Centralized Docketing Systems for Law Firms

Transcription

1 New York Washington DC London Paris Frankfurt Centralized Docketing Systems for Law Firms Presentation to Law Firm General Counsel Roundtable Lexington, Kentucky April 24-25, 2017

2 Centralized Docketing Systems for Law Firms Background and context What are they, and what do they look like? How do they function? Advantages and opportunities Potential disadvantages and challenges 2

3 Background A view from New York - because centralizing the docketing function was largely a New York development 3

4 Background The NY Managing Attorney - or Managing Clerk Scope of responsibilities varies widely by firm, but all include the centralized docketing function A number of New York firms have a Managing Clerk in overall charge of docketing and related functions Managing Clerk Carter Ledyard & Milburn

5 Role as Fried Frank s Managing Attorney Firm profile: 500 attorneys worldwide, 90 litigators Background: Practicing litigator Experience with internal functions of law firms of different sizes Primary practice experience in federal and New York state courts My role at Fried Frank: Oversee Managing Attorney s Office staff and staff operations (4 in NY, 1.5 in DC) Point of contact for firm with NY and local federal courts Provide procedural and strategic advice, and problem solving, for all case teams Review and edit outgoing litigation papers, and analyze adversaries papers (upon request) I am a timekeeper Provide training and guidance for junior attorneys (no input on reviews) Keep firm attorneys current with respect to procedural rules and practices Monitor new case filings for business development and current awareness Represent firm in various contexts Address requests for counsel referrals Assist with other client accommodations, e.g., jury service issues. 5

6 Basic Functions of a Centralized Docketing System Review and docket/record all incoming and outgoing pleadings, motions and other litigation papers Calculate deadlines associated with each such paper (with or without automated assistance) Docket significant events, e.g., court appearances, court conferences, mediation sessions, etc. Docket procedural obligations and calendar deadlines resulting from such events Prepare and circulate ticklers for impending deadlines Common Additional Functions Monitor pending firm cases Effect and/or coordinate service of litigation papers Receipt of service of litigation papers Filing of litigation papers, including electronic filing, submission of courtesy copies, etc. Notify and circulate to interested attorneys, legal assistants and others copies of incoming papers Track what firm attorneys are assigned to cases and coordinate substitutions upon departures Collect and maintain copies of litigation papers (((Your firm of course does all of these things already) 6

7 Still More Possible Functions Basic review of firm litigation papers for compliance with form requirements, etc. Capture items in the docketing process for future use as procedural and substantive precedents Mine public dockets for procedural and substantive precedents Business development function (litigant name watches, nature-of-suit watches, etc.) Monitor cases of interest to other practice groups Assist with due diligence for transactional practices Open and redirect mystery mail addressed to the firm without an identified addressee or to departed attorneys Field telephone calls to the firm where there is no identified call recipient Coordinate attorney and notary licensing 7

8 A Centralized Docketing System minimally consists of: 1. A single system or integrated systems for use across different practice groups, offices and jurisdictions Primary functions are storing of docket information, calculation of deadlines, and generation of reports Systems can be built in-house, purchased, or licensed from any number of vendors Systems can be installed on internal servers or operate on a cloud-based platform Users can operate from a central location or different locations on a centralized system Tickler reports may be distributed over web portal, integration with Outlook, in hard copy, etc. Automated rule sets can be added or declined Colocation strongly recommended for disaster recovery Option to allow view-only access to firm attorneys Capacity to capture and store images of documents a strong plus 8

9 2. A dedicated team with responsibility for reviewing and docketing incoming and outgoing litigation papers, calculating relevant deadlines, providing tickler notifications, and other associated tasks No JD is required but significant training or experience, and careful supervision, are required Staff career positions vs. limited duration (e.g., college grads in transition, law school students, etc.) Common job titles include Docket Clerk, Court Clerk, Managing Clerk and Assistant Managing Clerk Some cross-training/redundancy highly recommended Workload permitting, team may consist of or include paralegals or other existing firm personnel Team members can work in same location or across offices on a shared system The team, focusing on docketing and calendaring, develops expertise in these skills Team members can join support associations 9

