EPISODE 206 – HOW PROCERTAS MAKES TECHNOLOGY TRAINING & BENCHMARKING EASY

Procertas (Professional Certifications and Technology Assessments) offers training on vital, but often dismissed skills such as

Microsoft Word, Powerpoint, Excel, and other common office technologies. In Law Firms, Doctor’s offices, and other professional firms, you’d be surprised at how much productivity can be improved when you train your staff on these basic programs.

Procertas’ flagship product is the Legal Technology Assessment or LTA. The LTA, is a first of its kind to integrate benchmarking, training platform pairing and competence-based assessments with synchronized, active learning in a live environment. Once a client completes the course, they become COBOT Qualified (Certified Operator of Basic Office Technology).

Casey Flaherty, founder of Procertas, discusses the importance of legal professionals to be fluent in the tools of their trade and how the LTA benchmark assessment and training program can be used for marketing, professional development, team assembly, on-boarding, provider differentiation, rate negotiation, etc. Casey reveals how important it is that legal professionals are getting the training they need in this ever-changing, competitive market.

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Hey, this is Richard Jacobs and I’m here today with Casey Flaherty The principal founder and head of Procertas, a company that is dealing in the legal space.

Richard Jacobs: Casey, can you give me a rundown of what Procertas does because it seems like you guys are into several different aspects, consulting, technology provider etc.? Can you let me know what Procertas is and how it works?

Casey Flaherty: I do consulting and I do it under the Procertas name and then we also have our own technology platform. It’s a separate platform. It’s related to basic technology training. So for desktop software like Word, Excel and PDF in the legal context. Traditionally lawyers do not receive any training whatsoever on those. They don’t get it in law school, they don’t get it at their law firms and frankly, they are really bad at it. To the extent that we provide training, it’s some videos, you should maybe watch them or we might even send you into a classroom where you can sit there and look at your Blackberry while someone stands there and demonstrates something that you are not paying attention to. I’m a big proponent of competence based learning. What I find is important for learning is the core process used for learning. We should be able to measure learning directly and traditionally it’s hard to do that because of the logistics but computers have made that much easier. So instead of telling someone here to watch someone lie to them, treat them or watch these videos, here’s a specific test. Please do them.

Richard Jacobs: If you are able to demonstrate how much you’ve learned, then it doesn’t matter how long. Okay. It makes sense.

Casey Flaherty: It does actually matter how long because there are a lot of different ways to do these things and some take much longer than others. Just to give you a really simple example, lawyers deal with a lot of contracts, even for litigators, a settlement agreement is a contract. Lawyers love cross references, with the exception of Section 3.2, it has been dated consistent with Section X, Y and Z. You change one little thing in the contract and all those cross references need to be updated. If you know what you are doing, it takes about 5 seconds. If you don’t know what you are doing, I can take hours depending on the length of your contract. Only about 5% of associates and staff know how to use automated cross-references in Microsoft Word. I know that because I’ve accepted thousands of them. So we were tracking accuracy but part of it is that you let people have the training they don’t need which is really important because time is valuable. The other thing is that you identify what people know and what they don’t and that’s one of our biggest problems when it comes to training, these people have no idea how valuable it would be because they don’t know what they don’t know. They labor under delusions of adequacy. They think they know what they are doing, they are not doing it wrong on purpose. They simply have no conception of how the software works and may think that it demands them to do it the brute force way. They are wrong but they don’t know that they are wrong unless you show them they are wrong. So that’s where competence based learning comes in and then because it’s computer mediated, you can start delivering it in interesting ways where someone does a task, it gets graded, they can be probably given instant feedback on whether or not it was done correctly. If they did it correctly, move on to the next one, if they did it incorrectly, then that’s when they get the training video but then they are immediately afforded the opportunity to apply that training in a live environment meaning they try it again. They can go through that sabbatical as many times as they need until they can close the learning loop. Then you can use an assessment on the back end to verify your attention. So again, you are confirming that people actually know how to use things rather than assuming it which is mostly what we do now. People think that simply by sending them to something that we call training, they are going to get trained.

