Law Firm Knowledge Management: A Selected Annotated

175

LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Vol. 106:2 [2014-10]

Law Firm Knowledge Management: A Selected Annotated Bibliography*

Andrew M. Winston**

This selected annotated bibliography covers scholarly research articles on knowledge management in law firms. The annotations are preceded by an introduction high-lighting salient themes that emerge in this literature. These include the use and effec-tiveness of information technology in law firm knowledge management, the human side of knowledge sharing, and lessons for law firm and law school librarians.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176LawFirmKnowledgeManagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176OverviewofAnnotatedArticles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178LessonsforLawLibrarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

InformationTechnologyandKnowledgeManagement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186“StagesofGrowth”ofLawFirmKnowledgeManagement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188ClientsasDriversofTechnologyAdoptionforKnowledge Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189InformationTechnologyandInter-OrganizationalKnowledge Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

TheHumanSideofKnowledgeManagement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190KnowledgeSharing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190PerceivedValueofKnowledgeManagement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193TheImportanceofan“InformationCulture”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193AttorneyBehaviorandIncentives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

OtherAreasofFocus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194EffectonFeeIncome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195InternationalAspects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

* ©AndrewM.Winston,2014.TheauthorwouldliketothankTimothyL.Coggins,AssociateDeanforLibraryandInformationServices&ProfessorofLaw,andSuzanneB.Corriell,AssociateDirector for Reference, Research, and Instructional Services, both at the University of RichmondSchoolofLaw,fortheirinvaluableinputandadviceonthisarticle.AnearlierandshorterversionofthisarticlewassubmittedinaclassattheCollegeofComputingandInformaticsatDrexelUniversity. ** Research&InstructionalServicesLibrarian,WilliamTaylorMuseLawLibrary,UniversityofRichmondSchoolofLaw,Richmond,Virginia.

176 LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Vol. 106:2 [2014-10]

Introduction

Law Firm Knowledge Management

¶1Knowledgemanagementreferstothestrategies,techniques,andtoolsusedbyanorganizationtocapture,retain,analyze,organize,improve,andsharedata,information, and knowledge relating to the operation and administration of itsbusiness.1Knowledgemanagementinthelawfirmcontextinvolvesafirm’s“abilitytoidentify,capture,andleveragetheinternalknowledgeofindividuals”atthefirmandtocombinethisknowledgewithknowledgederivedfromvendorsandotherexternal sources to“enhance the ability of all law firm staff to create and shareknowledgeacrossthefirm,toprovideexcellentclientservice,andtocompeteinanincreasingly aggressive professional legal services environment.”2 In plainer andmoreintuitivelanguage,knowledgemanagementforlawfirmsmeans“[w]howeknow,whatweknowandhowwedowhatwedo.”3Lawfirmknowledgemanage-mentisdependentonandintertwinedwithinformationtechnology,butsuccessfulknowledgemanagement isnot just a technologicalmatter.Other issues, suchasinformationcultureandtheimportanceofpersonalservicebyknowledgemanage-mentworkers,4ensurethatthedisciplinecannotbereducedsolelytothequestionofwhichsoftwaretopurchase.

¶2Knowledgemanagementinlawfirmshasevolvedthroughthreephases.5InthelatterpartofthetwentiethcenturythroughtheriseoftheInternet,knowledgemanagementfocusedprimarilyonimprovingthequalityoflegalservicesbycreat-ing,gathering,andsystematizingknowledgebymeansoftechnologyandinsomecasesusingprofessionalservicelawyersandotherknowledgemanagementstaff.6In the next phase, continuing through 2008, law firm knowledge managementactivitygrewsignificantly,correspondingwithanincreaseddemandforlegalser-vices,higherbillingrates,andgreatermovementofpartnersandattorneyteamsamongfirms.7Developmentsduringthisphasefocusedonsupportingandinte-grating expanding law firms and helping attorneys cope with information over-load.8Newtechnologiesandservicesinthisphaseincludedenterprisesearchandmore extensive use of searching to mine organizational data, portals, and socialmedia,aswellasclient-facinginitiativesandbusinessdevelopmentsupport.9Even

1. todd R. gRoff & thomAS p. JoneS, intRoduction to Knowledge mAnAgement2(2003). 2. T.duPlessis&A.S.A.duToit,Knowledge Management and Legal Practice,26int’l J. info. mgmt.360,360(2006). 3. PatrickDiDomenico,KM 101: Introduction to Legal Knowledge Management,lAwYeRKm(Dec.30,2008),http://lawyerkm.com/2008/12/30/km-101-introduction-to-legal-knowledge-management/. 4. ChunWeiChooetal.,Working with Information: Information Management and Culture in a Professional Services Organization,32J. info. Sci.491(2006). 5. Oz Benamram & Sally Gonzalez, Forming a KM Strategy for Your Firm, in Knowledge mAnAgement: conveYoRS of oRgAniZed infoRmAtion 22, 23–24 (2011), available at http://www.mygazines.com/issue/34417/0. 6. Id.at23. 7. Id. 8. Id. 9. Id.

177LAW FIRM KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: A SELECTED ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHYVol. 106:2 [2014-10]

though firms used knowledge management more during these boom years, theprevalenceofhourlybillingmayhaveinhibitedfulfillmentofknowledgemanage-ment’sefficiency-generatingpotential.10Inthecurrentphase,thedemandforlegalservicesnolongerexceedssupply,andclientsareusingtheireconomicleveragetoinsistongreaterefficiencyandpredictabilityinpricingforlegalservices,insomecasesthroughfixedfeesandotheralternativefeearrangements.11Knowledgeman-agementisnowfocusedonhowtohelpattorneys“domorewithless.”12EmergingtrendsinthisareaareintendedtosupportLeanSixSigma13programssuchastheonelaunchedbySeyfarthShawLLP,14legalprojectmanagementinitiatives,15andpricingstrategiesforlegalservices.16

¶3Knowledgemanagementinlawfirmsinvolvesanumberoftoolsandservicesformoreeffectivelymanaging,sharing,andusingknowledgeinavarietyofareas:thelawandhowtoprovidelegalservices;clientsandtheirbusinessesandindus-tries;theexpertise,skills,andbackgroundsoffirmattorneysandstaff;andreferralsources,experts,possiblemergercandidatesorlateralhires,andotherthirdparties.In2012,asurveyofknowledgemanagementinlawfirmsandcorporatelawdepart-mentsconductedbytheInternationalLegalTechnologyAssociation,identifiedthefollowingmajorlegalknowledgemanagementtoolsandservices(amongothers):

• Collections of precedents, model documents, legal research, and legalopinions

• Intranetsorportals• Automateddocumentassembly• Web2.0collaborationtools,suchaswikis,blogs,andteamsites• Enterprisesearch• Documentmanagementsystems• Firmintranets• Transactionalandlitigationmatterinformationsystems• Extranets17

10. Id. 11. Id.at24. 12. Id. 13. “LeanSixSigma”isamethodologyforongoingprocessimprovementandproblemsolvingwithin organizations to increase customer satisfaction and profitability. Ronald D. Snee, Lean Six Sigma—Getting Better All the Time,1int’l J. leAn Six SigmA9,10–11(2010). 14. V. Mary Abraham, Seyfarth’s Success Story [#Ark], ABove & BeYond Km (Oct. 31, 2011),http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/2011/10/seyfarths-success-story-ark.html;SeyfarthLean Background,SeYfARth ShAw llp, http://www.seyfarth.com/seyfarthlean-background(lastvisitedMar.4,2014). 15. Lisa Gianakos, KM Professionals: A Natural Fit for LPM, in Knowledge mAnAgement: intelligent BuSineSS At itS BeSt6(2013),http://epubs.iltanet.org/i/143561. 16. ChrisEmerson&AmyWu,The Pricing Professional’s KM Toolkit, in Knowledge mAnAgement: intelligent BuSineSS At itS BeSt, supranote15,at14. 17. 2012 Knowledge Management Survey Results, in Knowledge mAnAgement: tYing the oRgAniZAtion togetheR6,13(2012),available athttp://read.uberflip.com/i/68817.


Overview of Annotated Articles

¶4Thisoverviewdiscussesbroadthemesthatemergeintheannotatedarticlesandisfollowedbyadiscussionhighlightingpointsofparticularinteresttolibrar-iansinlawfirmsandinlawschools.Thisannotatedbibliographyisselectiveinthatitcovers scholarly, research-basedarticles inEnglish that focusprimarilyon lawfirmknowledgemanagementandwerepublishedfrom1999to2013.Thearticlesaregroupedintodifferentcategoriesbasedontheirprimaryareasoffocus.DespitethesizeofthelegalindustryintheUnitedStatesandworldwide,andthenatureoflaw firms as knowledge-driven enterprises, there is relatively little academicresearch about knowledge management in the law firm context.18 Nonetheless,bothlawfirmandlawschoollibrarianscandrawusefullessonsabouthowknowl-edgemanagementworks—andchallengestobeovercomeinitssuccessfulimple-mentationanduse—fromtheseempiricalstudies.

