Soapbox

If Santa had a practice management system … what would he do?  As the population grows, Santa’s elves have been hard-pressed to keep up with “the List” (you know the one …of who is naughty and who is nice) and provide fast and accurate responses.  The elves have been working overtime (they always do) as the big day approaches. But the List is just too long.  Keeping the list current is a gargantuan task.  Just finding all the parchment and ink requires daily shipments for Ink from India and parchment from Sri Lanka (Yes … Santa is part of the global economy). So … what if we gave Santa a practice management system?  As a non-profit, Santa might even be eligible for software discounts or a NFR license to LNFOPBTM.

Related Link:

So … Let’s look at the situation from a practice management consultant’s eye.  We need status records on 2 billion children.  We need to generate instant reports on who is naughty and who is nice.  With the rise of litigation, some naughty children have been appealing the determination of naughtiness (they don’t particularly like coal). And so, we have needed to open an audit file on each child to keep track of communications regarding each child’s activities.  These notes, of course, are discoverable, so we need some document retention policy.  And given the time it takes to do appeals, the typical 1 month retention policy for emails is too short.

Personally, I think these “coal appeals” are frivilous on two grounds.  First, there is no harm from the determination.  There is no claim on a contingent expectation of generous gifts, particularly where the determination is entirely discretionary; under the arbitration review standard, the one which is applied to coal appeals, no claim should survive (unless the judge has been bribed) on preliminary motions.  Second, it is frivolous, as the supplied coal is far more valuable than any gift that would be supplied by Santa.  With the current price of oil, any kid could take his lump of coal to the nearest savings and loan, and trade it in for cold hard cash.  Coal assets these days are far more value than real estate …. at least the price is appreciating.

So back to Santa’s workshop.  Everyone knows that even frivolous appeals do get litigated, and therefore the data needs to be managed.  And so, Santa and his elves would be better served by a Practice Management system or Case Management System.  My company has produced an Estate Planning Management System for estate attorneys (see link).  We could undertake the Workshop as a client.

We would start them on Time Matters Enterprise. SQL server would be required and some fairly powerful Quad Core Xeon processors. The complexity of the determination of naughty and nice would work with a stripped down basic contact form … in essence a Client Record, since we really have only one Client (Santa). For each appeal, we would open a Matter to track the status and proceedings in the litigation. Each communication and note regarding the “Client kid” would be tracked in the system, whether a note, an email, or a phone call.  We would keep a history of determinations on the second tab, showing the determination for each age up to majority (common … will ya … After ya hit 18 Santa stops keeping tabs).

Then we need to redirect the elves to a proper assessment process.  Let’s have none of these off-the-cuff determinations!  With a Case management system, our process is discoverable.  And the more open the process, the more transparent the method of determination, the less likely appeals will be overturned … hell even get into court.  And so, with the 2008 Santa’s Workshop Management System (“SWMS”), there will be a new regime.  The SWMS includes customized Contact Powerviews that let you review with one click.  Just after Thanksgiving, all notes, calls, events and tasks of each kid as recorded by the busy elves.

This report is printed out; reviewed separately by three elves to make an independent determination.  In the case of any dissenting votes, the report is passed up to a committee of 12 reindeer who decide by simple majority.  In the case of a tie, Santa is called in as the tie-breaker.  All proceedings are recorded in the SWMS.  Once a determination is final, the contact is flagged for the appropriate Santa’s list, and the gift determinations are also recorded and sent to the warehouse of Santa’s Workshop.  With just-in-time inventory processing, these warehouse order are then passed on to the production floor of Santa’s Workshop and then onto the fulfillment provision to get ready for shipment.

We anticipate that with the Santa’s Workshop, the Workshop should easily be able to meet the rising tide of litigation over “Coal Appeals”, and even shut down completely for the January and February mid-winter break from all the efficiency savings.  If you find elves wind-surfing in St. Barts this January … you will know that the Santa’s Workshop Management System is in place and doing its job for happy children around the work.

In a recent article in the New York Times magazine, it was reported that China had ended a policy of official censorship of the press.  Said the Chinese Government official. We believe that our journalists are responsible journalist who understand what is in the best interests of China.  As such, we no longer require that all news copy be reviewed by government censors prior to publication. This was exciting news … but it required a reading of the fine print to understand what had happened. And the more I read the fine print, the more I realized that something similar had happened in America, both in the public press and other forums of commercial speech.

What China has done is replace the explicit censorship with voluntary guidelines.  The guidelines focus not on what can and cannot be printed, but on more nebulous understanding of what would be in the “best interests of China”.  In the enforcement of guidelines, China has turned to the “editors and journalists” to self-police.  The editors “know” what types of articles might upset the powers that be, and then “gently” steer the reporters to topics that are “more favored” by the powers that be.  The effect is much happier journalists and much happier bureaucrats.

Gone are the “confrontations” and “adversary” posts that are the usual fairs of relations between the FIRST ESTATE and the FOURTH ESTATE.  By enlisting the FOURTH ESTATE in the process, the rivalry is reduced to the “cutting desk” of the newsroom—a much quiter and less public place.  This is true because the valuable media franchise (TV and major newspapers) are owned by corporate interests that benefit greatly from the Chinese national government.  The corporate interests have much more to loose than getting a few words edited out of a report—their very franchises are at stake.