Richard Jacobs: So, how did you get involved with this? Tell me why this is so important to you. What’s your background? How did this start?

Casey Flaherty: I went to law school and went to work with a large commercial litigator. I also did quite a bit of E-discovery. I moved in house and when I moved in house there were a lot of things I didn’t want to pay for but that had nothing to do with the really valuable lawyering which my law firm provided. It mostly had to do with the labor intensive work that made that lawyering possible. So the low value ad didn’t necessarily work. It was my view that law firms and also in house departments were not properly leveraging their expertise through process and technology and so the question becomes how do you talk to your firms about service delivery; about leveraging that expertise through process and technology. The traditional answer tended to be you asked for a discount, we know you are inefficient so we are not going to pay you your full rate. To me discounts are a very silly game. The second most popular answer is you don’t talk to them about it at all. You move to flat fees, alternative fees, that’s something I’m much more enthusiastic about but I don’t think it solves the entire problem. So I came up with an entire methodology for having those kinds of discussions and in fact it’s now contained in a guidebook put out by the Association for Corporate Counsel entitled “Unless You Act: How to Get More Fruits from Your Relationships.” It outlines how to have these concrete discussions in areas like knowledge management, document automation, expert systems and the use of data in analytics in a bunch of other categories one of which is technology training. For most of those categories I mentioned, you can come up with reasonable proxies that serve as metrics and metrics are not the end of the discussion, they are the beginning of the discussion. They inform the discussion. So, knowledge management, let’s say we want our firms to be using some kind of a repository of a case law. You can get statistics. How frequently is it updated? How frequently is it accessed? Does the firm give credit for knowledge management activity? How much credit is it giving to make points for documents that they produce for you that have had their origin or portions of them have originated in their knowledge management or document automation systems. The sequence starts to measure these things to inform your conversation. The place where I had a very hard time finding good proxy was technology training because again, the only proxy there is did you mandate training? From my personal experience, I don’t think it has that much informational value. So I need to create my own method and so that’s where I came up with this assessment. I had my outside counsel do it and I got their scores. That was it’s origin. I am very passionate about it but I see it as one piece in a much larger puzzle or as my friend Mark Cologne would say, it’s a legal mosaic. There are lots of little things that go into superior service delivery. Technology training is one of them but it’s certainly not the only one. So that’s how it originated. I needed a metric and I didn’t have one.

Richard Jacobs: So within this training that you created what does the test look for? What are some of the elements?

Casey Flaherty: It gives people pretty basic tasks that you would encounter in a legal environment and just asks them to do it. So here is a document that has been marked up. You need to turn off track changes, accept all changes, delete all comments. Okay someone added a new section and they messed up the numbering. You need to fix the number. Now that you fixed the numbering, the cross references are off, you need to fix the cross references. There is a problem with the footer and just going through the standard document generation procedure. There is also one for PDFs. It’s about preparing and E-filing. There is another one for Excel which is analyzing some data that you got from a client. That’s always an interesting one because I love it. At in house counsel I spent more time with Excel than I did Word because the business ran on Excel. You go into the database, explore the raw data, put it into a pivot table and start analyzing it. We are absolutely sending that sort of data to our outside counsel and so it matters whether or not they could deal with it but it didn’t mean that every one of my outside counsel had to be an expert in Excel rather they needed to have identified Excel experts on their team and a workflow designed to send spreadsheet intensive work their way. So I would ask them the questions who is your Excel expert? How do you know they are an expert? What does your work flow look like? Normally they would just shrug to all of those questions and then it would come out that they defined the Excel expert as the youngest available person which made me laugh. All the time, it’s the pernicious myth of the digital native driving you up the wall.

