On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Project Management for Lawyers 2017

Released on: Feb. 6, 2017
Running Time: 06:58:07

“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.

You will learn:

  • How project management techniques facilitate communication between lawyers and their clients
  • How to implement legal project management tools ranging from scoping to risk analysis and end-of-matter debriefs
  • How legal project management approaches and disciplines apply to all types of practices – ranging from litigation to counseling to transactional practices
  • How legal project management approaches can apply to matters of all sizes
  • How private practice lawyers can work effectively with legal operations and procurement professionals
  • Recent success stories in legal project management at leading law firms and legal departments
  • How legal project management is evolving

 

Private practice lawyers, from solo practitioners to those working at the largest firms - as well as in-house teams and legal professionals - who assist them, will benefit from this program.


Lecture Topics [Total time 06:58:07]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:15:23]
    Susan Raridon Lambreth, Christopher G. Sweet, Mary Shen O'Carroll
  • Case Studies in Implementing Legal Project Management: It’s an Evolution [01:24:48]
    Susan Raridon Lambreth, William T. Garcia, Christopher G. Sweet, Steven Smith, Mary Shen O'Carroll
  • Legal Process Improvement: A Natural Outgrowth from LPM [01:29:41]
    Carla Landry, Kim R. Craig, David A. Rueff, Jr., Christopher G. Sweet, Meredith Butler
  • Keeping Matters and Teams on Track [01:17:35]
    Susan Raridon Lambreth, William T. Garcia, David A. Rueff, Jr., Steven Smith, Victoria Oliver
  • Developing an Effective Budget [01:15:59]
    Carla Landry, Christian Zust, Hushmand Jonathan Cott, Leslie F. Brown, Frank C. Patry, PMP
  • Partnering Inside and Outside Counsel: Enhancing Efficiency with Outside Counsel and Legal Operations and Procurement Professionals [01:11:13]
    Susan Raridon Lambreth, Kim R. Craig, Christopher G. Sweet, Hushmand Jonathan Cott, Connie Brenton
  • Closing: Next Phase in the Evolution of Legal Project Management* [00:02:29]
    Susan Raridon Lambreth

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Case Studies in Implementing Legal Project Management: It’s an Evolution (January 2017)
    Mary Shen O'Carroll
  • AGILE: A Nontraditional Approach to Legal Project Management (December 2013)
    Kim Craig, Jenny Lee
  • Implementing Legal Project Management: Is There a “Right” Place to Start?
    Susan Raridon Lambreth, Carla Landry
  • The Drivers of Legal Project Management—First and Foremost, It’s the Clients
    Susan Raridon Lambreth
  • Using Legal Project Management in M&A Transactions
    Dennis J. White, Byron S. Kalogerou, Susan Raridon Lambreth
  • Revolutionizing the Legal Industry with the Millennial Lawyer
    Julia Holemans, Carla Landry
  • Maximizing Value: Eliminating Waste Through Legal Process Excellence
    David A. Rueff, Jr.
  • Template for Task Tracking/Efficient Team Meetings
    Steven Smith
  • Sample Communications Plan
    Steven Smith
  • Project Status Template
    Kim Craig
  • LawVision Group/LPM Institute Templates
    Susan Raridon Lambreth
  • Legal Project Management Vignettes
    Susan Raridon Lambreth
  • Budget Templates
    Susan Raridon Lambreth
  • Improving Matter Profitability with Agile Techniques (December 16, 2013)
    David A. Rueff
  • Mending Disconnect Between Inside and Outside Counsel (August 19, 2016)
    Susan Raridon Lambreth, Byron S. Kalogerou, Dennis J. White
  • LPM Framework
    Connie Brenton
  • Inside/Outside Counsel (2016)
    Susan Raridon Lambreth

Presentation Material


  • Opening Remarks and Introduction
    Susan Raridon Lambreth, Mary Shen O'Carroll, Christopher G. Sweet
  • Legal Process Improvement: A Natural Outgrowth from LPM
    Meredith Butler, Kim R. Craig, Carla Landry, David A. Rueff, Jr., Christopher G. Sweet
  • Developing an Effective Budget
    Leslie F. Brown, Hushmand Jonathan Cott, Carla Landry, Frank C. Patry, PMP, Christian Zust
  • Partnering Inside and Outside Counsel: Enhancing Efficiency with Outside Counsel and Legal Operations and Procurement Professionals
    Connie Brenton, Kim R. Craig, Hushmand Jonathan Cott, Susan Raridon Lambreth, Christopher G. Sweet
Co-Chair(s)
Susan Raridon Lambreth ~ Principal, LawVision Group
Christopher G. Sweet ~ Outside Counsel & Engagement Management Director, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Moderator(s)
Carla Landry ~ LawVision Group LLC
Speaker(s)
Connie Brenton ~ NetApp, Inc.
Leslie F. Brown ~ Head of Legal Project Management – Americas , Hogan Lovells US LLP
Meredith Butler ~ Mayer Brown LLP
Kim R. Craig ~ Managing Director Lean Solutions , Seyfarth Shaw LLP
William T. Garcia ~ Director of Legal Project Management, Thompson Hine LLP
Hushmand Jonathan Cott ~ Chief Strategic Pricing Officer, Covington & Burling LLP
Victoria Oliver ~ Google Inc
Frank C. Patry, PMP ~ Director – Legal Project Management , Littler Mendelson
David A. Rueff, Jr. ~ Shareholder and Legal Project Management Officer, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC
Steven Smith ~ Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Christian Zust ~ Bryan Cave LLP
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:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

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

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.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. 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.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Project Management for Lawyers 2018 (New York, NY) Feb. 7, 2018

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Project Management for Lawyers 2018  
Project Management for Lawyers 2017 Christopher G Sweet, JP Morgan
Susan Raridon Lambreth, LawVision Group
Mary Shen O'Carroll, Google
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.