Emerging Legal Technologies and Malpractice

New technologies have evolved the way in which legal practices serve client needs. Some features and functions of legal practice management software include: case management, time tracking, document assembly, contract management, calendaring and docketing, and time and billing.

Not only is the purpose of such software, as discussed above, to assist law firms with everyday practice needs, but many seek to reduce the possibilities of engaging in legal malpractice.

Essentially, it can be agreed that regardless of a lawyer’s competency to handle a legal matter, the possibility of a malpractice claims become increasingly more possible as the matter becomes more complex. Some of the major areas in which malpractice claims tend to follow, involve, but are not limited to, the following: deadlines, failure to settle, poor management of expectations/poor communication, lack of knowledge or preparation, and conflicts of interest.

According to one report on legal malpractice, depending on which malpractice carrier supplied the information, the highest figures reported 12 out of every 100 attorneys being targeted by malpractice suits.^[1] Figures from the same report, found the median figures being between $10,000 and $30,000 for total malpractice damages, in which a claimant was successful in recuperating. Furthermore, about 9.4 to 12 percent of malpractice damages exceeded $100,000.

  

1 This particular report stated, the “[Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company of Kentucky] and [Wisconsin Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company], report frequency of claims per 100 lawyers insured... WILMIC shows rates ranging from about 3.75 to 4.75 100 lawyers while for LMICK the corresponding rates range from 2.71 to 3.79 claims for 100 lawyers... The [Oregon State Bar Professional Liability Fund]... claim rate was about 12 per 100 insured.“ Reports for the Attorneys’ Liability Assurance Society are much lower because it reports claims per 1,000 lawyers and figures 6.5 and 8.5 per 1,000 lawyers since about 2000. Herbert M. Kritzer & Neil Vidmar, When the Lawyer Screws Up: A portrait of Legal Malpractice Claims and their Resolution (2015), available at 
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6182&context=faculty_scholarship 

THE RION CORP STANDARD:

RION Corp. has developed a cutting edge conflicts software application that is accessible in the Cloud. RION provides a secure, audit friendly, intuitive software program that is easy to use, highly accessible and customizable, and provides value through time and cost savings.

We promise that with our software, law firms are able to engage in the representation of clients knowing they are not violating the professional rules of responsibility.

MALPRACTICE VIOLATIONS BY TYPE

Type of Error	Percentage	U.S. Ranking
Legal Competency	11.3%	1
Planning Error	8.9%	2
Failure to Investigate	8.8%	3
Failure to File Documents	8.6%	4
Fail to Calendar	6.7%	5
Fail to know Deadlines	6.6%	6
Procrastination	5.9%	7
Fail to Obtain Consent	5.4%	8
Confilct of Interest	5.3%	9
Fraud	5.0%	10

* These are the top 10 violations reported by the American Bar Association. The complete chart listing all violations can be found at http://www.americanbar.org/publications/law_practice_home/law_practice_archive/lpm_magazine_webonly_webonly07101.html.

“Conflict of interest claims were down slightly to just 5 percent of all claims.  Computerized conflict checks, combined with standardized conflict resolution procedures, resulted in some improvements in this area.” 

* Randy Evans and Shari Klevens, How High Is Your Legal Malpractice Risk?, The Recorder, available at http://www.therecorder.com/id=12 02740408791/How-High-Is- Y our- Legal-Malpractice- Risk?mcode=0&curindex=0&curpage =2.

JOIN US TODAY!!!!!!

With our legal practice software we can lower the possibility of embarrassing, time-consuming, and potentially expensive risks associated with the failure to complete a comprehensive conflict check. With our highly efficient system we can lower the risk of an ethical violation for the failure to exhaustively complete a conflict check analysis. RION Corp. can offer affordable prices that will depend on the size of the firm. We also offer assistance in helping your firm successfully integrate our cutting edge software. 

Eric Fortineaux, Esq.
eric@rioncorp.com

Benefits of a Standardized Process for Conflict Checks

I have been reading a book by Sandra J. Roberts called "Creating Conflicts of Interest Procedures for Protecting You and Your Firm from Malpractice", and have found it aligned with what I already knew; while providing additional detail and ideas for our Conflicts Analysis Standardization Effort (C.A.S.E.).

Have a look at a part of the Foreward:

"The objective for an effective conflicts of interest department is to create one that processes client names and associated party information accurately, efficiently and rapidly with minimal time taken away from the attorney's legal representations and valuable billable hours. Developing these effective conflicts of interest procedures has many benefits. Not only can effective procedures enable attorneys to reduce their risk, but it may help lower their professional liability insurance premiums. In order to do that, the process does not need to be cumbersome. It can be completed quickly with the right procedures in place regardless of the size of the firm. These procedures include implementation of the following actions:

• Entering accurate information into a conflicts database.
• Searching party information properly through the conflicts database and other research database resources.
• Reviewing the results to eliminate extraneous information.
• Clearing and approving the applicable results.
• Setting up further procedures to manage potential conflicts of interest issues."