Richard Jacobs: People may say the twentysomethings, they grew up digital, they know about all that “stuff”. Right?

Casey Flaherty: Yeah. It’s awful.

Richard Jacobs: What have you seen is the effect of proper training? For the people going through your system, what kind of results are they getting? ROI? Better efficiency? What kind of things do they improve?

Casey Flaherty: So there are a few things that occur. First of all, they get measurably better at using Word, Excel and PDF. They also then report that they have translated those skills into day to day use, that they found it worthwhile and then you see their realization lights go on. With the associates and the paralegals, less of their time gets cut. So people are happier, they are getting their work done quicker, they are making more money on the work they are getting done.

Richard Jacobs: Would you say it leads to better retention of paralegals or associates? Any other improvements?

Casey Flaherty: It’s way too soon to tell. We’ve only been at this for a year. Also we don’t have access to the firm’s data on such things. I suspect that even if we did it would be, that data would be really noisy. So I just don’t know. I don’t have the data for that.

Richard Jacobs: Is it difficult to sell this training to firms? It doesn’t sound very sexy, you know.

Casey Flaherty: I would think, it’s extremely difficult.

Richard Jacobs: Yeah, I would think that people would assume probably wrongly that as long as you basically know these programs, you are fine and you don’t need to get training in them etc. Is that what you typically run into?

Casey Flaherty: Yes. They assume people are good, they assume their current training is sufficient. They are not willing to test either of those assumptions even when I offered; I offered them, let’s do a pilot. Let’s see how you people are doing. When they take me up on that their people are horrible and then they say that we don’t want to do it because it will shake people’s confidence and make them anxious. So they’d rather proceed under the assumptions that were just shattered because it might upset some folks to actually learn that they are not as good as they thought they were. They have false confidence rather than actually go through the training and have real confidence. It’s not just about learning specific skills. It’s about developing a there is an after that mentality, getting more familiar, more fluent and more fluid with the technology so when you encounter something and maybe you learned it but now you’ve forgotten it but you have a general sense that it can be done and how it can be done and a general vocabulary of how to look it up. Maybe you didn’t learn it at all but now you think, you know what, there has got to be a way to do this that isn’t labor intensive. Let me look it up or let me ask somebody. So it changes the way that we relate to our technology the more we invest in it but it is an extremely hard sell. Not impossible. There are absolutely firms that are doing but I’ve been very not to say disappointed because I didn’t think it would be an easy sell to begin with. Where I have been disappointed has been actually with clients because I had so many clients when I was in house say to me what you are doing is great. If we could do it, we would. Then I would just send them a copy of my audit which at the time was manual. You just asked someone to do certain kind of work and you time them. That’s really resource intensive. If there was some way that it was automated and we could just get the scores, we’d do that. Okay. So I automated it. You can’t ask outside counsel for this they’d be offended. That’s been the most disappointing.

Richard Jacobs: Have you thought about certifying paralegals that have gone through your training systems so they can go out and get better work or higher end work?

Casey Flaherty: Yeah. We have many certifications called COBOT, Certified Operator of Basic Office Technology and it gets awarded on a module by module basis where you can do Word without doing Excel and you can do Excel without doing PDF. As we expand content, we are going to have levels.

Richard Jacobs: So people that have gone through COBOT certification, have you had any reports on them being able to get jobs easier or better paying jobs or their experience of it?

Casey Flaherty: Almost all the purchases have been at a firm level or an organization level. So corporate to corporate law department has bought it or a firm has bought it. So we don’t have contact with individuals.

Richard Jacobs: Okay. Have you approached the Paralegal industry itself?

Casey Flaherty: Yeah. So we’ve just signed a deal with the Association of Legal Professionals LLP to offer a discount to their members. We also have entered into the oldest Bar associations to create State specific versions that are CLE accredited.

Richard Jacobs: So have you been able to turn your training into CLE credits and time?

Casey Flaherty: Yes.