Information Technology

¶5Mostofthearticlesinthisbibliographyfocusonhowinformationtechnol-ogy is used in law firm knowledge management.Apistola and Lodder present aframeworkforlawfirmstoconsiderinevaluatingwhetherandtowhatextentdif-ferenttechnologytools(e.g.,e-mail,intranets,theInternet,groupware,knowledgesystems)mightbeuseful inaddressingdifferentaspectsof lawfirms’knowledgemanagement needs (developing, sharing, and evaluating administrative data,declarativeknowledge,proceduralknowledge,andanalyticalknowledge).19LawyersattheSouthAfricanfirmssurveyedbyDuPlessisandDuToitgenerallyreportedpositiveattitudestowardtheuseofinformationtechnologyforknowledgeman-agement and high usage of Internet and intranet applications, but little use ofextranetsandasurprisinglevelofuncertaintyabouttheknowledgemanagementsystemstheirfirmsused.20

¶6ArticlesauthoredorcoauthoredbyGottschalkfocusonfirms’useoftech-nology in knowledge management. In his first article, Gottschalk develops thehypothesis,basedonasurveyofNorwegianlawfirms,thatapositiverelationshipexistsbetweeninformationtechnologyuseandlawfirmknowledgemanagement.21Further research by Gottschalk indicated that the extent to which law firms useinformationtechnologygenerallyhasasignificantimpactontheextenttowhichtheyuseinformationtechnologyforknowledgemanagement.22Ina2000article,Gottschalkdeterminedthatlawfirmsdidnot,contrarytoexpectations,useinfor-mationtechnologysignificantlylessthanconsultingfirmsinknowledgemanage-

18. Manyofthesearticleswereauthoredorcoauthoredbyasinglescholar,Dr.PetterGottschalkoftheBINorwegianBusinessSchool. 19. Martin Apistola & Arno R. Lodder, Law Firms and IT: Towards Optimal Knowledge Management,2005J. info. l. & tech., nos.2&3, § 5,http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2005_2-3/apistola-lodder. 20. DuPlessis&DuToit,supranote2,at369. 21. PetterGottschalk,Knowledge Management in the Professions: Lessons Learned from Norwegian Law Firms,3J. Knowledge mgmt.,no.3,1999,at203,210. 22. PetterGottschalk,Use of IT for Knowledge Management in Law Firms,1999J. info. l. & tech.no.3,§8,http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1999_3/gottschalk.


ment,althoughlawfirmsmadeheavieruseofdatabasesratherthanmoregeneralinformationsources.23

¶7Gottschalk’ssubsequentresearchaddressedmorespecificresearchtopics.In2003,GottschalkandKhandelwalexploreda“stagesofgrowth”model(ananalyti-caltoolusedinorganizationalandinformationtechnologyresearch)forthedevel-opment of law firm information technology systems in connection with theirknowledgemanagementprocesses.Inthismodel,firmspassfrom(1)havingonly“end-usertools”suchase-mailandwordprocessors,to(2)usinginformationtech-nology to identify“who knows what” within the firm, to (3) using informationtechnologytoretrieveinformationstoredindocumentssuchascontracts,memo-randa, etc. in the“what they know” phase, to (4) using information technologysystems in such a way that the systems themselves help provide solutions—the“how they think” phase.24 The results of the research did not confirm that theAustralianlawfirmsstudiedmovedthroughthesestagesofgrowthinthemannerhypothesized,althoughtheresearchdidsuggestthatthenumberoflawyersandthenumberofinformationtechnologyworkerstendedtopredictthestageofinforma-tiontechnologyknowledgemanagementprojectsatafirm.25In2004,GottschalkandKhandelwalpublishedtheresultsofresearchonNorwegianandAustralianlawfirms that provided limited support for the applicability of the stages-of-growthmodelinthelawfirmknowledgemanagementcontext.26

¶8 In 2009, Gottschalk and Karlsen revisited the stages-of-growth model inlightofnewerresearch.Inanarticlethatfirstreviewsthelawfirmbusinessmodel,theroleoflawyersasknowledgeprofessionals,andtheideaofknowledgeorganiza-tions,theyfoundthatmostofthefirmssurveyedwereinthethirdstageofgrowth(whichcentersontheuseoftechnologytoaffordaccesstostoredprecedents,docu-ments, e-mails, and other materials used and generated in law practice).27 Theirnewer research did not, however, confirm that law firms consistently progressthroughthestagesofgrowthinorder.28

¶9Gottschalkaddressedanareaofgreat interest to lawyerswhen in2002heexploredwhetherclientdemandsweredrivinglawfirms’implementationofinfor-mation technology in knowledge management, although his research results didnotshowthatclientdesireshadasignificantimpactonfirms’selectionofinforma-tion technology for knowledge management purposes.29 Clients reported higherlevels of satisfaction with firms that could readily receive from and share with

23. Petter Gottschalk, Knowledge Management Systems: A Comparison of Law Firms and Consulting Firms,3infoRming Sci.117,123(2000). 24. PetterGottschalk&VijayK.Khandelwal,Determinants of Knowledge Management Technology Projects in Australian Law Firms,7J. Knowledge mgmt., no.4,2003,at 92, 93–96. 25. Id.at102–03. 26. Petter Gottschalk & Vijay Khandelwal, Stages of Growth for Knowledge Management Technology in Law Firms,44J. computeR info. SYS.,no.4,2004,at111,121. 27. Petter Gottschalk & Jan Terje Karlsen, Knowledge Management in Law Firm Business, 16J. SmAll BuS. & enteRpRiSe dev.432,440(2009). 28. Id.at432. 29. PetterGottschalk,Law Firm Clients as Drivers of Law Firm Change,2002J. info. l. & tech. §6,http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2002_1/gottschalk.


clientsbothadministrativeandsubstantiveinformationaboutclientmatters.30AsGottschalk noted in his conclusion, however, client demand for effective use oftechnologyinmanagingpracticeknowledgeislikelyonlytoincrease.31

¶10Ina2001article,Gottschalkexploredtheuseofinformationtechnologyin“inter-organizationalknowledgemanagement,”orknowledgemanagementamonglawfirmsthataremembersofnetworksinwhichbusiness isreferredand,toanextent,knowledgeisshared.32AstudyofNorwegianmembersofEurojuris,anet-workoffirmsinnineteenEuropeancountriesthathasinvestedheavilyininforma-tion technology, showed that member firms were using the network for findingsolutionstolegalproblems,selectingamongpossiblesolutions,andevaluatingthesolutionsselected,butnotcooperatingoncases.33Inanarticlethefollowingyear,GottschalkandKhandelwalcomparedresearchoninterorganizationalknowledgetransferbasedonsurveysofNorwegianandAustralianfirms.Whilefirmcoopera-tion(cooperationamonglawfirmsonanational,international,orgloballevel)34andknowledgecooperation(sharingadministrative,declarative,procedural,andanalyticalknowledge)35predictedtheuseofinformationtechnologyinsupportofsuch networks in Norway, only knowledge cooperation was such a predictor inAustralia.36

The Human Side of Knowledge Management

¶11 Other articles address interpersonal and behavioral aspects of law firmknowledgemanagement.Topics includethedynamicsofknowledgesharing, theimportanceoffirmcultureinsuccessfulknowledgemanagement,andtheattorneybehaviors thatcanarisewhenaknowledgemanagement systemhasbeen intro-ducedintoalawfirm.

¶12Ina2009article,Forstenlechner,Lettice,andBournestresstheimportanceofexchanging“personalknow-how”withpeers,identifyingitasa“keypredictoroffeeincome”basedontheircasestudyofalargegloballawfirm.37Theyconcludethatthesignificanceofthisformofknowledgetransferwasduenottoinadequateknowledgemanagementtechnologybuttolawyers’preferenceforpersonalinfor-mation exchange, noting that, although knowledge management involves, at itscore,automationofknowledgeprocesses,“itremainsadisciplinehighlydependentonhumaninteraction.”38

30. Id. 31. Id. 32. Petter Gottschalk, Benefits from Information and Communication Technology Facilitating Inter-Organisational Knowledge Networks: The Case of Eurojuris Law Firms in Norway,2001J. info. l. & tech.,http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2001_2/gottschalk. 33. Id.§5. 34. Petter Gottschalk &Vijay K. Khandelwal, Inter-Organizational Knowledge Management: A Comparison of LawFirms in Norway and Australia,42 J. computeR info. SYS. (SpeciAl iSSue)50,52(2002). 35. Id. 36. Id.at50. 37. Ingo Forstenlechner et al., Knowledge Pays: Evidence from a Law Firm, 13 J. Knowledge mgmt., no.1,2009,at56,64. 38. Id.at66.“PersonalservicefromtheKMteam”wasalsoidentifiedasakeypredictoroffeeincome.Id.


