December 2, 2009
Ted
Tjaden
Microsoft SharePoint in Law Firms
by Ted Tjaden
December 2, 2009
Many North American law firms have developed their intranet portals using Microsoft SharePoint 2007 software (soon to be released in a new 2010 version).
There have been numerous posts on SLAW discussing SharePoint; in addition, Microsoft has an industry page for law firms that provides some useful links to case studies.
There are several reasons why many law firms are using SharePoint:
- Content aggregator/organizer: SharePoint can be used to create a true intranet portal, being the interface – via a web browser – between the user an a variety of data sources such as your document, financial or content management systems as well as linking to external WWW sites (free and subscription).
- Software integration: SharePoint can work well with other software (of course, including other Microsoft products which are heavily used by most law firms); in addition, there are many third party vendors providing value-added software add-ons to make SharePoint easier to use or to improve functionality.
- Better search: Whether using SharePoint search “out of the box” or incorporating third-party search engines, SharePoint can usually often better search – including faceted searching – than the native search in most document management systems.
- Better browsing: Using SharePoint Designer, one can create well-designed portal interfaces to improve access to information for those who browse (as oppose to search).
- Web 2.0 capabilities: SharePoint has “built in” wikis, discussion boards and RSS feeds to make Web 2.0-like collaboration easier within the organization.
The TechnoLawyer Blog has a post from last year from Sara Skiff setting out, with permission, Chapter 17 from The Lawyer’s Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies (by Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell) that discusses SharePoint and provides an excellent overview.
Having been immersed in a SharePoint intranet project, I see the power of this software tool, although there was a fairly high, initial learning curve and a need for a lot of “back end” technical support. However, adding and integrating content is fairly easy. One aspect I have always liked with web development is the immediacy of implementing change. Don’t like a particular page or design aspect? Change it and see the change immediately.
Although there is not likely any particular “Canadian” aspect of deploying SharePoint in a law firm (although there is the English/French bilinguality requirement for those firms with offices in Quebec, which is a challenge in itself), I would be interested in hearing from those of you in Canadian law firms or corporate or government law departments who are using SharePoint and would be willing to join an informal “Canadian Law Firm SharePoint Users” group to share ideas and best practices (contact me offline).
Many North American law firms have developed their intranet portals using Microsoft SharePoint 2007 software (soon to be released in a new 2010 version).
There have been numerous posts on SLAW discussing SharePoint; in addition, Microsoft has an industry page for law firms that provides some useful links to case studies.
There are several reasons why many law firms are using SharePoint:
- Content aggregator/organizer: SharePoint can be used to create a true intranet portal, being the interface – via a web browser – between the user an a variety of data sources such as your document, financial or content management systems as well as linking to external WWW sites (free and subscription).
- Software integration: SharePoint can work well with other software (of course, including other Microsoft products which are heavily used by most law firms); in addition, there are many third party vendors providing value-added software add-ons to make SharePoint easier to use or to improve functionality.
- Better search: Whether using SharePoint search “out of the box” or incorporating third-party search engines, SharePoint can usually often better search – including faceted searching – than the native search in most document management systems.
- Better browsing: Using SharePoint Designer, one can create well-designed portal interfaces to improve access to information for those who browse (as oppose to search).
- Web 2.0 capabilities: SharePoint has “built in” wikis, discussion boards and RSS feeds to make Web 2.0-like collaboration easier within the organization.
The TechnoLawyer Blog has a post from last year from Sara Skiff setting out, with permission, Chapter 17 from The Lawyer’s Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies (by Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell) that discusses SharePoint and provides an excellent overview.
Having been immersed in a SharePoint intranet project, I see the power of this software tool, although there was a fairly high, initial learning curve and a need for a lot of “back end” technical support. However, adding and integrating content is fairly easy. One aspect I have always liked with web development is the immediacy of implementing change. Don’t like a particular page or design aspect? Change it and see the change immediately.
Although there is not likely any particular “Canadian” aspect of deploying SharePoint in a law firm (although there is the English/French bilinguality requirement for those firms with offices in Quebec, which is a challenge in itself), I would be interested in hearing from those of you in Canadian law firms or corporate or government law departments who are using SharePoint and would be willing to join an informal “Canadian Law Firm SharePoint Users” group to share ideas and best practices (contact me offline).
Respond: make a comment | read the 3 comments
Share: Email | Save as PDF | Print
| Bookmark & Share
More: in Legal Information or Legal Information: Information Management or Technology | from Ted Tjaden
Make a comment:
Note that some comments may be moderated. If you have not had an approved comment here before, your comment will be held for approval. We are glad to publish comments that address issues raised in the post or other comments on it and that contribute to a fruitful discussion. We do not publish comments that seek to promote commercial products or that seek personal legal advice.
Although we do not require it, we ask that in making a comment you use your full name. You must supply a valid email address, which will not appear with your comment.
|
the count:
6106 pages & posts | 8404 comments
... a per saltum project from Slaw ...