Richard Jacobs: Do you think that will be kind of an in road that will grease the skids to get a lot more firms to adopt this?

Casey Flaherty: I hope so but who knows. There is always one more excuse, right? So CLE is a current excuse but I have no idea. There is always going to be one more thing. I think with law it always takes a while. It takes years. One of the things I do is I review I run convergence initiatives for law departments where they shrink the numbers of law departments or law firms that they are doing business with in order to ease their administrative burden and create more leverage and create deeper supplier relationships. So I lead a lot of R & P responses and there will be a section of course on technology and there ‘ll be different questions but one of them will be about merging technologies if you are doing anything with the new stuff. I can’t tell you how many times, you’re told, Oh Yes and then you’ll get a paragraph on their extranets. Extranets have been in legal since 1996 and yet there are firms that genuinely believe that it is an emerging technology. That’s how long it takes.

Richard Jacobs: So yeah, because you have this perspective, what have you seen that is truly an emerging technology for the law space or are you not able to comment on anything like that?

Casey Flaherty: I’m actually on the advisory board of Next Law Labs. I wrote the legal technology column for APC Docket for 2 years. I currently switched to another one on Strategic Sources for legal services. I look at a lot of things and Next Law Labs is an investor in Ross. I’m a big fan of algorithmic invoice review and categorization to get into better mining large existing data. So for companies like Legal Decoder, I’m really excited about getting better stronger qualitative measurements and benchmarks. There absolutely are things out there that are interesting to me and they are not all big and Word rate I think is a fantastic program. It’s not world changing next generation AI but it’s absolutely valuable at doing something that we are not that good at doing. So there are lots of things that I find interesting. I’m more of a incrementalist, I don’t necessarily think that we are in a phase shift from a technological perspective where all of a sudden lawyers disappear to the example of a phase shift which is more business model based that helps departments grow and has mixed feelings about that. I think that from a business model perspective we also look at alternative service providers in the big four so that we have a much different mix of delivery models but on the technology side it tends to be far more incremental. It tends to be, Ross is great but it’s a better way to do legal research. That’s fantastic. It should actually be explored, purchased etc. but it does not fundamentally change the way we deliver legal services. Legal Decoder running 24 million algorithms against every line item of every invoice helps you categorize things, helps you price things, helps you identify anomalous billing activities. Absolutely fantastic but not that fundamentally different from things that we’ve been trying to do. It just helps us do them better. Qualmack is essentially a survey with some really interesting statistical stuff on the backend. Great reporting, very slick but someone could have produced a survey 20 years ago about how you feel about your outside counsel and of course large organizations have done it from BCI to Auburn Wilde. This is much more vocal, I would say ultimately it’s going to be more useful and I think it could absolutely change the way in house outside counsel talk to each other but it’s still not fundamentally changing the relationship in some way that was previously unthinkable. To the extent we are getting anywhere near that, I love the Dan Katts in legal text, can we find new ways to characterize legal risks? Can we securitize it? Can we use an ensemble of probes to rationalize what is a very irrational, informal kind of self-insurance operation that we’ve got going on? To me, that’s fascinating. There are certainly technology components but it’s more social than it is technological.

Richard Jacobs: Any new technology coming up that you do think will be more than just incremental changes that will actually be game changers in the legal space?