¶13 In their research on current information services in a large London lawfirm, Attfield, Blandford, and Makri found that knowledge management staffserved as “intelligent filters.”39 Their article highlights the importance of back-propagationofinformationfromusersabouttheirrequirementsandpreferencesinorder toenableknowledgemanagementprofessionals tocustomize the informa-tionprovidedtotheirusers’needs.40

¶14 Brivot considered whether implementation of a centralized knowledgemanagementsystemthatemphasizedthecollectionofattorneyworkproductinacentral repository resulted in attorneys losing power within the organization toadministrators.41Despitelawyers’fears,theresearchsuggestedthatattorneysactu-allygainedpowerasaresultofknowledgemanagement,eventhoughthecreationandsharingofknowledgeinthefirmhadbecomemorebureaucratized.Significantly,those without social capital could still access valuable knowledge even in theabsenceofpersonalrelationshipswiththosepossessingtheknowledge.42

¶15 Lustri, Miura, and Takahashi studied a knowledge-sharing initiative at aBrazilian law firm. The initiative, which involved three experienced lawyers andthree trainee lawyers, was designed to provide the trainees with tacit knowledgeaboutclientservice,marketing,andthebusinessoflawthatwasheldbythemoreseniorattorneys.43Theauthorsfoundthatthismodeldevelopedthedesiredcom-petenciesmorequicklythanthefirm’sconventionaltraining.44

¶16Olatokun and Elueze explored knowledge sharing in Nigerian law firms.Theylearnedthatassociationsamonglawyersengagedinknowledgesharing,law-yers’attitudesabouttheirpersonalcontributionstoknowledgesharing,andtheuseof information technology were stronger predictors of knowledge sharing thanattorneys’positiveattitudestowardit.45

¶17Chooandothers studiedknowledgemanagement ina largeCanadian lawfirmthathadinvestedsignificantlyinknowledgemanagementstrategy,technologies,andprocesses.Theyfoundthatthefirm’s“informationculture”—its“values,norms,andpracticeswithregardtothemanagementanduseofinformation”46—wasmoreimportant to information use outcomes47 than “information management”—the“application of management principles to the acquisition, organization, control,dissemination,anduseofinformation.”48

39. SimonAttfieldetal.,Social and Interactional Practices for Disseminating Current Awareness Information in an Organisational Setting,46info. pRoceSSing & mgmt.632,632(2010). 40. Id.at643. 41. Marion Brivot, Controls of Knowledge Production, Sharing and Use in Bureaucratized Professional Service Firms,32oRg. Stud. 489 (2011). 42. Id.at503. 43. Denise Lustri et al., Knowledge Management Model: Practical Application for Competency Development,14leARning oRg.186(2007). 44. Id.at200. 45. Wole M. Olatokun & Isioma N. Elueze, Analysing Lawyers’ Attitude Towards Knowledge Sharing,14S. AfRicAn J. info. mgmt.,no.1,2012,at1,1. 46. Chooetal.,supranote4,at493. 47. Id.at491. 48. Id.at492.


¶18BrivotandGendronexploredwhateffectacentralized,precedent-orientedknowledgemanagementsystemhadontheinterpersonaldynamicsoflawyersinaParislawfirm.49Ratherthanresultinginmanagementsurveillanceofworkprod-uct(referredtoasthe“panopticon”model),theauthorsinsteadfoundpatternsofmutualsurveillancebylawyerswithinthefirmastheyaccessedandevaluatedcol-leagues’work, aswell asbehaviors involving theostentatiousdisplayofworkasself-promotionandthehidingofdocumentsinshadownetworksoutsidetheoffi-cialknowledgemanagementsystem.50

Effect on Fee Income

¶19In2009,Forstenlechner,Lettice,andBourne,usingtheresultsofaninten-sivecasestudyofoneofthelargestmultinationallawfirmsintheworld,addressedtheknowledgemanagementissuethatmanypractitionersmightviewascentral:the effect of knowledge management on law firm revenue.51 This research sup-ported the proposition that knowledge management increases a law firm’s feeincome.52Onehopesthatotherresearcherswillfurtherexplorethefinancialben-efitsofknowledgemanagementtolawfirms.

Implementation

¶20Beaumontexploredthecomplexitiesofimplementingknowledgemanage-mentinamidsizedregionalfirmintheUnitedKingdom,detailingthefirm’stech-nological initiatives, new knowledge management support roles, and majorachievementsafterthefirstyearandahalf,suchasstartingprecedentrepositoriesandcreatingplatformsforsharinginternalknowledge.53

¶21ResearchbyHunter,Beaumont,andLeeonScottishlawfirmsfoundthatwhilethefirmsinquestionusedinformationtechnologyinserviceofknowledgemanagement,onlysomeofthefirmsuseddedicatedpersonneltoactivelymanagetheirknowledgemanagementfunctions.54Theauthorsarguethatknowledgeman-agement functions must be adequately staffed if firms are to effectively converttheirtacitknowledgetoexplicitknowledge,andthattheindustry’sfocusontech-nologysolutionsoverlooksthiselementofknowledgemanagement.55

¶22Fombad,Boon,andBothmaconductedextensiveresearchonthelevelofknowledgemanagementactivitybylawfirmsinBotswana.Inonearticle,thetriodetailtheresultsofthatresearch,whichdeterminedthatknowledgemanagementeffortsbythosefirms—mostofwhichareverysmall—consistedprimarilyofusingprecedent, research, weekly learning reports, records management, and training

49. MarionBrivot&YvesGendron,Beyond Panopticism: On the Ramifications of Surveillance in a Contemporary Professional Setting,36Acct. oRgS. & Soc’Y 135 (2011). 50. Id.at152. 51. Forstenlechneretal.,supranote37. 52. Id.at66. 53. JonBeaumont,Knowledge Management in a Regional Law Firm: A Worthwhile Investment or Time Wasted?,27BuS. info. Rev.227 (2010). 54. Laurie Hunter et al., Knowledge Management Practice in Scottish Law Firms, 12 hum. ReSouRce mgmt. J., no.2,2002,at4,12. 55. Id.at17–18.


juniorlawyers;moresophisticatedfunctionslikeknow-howsystemsorworkprod-uctdatabasesweremuchlesscommon.56Inanotherarticle,theauthorsusedtheresults of their research to propose detailed recommendations for implementingknowledgemanagement,suchaspickingappropriatetechnologies,havinglawyersinvesttenpercentoftheirtimetakingseminarsandcommunicatingwithothersinthelegalcommunityaboutknowledgemanagement,andrewardingattorneyswhoperformknowledgemanagementworkandcreditingthemfortimespentonit.57

International Aspects

¶23 Beaverstock’s research on ten London-based international law firmsexplored knowledge management in the context of expatriation of legal knowl-edge.58Theauthor found thatknowledgedisseminationand sharingvariedgeo-graphically depending on the location of the satellite offices.59 In east Asia,knowledge-transmissionwasone-way,fromtheEnglishlawyerstotheirlocalcol-leagues.60InEuropeandNorthAmerica,incontrast,knowledgewasdevelopedandsharedinbothdirections,withlocalattorneyssometimesplayinganequalroleinthemanagementoftheiroffices.61

Lessons for Law Librarians

Law Firm Librarians

¶24Thescholarshiponlawfirmknowledgemanagementprovidesinsightsforlaw librarians in law firms, particularly those who are or would like to becomeinvolvedintheirfirms’knowledgemanagementactivities.Severalofthecasestud-iesdiscussedinthesearticlesincludedescriptionsoftheknowledgemanagementdepartmentsorfunctionsoflargeandmid-sizedlawfirms:

• Forstenlechner, Lettice, and Bourne offer an overview of knowledgemanagementatoneofthethreelargest lawfirmsintheworld.Thisfirmhadahighratioofknowledgemanagementstafftoattorneys,ahighlevelof investment inknowledgemanagement,andaknowledgemanagementteamledbyapartnerwiththetitleofchiefknowledgeofficer.62Thefirmusedahybridapproachinwhichthestrategicdirectionandinfrastructurefor knowledge management are established at the firm level to supportknowledgemanagementinitiativesatthepracticegrouplevel.63

• Beaumont describes a case study of knowledge management imple-mentation at a regional U.K. law firm that involved the addition of new

56. MadeleineC.Fombadetal.,A Survey of Knowledge Management in Law Firms in Botswana,19AfRicAn J. liBR. ARchiveS & info. Sci.141,149(2009). 57. M.C.Fombadetal.,Strategies for Knowledge Management in Law Firms in Botswana,11S. AfRicAn J. info. mgmt.,no.2,2009,§7. 58. JonathanV.Beaverstock,“Managing Across Borders”: Knowledge Management and Expatriation in Professional Service Legal Firms,4J. econ. geogRAphY157(2004). 59. Id.at173–74. 60. Id.at173. 61. Id.at173–74. 62. Forstenlechneretal.,supranote37,at57–59. 63. Id.at58.


