On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Project Management for Lawyers 2018

Released on: Feb. 14, 2018
Running Time: 06:48:59

“Please describe your firm’s experience with project management.”
“Explain how your firm will manage our matters using legal project management.”
“Please provide examples of how your firm will apply project management techniques to our matters.”

These are just a few examples of language that is appearing recently in virtually all RFPs.  The implications of this language impact both law firms and legal departments.  Both in-house and outside counsel are expected to manage their matters efficiently and keep legal costs to a minimum.  The most effective way to accomplish this – while still maintaining high levels of quality and appropriate risk management – is through the use of legal project management techniques.

Lawyers today face increasing pressure to be efficient, handle matters effectively, and produce quality work product and service.  They must also utilize appropriate risk management practices and meet the ever-growing number of compliance requirements in many areas of law.  These expectations, along with the 24/7 service demand for most businesses, result in tremendous stresses on legal professionals to manage in a more disciplined manner than in the past.  Legal project management tools and approaches provide the techniques to navigate these pressures and relieve some of the stresses of managing matters effectively. 

Legal project management encompasses valuable approaches that enable lawyers to meet or exceed client expectations, while both respecting cost reduction mandates and improving profitability.   This program will offer insights and approaches for legal project management that can be implemented in legal departments or private law practices.

Lecture Topics [Total RunTime: 06:48:59]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:03:55]
    Susan Raridon Lambreth, Stéphanie Hamon
  • Case Studies in Implementing Legal Project Management: The Continuing Evolution [01:53:21]
    Susan Raridon Lambreth, Stéphanie Hamon, Kevin T. Bielawski, Esther Bowers, Kimberly A. Gardner, Lynne A. Maher, Suzanne M. Wood
  • Proactive Management of Matters: Using LPM Approaches to Enhance Efficiency, Client Satisfaction and Morale [01:14:36]
    Susan Raridon Lambreth, Leslie F. Brown, Byron Kalogerou, Lynne A. Maher, Leslie Plaskon
  • Getting Partners on Board to Use and Champion LPM [01:18:36]
    Susan Raridon Lambreth, Stéphanie Hamon, Gregory H. Lantier, Timothy O'Leary, Scott W. Pedigo, Leslie Plaskon, Suzanne M. Wood
  • Legal Process Improvement: A Natural Outgrowth from LPM [01:01:51]
    Leah Guggenheimer, Carla Landry
  • Partnering Inside and Outside Counsel: Using LPM to Enhance Efficiency with Outside Counsel and In-House Professionals [01:14:36]
    Susan Raridon Lambreth, Kevin T. Bielawski, Leslie F. Brown, Stéphanie Hamon, Byron Kalogerou, Bryon Koepke, Silvia Hodges Silverstein
  • Closing: Next Phase in the Evolution of Legal Project Management* [00:02:04]
    Susan Raridon Lambreth

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK

  • BT ValueWorks: A Case Study
    Susan Raridon Lambreth
  • Legal Project Management: You Can’t Fake It Anymore
    Susan Raridon Lambreth
  • Specimen Tool—Initial Deal Scoping Discussion “Using Legal Project Management in Merger and Acquisition Transactions”
    Byron S. Kalogerou
  • Gregory H. Lantier, Natalie Hanlon Leh and Mindy Sooter, WilmerHale Five Article Series: Crafting Better Litigation AFAs
    Gregory H. Lantier
  • The Profitability Process (August 7, 2014)
    Leah Guggenheimer
  • Good Things Come in Small Processes (August 7, 2014)
    Leah Guggenheimer
  • The Big Kahuna (November 14, 2014)
    Leah Guggenheimer
  • Close Collaboration Drives Successful Outcomes (September 1, 2017)
    Kevin Bielawski
  • Forging Positive Relationships Between Legal Operations and Outside Counsel (May 3, 2017)
    Susan Raridon Lambreth
  • Susan Raridon Lambreth and Steve Harmon, “Changing Performance Metrics for Legal Services,” Thomson Reuters (September 27, 2017), https://blogs.thomsonreuters.com/answerson/changing-performance-metrics-for-legal-services/
    Susan Raridon Lambreth

Presentation Material


  • Project Management for Lawyers 2018: Introduction
    Susan Raridon Lambreth
  • Power Point #2 for Case Studies in Implementing Legal Project Management: The Continuing Evolution Segment
    Kimberly A. Gardner
  • Power Point #3 for Case Studies in Implementing Legal Project Management: The Continuing Evolution Segment
    Suzanne M. Wood
  • Power Point #6 for Case Studies in Implementing Legal Project Management: The Continuing Evolution Segment
    Kevin Bielawski
  • Power Point #7 for Case Studies in Implementing Legal Project Management: The Continuing Evolution Segment
    Esther Bowers
  • Legal Project Management Vignette
    Leslie F. Brown, Byron Kalogerou, Susan Raridon Lambreth, Lynne A. Maher, Leslie Plaskon
  • Power Point #4 for Getting Partners on Board to Use and Champion LPM Segment
    Timothy O'Leary
  • Power Point #1 for Getting Partners on Board to Use and Champion LPM Segment
    Susan Raridon Lambreth
  • Power Point #2 for Getting Partners on Board to Use and Champion LPM Segment
    Gregory H. Lantier
  • Power Point #3 for Getting Partners on Board to Use and Champion LPM Segment
    Scott Pedigo
  • Legal Process Improvement: A Natural Outgrowth from LPM_Segment Power Point
    Leah Guggenheimer, Carla Landry
  • Power Point #1 for Partnering Inside and Outside Counsel Segment
    Bryon L. Koepke
  • Power Point #2 for Partnering Inside and Outside Counsel Segment
    Kevin Bielawski
Co-Chair(s)
Stéphanie Hamon ~ Head of Commercial Management, Managing Director, Barclays
Susan Raridon Lambreth ~ Principal, LawVision Group
Speaker(s)
Kevin T. Bielawski ~ Husch Blackwell LLP
Esther Bowers ~ Director of Client Service Initiatives, Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Leslie F. Brown ~ Head of Legal Project Management – Americas , Hogan Lovells US LLP
Kimberly A. Gardner ~ Executive Director, Shearman & Sterling LLP
Leah Guggenheimer ~ Chief Process & Innovation Officer, BURFORD CAPITAL
Byron Kalogerou ~ McDermott Will & Emery LLP
Bryon Koepke ~ Senior Vice President and Chief Securities Counsel, Avis Budget Group Inc.
Carla Landry ~ LawVision Group LLC
Gregory H. Lantier ~ WilmerHale
Lynne A. Maher ~ Senior Manager, Legal Project Management, Hunton & Williams LLP
Timothy O'Leary ~ Sandberg Phoenix & Von Gontard P.C.
Scott W. Pedigo ~ Office Managing Shareholder, Baker Donelson
Leslie Plaskon ~ Paul Hastings LLP
Silvia Hodges Silverstein ~ Executive Director, Buying Legal Council
Suzanne M. Wood ~ National Director, Legal Project Manager, Norton Rose Fulbright
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Project Management for Lawyers 2018 Stéphanie Hamon, Barclays
Susan Raridon Lambreth, LawVision Group
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.