10 Major Considerations and Concerns About Adopting a Centralized Docket System or Not I. Risk mitigation II. Efficiency III. Firm culture and reaction IV. Cost 10

11 I. Risk Mitigation Reportedly, calendar-related errors consistently are the leading cause of malpractice claims [Elephant in the room cartoon] Missed deadline to notice appeal from $40 million verdict due to multiple errors 11

12 Risk Mitigation, beyond date calculation A centralized docketing system can help minimize risk not only of miscalculation of deadlines, but also other timing risks: that responsible attorneys lack awareness of procedural deadlines in pending cases that responsible attorneys lack awareness of statutes of limitations that attorneys in other practice groups miss contractual notification or claim deadlines, or regulatory filing deadlines When human error inevitably occurs, having a responsible structure in place can be a mitigating factor Ethical walls may be more easily enforced Risks associated with disaster recovery minimized Other potential risks that can be mitigated include: liability and/or court irritation resulting from other procedural errors liability for missed deadlines or other obligations where notifications have been addressed only to attorneys who have left the firm 12

13 Risk Mitigation departed attorneys [Hippo in the room cartoon] Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012) We agree that, under agency principles, a client cannot be charged with the acts or omissions of an attorney who has abandoned him. Nor can a client be faulted for failing to act on his own behalf when he lacks reason to believe his attorneys of record, in fact, are not representing him (emphasis added). 13

14 II. Efficiency A centralized docketing system can relieve or lessen the burden on firm attorneys and other legal staff re serving receiving service of calendaring deadlines from filing with the court and in internal firm systems circulating, and notifying colleagues of incoming and outgoing litigation and papers, and associated deadlines - including adjourned deadlines Rule changes affecting timing can be more quickly and uniformly implemented Helps ensure that outgoing litigation papers will be compliant with form requirements Integration with firm DMS and importing of attorney and accounting information a major plus Ethical walls more easily and uniformly maintained May address client pressure and resistance to having attorneys handle ministerial tasks Promotes availability of litigation precedents captured by docketing team 14

15 III. Firm culture and reaction A centralized docketing system cannot be effective without buy-in from firm attorneys If litigation papers travel via other channels, they may never timely be addressed by the central docketing system Scheduling and other directives issued at court conferences and phone conferences will not be reflected in firm docketing system unless reported to the docketing team Potential for attorney suspicion Potential boost to attorney satisfaction Rugged individualists may never be tamed Individual practice groups may opt out or require a more tailored system Risk of atrophy of attorney work habits, date calculation skills and current awareness? Excessive reliance by junior lawyers? 15

16 IV. Cost considerations plus and minus COSTS Cost of acquisition and/or leasing of system software and hardware ($) Maintenance fees ($) Cost of rule set subscriptions ($) Expense of additional headcount if docketing team is hired from outside, or loss of productivity of existing staff in other areas if assigned additional responsibility for docketing function ($) RECOVERIES/SAVINGS/BENEFITS TO FIRM BUSINESS Potential for billing for professional services performed by docketing team at more attractive rates than if performed by firm attorneys $ Some firms elect to bill clients for basic docketing functions $ Potential reduction in cost of professional liability insurance $ Efficiencies from use of collected precedents to enhance client satisfaction $ Eliminate multiple purchases of CM/ECF documents after the one free look $ Being equipped in advance for disaster recovery priceless Savings of costs and avoidance of reputational harms associated with averted professional liability claims also priceless 16

17 One Size Doesn t Fit All If you wish, you can design a bespoke system Consider, among other things:: Firm culture Firm size and case volume What functions to support Staffing requirements Single or multiple locations Automated rule sets or not Cost and billing restrictions 17

18 New York Washington DC London Paris Frankfurt fin friedfrank.com