Casey Flaherty: Game changers? I don’t see it. You can see it in particular areas. LegalZoom was a game changer when it came to the production of wills. That had a real impact on a lot of lawyers. Things like Mark Tamminga at Osler did with some automation in particular areas tended to be a game changer. So there are technologies that help drive commoditization or at least mass customization but they tend to be very specific. I can’t think of any general purpose technology that is a game changer. I get very excited about all of these things. Virtual reality for accident reconstruction, for example. That’s awesome. That’s just cool or to the extent that you are doing anything in the patent space or anything where that kind of three dimensional visualization s going to have an enormous impact on the way people understand what is going on. I think that’s great. I don’t know if that is a game changer. It’s just a different way to present information to a jury. It’s a better way. It’s a way that once it matures, you better be using it or you are going to lose. So, to say it’s not a game changer is not to dismiss it in any way, shape or form but at what point do we say the game has changed. So in 96, we had people that were being called dangerous and possibly insane for suggesting that lawyers will start communicating with their clients by email Today, we can’t even be called Blackberry addicts anymore because we are all on iPhones but we email with our clients all the time. That has absolutely changed the way that we operate and yet, did it really fundamentally change our relationships with our clients or the kind of work we did? That’s where we get into philosophical questions that I can’t answer.

Richard Jacobs: Yeah. I’m sure that there are many lawyers that text with their clients too, not just email

Casey Flaherty: Yes. But is that game changing?

Richard Jacobs: No. Not really. You are right.

Casey Flaherty: I’m not saying that I am right. I’m saying I don’t know. Do I see something like what Amazon did to bookstores? Or what NetFlix did to Blockbuster? Or what Uber is doing to the Taxi industry? That kind of 3^rd party disruption. Completely different way of delivering services. Completely different way of thinking about what it is you are selling, that I don’t see but it might also be that I’m not that imaginative. I don’t have any problem with the idea that I’m not the smartest, most creative person in legal and maybe I’m absolutely missing it even though I’m a proponent of AI, of VR, of AR, of expert systems of machine learning, natural language processing, I mean go down your buzzword.

Richard Jacobs: Let me ask you a couple of things about that because it’s geared towards Future Tech. Especially because of the writing you’ve done and all the things you’ve seen in the legal industry, I just wanted to run a couple of ideas by you to see what your thought is. You probably have a more educated stance on it. I’ve spoken to companies, that, for instance would look at 1000 DUI cases in a given state. Look at the fact patterns, everything about the case, the judge, prosecutor and all that. Use natural language processing to boil it all down and to make a recommendation engine for a drunk driving or a DUI attorney for when they get new clients based on this used corpus of past cases, facts and everything. If you file a motion to do this, it has a high rate of succeeding or not. Do you see a place for those kinds of AI systems or are they more flights of fancy?

Casey Flaherty: Those are fantastic. I love what they are doing at Lex Machina. They are great. In IT matters I would absolutely use them. I think there are ways to organize and analyze the data that will help you make an informed decision. Now still, a person making a decision, I tend to be a follower of Dan Katz in terms of ensembles that you want to use to the extent you can. Experts crowd the algorithm and you are talking about the algorithm piece absolutely make much better decisions. One of the things I do in my consulting is work on decision free analysis. Large companies, large cases trying to find some vigor into how they set reserves, how they decide on settlement authority, how they budget for the case or what the expected value is. The decision tree is just another way to represent an algorithm. If we were doing it right which by the way, we are not, we would have data informing every single one of those inflection points and we’d have a data strategy not only to use in past cases but also to track our forecasting accuracy in past cases and not just how well are the algorithms doing but how well are the individual forecasters who are involved in dealing. I’m a huge proponent that one of these days, I’m going to convince one of these large companies to hire me for an extended period as opposed to one off cases for a large program of developing a data strategy and using predictive analytics to inform the decisions that we make on cases helping us decide whether or not to file a motion, helping us to decide what the outcome of a motion means for the remainder of the case, how we think about settlement etc. Although I will go back to the ensemble part. I consider experts to be part of that process. AI reduces the cost of prediction which thereby increases the value of judgement. The more opportunities that we have to use the machine’s predicting, to me the more valuable human judgement becomes because now it’s much more informed and now you can actually track the difference between different experts and their judgements. So I think that kind of technology, and by the way it’s not just technology, it’s a different way of thinking about and delivering legal services which should already be here but absolutely will have a larger and larger role to play in the future.