While this is a very simplified 30,000 foot view of conflicts, I think it speaks to the Conflicts Standard that we're looking to develop at RION Corp. under the C.A.S.E.

To that end, we should have in mind the possible benefits of setting up and implementing the standard:

• Reduced Firm & Attorney Risk
• Reduced Insurance Premiums
• Increased Confidence in Accepting Business
• Creation of Competency Standards
• Increased Analyst Confidence = Additional Speed
• Best Practice Always Used
• Heightened Efficiency in Conflicts and Business Intake
• Increased Potential for Profitability

How does your malpractice policy affect your CoI program or vice versa?  Please share in the comments section below.

Cori Blackburn
RION Corp.
224-277-3855
cori.blackburn@rioncorp.com

Conflicts Analysis Standardization Effort (C.A.S.E.)

RION Corp. welcomes you to April 2015!

We recently published some survey results; and at the end, communicated our desire to lead an effort to establish a standard for Conflicts Checking in the United States (and perhaps efforts abroad after we're a bit more established and have more global contacts to help).

As the title of this article suggests, we've named the effort the Conflicts Analysis Standardization Effort (C.A.S.E.), and it is our aim to partner with firms of all sizes across the United States to gather information about how conflicts checks are handled. We will be partnering with experts in the eastern seaboard area, west coast area, and midwestern area and are calling for any/all who would like to be involved in this effort.

As a company we have a laser focus on Conflicts of Interest, and developing a workbench focused on Conflicts Research and making it easier and more efficient, while providing added security and dependability in the checks and procedure than existing conflicts programs provide today. Most conflicts software that is currently available is an "add in" for a larger firm management package, and is not robust or efficient enough to meet the increasing demands of the majority of today's conflicts professionals and law firms. Conflicts checks are the cornerstone for avoiding risk in accepting business, and should not be handled as a "side benefit". Rather, our position focuses on a gold standard for conflicts analysis and enabling easy engagement with existing systems and firm procedures. We do not claim to know everything, and eagerly invite opinions and ideas from all angles!

You can see why we are interested in facilitating a standard for conflicts analysis and research at law firms. It is our focus, and is critical to the conflicts community at large moving forward.

Please expect to hear more about our open invitation for anyone with experience and ideas to share, if you'd like to keep yourself updated on the effort, we encourage you to join the mailing list or contact me directly with any questions or ideas. We plan to have at least 3 events before the end of 2015 and hope to solidify the standard by early 2016. If you'd like to host or facilitate please contact me directly.

Have a Wonderful Wednesday!

Cori Blackburn

RION Corp.
224.277.3855
cori.blackburn@rioncorp.com

Functional Conflicts Survey Results Blog!

We are re-publishing our Survey Results with working links! :)

RION Corp. – Conflicts Analysis Survey Results                       March 2, 2015

PURPOSE & OBJECTIVES

Our Founder and President has worked in the legal industry for 10 years. As a Conflicts Analyst, he found himself frustrated with the tools available, as well as the wide variety of conflicts procedures at different firms where he worked. He set forth on a quest for a better conflicts analysis tool, as well as an industry standard.  He founded RION Corp. (RION stands for Real-time Intake Optimization for New business.,) in June 2014, and proceeded to develop a software product in line with the best practices he learned and knew to be successful. The issue still stands that there is no standardized process for conflicts, and we decided to take a survey of the conflicts community through LinkedIn.com to establish a baseline to begin forming a framework that all law firms can use to improve efficiency and accuracy of conflict checks globally. 

METHODOLOGY

We used a ten-question survey and distributed it electronically (via SurveyMonkey) to our contacts and groups involved in Conflicts Analysis around the world. The survey was open from January 11, 2015 to February 28, 2015; and we gathered 52 responses from 3 countries. We analyzed our results using IBM SPSS Statistics v22, and Microsoft Excel.

FINDINGS

FIRM STATISTICS:  Roughly twenty percent of attorneys at a given firm will need a conflicts check each day.

On average, a conflicts staff member will process approximately 11 checks per day (we know a check can vary broadly on how much time it takes), and we can see that if there is an influx of checks, for example with a lateral hire, additional stress will be experienced by the staff.

We also notice that as the size of the firm increases, the coverage of conflicts staff per attorney decreases:

# of Attorneys	0-100	101-300	301-600	600+
# of Conflicts Staff	3	1.62	1.57	1.44

PROBLEMS:  We noted that the only firms to report over-staffing (less than 5% of all respondents) had over 600 attorneys. We also found that firms of this size had the most consistent reports of “loose” adherence to conflicts procedures. Unfortunately, firms of this size can also have the most to lose from poor quality conflicts checks. The high cost of poor conflicts procedure adherence was outlined recently for one firm in the Washington Post, who lost a client that paid $12M in legal services, and paralegals had spent over 20,000 hours on the case – only to find out that a paralegal had accidentally left off two entities while compiling a list of potential conflicts before accepting the business. They ended up representing both the plaintiffs and the defendants in a lawsuit about false advertising.