Our simple-to-remember rewriting of the URL for the Supreme Court of Canada — And lessupremes.ca works as well, bien sûr.
Gavel Busters
It's time to bring the hammer down on Canadian sites that mistakenly use the gavel as a symbol of law. Help us wipe out this scourge! Learn more on our Gavel Busters page.
The Friday Fillip Collections
Some end-of-week frivols fastened in folios for your enjoyment ...
Selected Fillips from 2006 2007
[2008 2009 coming soon ... ]
Slawstalgia
See how things used to be on Slaw:
-
the page from June 5, 2006, when we'd be going for just about a year...
-
the page from May 13, 2010 [PDF], nearly four years later...
-
Currently the Web largely uses IPv4, Internet Protocol version 4. Each IPv4 address is limited to a 32-bit number, which means there are a maximum of just over 4 billion unique addresses. IPv6 is the next generation Internet Protocol and uses a 128-bit address, so it supports a vastly larger number of unique addresses. Enough, in fact, to give every person on the planet over 4 billion addresses!
-
Paul Ceglia sued Facebook and Zuckerberg in state court June 30, claiming that an April 2003 contract entitles him to ownership of most of the closely held company. Ceglia’s lawyer produced a copy of the document for U.S. District Judge Richard Arcara today at a hearing in federal court in Buffalo, New York.
-
-
"click here to sign out forever" Nice
-
From blogs to Twitter to Facebook, companies and firms are leveraging the power of social networking as a business tool. A look at Canadian business use of social networking.
-
‘I was trying to keep the criminals out,’ police chief says there never was a five-metre arrest rule.
-
Police dealing with G20 demonstrators can use sonic cannons for crowd control, but with restrictions, Superior Court of Justice Mr. David Brown ruled this morning, reports The Star's Peter Edwards.
But he ruled Toronto police can only use the noise blasters at the lower decibel range. Ontario Provincial Police still have the discretion to use the cannons at both the lower and highest decibel settings, the judge said, because their guidelines for use are more cautious. That means the OPP can't come right up to someone and blast them.
The justice stressed that the OPP were not permitted to use the cannons at random. "Their use requires very serious authorization," he said. Crowd safety would benefit from police having a quick and effective means of communicating with protesters, he said.
-
"Just 10% of Twitter users generate more than 90% of the content, a Harvard study of 300,000 users found."
-
"Technology experts and stakeholders say they expect they will ‘live mostly in the cloud’ in 2020 and not on the desktop, working mostly through cyberspace-based applications accessed through networked devices. This will substantially advance mobile connectivity through smartphones and other internet appliances. Many say there will be a cloud-desktop hybrid. Still, cloud computing has many difficult hurdles to overcome, including concerns tied to the availability of broadband spectrum, the ability of diverse systems to work together, security, privacy, and quality of service."
-
. . . interesting article . . . about a researcher who is looking into technology or methods to allow personal data to "fade" over time.
|
I’ve heard an awful lot about SharePoint recently, but usually only in reference to law firms. Does anyone think this resource would be useful in an academic law library? I don’t know enough about it to know whether or not it would be useful in that environment.
Thanks.
Hi Sue:
Thanks for your comment. I haven’t heard too much about SharePoint for an academic law library.
As you may know, SharePoint can be used for deploying or creating external websites. However, I suspect many academic law libraries might be subject to their central university web management policies, etc.
For internal information management, there could be lots of useful applications using SharePoint: internal research and writing guides, wikis to create and publish manuals/guides, tracking faculty requests for research materials, integrating (assuming this is possible) with BlackBoard or other electronic classroom/teaching sites, and so on.
If you assume a law school professor/library/law student total head count of say 700 people, you are close in size to a mid-sized law firm, although there would perhaps be less need for internal communication in a law school setting than in a law firm.
One benefit of SharePoint I forgot to mention in my post is the easier implementation of automated document workflow, something which might have less application in academia.
However, I would defer to someone else’e comments, if any.
Having participated in two Sharepoint portal projects, I can’t say enough about the flexibility of the product. I seems that, if you are willing to learn the vocabulary of Sharepoint and spend some time getting to know the back end, you can literally do anything you want.
That said, it is incredibly tempting to do *everything*. Mistake! Mistake! The literature is full of “Sharepoint gone wrong” horror stories. Some observations:
- Governance is important. Each project/product should have a clear goal and audience, and deviation should be discouraged.
- For your first project, use Sharepoint “out of the box”. Customization is tempting, but can be a killer (and won’t make you any friends with your IT department). You can do a remarkable amount of great work with the product as it is. Get good at that first.
- Don’t reproduce your shared drives inside Sharepoint. Shared drives become a nightmare when anyone can create a folder, nobody is responsible for records management in there, and junk accumulates. The same thing can happen in Sharepoint if there is no control.