Richard Jacobs: I spoke to a researcher, Dimitrios Tsanapatsounis. He was one of the people involved in creating what they call the AI judge. So I guess in the European courts they added several hundred cases on human rights. Do you think that in the future, there may be a third party in the courtroom, the judge. Counsel, I’m sorry 4^th party. Maybe jury maybe not but an AI system that knows all the case law that can be another voice in the courtroom, that has it all in hand, that can say this is everything on the subject and the case that’s going on. It’s referenced here, here and here. Do you think there will be an additional voice in the courtroom? Again, that’s a computer or AI system that will weigh in and help the judge and the attorneys and everyone making a decision on cases?

Casey Flaherty: I don’t think that there will be a neutral AI that is somehow Deus Ex Machina like it’s God from the machine and it’s coming down and it’s speaking to everyone simultaneously but I think you already have some of that. Westlaw in Texas already has AI going into their legal research. They want to make it better, it should be better and they certainly have competition from the likes of that case in law etc. I can absolutely see an expansion of that where people become more and more reliant on the technology to help them through the course of their case. You can have jurors, you can film the entire case as opposed to having to go through a transcript because you have machine learning and you have machine transcription. You can have them go back and watch testimony in a way that they haven’t before and rearrange testimony and here I’m getting into a kind of an oblong industry. I don’t know if John Undercopler and Ted talk about the way he grabs video from different sources and puts them together. I mean you could have juries with a much different relationship through the evidence than you have right now. An AI would be a huge part of that. You could have judges who are much more reliant on AI when they are making rulings. You can have lawyers that are much more reliant on AI when they are making arguments or facing objections etc. So I see all of that and I also see some cases going the kind of Modria direction where you do have a machine being adjudicated. I don’t see the mix where you actually have AI as a voice in the courtroom with the judge. I don’t see that anywhere in the near or medium future. In the far future, who knows?

Richard Jacobs: Right. That seems like the shape of your view of all the things going on. It’s fascinating. I’ve contemplated videoing court proceedings and reviewing parts of it later on and having one or both members of counsel bring them up and display them as they are talking and read around them. Those kinds of things.

Casey Flaherty: Yes and then the jury has access to everything like that. In natural language processing, they are able to by voice, bring up such and such testimony and Oh didn’t that one person say something about that one thing? They don’t need to remember exactly what it was if they know that it is within that general concept of AI to be able to offer them a few different options. Oh this. Oh no. Faulty jury memories is one of the most frustrating things when you sit behind that double pane glass and you are doing jury research. It completely changes the way that juries review evidence. To the extent that you are changing the way that juries review evidence, you are going to change the way that lawyers present it. I’m not Pooh Pooing AI in the courtroom. I see it as a standalone adjudicator in places where we think hat it’s going to increase access to justice, we just don’t have the bandwidth like Modria and I see it as a tool that is used by everyone that is in our class at courtroom. I don’t see it as yet another kind of independent sentient party in a courtroom in the near or medium term.

Richard Jacobs: Right. Got you. Any other technologies that you are aware of that most people wouldn’t be aware of?

Casey Flaherty: I never know how to answer that question because I deal with people all the time who think that Extranet is an emerging technology and so I live in this little bubble. I talked to Dan Katz more than I talked to any single practicing attorney. I talk to Bill Henderson, I talk to the people who are at the forefront and so I am always learning things from them but then we have the curse of ignorance. We don’t know what we don’t know. Then we also have the curse of knowledge. Once you know something, it’s hard to imagine not knowing. I have a hard time calibrating this; your audience isn’t comprised of just run of the mill lawyers, right? You have people who sell select. So I would think that they read a lot of the same sources that I read.

Richard Jacobs: At the same time they would be hungry to hear any tidbit that they haven’t heard before. One more thing I would bring up is have you seen evidence of remote courtrooms where the participants would be in their own locations and the judge would be in their own location so they wouldn’t have to physically travel to a courtroom and our proceeding would be held over a secure channel on Skype? Those types of things.

