 3 5%

Bridgeway Law Manager 3 5%

EAG CaseTrack 2 4%

Serengeti Tracker 2 4%

Bottomline LegalXchange 1 2%

Datacert CLD 1 2%

LexisNexis CounselLink 1 2%

LT Online Lawtrac 1 2%

Legal Files 0 0%

Other: Smart Counsel (TriPoint); based on SAP; RightsLogic (RSG Media); Lawbase; CLMS; Pro-Law; Omega

7 16%

E-Billing Systems

We do not have an e-billing system 21 38%


CT Tymetrix 11 20%

LexisNexis CounselLink 7 13%

Bridgeway eCounsel 4 7%

Serengeti Tracker 4 7%

Datacert AIMS 2 4%

Mitratech TeamConnect 2 4%

Bottomline LegalXchange 1 2%

Bridgeway Law Manager 0 0%

Other: Direct Invoice; EAG; SAP; IQNavigator 4 7%

Intellectual Property Systems

We do not have an IP System 22 40%


Computer Packages (CPI) 5 9%

ThomsonReuters (MDC) IP Manager 5 9%

CPA Global Memotech 5 9%

ThomsonReuters (MDC) IP Master 4 7%

Dennemeyer DIAMS / DIAMS XE 4 7%

Anaqua 3 5%

CPA Global FoundationIP 3 5%

OPSolutions Pattsy 0 0%

Patrix Patricia 0 0%

Other: Lecorpio; RightsLogic; WebTMS 3 5%

Navigant - Sharepoint 2

Daticon 1

Merrill - Lextranet 1

Outsourced 1

Kroll - Hosted 2

Clearwell - Hosted 1





solutions. More than 20% of respondents reported that

they use hosted solutions.

For data leak and security, 52% reported that

they do have policies and solutions. The solutions

reported were rather complex –– encryption and laptop

security were the most cited solutions, with generally

sophisticated data security and encryption policies.

We also asked respondents to identify other

applications and tools that they consider critical to

their operations. Document comparison (Workshare,

specifically) was the most common response, followed

by Secretariat/Corporate Entity solutions.

In the area of outside counsel collaboration

and the sharing of systems, we asked whether

respondents provide outside counsel access to

their systems; 39% report that they do provide

some access and 61% do not.

Likewise, in terms of respondents accessing

their outside counsels’ systems, only 20%

YES 29 (52%)

NO 27 (48%)

Smartphone standard policy and technology

Key vendors TLS links

Formal DLP program

Legal department standard

Unknown

Laptops require encryption

Corporate encryption standard

Area Vendor

Document Comparison Workshare 8

Secretariat / Corporate Entity ComputerShare - GEMS 4

ICSA - Blueprint 1

NetSuite - OneWorld 1

CLE Tracking ReqWired 1

Compliance Paisley 1

Dictation WinScribe 1

Dragon Naturally Speaking 1

Employment LawLogix 1

Enterprise Search dtSearch 1

Intellectual Property Thomson Innovation 1

LexisNexis - PatBase 1

Templates Esquire Innovations - iCreate 1

Trial Management Thomson - CaseMap 1

NO 34 (61%)

YES 22 (39%)

Catalyst Selectia

Dennemeyer CT TyMetrix

LT Online Matter System

Serengeti eRooms

iManage Foundation IP

Extranet Sharepoint

Catalyst Selectia

Dennemeyer CT TyMetrix

LT Online Matter System

Serengeti eRooms

iManage Foundation IP

Extranet Sharepoint




reported that they do, while 80% do not. These are

interesting, nearly inverse, correlations.

mobiLiTy AnD coLLAboRATionIn this section, we explored the adoption and use of

technologies that meet the on-the-go and distributed

work environments that are an increasingly important

part of law department operations. 81% of respondents

reported that all attorneys are issued laptops. Only one

respondent indicated that they do not use laptops at

all. When asked about the iPad, only 5% of respondents

indicated that iPad devices are supported, 36%

reported that iPad devices are not allowed and 27%

indicated that iPad support is being considered.

As for smartphones, while not generally

mandated, 93% reported that they support

smartphone access to email and applications; 33%

reported that they are mandatory. RIM/BlackBerry

was reported as the top platform and 33% reported

that they support multiple platforms.

In the area of collaboration, 100% of respondents

indicated that they are using web-based meetings,

either through a service or internal system. SharePoint

and electronic work rooms (sometimes considered

interchangeable) were also common at 66% and 45%,

respectively. Wikis and blogs, relatively new tools in

collaboration, are reported to be used by nearly half of

respondents. For outside counsel collaboration tools,

38% reported that they have implemented such tools,

but the vast majority (62%) have not.

emeRging TRenDSTo survey emerging trends in law department

technology, we asked respondents about their

adoption of technologies based on new deployment

and application use.

