1. Identify the Projects and Goals

Departments and firms may either retain a consultant or contract one for a specific project. Hopefully these projects include documented and quantifiable goals. If the firm wishes to simply increase billable hours, then the first task is to find a person capable of assessing needs and detailing goals in a project plan. This same person, however, may not have the appropriate skills to actually execute the plan. While the types and backgrounds of consultants vary widely, both the selection process and the "client-consultant" relationship are similar. It is important to note that no project, however carefully constructed, will succeed without the validation and acceptance by the effected parties, e.g. litigators, paralegals, accounting and litigation support staff. This is where business process meets culture.

Limiting those involved to only the relevant parties during the planning phase seems obvious, but is often missed. This results in tangential projects which may not be critical to achieving the main goal. It is critical to know which roles are ancillary to the effort. The final draft of the project plan, however, may require validation from previously unheard voices.

2. Firm Project Validation

If the goal is to standardize how the firm handles electronic discovery, then one should first identify all the various roles related to both the change and then the ongoing success of the new protocols. It is important to gain insight from these parties. The net result is a solution which everyone should be able to accept. Depending upon the scale of the project, there may be supporting initiatives which must also take place. These sub-goals may only involve a subset of the persons and departments the parent goal requires. As such, the validation process may be much simpler, but no less important. It is critical to understand these project dependencies and implement the right changes in the right sequence. When a department validates the project, they are stating that they have or will have the required resources to support the changes.

Note: Some projects may require validation from outside parties, such as vendors and clients. Do not exclude these persons.

It is not surprising to find law firm people with ten or more years of loyal service. This includes both attorneys and support staff. These people are smart and they know the politics behind everything at the firm. Each person may be a legal, accounting and/or technical expert, but they are also firm culture subject matter experts. To exclude these persons with their understanding of history from the validation process is folly. This is not to say that complete acceptance by everyone is always possible. Every effort, however, should be made to address the needs of all involved. Once the project is documented completely, it is time to determine which goals the firm can accomplish on its own versus those which require an outside consultant. Remember, it is the result which is important.

3. In-House Labor versus Outside Consultant Considerations

There are many reasons to hire an outside consultant. For law firms, an outside consultant can bypass firm politics, hierarchy and the priorities of an active case load. Consultants provide an outside perspective and the benefit of previous experience. Where a law firm may undertake certain efforts once every few years, a consultant may perform the same work many times each year. Consultants also allow for minimal business disruption.

In-house workers have different priorities than an outside consultant. They may have hard deadlines related to active cases. Creating a production for opposing counsel will always be more important than organizing legacy data or performing a needs assessment. This is not to say that in-house talent is not capable of creating and executing these projects. But it may be in the firm's best interest to have these same persons manage an outside consultant while maintaining their existing responsibilities. In this manner, they can make certain the projects are progressing appropriately. In the end, these are the same people who will be responsible for the ongoing success of the projects.

Example: The Litigation Support staff, if there are any, may be too busy with existing caseloads to try and create protocols, let alone have enough political pull to get them implemented. Billable work and active case work will always take precedence over non-billable initiatives. An outside consultant is beholden to neither case load nor hierarchy.

As the finance for the outside consultant ultimately comes from the partners, the choice whether to hire a consultant will be a business decision. If the firm must undertake initiatives associated with soft cost issues such as implementing best practices, those championing the cause should tie goals to financial benefits. In effect, one must be able to illustrate that an investment of X dollars today will result in a one-time or annual savings of Y dollars.

4. Find the Consultant

To determine which qualifications the consultant should have, one must first consider the required goals. If the person is to address technical and operational litigation support issues, field experience in a litigation support department seems more important than experience as a trial attorney.

To begin the search, ask for referrals. Friends at other firms may be able to provide wisdom regarding problems they had with a particular consultant or type of project. There are also many mailing lists on the Internet, such as those found at Yahoo Groups. These can be great sources of information. The persons who participate in their lists can help identify consultants or at least point you in the right direction.

It is in your best interest to locate multiple consultants. As with any good or service, multiple quotes are the consumer's best way to assess the proper value of a project. Be sure to account for background when looking at price. A consultant with a JD will probably charge more than a person with paralegal or litigation support credentials. Thanks to the project plan, the required skills and credentials along with the total number of estimated hours are known. Instead of comparing three different consultants with three different project plans, you only need consider the expert. It may not make sense to pay for more consultant than is needed. This is especially true if their field experience is directly relevant.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Mark R. Lieb is the President of Ad Litem Consulting and author of the books, Litigation Support Department and Litigation Support Technical Standards. Mr. Lieb has provided Litigation Support to legal teams for cases ranging from small collections to multinational, multi-firm litigation, involving millions of pages of ediscovery. He currently consults with firms, law departments, service bureaus and software companies on litigation technology best practices. If you would like to learn more about using technology in litigation, please feel free to visit Ad Litem Consulting www.AdLitem.com or call (866) 477-4523.