Clint Moore of Littler Mendelson:

1. KM is not part of IT but is rather related (sister-departmentto the library. They have KM attorneys, and they are not billable, but serve an internal function to guide the knowledge development.
2. They have built tools, including three subscription tools for clients that move on knowledge. Theme of freeing up time for attorneys not answering minor/reference questions, but rather having them focus on the “bigger” issues.

Chad Ergun of White & Case:

1. Secure extranet, White & CAse Universe, for managing relationships with clients.
2. He has a caveat: once you publish your knowledge to the client, attorneys are nervous that they are giving away the store.
3. Chad also has subscription services that are external to the extranet relationship.

Question on pricing: Clint says they base pricing on the number of attorney hours that would otherwise be consumed.

Fiona Gifford Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer:

1. 20 years of KM development. 80 KM Lawyers (5-10 years client expertise ,now non-billable).
2. 70 KM assistants (maybe younger attorneys) .
3. KM personnel are assigned to practice groups, rather than centralized.
4. KBD - integration of KM and Business Development.
5. KM Strategy: Clients increasingly expect the delivery of reusable knowledge.
6. Business plans and KM plans are intertwined.
7. FBD does not bill for their KM products - it is part of their professional fees
8. Straight content delivery includes extranet, newsletters, and also seminar programs

Question: Why not charge for extranets if the clients don’t push back? Answer from Clint: they charge for content they are publishing outside of their specific work for the client, but the firm down the street is offering free (or no additional charge) extranet communication as part of the service, so thy not them too? Chad: When they were using an external vendor, they passed along fees, but once it was internal, they stopped charging. “It’s like email - who charges for email?”

Key takeaway:

The distinction is between KM publications (new knowledge that can be a reference for the client) and extranets that support attorney-client communication for their work. The latter is expected to be free, but the former is a profit opportunity.

Thought: is there an opportunity to shift the center of gravity from a service model to a publishing model? Or at least does the KM/publishing clarify where the bigger value-add from the attorney is (as per Clint’s point from above about minor/informational questions)