In-House Counsel

Additional posts after my article on matter management systems

By Rees Morrison

In September 2006, I wrote an article for Legal Times about the number of groups affected by a matter management system (MMS). Scouring the 3,400 posts on this blog, I find that I have returned to matter management systems frequently.

Several writings have explored the various solutions at hand (See my posts of July 24, 2006: the cottage industry of MMS vendors; Jan. 16, 2006: McDonald?s and its software; Aug. 10, 2007: barebones databases in Excel; April 26, 2006: ASP or self-hosted software; Dec. 5, 2005: rare situation where customizing a MMS makes sense; and Feb. 6, 2008: a system from Brazil.).

Other posts delve into nitty-gritty aspects of matter management software (See my posts of Sept. 5, 2005: currency conversion dates; Sept. 14, 2005: attorney-client privilege; Sept. 14, 2005: when to put a matter into a system; May 8, 2008: exporting data to spreadsheets for reports; May 18, 2008: go beyond just collecting data; July 17, 2005: handling taxes on legal services; and June 26, 2008: what internal audit looks at in an MMS.).

Matter management systems sometimes integrate with other software (See my posts of Aug. 5, 2005: supplements to an MMS; Oct. 1, 2006: service-of-process software; Aug. 21, 2005: e-billing vs. MMS; Dec. 8, 2006: contract managers and the evolution of matter management systems; April 1, 2005: IP databases; Feb. 24, 2008: internet data; Feb. 6, 2008: email; and May 11, 2008: accounts payable systems.).

Matter management software helps track a wide range of information (See my posts of Dec. 18, 2006: discounts from firms; Dec. 19, 2005: alternative billing terms at UTC; Nov. 20, 2006: law-firm evaluations at FMC; Feb. 4, 2006: data entered by outside counsel; and June 21, 2006: budgets.).

Every law department cares about the benefits to be had from its MMS, and some consider the associated costs (See my posts of Feb. 11, 2007: ranking as a productivity enhancer; March 26, 2007: study of productivity from MMS; March 12, 2005: department funded its system from reductions in reserves; Aug. 5, 2005 and April 13, 2007: average savings from matter management systems; Dec. 23, 2005: cost of licensing and staffing a matter management system; and April 8, 2008: reported savings from implementation.). In early posts I expressed some criticisms of MMS (See my posts of Sept. 10, 2005: myths of MMS?s; and May 16, 2006: disappointment with MMS?s.).

Full post as published by Law Department Management on August 05, 2008 (boomark / email).