Web 2.0 – social working

Future generations of lawyers will have grown up with social collaborative websites such as MySpace and YouTube. This is ‘Web 2.0’ technology. Similar concepts are now creeping into the corporate world, facilitating knowledge sharing and communication with clients. But with reputation and risk mitigation paramount, will we ever really see a ‘Lawfirm 2.0’?

By Damien Behan, IT applications manager, Bird & Bird

Since Google paid $1.65bn for YouTube in October 2006, interest in so-called Web 2.0 technology and services has increased dramatically. The term ‘Web 2.0’ is increasingly mentioned in the mainstream press, usually in relation to YouTube, MySpace or Wikipedia, which have all become extraordinarily successful in a relatively short period of time. What is Web 2.0, and what is its relevance for law firms?

What is Web 2.0?

Tim O’Reilly of O’Reilly media coined the term Web 2.0 in 2004 as a way to describe a new generation of web-based applications that are based around social networking, collaboration and sharing. He talked of a “business revolution in the computing industry” where these new applications are based on the “internet as platform”. He also stated that one of the main rules for success with Web 2.0 services was to create applications that “get better the more people use them”, which is also referred to as “harnessing collective intelligence”. Web 2.0 businesses such as these can only exist on the internet, and derive their success from the human connections and network effects enabled by the system.

The technologies that underlie Web 2.0 are known collectively as social software, which encompasses tools such as Blogs, Wikis, social bookmarking, RSS and folksonomies. These are explained in greater detail in the glossary on p.20. In summary:

Web logs, or ‘Blogs’, are tools that allow users to create online diaries;
Wikis are websites where anyone who can view it can also edit the content;
Social bookmarking allows individuals to store their website bookmarks online, and optionally share them with others;
RSS software allows users to subscribe to feeds of content from websites or Blogs, rather than having to visit the website regularly to see the latest updates;
Folksonomies allow users to classify their content using their own keyword labels known as ‘tags’.

There are a wide variety of examples of Web 2.0 businesses, and as well as the more widely known websites others such as Flickr, Bebo, del.icio.us and Digg also allow people to
network and share thoughts, bookmarks, music, images and videos by means of simple website tools. Successful sites enable users to actively control the content, and the websites become more effective the more people generate, categorise and link content.

While the business model of Web 2.0 is not so different from existing internet-based businesses, in that it is based on charging for advertising space on a web page, the focus has changed. Unlike the first Dotcom boom, where websites tried to entice visitors with their content (so that they could capture the maximum number of page ‘hits’ and therefore attract advertising), users willingly flock to these new websites because they allow them to do something they really want to do: meet, collaborate and share.

The effect of Web 2.0 on traditional businesses

So how will this technology impact existing modern businesses such as law firms? The answer lies in taking the highly successful collaborative elements of Web 2.0 technologies, and putting them to work both internally with colleagues and externally with clients. The use of social software tools by traditional businesses not based on the Web 2.0 model is often referred as ‘Enterprise 2.0’. However, while Web 2.0 businesses thrive on the free and open way users generate and share content, traditional businesses usually have a more controlled, risk-aware approach to the Web and their publishing process.

For many businesses, publicly available corporate Blogs have become more commonplace, particularly in technology firms. For example, many Microsoft employees maintain a Blog of what they are working on, their thoughts and opinions, and encourage the public to post comments in reply. The difference between these Blogs and articles or newsletters published on traditional company websites is that the means and authority to publish the information is given to staff ‘on the ground’ within the organisation, and the result is usually made public without any formal editorial control. It allows firms to show the human face of their organisation, and allow their employees to interact with their customers informally, in a way that was not previously possible.

Whither the corporate Intranet?

There is a saying that if you don’t want people to read something, then put it on the intranet. The intranet’s relatively static nature, tightly-controlled publishing model and hierarchical approach can result in it becoming a silo that users find difficult to navigate. As the main repository of company information for staff, it is generally controlled by a particular department, with nominated administrators responsible for publishing content. However, the intranet of the future - what Indus Khaitan of Symantec calls the ‘Writable Intranet’ – could potentially change all that.

Khaitan says: “’Writable Intranet’ is the corporate intranet of the future where employees collaborate using Wikis [ and ] Blogs, and applications interoperate using RSS [...] It is the place where employees collaborate, exchange thoughts, create plans, capture meeting notes, track projects, create documents. The Writable Intranet marks the end
of e-mail as the collaboration platform. The Writable Intranet means that enterprise knowledge is ‘free’ and searchable by anybody.”

With business use of social software in its relative infancy, this seems quite an optimistic view, but it is likely it will indeed continue to grow. However, embedding social software into the intranet will not necessarily ensure law firm employees adopt them – they will need champions and supporters to encourage usage. Remember that teenagers growing up today with social software such as MySpace and YouTube will be the lawyers of tomorrow.

Security, risks and governance

Of course, issues of governance need to be considered also. The more casual format of a Blog or Wiki may encourage collaboration, but it can also attract negative comments directed at the law firm and its management. The firm needs to decide how to handle the inherent loss of control in the technologies, for example by closely monitoring the content, or setting up guidelines and policies for use. The risk posed by Blogs is probably less from malicious staff turning on the company – but rather from accidental slips that may put the firm in an embarrassing position. Furthermore, if a Blog is sitting on a firm’s public website, potential for misuse or defacement of the ‘comments’ facility means firms need to think carefully before opening up the publishing process in this way.