“KnowledgeFee-earners”embeddedineachof the firm’s fifteenpracticeteams.64Theinitialaccomplishmentsofthisknowledgemanagementini-tiativeincludedprecedentbanks,theuseofconsistentcoversheetsforfirmdocuments, the implementation of a firm intranet, the development ofblogsandwikisforinternalknowledgesharing,how-toguides,transactiontoolkits,andfeeandbillinginformationresources.65

• Brivot details a knowledge management system implemented at a largeParislawfirmthatinvolvedthecreationofasearchabledatabaseoflegalopinionsandotherdocumentscreatedbyfirmattorneys,withaselectioncategorizedas“bestpractice”documentsbyastandardscommitteeatthefirm.66

• Attfield, Blandford, and Makri describe current awareness services at a900-lawyerlawfirmwithknowledgemanagementstaffthatincludespro-fessional support lawyers,knowledgemanagementexecutives,paralegals,andresearchers.67

¶25Lawfirmlibrariansinvolvedinthedesignanddevelopmentofknowledgemanagementattheirfirmswilldiscoverintheannotatedarticlesthatthereisnosinglepath for the evolutionof law firmknowledgemanagement. Ina seriesofarticlespublished from2003to2009,Gottschalkproposedthat lawfirmknowl-edgemanagementfollowsfourstages-of-growth:(1)“end-usertools”or“lawyer-to-technology,”(2)“who-knows-what”or“lawyer-to-lawyer,”(3)“what-they-know”or“lawyer-to-information,”and(4)“howtheythink”or“lawyer-to-application.”68Despiteanumberofattemptstoverifythisprogression,Gottschalk’sresearchulti-mately did not support the hypothesis that law firms implementing knowledgemanagementnecessarilymovedthroughthosefourstagesinorder.69

¶26Lawlibrariansshouldalsonotethehumandynamicsexploredinseveralofthe articles. Choo and others found that the information culture in the largeCanadian lawfirmtheystudiedhadmore influenceovertheuseof informationthanthefirm’sinformationstrategiesandsystems.70BrivotandGendronfocusedonnetworksofmutual surveillanceamong lawyers ina firmwitha centralized,precedent-based knowledge management system, in which attorneys scrutinizedoneanother’sworkproducttoevaluatequality,anddarkpoolsofpracticemateri-alsdevelopedamongthosewhodidnotwishtosharetheirworkproduct.71Lawlibrarians who are a part of or work with their firms’ knowledge managementdepartmentscandrawonthesebehavioralinsightstohelpthemmoreeffectivelypromote knowledge management contribution and knowledge sharing, and toaccessstoresofknowledgethatmaynotbepartofafirm’sofficialrepositories.

64. Beaumont,supranote53,at228. 65. Id.at230. 66. Brivot,supranote41,at495. 67. Attfieldetal.,supranote39,at635–43. 68. See,e.g.,Gottschalk&Karlsen,supranote27,at437–39. 69. Id.at432. 70. Chooetal.,supranote4,at508. 71. Brivot&Gendron,supranote49,at149,152.


¶27 Law firm librarians should be particularly interested in the work ofForstenlechner,Lettice,Bourne,andWebbonattorneys’perceptionsofthevalueofknowledgemanagement.Inasurveyoflawyersfromthetop-tengloballawfirms,researchersfoundthatintervieweesbelievedthatknowledgemanagementprovidedthe following benefits: greater efficiency, higher quality, improved risk manage-ment,long-termbenefits,positiveinfluenceonfirmculture,improvedawareness,andbetterandfastertraining.72Forstenlechnerandasimilargroupofresearchersalsofoundthatcertainknowledgemanagementpredictorshadapositiveimpactonfeeincomeofthecasestudylawfirm(oneofthethreelargestfirmsintheworld).73The research-based support offered by these articles may be useful to law firmlibrarianswhoadvocatefor(orareobligedto justify)thecreation,expansion,orcontinuationofknowledgemanagementactivitiesintheirfirms.

Academic Law Librarians

¶28The scholarshipon law firmknowledgemanagementwillhelpacademiclaw librarians not only enhance their understanding of private practice and theactivitiesoftheirlawfirmcounterpartsbutalsofindwaystoimprovetheservicestheydeliverwithintheirlawschools.The Principles and Standards for Legal Research Competency, approved in July 2013 by the Executive Board of the AmericanAssociationofLawLibraries, includesaspecificreferenceto“[r]ecogniz[ing]thebenefitsofrequestingassistancefromknowledgeableindividuals,oraninstitution’sknowledgemanagementsystem”asacompetencytobedevelopedbyasuccessfulresearcher.74 As explained above, many of the annotated articles offer detaileddepictionsofhowknowledgemanagementisconductedinlawfirms.Asthelegaleducatorsprimarilyresponsibleforinstructinglawstudentsonhowtoeffectivelyandefficientlylocatetheinformationandknowledgeneededinthepracticeoflaw,lawschoollibrariansshouldexplaintostudentstheimportanceoffindinguseful,reliablesourcesofpracticeknow-howwithinlawfirms.Lawlibrariansshouldalsomakestudentsawareofattorneybehaviorsassociatedwithattemptstoimposesys-tems for the management of that knowledge, such as the mutual surveillance,“showing,”“hiding,” and shadow knowledge economies described by Brivot andGendron.75

¶29Law school librarians might alsowish to explorewhether these law firmknowledgemanagementarticlesyieldanyguidanceforacademicinformationpro-fessionalswhouseknowledgemanagementsystemsortechniquestoprovideser-vicestotheirusers.Forexample,thecurrentawarenessserviceforlawyersstudiedbyAttfieldandothers.76mightbeadaptedbyacademiclawlibrarianstoprovideasimilar service for law professors at their institutions. Academic law librarians

72. Ingo Forstenlechner et al., Turning Knowledge into Value in Professional Service Firms, 8peRfoRmAnce meASuRement & metRicS146,149(2007). 73. Forstenlechneretal.,supranote37,at66. 74. Am. ASS’n of lAw liBRARieS, pRincipleS And StAndARdS foR legAl ReSeARch competencY (approved July 11, 2013), available at http://www.aallnet.org/Documents/Leadership-Governance/Policies/policy-legalrescompetency.pdf. 75. Brivot&Gendron,supranote49,at150,152. 76. Attfieldetal.,supranote39.


should also consider whether any lessons for legal research instruction can belearnedinthementor-menteecompetencydevelopmentmodelevaluatedbyLustriandhercolleagues.77

Information Technology and Knowledge Management

General

Apistola,Martin,andArnoR.Lodder.“LawFirmsandIT—TowardsOptimalKnow-ledgeManagement.”Journal of Information, Law & Technology,2005,nos.2&3.http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2005_2-3/apistola-lodder.

Based on then-existing literature and on the results of surveys of Dutch lawfirmsconductedbytheauthors,thisarticleproposesaframeworkforknowledgemanagement in law firms that combines taxonomies of three elements of lawfirmknowledgemanagement:knowledge,knowledgeprocesses,andinformationtechnology. The taxonomy of lawyer knowledge includes administrative data,declarative knowledge (knowledge of the law), procedural knowledge (know-how),andanalyticalknowledge(howdeclarativeknowledgeappliestoaparticu-larsetoffacts).Thetaxonomyofknowledgeprocessesincludesthedevelopmentof knowledge, the sharing of knowledge, and the evaluation of knowledge.The taxonomyof information technology includeswordprocessors,databases,Internetapplications(suchasdiscussionboardsandsearchengines), intranets,e-mail,groupware,andknowledge-basedsystems(suchasexpertsystems,neuralnetworks, intelligent agents, and case-based reasoning systems). The authors’proposedframeworkisofferedasastartingpointforevaluatinghowwellvari-ousinformationtechnologyapplicationssupportlawfirmknowledgeprocesses.

Du Plessis, T. “Information and Knowledge Management at SouthAfrican LawFirms.”Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal14,no.4(2011):233–58.

This article discusses the results of a survey of information and knowledgemanagementpracticesatSouthAfricanlawfirms.Theauthoralsoanalyzestheresults of a survey of South African law firms on the use of information andcommunication technologies for knowledge management. Survey responsesindicated that SouthAfrican law firms used intranets, document managementsystems,andelectroniccommunicationtechnologiesbuthadnotembracedmoresophisticated technologies such as automated document assembly applicationsand online dispute resolution platforms, nor had they implemented semantictechnologiesorcloudcomputing.

DuPlessis,T.,andA.S.A.duToit.“KnowledgeManagementandLegalPractice.”International Journal of Information Management26(2006):360–71.