Casey Flaherty: So we’ve been doing court calls for years. I haven’t seen a video conference system for courts but it’s not that large a leap from where we are right now with court call. It makes a lot of sense. I don’t think there is much in the way of technological barriers to doing it. It’s more about social barriers, habit, status quo. I haven’t seen any movement afoot but it would seem to be one of those next logical steps.

Richard Jacobs: Now I understand what you mean when you say you are an incrementalist. How you view these things but it makes sense to view them in that way. Law is still law. Things are still are the way that they are. It’s just different ways to present, to improve, to make things faster, different, better but still the same thing. That makes sense. Okay.

Casey Flaherty: It could be completely different in 10 years. Again, I’m not that imaginative.

Richard Jacobs: Important question. So for people listening to this podcast whether they be lawyers or people that want to work in the legal sphere. They have a technology idea for instance. Who are the thought leaders who would help someone evaluate whether the legal impact of the new technology, 3D printing, AI, things like that which will interface obviously with the law and how the law may treat them and view them. Do you have any resources? People that can be spoken to or consulted with to give that perspective on how their invention or this new technology will come face to face with the law and how it will be treated?

Casey Flaherty: So I’ve mentioned Dan Katz. He is a genius. He is amazing. Bill Henderson, I also mentioned. If you have an idea about doing something different in law, there is no better person to run it by than Ken Grady who my friend Jeff Carr lovingly gave the title of dream squasher. He is so smart and so experienced and so genuinely interested in these things that he is phenomenal to talk to about any change you want to make. He can talk to you about the tech side of your work and he is also able to talk to you about the business side, the client’s side, the law firm’s side. He is amazing and in a similar vein, Ron Freedman, I talked to you about being an incrementalist. There is no one who has written better on incrementalism in law than Ron. Ron is just wonderful. I don’t know if he is a person to talk to about Tech but he certainly knows about it but no one understands the economics and the political economy of the legal landscape more than Bruce McKellan. Even if you don’t talk to him, you absolutely have to read his books. Mark Cohen is another really good one. There are lots of good people and I feel like I’m going to offend some of my friends by leaving them off this list.

Richard Jacobs: One thing that would be helpful is some of these guys have common names. I don’t know if you’ve provided the end or another segment or to text but do you have any other identifiers on how people interested in contacting these people or reading their works could find them?

Casey Flaherty: Dan Katz is @computational on Twitter but if you just look up Dan Katz, you will be able to find a bunch of his talks and presentations. Ken Grady is I believe @legallane, I have to look that up but Ken writes sidelines for Psyfar. Ron Freedmann runs Prism Legal and so Ken Grady is @leanlawstrategy, Ron Freedman is @ronfreedmann. He also writes Prism Legal. Mark Cohen is @legalmosaic. He writes the legal mosaic blog. I think I also mentioned Bill Henderson. He’s at @wihender on Twitter. He blogs or writes at different places, so it’s just better to look up Professor William Henderson or Professor Bill Henderson in Indiana. Who else did I mention. All those people are and then there is Bruce McKellan. He writes Adam Smith.

Richard Jacobs: Okay. Got you. That would include yourself. You definitely seem to be a source of a lot of information.

Casey Flaherty: If you go to procertas.com, there is an in the news section and it links to all of my writing because I write all over the place.

Richard Jacobs: That’s great. Okay. That’s great research. That was the last question I was going to ask you. For people listening whether they be law firms, individuals, lawyers, etc. what’s the best way for them to get in contact with you and find out about your COBOT certification and your consulting and learn from you or implement what you have.

Casey Flaherty: Through procertas.com. My email is just Casey@procertas.com.

Richard Jacobs: Okay, Casey, like I said. I count you among these possible people to speak to, as being a great source of info and I appreciate you taking the time today to do this interview.

Casey Flaherty: Great. Thank you so much.

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download