Issue link: http://read.uberflip.com/i/2923
www.iltanet.org Practice Management 11 requirements, which potentially conflict with anyone who does not agree with or understand that method of practice. No easy or quick way exists to look at a new employee, company or team member and know that any of them will have at least a minimum knowledge of the broad range of litigation support skills and law. We must assume what their skills are, using our knowledge of the business and understanding of their backgrounds. That, however, can lead to miscommunication. If, for example, we assume that "immediate response" means "within the next five minutes" and the other person thinks it's "within the next few hours," we are likely to be at odds fairly quickly. The farther the hiring process is removed from our control, the less confident we might feel in work quality. If our vendor hires new people, we can only hope they are competent. We trust that our suppliers are taking the time to understand their own needs and are hiring accordingly, but they face the same challenges we do in identifying their own weaknesses and hiring appropriately qualified staff. Once hired, newcomers to litigation support services are essentially on their own in learning about the business. Little independent information exists identifying the appropriate knowledge or skills for operating within the industry or how to acquire that background. In short, it is difficult for professionals interested in jumping into the business to understand what they really need to know to perform the job appropriately. WhAT IS The SoLuTIon? This situation is not unusual for a quickly expanding industry. Other professionals have faced this lack of common ground and addressed it. Lawyers take the bar exam, Microsoft network experts take the MCSE exam, project managers take the PMI certification and law firm administrators often aim for an ALA certification. There are also the forensics certifications, myriad technical certifications, paralegal certifications, AIIM and ARMA certifications and more. A defensible third-party managed professional certification program for litigation support would set a baseline of knowledge needed to perform effectively in the industry. Any certification program sets guidelines for skills development and creates a validation process for the industry and for its independent members. The goal of certification is to increase a professional's recognition as an accomplished member of the legal services community, which leads to the potential for job advancement and salary increases. Though voluntary, certification is a proven way of increasing self-esteem and publicly displaying personal commitment to professional knowledge and action. Ultimately, certification raises the level of professionalism across any line of work, a goal which many in our industry would like to see realized. A certification program gains validity from independence. For an industry-wide certification to work in litigation support, it must be created and monitored through a neutral third party, as SCenArIo TWo: vendorS hAve no ouTSIde ProoF oF reLIAbILITy Picture yourself as an attorney working with a new corporate client for the firm in a fast-paced suit. You ask your litigation support team to help choose a vendor for handling e-discovery. Your client has some suggestions, but your team is very confident in using a different vendor. Despite the work you've put into understanding the topic, you are overwhelmed at the number and variety of vendors available. What unbiased proof can you offer to the corporate representative of your team's favorite vendor's commitment to quality and professional performance? What information might you look for to satisfy your own concerns about competence and reliability? SCenArIo Three: CoLLAborATIve MISunderSTAndIngS You can't get approval for new racks on your SAN for six months. You manage to persuade your most reluctant trial team to go out on a limb and use a hosted solution for its newest crisis case. Your last experience with the repository was fantastic because your project manager and team were all "lit-support gurus." However, your favorite repository was recently purchased by a large conglomerate. Your old project manager (PM) got promoted and is running a new division, so you have a new one for this case. The new PM came from corporate IT and is fabulously knowledgeable about the repository capabilities. You happily introduce your trial team to the system people and charge forward. Things go awry quickly. The PM thinks that timely turnaround is seven full business days, no weekends, even though his company offers expedited work for a premium. He pushes back when you request immediate response. His belief is that your attorneys are being unreasonable, and he will not be rushed because it will adversely affect your work product. You are caught between a bunch of hysterical, angry attorneys and a team of well-intentioned but corporate timeline-trained repository employees. It's costing a fortune in time and in your reputation. WhAT IS The reAL ProbLeM? The primary issue in each of these scenarios is a lack of consistency in understood knowledge and practice in the legal industry. Professionals in the industry must be adept at understanding shortened time-frames, intense personalities, data anomalies, judicial orders, legal process, business requirements and all manner of arcane or fast-changing information related to software, systems, security and the law. Without specific guidelines establishing what information is considered fundamental, each group or practice develops its own internal