This article evaluates how the evolving legal information environment affectsthe process of legal research and how knowledge management can support orimprove legal research. The authors also examine the electronic legal researchprocessandconsidertheskillsthatlawyersproficientinprintresearchwillneedto use electronic resources effectively. This article is useful for its analysis oflawyers’needstoaccessvarioustypesofinformation,includingprimaryandsec-ondarysourcesoflegalinformation,informationaboutclientsandtheirmatters,formsandprecedentsusedrepeatedlyinworkforclients,andinformationabout

77. Lustrietal.,supranote43.


thefirm’soperationsandadministrationandaboutitsbusinessenvironment.Thearticle alsodescribes the resultsof a surveyofSouthAfrican lawyers regardingtechnologyandknowledgemanagement.Ahighpercentageofrespondentswerewilling to use knowledge management to acquire and share information, workremotely,andparticipate indevelopingnewknowledge.But therewasalsosig-nificantuncertaintyaboutwhetherknowledgemanagementsystemswereinuseat theirorganizationsaswellas someunfamiliaritywithextranets. Inaddition,thesurveyresultsindicatedthatalthoughtheywerenotgenerallyaskedtoassistinday-to-daylegalresearch,librariansperformedimportantknowledgemanage-mentfunctionsand“shouldincreasinglytakeonthechallengeofdevelopingorimprovingoncurrentsystemsdesignedfortypicalKMactivitiesthatareaimedatlawfirmcompetitiveness,especiallywithregardstopackagingindividuals’knowl-edgeintoinformationproducts”(p.370).

Gottschalk, Petter.“Knowledge Management in the Professions: Lessons LearnedfromNorwegianLawFirms.”Journal of Knowledge Management3,no.3(1999):203–11.

TheauthorconductedafieldstudyofthelargestfirminNorwayandasurveyofNorwegianfirmstolearntheuseofknowledgemanagementinlawfirms.Basedon theresults,he formulated threeresearchhypotheses: (1)apositive relation-shipexistsbetweenfirmknowledgeandknowledgemanagement,(2)apositiverelationship exists between firm culture and knowledge management, and (3)a positive relationship exists between information technology use and knowl-edgemanagement.ProfessorGottschalk is themostprolificauthorofscholarlyresearcharticlesregardingknowledgemanagementinthelawfirmcontext.Thisarticlerepresentsthebeginningofaseriesofstudiesbyhimonlawfirmknowl-edge management and sets the stage for a subsequent article in the same yearregardingthethirdresearchhypothesisdescribedaboveoninformationtechnol-ogyandlawfirmknowledgemanagement.

Gottschalk,Petter.“KnowledgeManagementSystems:AComparisonofLawFirmsandConsultingFirms.”Informing Science3,no.3(2000):117–24.

This article analyzes the results of research on Norwegian law firms’ useof information technology in interorganizational knowledge management.Interorganizationalknowledgemanagementinvolvesinformationsharingamongmembers of cooperative associations that include multiple law firms, rang-ing from formal national and international networks to informal cooperativerelationships.Theauthor foundthat theextentof lawfirmcooperationandofknowledge cooperation each had a significant effect on the use of informationtechnology in connection with interorganizational knowledge management,althoughtheleveloftrustamongmembersofthenetworksdidnot.Thisarticlealsocomparestheinterorganizationalknowledgemanagementusedbylawfirmswiththatusedbyconsultingfirms.Notwithstandingaperceptionthatconsultingfirmswerefarmoreadvancedthanlawfirmsintheiruseofinformationtechnol-ogyinsupportofknowledgetransfer,surveyresultsshowedthatconsultingfirms’usewasonlyslightlyhigherthanthatoflawfirms.

Gottschalk,Petter.“UseofITforKnowledgeManagementinLawFirms.”Journal of Information, Law and Technology,1999,no.3.http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1999_3/gottschalk.

Thisarticle considerspredictorsoftheuseofinformationtechnologytosupportknowledge management in law firms, based on a study of the largest law firm


inNorwayanda surveyofNorwegian firms.Theauthor’s research found thattheextenttowhichfirmsuseinformationtechnologygenerallyhasasignificantimpactontheiruseofinformationtechnologyforknowledgemanagement.Lawfirmcultureandfirmknowledgewereidentifiedaspotentialpredictorsofinfor-mationtechnologysupportforknowledgemanagementinNorwegianfirms.AswithmuchofGottschalk’swork,thelawfirmsstudiedarealllocatedinNorway.Theydonotincludeanyofthelargemulti-office(ormultinational)firmsofthesortthatwouldbefoundinmajorcitiesintheUnitedStatesorCanada,London,orotherlargelegalmarkets.

“Stages of Growth” of Law Firm Knowledge Management

Gottschalk,Petter,and JanTerjeKarlsen.“KnowledgeManagement inLawFirmBusiness.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 16, no. 3(2009):432–42.

Gottschalk,alongwithanotherprofessorattheNorwegianSchoolofManagement,returns to the stages-of-growth model for examining information technologyusageinsupportofknowledgemanagementatlawfirms.Thearticlebeginswithadiscussionofthelawfirmanditsongoingtransitionfromaprofessionaltoacorporatebusinessmodel, lawyersasknowledgeworkers,andknowledgeorga-nizations.Theauthorsrefinethestages-of-growthmodelandprovideillustrativeexamplesoftheinformationtechnologyemployedineachstage.Stage1,referredtoas“end-usertools”or“lawyer-to-technology,”usesproductivityapplications,suchaswordprocessing,legaldatabases,spreadsheets,andscheduling,whichareavailabletoknowledgeworkers(p.437).Stage2,describedas“who-knows-what”or“lawyer-to-lawyer,”involvesusingtechnologytomapandmakeavailablefirmknowledgeliketheareasofexpertiseofitsattorneys(pp.437–38).Stage3,charac-terizedas“lawyer-to-information”or“what-they-know,”capturesinformation—such as agreements and other work product, memos, letters, reports, policies,e-mails,voicemails,andothermaterialsgeneratedinthefirm’soperation—fromattorneys and others in the firm in databases and other repositories and usessearch engines and data mining to access and combine needed information(pp.437,438).Stage4,referredtoas“lawyer-to-application”or“howtheythink,”applies advanced tools like artificial intelligence, neural networks, and expertsystemsinordertosolvelegalknowledgeproblems(pp.437,438–39).Althoughmostofthefirmssurveyed(allofwhichareinNorway)areatthethirdstageofgrowth,theresearchdidnotconfirmthestages-of-growthmodel.

Gottschalk, Petter, and Vijay K. Khandelwal. “Determinants of KnowledgeManagementTechnologyProjectsinAustralianLawFirms.”Journal of Know-ledge Management7,no.4(2003):92–105.

Gottschalk and Khandelwal explore results of a survey on the use of informa-tion technology in knowledge management among Australian law firms. Theauthors describe a four-category or four-stage growth model for the adoptionofknowledgemanagementinformationtechnologybylawfirms.Thefirststage,“toolsforendusers,”involvesinformationtechnologytoolsthataremadeavail-able to knowledge workers, such as word processing, e-mail, and spreadsheets(p.93). The second stage,“information about who knows what,” is concernedwithinformationaboutknowledgesourcesavailabletothefirm,suchasintranetswithdetailsabouttheexperienceandareasofexpertiseofattorneyswithinthe


firm, and the creation of “a knowledge network” (pp.93–94). The third stage,“informationfromknowledgeworkers,”involvestheconstructionofdatabasesofinformationcompiledfromknowledgeworkersandusedforsearchinganddatamining and making knowledge accessible via intranets (pp.94–95). The fourthstage,“informationsystemssolvingknowledgeproblems,”concernstheapplica-tion of advanced technologies such as expert systems and artificial intelligenceon knowledge problems (pp.95–96). Of the firms surveyed, most were focusedonend-user information technology tools, somewereworkingon storing firmknowledge, and a few were working on storing information about who knowswhatwithinthefirmorondevelopingsystemstosolveknowledgeproblems.Boththenumberoflawyersandnumberofinformationtechnologystaffmembersinafirmweremajordeterminantsofthestagesofknowledgemanagementtechnol-ogypresentinthefirm.

Gottschalk, Petter, and Vijay K. Khandelwal. “Stages of Growth for KnowledgeManagement Technology in Law Firms.” Journal of Computer Information Systems 44,no.4(2004):111–24.

GottschalkandKhandelwalagaincollaborateonresearchregardinginformationtechnology and knowledge management in law firms, analyzing the results ofNorwegian law firms based upon the stages-of-growth model. Research resultsdid not entirely validate the model and suggested that refinement and furtherresearchwouldbeneeded.Itwasnotclearfromtheresultsthatfirmsnecessarilyprogressedthroughthestagesinorder.Thearticledoes,however,providedetailedexplicationofthestagesinthemodelandtheknowledgemanagementandinfor-mationtechnologyaspectsofeach.

Clients as Drivers of Technology Adoption for Knowledge Management

Gottschalk,Petter.“LawFirmClientsasDriversofLawFirmChange.”Journal of Information, Law & Technology,2002,no.1.http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2002_1/gottschalk.