POLICY ADHERENCE: Our survey permitted respondents to anonymously comment about the requirements at their firm, and how frequently they adhered to the requirements. The findings indicated that in times of high demand, the staff must deviate from the procedures in order to maintain timeliness in conflict reporting. Of the procedures we surveyed, the findings of procedure adherence (from high to low) is as follows:

 

Adherence to Conflicts Requirements*
97%	Use of Conflicts Software
83%	Searching 3rd Parties
82%	Engagement Letter required to open a new client matter
76%	Use of Workflow Tool
74%	Perform Corporate Family Tree Search
74%	Search Executives
73%	Conflicts Attorney clears Conflicts
70%	Checks against anti-money laundering, sanctions data bases
67%	Run Credit Checks on new clients
63%	Corporate Family Tree Searches for Lateral Hires
57%	Maintain client relationship library

* We anticipate more research in this area in future survey initiatives.

STAFFING:  Firms with less than 100 attorneys say they routinely utilize other departments to handle high-demand for conflicts checking. One third of all firms report being understaffed, and of those a majority see value in outsourcing conflicts in periods of high demand. A majority of firms with more than 300 attorneys (who report adequate staffing) concur with the concept of outsourcing in periods of high demand. Three quarters of firms with over 300 attorneys who report themselves as understaffed also see value in outsourcing conflicts checks in periods of high demand.

The resounding report from firms of every size, regardless of their staffing status (understaffed, overstaffed, adequately staffed), is that while the prospect of outsourcing may be useful in an ideal world, it seems there are several concerns about moving in this direction including:

·      Firm-specific needs (procedure)

·      Time for training

·      Skill level

·      Executive Buy-In

·      Ethics

·      Access to internal conflicts checking systems and data by an outside vendor

It seems there may be room for an outsourced option once these kinds of concerns can be addressed. The outsourcing vendor would have to prove itself in outstanding ethical quality, and must provide a level of conflicts checking that exceeds expectations at every firm. This would require an agreeable standardized process for conflicts analysis.

 

SOFTWARE: We noticed that Elite and Intapp are the most popular, and the firms that seem to be moving from one program to another prefer to move-in with these two. Intapp has a strong standing in second place; collectively these two hold the market at 62% of implemented or about to be implemented in conflicts departments. 

 

A total of seven software products were reported including 6% proprietary implementations.

OUTSIDE RESEARCH: The majority of outside research resides with Dun & Bradstreet (over 35%), Lexis Nexis takes a strong second place with 21%. The other contenders for top 5 include Hoovers (19%), and The Internet and Google tied at 17%.

The full list of reported entities includes is 28 sources. We note that some of these entities are specific to type of law or region of practice, but may be worth considering to add robust practice your firm’s conflict checking procedures:

Rank	Entity
1	Dun & Bradstreet
2	Lexis Nexis
3	Hoovers
4	Internet
5	Google
6	Bloomberg
7	OneSource/Avention
8	Westlaw
9	Bureau van Dijk
10	Pacer
11	Acuity
12	Captial IQ
13	10K Filings
14	Courthouse News

15	Knowledge Management (SAP)
16	Thomson Reuters
17	Accurint
18	Global Data
19	Edgar
20	TLO
21	OFAC
22	ABA
23	Corporations Canada
24	BC Registry
25	Open Corporates
26	Courtlink
27	Monitor Suite
28	Amber Road

AUDIT PROCEDURE: We asked if firms are permitted to reopen matters for the purpose of audit. The results were pretty clear: a full half said yes. 21% reported that they don’t handle audits this way, and 15% said they handle it some other way. Some firms bill to one internal number to track time spent on client/matter audit.

CONCLUSIONS

·      Procedure Adherence: When conflict checks are in high demand, adherence to procedures suffers.

·      Staffing: When conflicts checks are in high demand, a majority of firms would consider using an outsourced option; though there are concerns about the adequacy of this option.

·      Software: 7 brands reported, majority held by Elite and Intapp (62%). 6% noted a proprietary system.

·      Outside Research: D&B and Lexis Nexis are most frequently used.

·      Audit Procedure: Half of firms are advised to reopen matters temporarily for auditing purposes.

We found a few trends within firms that point to the beginning of a standardized process for conflicts checking. We noticed that when conflicts departments are in high demand the accuracy of the checks goes down, and that outsourcing is one option that is interesting but deserves more research.

RECOMMENDATIONS

•       It is the recommendation of RION Corp. to establish a standard framework for conducting conflicts of interest research at law firms.

•       We have plans to create regionally based chapters for discussing and agreeing on a standard for the industry: C.A.S.E. (Conflicts Analysis Standardization Effort)

•       After this framework is established, we will insure our software product and outsourced staffing options for conflicts are aligned and fine tuned to be the gold standard in this industry.

CONFLICTS ANALYSIS STANDARDIZATION EFFORT (CASE)

For more information on CASE, please join the RION Corp mailing list for updates.

Thank you for reading our report. If you have any questions please contact:

Cori Blackburn: cori.blackburn@rioncorp.com

Ryan Vago: ryan.vago@rioncorp.com