As a reporter explains in the article—we have a pretty good idea what will be liked and not liked.  So the censors pretty much leave us alone.  It is really easy.  We feel free from close attention to our writing and the government gets out the business of editing news reports.

In America … we have moved to a “corporate-owned press”.  We do not have express censorship. But we do have owners of media conglomerates who care deeply what the current administration thinks about what they right.  This is not new.  In fact. in “Good Luck, and Good Night,” Edward R. Murrow confronted CBS management in his decision on whether to air on his show criticism of Joe McCarthy and his campaign to “out the Communists”.  Then CEO Paley ultimately permitted the series, however at the cost of eliminating Edward R. Murrow’s regular show in place of “more entertaining” and “more profitable” broadcasts.

When it comes to discussion forums, these have been traditionally free from corporate economic “constraints”.  The moderators would review posts to block out spammers (yes they exist), but generally allowed free-spirited debate.  LexisNexis in setting up the Time Matters CIC forums—and they were set up with knowledge, support and consent of the Time Matters division of Lexis Nexis—sought to encourage an atmosphere that was supportive of the Time Matters product suite.  The result was the set of guidelines (developed by a group of “Certified Independent Consultants”—one of whom did a stint as Time Matters Vice-President of Sales).

Let us look at the Guidelines:

The purpose of the LexisNexis Practice Management forum is to establish and maintain an online community where LexisNexis Time Matters, PC Law & HotDocs users and consultants can come together to share knowledge about our Practice Management applications, tailor these applications to individual needs, and develop specialized solutions.

So far so good … My emphasis.

This forum is managed and moderated solely by LexisNexis Practice Management Certified Independent Consultants (CICs) and is for the benefit of licensed LexisNexis® Practice Management customers as well as other CICs. CICs are not employees, agents, representatives, resellers, or contractors for LexisNexis®. CICs are independent professionals whose primary focus is the training and support of customers. LexisNexis® provides the infrastructure to host the forum, but does not participate in the management or moderation of the forum.

Again … the Chinese model of Censorship.  But note that CIC’s do have “resale” rights for software and would qualify as “authorized resellers” under law.  We were required to execute a contract with LexisNexis to be part of the CIC program.

There is no cost for using this forum and a support agreement is not required. However, you must be a licensed user of LexisNexis® Practice Management products and conform to the protocols of the forum to participate.

Note the focus on protocols. So far so good.

In order to establish a positive, constructive environment in which issues can be addressed, all posts are reviewed by the forum’s volunteer CIC moderators before being distributed. Message content will not be edited, augmented, or changed. Messages not in compliance with the objectives of the forum will simply not be posted to the forum by the moderators and individuals who repeatedly attempt to post such messages may have their access to the forum restricted or terminated.

Here is the “meat” of the guidelines.  Keep them positive and upbeat…. or else, rejection, and expulsion from the forum.

Generally, LexisNexis® will not be participating in the forum and participants should not rely on the forum to communicate with LexisNexis® directly. If you have ideas or feedback for LexisNexis® regarding any of the Practice Management products, please follow the procedures established for submitting ideas or comments to the appropriate business unit.

Historically, LexisNexis officials have participated in the HotDocs list, and it was an effective way of communicating ideas to HotDocs developers.  This here gives notice that such a communication method should not be assumed … and in fact, posts that attempt to tell LexisNexis what to do with its product are rejected.  The tradition of posting ideas on the forum by HotDocs developers for discussion would not be in compliance with these guidelines.

Messages should include your name, firm name, city and state, which version of the product you are running, basic operating and computer system information, plus your current status regarding working with LexisNexis® Practice Management technical support (remember, call technical support first). Anonymous or alias posts will NOT be accepted.

This is a favorite … those who don’t edit their signature block to include City and State will get rejected.  It is not enough to just put in your name and return address.

This forum is primarily for getting the most out of the current feature sets and methodologies under existing LexisNexis® Practice Management policies and market conditions.

This is a clear call to focus on the “status quo”—and not what could be done. The next paragraph drives home the point.

This forum is not for discussion on matters not directly related to the use of LexisNexis® Practice Management products. Additionally, because CICs have no control over LexisNexis® product pricing, business practices, customer service, or technical support policies, these subjects are outside the scope of this forum.

Here is the clinch … since CIC’s are powerless … these topics are outside the scope of the forum.  They are deamed “not relevant” to community support.  This was clearly a response to the Elderlaw list where there were rants about pricing of Time Matters (a quite affordable product, given its benefits) and complaints about Technical Support that rose to the level of extortion of Time Matters.  Rather than striking a balance, all these topics are expressly excluded.

This forum is not for editorializing, broad qualitative comments, customer complaints, lobbying for particular features or improvements, or otherwise trying to pressure LexisNexis® into a particular course of action.

If you had ANY doubts about whether discussion of the future direction of the product, this last one makes it clear — not relevant … and to go back to the top, such posts will be rejected and if the poster does not learn, he or she will be expelled.  My query … would discussion of a true “bug” in the product … a feature that doesn’t work … be barred under these guidelines.  More than likely.  Time Matters CICs have received calls from executives at Time Matters who have acknowledged in “bugs” in public posts.

So you can judge … are the Chinese that bad.  Perhaps, it is they who have learned the capitalist way.