© 2013 All Rights Reserved Thomson Reuters Forum on Legal Project Management & Process Improvement St. Louis, MO June 6, 2013 James R. Buckley, QLex Consulting

1 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) Project management & process improvement: What is there to fear?

2 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) The context for LPM

3 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) Introduction  The problem:  Significant legal matters are filled with complexity and uncertainty  Failure to adequately manage these issues impairs productivity and inflates costs  Such losses erode relationships and reduce effectiveness  Why project management?  Not a business school fad, but a tested management system  Out-of-the-box tools for managing complexity and tackling uncertainty/risk

4 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) The delivery of Legal Services is driven by two factors  Level of legal spend  Nature of fee arrangement  Legal management approach Low (Immaterial) Uncertainty (in legal solution) Significance (to client) High (Unknown) High (Material) Low (Known)

5 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) Legal management approaches in this space Repetitive Emphasize Project Management Emphasize Knowledge Management EmphasizeProcessImprovement SpecializedExtraordinary Legal Work Strategic Mandatory Operational Business Needs Significance High (Material) Low (Immaterial) Uncertainty High (Unknown) Low (Known) Segmented by business need (significance) and character of the legal work Mapped against uncertainty With management strategy overlay

6 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) The LPM Framework

7 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) Basic building blocks Objectives Work Plan Results Stakeholders The LPM Framework

8 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) Focus on the “Iron Triangle”  Develop the business case for legal solution, especially in terms of a cost/benefit analysis  Identify the interests of relevant stakeholders  Document key constraints (the “Iron Triangle” plus....)  Document key assumptions and risks  Define scope, time, and resource dimensions Quality Scope of Work ResourcesTime Adapted from: Project Management Institute Work Plan = The “Iron Triangle” These factors define what we call the “Shared Understanding”

9 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) Elaborated building blocks Time Cost Work The “ IRON TRIANGLE ” Objectives Results Stakeholders The LPM Framework

10 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) LPM in Action

11 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) Intake/ Engagement LaunchMonitor Revise/ Refine Close After- Action Review P L A N LPM approaches the work plan in an iterative way  The team’s execution of the work plan is regularly monitored –To see if the plan is being followed –To assure that objectives are being addressed –To see if constraints are being honored –To see if the assumptions hold true –To see if the stakeholders remain satisfied  As necessary, the team re-engages with stakeholders –To revisit objectives, constraints and assumptions –To revise/refine the objectives and/or plan

12 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) Mapping LPM to the complex litigation context Intake/ Engagement LaunchMonitor Revise/ Refine Close After-Action Review P L A N Dispute arises Pleading stage Trial court management Discovery Law & Motion Trial Prep Trial Appeal Settlement

13 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) Mapping LPM to the complex transactions context NDA/ Letter of Intent Draft Definitive Agreements Operational transition plan Due Diligence Satisfy Conditions of Closing; Obtain Consents Closing Prep Closing Post-closing matters A B O R T Intake/ Engagement LaunchMonitor Revise/ Refine Close After- Action Review P L A N ACCOUNTABILITY and TRANSPARENCY

14 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) In closing...  Make conscious and rational choices about risk  Reduce costs  Increase predictability  Improve accountability  Starting with a clear business case for the legal work  Tightly relating work to objectives  Improving efficiency and eliminating unnecessary work  Better planning and tracking  Improving communication with stakeholders  Clarifying responsibility and roles of legal team members to stakeholders To By Use Legal Project Management...

15 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) LPM Tools Sampler 1.Stakeholder analysis 2.Early Case Assessment/Strategic Case Assessment 3.Project Charter 4.Description of Work 5.RASCI Chart (scope + people) 6.Timeline Tool (scope + time +people) 7.Assessment Snapshot 8.Status Meeting Agenda 9.Task-based budget (scope + $) 10.Trial-outline based schedule (scope +time) 11.MS Project (scope + schedule + resources) 12.Project operation plan 13.Project monitoring plan 14.Project communications plan

16 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) Legal Project Charter 1.What is the business goal? 2.Who are the stakeholders? 1 3.What is the importance of this matter to the business? 2 4.What is the timing for this matter? 3 5.Complete the Description of Work (or revise or restate it) 1.What is the business goal? 2.Who are the stakeholders? 1 3.What is the importance of this matter to the business? 2 4.What is the timing for this matter? 3 5.Complete the Description of Work (or revise or restate it) 1Possible stakeholders: Internal: Business unit; corporation; corporate staff function; within Legal Department, employees. What are their roles? External: business partners, vendors, customers, government, regulators, community, press 2Importance might be strategic, operational, financial, non-core, discontinued operations. 3How urgent is it? What timetable has been imposed by others? Are they realistic? What is the expected date of completion. If conflicts in timing cannot be reconciled, how has this been communicated to relevant stakeholders?

17 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) Description of Work 1.Who is doing what? 2.By when? 3.For whom? 4.What constraints do we have to work within? (Limits on time, resources and the actual work)? 5.How and when do we know we are done? 6.How well did we do? 7.What are we explicitly not doing and has that been communicated to those who need to know it? 1.Who is doing what? 2.By when? 3.For whom? 4.What constraints do we have to work within? (Limits on time, resources and the actual work)? 5.How and when do we know we are done? 6.How well did we do? 7.What are we explicitly not doing and has that been communicated to those who need to know it?

18 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) WHO WHATName 1Name 2Name 3Name 4 Activity/ Step 1 Activity/ Step 2 Activity/ Step 3 Activity/ Step 4 Activity/ Step 5 Activity/ Step 6 R = Responsible A = Accountable S = Support C = Consulted I = Informed APPENDIX 6. RASCI Chart: Links “who” with “what” (resources + scope) 7

19 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) Time Line and Preliminary Staffing Plan Activities Staffing Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12 Month 13 Month 14 Step 1 Full Team Step 2 AA, BB, CC, DD, EE Step 3 AA, BB, CC Step 4 BB, DD, EE Step 5 AA, BB, CC Step 6 BB, DD, EE Step 7 Full Team Step 8 BB Step 9 AA, BB, CC Legend:Start timeEnd timeDurationPredecessor end timeDependency start time 8

20 © 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | | (310) Legal Project Management Assessment Tool 9