Thisarticleconcludes,basedonasurveyoflawfirmclientsinNorway,thatclientdemandswerenotdrivinginformationtechnologyusebylawfirmsin2002.Atthattime, law firms were primarily using only tools such as e-mail, word processing,spreadsheets,andpresentationsoftwareandmakinglimiteduseofthen-emergingtechnologieslikeextranetsandexpertsystems.Theresearchdidnotsuggestthatthelawfirms’clientsweredriversofchangeregardinglawfirms’adoptionofknowledgemanagementtechnology.Theauthor’sresearchdid,however,showincreasesincli-entsatisfactionwhenfirmshadthecapacitytoelectronicallycodetheclientinfor-mationtheyreceivedandusedinformationtechnologytotransmitinformationtotheclient,provideclientswithaccesstoinformation,andprovideinformationtoclientsregardingcasesandadministrativemattersthatcouldbecodedbytheclient.

Information Technology and Interorganizational Knowledge Management

Gottschalk, Petter.“Benefits from Information and Communication TechnologyFacilitatingInter-OrganisationalKnowledgeNetworks:TheCaseofEurojurisLawFirmsinNorway.”Journal of Information, Law & Technology,2001,no.2.http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2001_2/gottschalk.

ThisarticleanalyzestheresultsofresearchwithrespecttoNorwegianlawfirms’participationinEurojuris,anetworkofEuropeanlawfirmsthathasinvestedin


informationtechnologyforknowledgemanagement.Eurojurisincludesofficesin650locationsinnineteencountries,coveringatotalof3000lawyers.InNorway,thereareelevenlawfirmswithninety lawyers intheEurojurisnetwork.Astheauthorexplains,lawfirmsparticipateininternationalalliancesasawaytogen-erate cross-border business for themselves. The research results indicated thatparticipatinglawyersperceivedbenefitsin“threeoutoffivevalueactivities[fromtheir participation in interorganizational knowledge management]: problem-solving,choice,andcontrolandevaluation”(§5).Problemsolvinginvolvesfind-ingandanalyzingrelevantlawanddocuments,draftingdocuments,andlocatingexperts.Choiceentailsselectinganappropriatesolutiontoaproblemfromalter-natives.Controlandevaluation involvesmeasuringandassessing theeffective-nessofthesolutionthatisimplemented.Theseresultssupportthepropositionthat information and communication technologies used in interorganizationalnetworksprovidebenefitsingeneratingpotentialanswerstoproblems,choosingamong potential solutions, and evaluating the success of the solution chosen.Benefits from information and communication technology were greater at thelevelof“advancedknowledge”(knowledgeenablingeffectivecompetition)thanatthelevelsof“coreknowledge”(basicknowledgeneededtooperateinanindus-try)or“innovativeknowledge”(knowledgethatenablesanorganizationtoleadortransformitsindustry)(§2).Theresearchalsosuggestedthatmembersofthenetworkwerenotusingthenetworktocooperateoncasesoronadministrativesupport.

Gottschalk, Petter, and Vijay K. Khandelwal. “Inter-Organizational KnowledgeManagement:AComparisonofLawFirmsinNorwayandAustralia.”Journal of Computer Information Systems 42,no.5(2002):50–58.

ThisarticleanalyzesinformationtechnologyusebylawfirmnetworksinNorwayandAustralia. The research indicated that while both the level of cooperationamongfirmsinanetworkandthelevelofsharingofadministrative,declarative,procedural,andanalyticalknowledgewithinanetworkpredictedhigherlevelsofinformationtechnologyusageinsuchnetworksinNorway,onlythelatterdidsoinAustralia.Thelevelofinterorganizationaltrustprovednottobeasignificantpredictor.Inbothcountries,word-processingsystems,e-mail,andlegaldatabasesweretheprimarytechnologiesused.Australianfirmsappearedtouseinforma-tion technology more than Norwegian ones, particularly e-mail, presentations,otherlawfirms’webpagesontheInternet,librarysystems,intranets,documentsystems,andotherlawfirms’webpagesonextranets.

The Human Side of Knowledge Management

Knowledge Sharing

Attfield, Simon, Ann Blandford, and Stephann Makri.“Social and InteractionalPractices forDisseminatingCurrentAwareness Information inanOrganisa-tionalSetting.”Information Processing and Management46(2010):632–45.

Thisarticlediscusses theresultsofastudyofelectroniccurrentawarenessser-vices ina largeLondonlawfirm, involvingattorneysandthefirm’sknowledgemanagementstaff.Theauthors foundthat thestaffactedas“intelligent filters”attuned to the information needs of specific practice teams that helped time-starvedfeeearnerscopewithinformationoverload(p.643).Theauthorssuggest


that current awareness services address several design recommendations. Thefirstrecommendationisrapidevaluationofinformationagainstanindividual’sinterestsbyreadinginformationitemsfirst,supplementingitemswithadditionalrelevantinformation,addinginformationtospecificnewsletters,sendingspecificitemstoindividuals,andstoringitemsindifferentcollectionsdependingontheirintended purposes. The second recommendation is to organize information tosupportdifferentuses,including“knownpurpose”collectionsthatarelimitedinscopeanddurationbasedontaskdeadlinesandmoreexpansive“futurereference”collectionssupportedwithbrowsingandsearchingtools(p.644).Thethirdrec-ommendationistoemployback-propagationofdetailsaboutinformationneedsandpreferencesfromuserstobetterunderstandtheirrequirements,electronicallyaswellasbymeansofsocialinteractionwithusers.

Brivot, Marion. “Controls of Knowledge Production, Sharing and Use inBureaucratized Professional Service Firms.” Organization Studies 32 (2011):489–508.

This article uses the results of a case study of a business law firm to evaluatewhethertheuseofcentralizedknowledgemanagementsystemsin largeprofes-sional service firms led to a power shift within the organization. The authorfocusedontheParisofficeofalargefirmthatbelongstoaninternationalnetworkof lawyers, accountants, and consultants. The Paris office, which employs 250lawyers, had implemented a significant knowledge management function thatincludedtwofull-timeknowledgemanagementstaffmembersandasearchabledatabase of legal documents and other work product from prior engagements,with some of the documents endorsed by an internal standards committee as“bestpractice”examplesforreuseinresponsetorecurrentclientrequests(p.495).The author found that despite increased bureaucracy involved in the creation,sharing,anduseofknowledgewithinthefirm,attorneysinthefirmgainedpowerasaresultof thecentralizedknowledgemanagementsystemrather than losingcontroltoadministrators.Inaddition,lawyersarenowabletoaccessknowledgeinthefirmevenwithoutsocialcapital(suchaspersonalcontactswithindividualswhohave relevantknowledge),whichcanhelp fosterdiversitywithin the firm.Thearticleincludesanextensivediscussionoftheeffectsoftheknowledgeman-agement system on attorney behaviors, such as displays of knowledge withinthe system intended to advertise expertise within the firm, and withholdingknowledgeincertainareasofexpertisefromthesystemtorestrictaccesstothatknowledgetoaselectgroupofpractitionersinthefirm.

Hunter, Laurie, Phil Beaumont, and Mathew Lee. “Knowledge ManagementPracticeinScottishLawFirms.”Human Resource Management Journal12,no.2(2002):4–21.

Thisarticleuses theresultsof researchonScottish lawfirms to lookathumanresourceissuesrelatedtolawfirmknowledgemanagement.Thearticleaddressesknowledge management within the framework of the development of humancapital,tacitknowledge,andhumanresourcemanagement,basedoncasestudiesoffivelawfirmsranginginsizefrommorethanfiftylawyerstofewerthanten.Theauthorsfoundthatintheareaofknowledgemanagement,lawfirmsremainfocused on developing human capital, with two of the firms studied havingdeveloped knowledge management teams and appointed knowledge managers.All five firmsused tools suchasdatabasesanddocument templates to increase


productivity,andeachaimedtofacilitatethedevelopmentofsocialcapital,bothinternallywithtechnologysuchasintranetsandexternallywithtechnologysuchasclient-facingextranets.Thefirmsshowedlessinterestinthesocialandculturalprocesses thatdevelop tacitknowledge, suchas communicatingwithattorneysinotherpracticeareasandmentoring.Theauthorsarguethathumanresourcemanagerscancontributetoafirm’sknowledgemanagementstrategybyhelpinglawyers develop policies and performance appraisal standards that are alignedwiththeeffectivedevelopmentandsharingofknowledgewithinthefirm.

Lustri, Denise, Irene Miura, and Sérgio Takahashi. “Knowledge ManagementModel: Practical Application for Competency Development.” The Learning Organization14,no.2(2007):186–202.