Use of Blogs or Wikis may also make an appearance on extranets in the future, but again firms will need to be aware of the risks involved. The widespread reliance on ‘redlining’ comparison software in law firms means that a Wiki edited by a client or third party without those changes being immediately obvious may be a situation lawyers would prefer to avoid altogether. On the other hand, having too many rules may just frustrate people, so there is a delicate balance to be struck between governance and providing support.

Lawfirm 2.0?

Web 2.0 has sparked a flood of ‘2.0’ buzzwords: ‘Enterprise 2.0’, ‘Marketing 2.0’, ‘Library 2.0’ etc. Now some Bloggers and journalists have already begun to discuss ‘Lawfirm 2.0’ or ‘Law 2.0’. Law firms are already starting to use social software for internal use, and to a lesser extent externally. Given their respective roles and areas of interest, it is perhaps understandable that KM and IT staff have been the first to embrace these new tools. Bird & Bird’s experience with Blogs reflects this tendency, although it is slowly filtering through to the lawyers. Blogs are used to share information on topics people have an interest or expertise in; to debate issues; or to provide feedback on seminars and conferences. At the same time, Wikis have had a firm foothold in magic-circle firms for some time now – a trend likely to be extended to a wider variety of firms in the future. Common uses for Wikis include group collaboration on research, or for project/event management. Use in law firms tends to be internal, however, and it remains to be seen if extranet Wikis will take off.

As is often the case with software, the challenge is primarily a cultural one: if lawyers are not prepared to share knowledge with their colleagues, then providing a new means of doing so is unlikely to change their behaviour. Not everyone will feel comfortable publishing content so publicly within the firm, or making edits to a Wiki when the results are so highly visible. Collaboration is also unlikely to happen without encouragement and support from an interested third party such as the KM or IT department. The lesson is to start with groups with a fixed goal and a requirement to collaborate. The support and monitor them throughout, and avoid overly optimistic expectations – at least initially.

Predictions for the future

As technology makes it easier to share and distribute text, audio and video to colleagues and clients, we can expect to see increasing use of these technologies in the legal world. High quality digital cameras and video recorders have become more affordable, the means to distribute them via web pages simpler, and high-speed broadband commonplace, so it is reasonable to expect to see the use of video increasing. Possible applications might include:

Weekly intranet broadcasts from the CEO/managing partner, updating the firm on the latest wins and developments;
Secondees interviewing their counterparts at the client site, as a training tool to help colleagues get a feel for the client’s working environment;
Public website or extranet video profiles, with lawyers talking about what areas interest them, their experience and skills;
Current awareness briefings in a ‘press conference’ style;
Q&A deal/case de-briefs with key team members.

However, it should perhaps be noted that while video conferencing and video phones have been available for some time, they have had limited success to date – perhaps as users have been uncomfortable being filmed.

Publicly available Blogs by lawyers are likely to be relatively formal, restricted to sharing current awareness information and will be closely monitored. More likely is expansion along the model of the US firm Sheppard Mullin, which has moved the firm’s bulletins and newsletters to a Blog format.

Wikis may find their way into the world of client relationship management (CRM), however, to allow clients to maintain their own profile and feel part of a network with the firm’s lawyers, for example. This opening up may be attractive to the client, resulting in a greater affinity with the lawyers. An internal MySpace-style system might also allow lawyers to profile themselves as a kind of Expert system. Or perhaps we will see a ‘MyClient”, where lawyers prepare profiles of their clients and link them to other individuals in a less formal way than is traditionally the case.

Social bookmarking is a relatively new phenomenon, but one that could also have a potentially useful application within law firms. For example, most departments or project groups will have ‘useful links’ that lawyers may need in the course of their work. A social bookmarking application would enable any user to suggest new sites of interest, describe and classify them, and then share them with the group. As yet there is no commercially available social bookmarking product, although IBM has created a prototype called ‘dogear’ as a pilot for internal use.

Finally, many firms have invested in firm-wide taxonomies, sometimes spending years defining keyword terms. Folksonomies take the opposite approach, with no centralised control of tagging and users choosing their own ways of classifying information. Neither system is without its faults however. Legal taxonomies tend to be complex, difficult to navigate and labour-intensive to maintain; whereas folksonomies can result in what some have termed a ‘mess of tags’, with potentially chaotic and poor quality tagging. Some websites that use folksonomies have started moving towards using automated tagging, where software auto-classifies content using concept-matching algorithms. Some law firms are now moving away from the structured taxonomy towards auto-generated classification, whether through search engines or auto-classification systems. It remains to be seen whether firms are prepared to allow an open attitude to tagging with folksonomies filtering into firms via blogging and social bookmarking – or whether auto-classification will overshadow them.

Social software has certainly taken root in some law firms and we can expect to see continued interest in this area. However, the benefits of free and open ways for content to be published by anyone needs to be balanced against the need for security and risk avoidance. Internally, new technologies can enable collaboration and sharing in a variety of ways, but further efforts to address cultural change will most likely be required before any major adoption takes place. Externally, we can expect cautious moves towards using these technologies, although the short-term risks may outweigh the potential benefits for a number of firms.

Damien Behan is IT applications manager at Bird & Bird. He can be contacted at damien.behan@twobirds.com