NO 45 (80%)

YES 11 (20%) Compliance

Lit / E-Discovery

Extranets

IPM Software

Compliance

Lit / E-Discovery

Extranets

IPM Software

YES 51 (93%)

NO 4 (7%)

Other: Nokia (1)

Android

Microsoft

iPhone

BlackBerry

Other: Nokia (1)

Android

Microsoft

iPhone

BlackBerry

Other: Nokia (1)

Android

Microsoft

iPhone

BlackBerry

Web meetings – external provider 43

Web meetings – internal provider 13

Instant Messaging 31

SharePoint sites 35

E-Rooms or shared folders 24

Wikis 15

Blogs 9





In the area of social media, we surveyed the use of

Facebook and Twitter. 91% of respondents indicated that

they do not use either tool. Of those who do use social

media, 5% indicated that their department uses both.

When it comes to internally deployed applications,

there remains a mix of thin, browser-based applications

and client-based applications, with a preference

for thin-client (45%). Interestingly, five respondents

indicated that they require thin-client applications,

while none indicated that they continue to purchase

new client-server applications.

With regard to policies on externally hosted

applications, only 14% indicated that all applications

must be internally implemented, while nearly the same

number of respondents (11%) indicated a preference

for external hosting or cloud-based applications.

When asked about cloud-based applications

(software as a service or SaaS), 33% indicated that they

have deployed SaaS applications.

Another emerging area we surveyed was

Legal Process Outsourcing (LPO). The current

use of LPO services appears relatively low; 61%

of respondents are not familiar with LPO, haven’t considered it or have considered and aren’t using it. At the other end of the spectrum, 11%

reported that they use LPO services extensively.

Given the newness of the model and the as

yet immature business offerings, we may in fact

conclude this to be a rather optimistic statistical

set. The types of LPO services used included:

E-Discovery / Litigation Support (4), Intellectual

Property (3), Document Review (2).

concLuSionThere are a number of factors that influence the role

of technology in the law department, including:

• A law department’s culture and its leadership’s

view of technology –– and the corporate IT priority

in investing in technology for the law department

All hardware and applications are internally hosted, no external hosting or cloud based applications

8 14%

Our strong preference is for internal hosting, but exceptions can be made with special approval

23 41%

We are agnostic as to internal hosting versus external hosting or cloud based applications or hardware

19 34%

We have a preference for external hosting or cloud based applications and hardware

6 11%

Yes - we have tried, but not deployed

Yes - we have deployed

No - we have not tried or deployed

27 (49%)

10 (18%)

18 (33%)

No – not familiar with term 8 14%

No – not considered 11 20%

No – considered but not yet used 15 27%

Yes – have used on a project or limited basis 16 29%

Yes – have used extensively 6 11%

E-Discovery; Litigation Suport 4

Intellectual Property 3

Document Review 2

Compliance 1

NDA 1

Claims Management 1




• The type of work and direct applicability or benefit of

technology

• The unique rules of a practice that necessitate or

encourage technology

• The influence of court- or agency-mandated technology

Legal departments rely on technology to enable efficient

processes and drive practice effectiveness in almost every

facet of their work. The application of technology to the

practice of law is in a formative stage of adoption compared

to other business functions.

As found in our survey, law departments have made

significant strides in advancing their skills and capabilities;

however, additional opportunities exist for technology

to impact performance. Core areas such as document

management, matter management and workflow continue to

be underutilized when compared to their potential to impact

work quality and operational performance. iLTA

ABOUT ILTA

Providing technology solutions to law firms and

legal departments gets more complex every day.

Connecting with your peers to exchange ideas with

those who have “been there done that” has never

been more valuable. For over three decades, the

International Legal Technology Association has led

the way in sharing knowledge and experience for

those faced with challenges in their firms and legal

departments. ILTA members come from firms of all

sizes and all areas of practice, all sharing a common

need to have access to the latest information about

products and support services that impact the legal

profession.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

ILTA is the premier peer networking organization,

providing information to members to maximize the

value of technology in support of the legal profession.

DISCLAIMER

This report is designed for use as a general guide

and is not intended to serve as a recommendation or

to replace the advice of experienced professionals.

If expert assistance is desired, the services of a

competent professional should be sought. Neither

ILTA nor any author or contributor shall have liability for

any person’s reliance on the content of or any errors or

omissions in this publication.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

Copyright © Hyperion Global Partners, Inc. and ILTA

2011. All rights reserved. Published by ILTA. c/o Editor,

9701 Brodie Lane, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78748.

ABOUT HYPERION RESEARCH

Hyperion Research is the leading provider of legal technology

market research and advisory services to corporate law departments,

law firms and solution providers. We offer our clients unparalleled

insight to the leading trends, best practices and market defining

issues that are driving success in technology and legal operations.

We bring senior industry experience and thought leadership gained

from working with the world’s leading legal organizations and

solution providers. For additional information about this survey or

Hyperion Research, please contact Ralph Schroeder, Managing

Director, at [email protected].



mailto:[email protected]

2011 law department technology...

Documents