Thisarticledescribestheresultsofcasestudyresearchonaknowledgemanage-mentmodelusedbyaBrazilian law firm tohelp juniorattorneysdevelop lawpracticecompetencies.Threelawyersidentifiedaspossessingthedesiredcompe-tenciesandthreetraineelawyerswiththepotentialtodevelopthosecompeten-ciesparticipated in theprogram.Otherexperienced lawyersattendedmeetingswithprogramparticipants.Thecompetencymodelthatservedasthebasisoftheprogramconsistedofa“nucleus”and four“spheres” (pp.194–95).Thenucleusinvolvedtwoseriesofworkshopsfocusedonsharingthevisionoftheknowledgeandcompetenciestobecultivated.Thefirstsphereconsistedofanintroductorymoduleon“customerserviceandrelationship[s],servicequalitystandards,pre-sentation techniques, relationshipwith themedia,disseminationof the serviceareas composing the firm, dissemination of the products/services offered byeach area and the characteristics of their target clients” (p.195). An advancedfirst-sphere module covered“market analysis, organisational analysis, businessmanagement, finance, strategic planning, consultancy techniques and skills”(p.195).Thesecondsphereinvolvedbiweeklymeetingsfocusingonthetransferof tacitknowledgevia individual conversations; creationof amanualof clientservicestandards;andmentees’observationofmentorsatmeetings,negotiations,presentations,courtappearances,andotheractivities.Thethirdsphere(notcom-pletedatthetimeofthearticle)wasplannedtoinvolveknowledgedisseminationbyboththethreementorsand,aftertwoyears,theinitialthreelawyerswhowerebeingtrainedinthecompetenciesprogram.Thefourthsphere(alsonotcompleteatthetimeofthearticle)wasplannedtoconsistofpracticalapplicationofthecompetenciesdeveloped,suchasclientvisits,presentationswithinthefirm,andlecturesandinterviews.Theauthorsfoundthatthemodeldevelopedthecompe-tenciesinquestionmoreeffectivelythantheconventionaltrainingmethodsusedbythefirmduringtheprecedingfouryears.

Olatokun,WoleM.,andIsiomaN.Elueze.“AnalysingLawyers’AttitudeTowardsKnowledgeSharing.”South African Journal of Information Management14,no.1(2012).http://www.sajim.co.za/index.php/SAJIM/article/view/507.

Thisarticleexplorestheresultsofastudyoffactorsthataffecttheattitudesandbehaviorsoflawyerswithrespecttoknowledgesharingbasedonasurveyoflaw-yersinamajorcityinNigeria.Theauthorsfoundthattheexpectedrewardfromknowledgesharingwasnotasignificantmotivatorofknowledge-sharingbehav-ioramonglawyers.Expectedassociationsamonglawyersinvolvedinknowledgesharingandthelawyers’attitudesabouttheirowncontributionswerepredictorsof knowledge-sharing behavior. Although positive attitudes toward knowledgesharingledtopositiveintentionstoengageinit,thesepositiveintentionsdidnot


translate into knowledge-sharing behavior. Use of information technology didcontribute to knowledge sharing, although the levelof information technologywasgenerallylimitedtoe-mailandmobiletelephony.

Perceived Value of Knowledge Management

Forstenlechner, Ingo, Fiona Lettice, Mike Bourne, and Carol Webb. “TurningKnowledgeintoValueinProfessionalServiceFirms.”Performance Measurement and Metrics8,no.3(2007):146–56.

Thisarticlediscussestheresultsofresearchintotheperceptionsofthevalueofknowledgemanagementbylawyersandstaffatthetoptengloballawfirms.Theauthorsfoundthatlawyersatthosefirmsstronglysupportedthepropositionthatknowledgemanagementaddsvaluetothebusinessofalawfirm.Thebenefitsofknowledgemanagementreportedbysurveyrespondentsincludedimprovementsinattorneyefficiency; improvementsinthequalityofworkproduct;betterriskmanagement, resulting from the use of more consistently updated and refinedknow-how;differentiationfromcompetitorsandincreasedproductivity;amorecollaborative,consistent,andunified firmculture; improvedcurrentawareness;andbettertrainingforjuniorlawyers.

The Importance of an “Information Culture”

Choo, Chun Wei, Colin Furness, Scott Paquette, Herman van den Berg, BrianDetlor, Pierrette Bergeron, and Lorna Heaton. “Working With Information:InformationManagementandCultureinaProfessionalServicesOrganization.”Journal of Information Science32,no.6(2006):491–510.

Authored by seven scholars working in several disciplines at three Canadianuniversities, thisarticleanalyzestheresultsofadetailedsurveyofemployeesatoneofCanada’slargestlawfirms,adiversified,multi-officeorganizationofferinglegal services in a broad range of practice areas. Respondents included lawyersandsupportandadministrativepersonnel.Theresearchincludedananalysisofsurvey responses and interviews with the firm’s senior management, includingitschiefknowledgeofficerandothers,aboutthefirm’sknowledgemanagementstrategy.Theauthors’analysisofsurveyresultssuggestedthatthislawfirm’sinfor-mationculture—as“reflected in theorganization’svalues,norms,andpracticeswithregardtothemanagementanduseofinformation”—playsagreaterroleininformationuseoutcomesthanitshighlevelofinformationmanagementactivi-ties(p.493).Theinformationvaluesheldbythoseinthelawfirmthatplayedthelargestroleininformationusewerethoserelatingtothesharing,proactiveness,transparency, and informality of information. Copies of the survey questions,addressingabroadrangeofinformation-relatedbehaviors,wereincludedinthearticle, offering insight into how researchers conceptualize knowledge manage-mentissuesinthelawfirmcontext.

Attorney Behavior and Incentives

Brivot,Marion,andYvesGendron.“BeyondPanopticism:OntheRamificationsofSurveillanceinaContemporaryProfessionalSetting.”Accounting, Organizations and Society 36(2011):135–55.

TheauthorsusedatafromacasestudyofaFrenchlawfirmtoevaluatethephe-nomenonofsurveillanceinacontemporaryorganizationandassessthelimitsof


thepanopticalmetaphorinanalyzingpresent-daysurveillance.Themetaphorofthepanopticon,“prevalentinthemanagerialcontrolliterature,ispredicatedonahierarchicalviewofcontrolinwhichlocalizedandspecifictargetsofsurveillancenever know whether or not they are actively being watched—thereby leadingthem to assume they are constantly watched” (p.136). The authors found thatafterinstallationofthefirm’sknowledgemanagementsystem,whichfocusedonbuildingacollectionof firmattorneys’ legalopinionsandotherworkproduct,lateralnetworksofsurveillancedevelopedinsteadofcentralsurveillancebyfirmleaders.Althoughsometraitsofpanopticsurveillancewerepresent,fellowlaw-yers,ratherthanfirmmanagement,generallyweretheoneswhoscrutinizedthevalidityandqualityofthedocumentssubmittedtotheknowledgemanagementsystem.Afterthesystemwasimplemented,attorneysgenerallycompliedwiththerequirementthattheirdocumentsbeincluded.Lawyersalsoengagedin“show-ing off”—playing“games of visibility involving the purposeful self-disclosureofone’swork”—and“hiding”—resistingtheknowledgemanagementsystembydevelopingunofficialknowledgemarketsoutsideof it (p.152).Thisarticle is afascinatingstudyofhowlawyersrespondtotheprofessionalandsocialincentivesinvolvedinacentralizedknowledgemanagementsystemandthelayersofcom-plexitythathumanbehavioraddstolawfirmknowledgemanagement.

Other Areas of Focus

Effect on Fee Income

Forstenlechner,Ingo,FionaLettice,andMikeBourne.“KnowledgePays:EvidencefromaLawFirm.”Journal of Knowledge Management13,no.1(2009):56–68.

This article analyzes the results of empirical research on the financial benefitsofknowledgemanagementbasedonanin-depthcasestudyofoneofthethreelargest law firms in the world, in an attempt to discern whether knowledgemanagementprovidesacompetitiveadvantage.Thefirmhadawell-developedknowledge management function, with knowledge management staffing farabovethe industryaverage,andgeneral investment inknowledgemanagementalsoabovetheindustryaverage.Theresultssupportedtheconclusionthatsomeknowledgemanagementfactorscanpartlypredictfeeincome:

• thevalueperceptionofknowledgemanagementservicesbasedonqual-ityofpersonalservicefromtheknowledgemanagementteam;

• theexchangeofpersonalknow-howamongpeers;• thequalityofcounselandlegalopinions;• theeaseofuseofknow-howsystems;• theuseofnewsandcurrentaffairs;• lawyercommitment;and• thestaffingoftheknowledgemanagementfunction.

Theauthorsnote that theirresearchwas limitedtoasingle firmandthat theyanalyzed the resultsusing the existing“KMBalancedScorecard” (amethodofperformancemeasurementinanorganizationbeingstudied)developedforthisfirm; thus the results may not be completely applicable to other organizations(p.56).Theauthors’conclusionswerebasedon“internalsurveysonKMservices,performancemeasures,usagedataforKMsystemsandtoolsandorganisationalfinancialdata”(p.56).


Implementation

Beaumont,Jon.“KnowledgeManagementinaRegionalLawFirm:AWorthwhileInvestment or Time Wasted?” Business Information Review 27, no. 4 (2010):227–32.

Thisarticledetailstheimplementationofknowledgemanagementataregionalfull-servicelawfirmintheUnitedKingdom.Theknowledgemanagementinitia-tivebegan in2007.Prior to that, the firm’s InformationDepartmentemployedtwo information professionals and a part-time, retired attorney who primarilydeliveredknowledgeinternally,withoutasignificantstrategicapproach.Thefirmhired one professional support lawyer and had possible plans to hire another,althoughthisdidnotoccuruntilaftertheknowledgemanagementprogramwasimplemented.InadditiontoitsexistingInformationDepartment,thefirm,withadvicefromaconsultant,introducedanewrole,calledaknowledgefeeearner,ineachofitsfifteenpracticeteams(p.228).Knowledgemanagementactivitieswereincludedinperformanceappraisals,andsomelevelofcontributiontoknowledgemanagementbecamearequirement forpromotionwithinthe firm.The fifteennewknowledgefeeearnersdevelopedasetofeighttalkingpointsusedtopromotetheknowledgemanagementinitiativewithinthefirm.Inadditiontostaffingandperformanceappraisal changes, theknowledgemanagement initiativewas sup-portedwith the firm’sexistingdocumentmanagementsystemsandother tech-nology. After eighteen months, the knowledge management program achievedthefollowingresults:developmentofprecedentbanks,creationofastandardizedcoversheetthatcanbeattachedtoanydocumentwithasingleclick,implementa-tionofafirmintranet,developmentofblogsandwikisasplatformsforinternalknowledge sharing, seamless integration of links to knowledge resources fromexternalproviders,developmentofstandardizedpitchmaterials,developmentofhow-to guides onvarious information topics, creationof“transaction toolkits”thatincluderelevantdocumentsandguidancefromanexperiencedlawyer,andcompilationofhistoricalfeeandbillingdata(pp.230–31).

Fombad, Madeleine C., Hans J. A. Boon, and Theo J. D. Bothma.“A Survey ofKnowledgeManagementinLawFirmsinBotswana.”African Journal of Library, Archives & Information Science19,no.2(2009):141–54.

This article describes the results of research on knowledge management in lawfirms inBotswana.Most law firms in thatcountryarevery smallbyU.S. stan-dards:morethantwo-thirdsconsistofone-ortwo-lawyerpractices.Theauthorsfound that the state of knowledge management by lawyers in Botswana waslimited; the most common knowledge management practices involved the useof precedent, legal research, weekly learning reports, records management, andhiringandtrainingyounglawyers.Onlyone-fifthofthelawyerssurveyedmain-tainedknow-howsystemsandinformationbanksorworkproductrepositories.Theresearchalsoaddressedfactorsthatrespondentsbelievedcontributetoeffec-tiveknowledgemanagementandthosethattheybelievedinhibitit.Mostlawyersdidnotbelievethatparticipationinknowledgesharingwasessentialforpromo-tion.Interestingly,amajorityofrespondentsdidnotbelievethatknowledgewasviewedasasourceofpoweramonglawyers,althoughtheintervieweesindicatedthat“lawyersinBotswanaareoftennotwillingtosharetheirexpertise,becauseknowledgeisregardedaspowerandlawyersbelievethatmonopolyofparticularinformation will lead to personal indispensability, job security, influence, andprofessional respect within the firm” (p.150). Most respondents felt that their


firms lacked the technological infrastructure for effective knowledge manage-ment;otherperceivedobstaclesincludedasmallfirmsizeandlimitedfinancialresources.TheauthorsrecommendedthatlawyersinBotswanashould“considertalking to others in the legal fraternity about knowledge management, attendmeetingsandworkshopsonknowledgemanagement,investtimeandmoneyincreating bulletins boards, sample skill directories, form alliances with interna-tional professional associations and get connected to [a] physical or electronicforumthatengagesincollaborativethinking”(p.151).

Fombad,M.C.,J.A.Boon,andT.J.D.Bothma.“StrategiesforKnowledgeMan-agement in Law Firms in Botswana.” South African Journal of Information Management11,no.2(2009).http://www.sajim.co.za/index.php/SAJIM/article/view/405.

Using the results of the research described in the preceding annotation, theauthors present a detailed set of recommendations for Botswana law firms toimplement and use knowledge management effectively. The recommendationsincludethefollowing:

• Picking initiatives within a firm’s “current technology, business pro-cesses,fundingconstraintsandculturalreadiness”(§7);

• Beingpreparedtoengageinlong-termknowledgemanagementprojectsandlearnfrommistakes;

• Investing in appropriate technologies, taking into account “people,structure,processes, leadershipandtechniquesbeforeselectingatech-nologicalsolution”(§7);

• UsingtheLawSociety(thegoverningbodyofBotswanalawfirms)asthe“principalinstitutionforfacilitatingknowledgemanagementinlawfirms”(§7) by setting up conferences and workshops for lawyers and workingwithlegalacademicstofacilitateknowledgemanagementinfirms;

• Inlargefirms,havingknowledgemanagerskeepmanagementinformedaboutinitiativesandconsideringknowledgemanagementasabasicskilltobedevelopedbyalllawyers;

• Devotingatleasttenpercentoflawyers’timeintalkingtoothersinthelegalcommunityaboutandattendingseminarsonknowledgemanage-ment,usingsampleskilldirectories,formingallianceswithinternationalprofessional organizations, and participating in online or in-persondiscussionforums;

• Providingandattendingprofessionaldevelopmentsessionsonrelevantknowledge;

• Rewardinglawyerswhodevotetimetoknowledgemanagement,credit-ingattorneytimespentwritingdocumentsthatareincludedinknowl-edgedatabases,providingpersonalrecognitionforlawyercontributionstoknowledgemanagement,andexploringwaysofbillingforvalueandnothourly;

• Developingandmanagingknowledgeaboutclientsandtheirindustries;and

• Implementing user-friendly interfaces for electronic knowledge man-agement systems that do not require lawyers to undergo significanttraining.


International Aspects

Beaverstock, Jonathan V. “‘Managing Across Borders’: Knowledge Managementand Expatriation in Professional Service Legal Firms.” Journal of Economic Geography4,no.2(2004):157–79.

Inthisarticle,theauthorexaminestheresultsofcasestudiesoftenLondon-basedinternational law firms in the context of cross-border knowledge managementand the expatriation of knowledge. British law firms send lawyers to foreignofficestosupplythemwithEnglishcommonlawknowledgeresources,and,atthesametime,uselocallawyerstoprovidelegalserviceswithrespecttothelawsoftheircountries.TheresearchindicatedthatinEastAsianoffices,theexpatriationfolloweda“multinational”model,withtransmissionofEnglishlawandmanage-mentofofficesbytheexpatriates(p.173).InEuropeandNorthAmerica,expa-triationfolloweda“transnational”model,withknowledgedevelopedandsharedin multiple directions along networks of relationships; expatriates and localspracticedalongsideoneanotherandservedinmanagementroles(pp.173–74).

Conclusion

¶30Thesearticlespaintapictureofknowledgemanagementasadisciplinewithenormouspotentialformakinglawfirmsmoreefficientandeffectiveinprovidinglegal services,althoughthatpotentialhas insomerespectsnotyetbeen fulfilled.Thereare,nonetheless,powerfullessonsintheexistingresearchforlibrariansinlawfirmsandinlawschools.Thoseinprivatepracticewhoworkinorareinterestedinknowledgemanagementarelikelywellawarethatitisthesubjectofextensivecom-mentaryonsocialmedia78andinindustrypublications.79Thescholarshipsumma-rized in this article can serve as an empirical foundation for thoughtful andinformeddecisionmakingabouttheimplementation,development,maintenance,andmodificationofknowledgemanagementandprovidevaluablelong-rangeper-spectivesthatframeandsupplementtheoftenmoreimmediateadviceandguid-anceofknowledgemanagementpractitioners.

¶31Academiclawlibrarianscanalsolearnfromthelawfirmknowledgeman-agementliterature.Intheirrolesaslegalresearchinstructors,lawschoollibrarianscanmakestudentsawareofhowlegalandpracticeknowledgemaybeaccessibleviaan electronic knowledge management system in their practice setting. Studentsshould also be alerted to the ways in which practice knowledge may be sharedthrough both formal and informal networks within firms, and consider ways toensuretheyhaveaccesstocriticalknowledgeresourceswhentheyenterpractice.

78. See, e.g., 3 geeKS And A lAw Blog, http://www.geeklawblog.com/; ABove & BeYond Km,http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/;denniSKennedY.com,http://denniskennedy.com/blog/;the legAl-KmeRS dAilY, http://paper.li/KMHobbie/legal-kmers; ILTA KM, http://km.iltanet.org/; lAwYeRKm,http://lawyerkm.com/. 79. See, e.g., White Papers and Surveys (2014), int’l l. tech. ASS’n, http://www.iltanet.org/MainMenuCategory/Publications/WhitePapersandSurveys. For a bibliography of legal and gen-eral knowledge management resources for practitioners, see deBoRAh pAnellA, ReSouRceS foR lAw fiRm Km pRofeSSionAlS, http://www.iltanet.org/MainMenuCategory/Members/PeerGroups/KnowledgeManagement/KM-Resources.aspx(lastvisitedMar.4,2014).