ledes oversight committee

1© LEDES.org | All Rights Reserved Worldwide

LEDES Oversight CommitteeMid-Year Meeting

September 14, 2021

THE STANDARD IN LEGAL DATA EXCHANGE LEDES.org

Agenda

• President’s Report – Jane Bennitt

• Treasurer/Membership Report – Jim Hannigan

• UTBMS Translation Project Report – Jim Hannigan

• Standards – Nicholas Puschak– Software API – Nicholas Puschak

– IP Subcommittee – Adam Jaffe

– Timekeeper Process Review Subcommittee – David Nelson

– Error Codes – Cathrine Collins

• Regional Groups Report – Andrew Dey

• Marketing Report – David Nelson


3

President’s ReportJane A. Bennitt

© LEDES.org | All Rights Reserved Worldwide

2019 LOC Board of Directors

4

PresidentJane A. BennittGlobal Legal Ebilling, LLC

Vice PresidentCathrine J. CollinsLegal Systems Automation, LLC

Treasurer/MembershipJim HanniganCoblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP

SecretaryNadia StrobbiaThomson Reuters

StandardsNicholas PuschakMitratech Holdings Inc.

Regional GroupsAndrew DeyAndrew Dey Limited

MarketingDavid NelsonPathfinder eConsulting Limited


The LOC Mission Statement

The LEDES™ (Legal Electronic Data Exchange Standard) Oversight Committee(“LOC”) is an international, voluntary, not-for-profit organization comprised oflegal industry representatives and is charged with creating and maintainingopen standard formats for the electronic exchange of billing and otherinformation between corporations and law firms. The LOC is dedicated to usingopen standards which cater to no one organization or group of organizations touniformly satisfy the complex needs of the legal industry based on 5 basicprinciples: keep it simple; make it unambiguous; diverge from existing formatsas little as absolutely necessary; only ask for information the law firm istypically able to provide from their financial system; and meet the needs oforganizations to the maximum extent possible consistent with the first fourcriteria.


Organizational Objectives

• Address issues with legal ebilling

– API

– Consider how an API test portal could be used to enforce standardization

• Support globalization

– UTBMS Translation project

– Web site Add-On to translate web page content into any language

• Better align with the different vendors working in our vertical

– “Vendor Information Program”

• Increase our visibility within Legal

– Identify opportunities to partner with other organizations besides just ILTA

– Participate in more conferences each year in our vertical

• Consider organizational revenue opportunities

• Increase membership

• Increase the value of membership in the LEDES Oversight Committee

– BILR member offering


Vendor To Do Item: Error Codes Phase 1 Standard

• Posted to LEDES.org at LEDES Error Codes - LEDES.org

• Included as a component of the API

To Do:

• Vendors should add the code in brackets to the end of existing error messages. Example:

• Duplicate invoice number [R401]


https://ledes.org/ledes-error-codes/

Allied Association Program

• Purpose is to reach out to other organizations within legal whose purpose or members’ interest crosses with that of the LOC membership.

• Desire to share information on initiatives and programs undertaken by the LOC and to learn more about initiatives being undertaken by other legal organizations

• Program Benefits:– One free, non-voting membership in the LEDES Oversight Committee– Addition to the LOC mailing list for all member communications and a request for reciprocal

consideration– The organization’s name, hyperlink and logo will be placed on https://ledes.org/allied-legal-

organizations/, and a request to cross tag our web sites and display our LEDES Supporter banner– Consideration for quotes for publishing or for speakers when coordinating webinars or other

speaking sessions – Mention of the organization’s initiatives on our LEDES.org and UTBMS.com blogs, or in our LinkedIn

Group, upon request

• Program Members: ABA, ALA, EDRM, ILTA, LMA, OCEG, SALI


https://ledes.org/allied-legal-organizations/

Vendor Information Program

• Will allow third-party ebilling vendors and law firm software vendors to promote their product on the ledes.org website. Vendors will be able to advertise up to four products at a set rate. – Vendors must provide responses to "header" questions which will allow interested

parties to compare product functionality across different systems. • Any inaccuracies brought to our attention regarding the header responses will be addressed

with the vendor for correction.

– Vendors also have the option of posting a page size PDF with product marketing information.

• All PDFs provided by vendors must be approved by the LEDES Board of Directors.

• The LOC will also post product communications and webinar offerings by participating vendors in our blog.

• Vendors interested in participating can email [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

Membership : Failure to Retain Members

• Impact of the pandemic

• Failure of member to allow auto-renew

• Failure to update payment information when card expires

• Upon payment failure, we delete the member record and send an email requesting the member reapply.


Web Site Changes - reCaptcha

• We now use reCaptcha V3 on the web site so no need to respond to reCaptcha puzzle any longer

• Leverages technology to determine whether user is a person or a bot

• Impacts Login and Password Reset Pages


© LEDES.org | All Rights Reserved12

Treasurer/Membership Report

Jim Hannigan, Director

Membership

83 Members, including 10 Allied Legal Organization members

• Member locations:

– Australia – 2

– China – 2

– France – 1

– Italy – 1

– Norway – 1

– Poland - 1

– Singapore - 1

– United Kingdom - 9

– United States of America- 65


Current Financial Condition: LEDES Oversight Committee

Bank Accounts:

CDs:


Recurring Yearly Expenses:

• Web Site Maintenance

• D&O Liability Insurance

• QuickBooks Subscription

• Webinar Service

• SurveyMonkey (Momentive)

• Member Mouse

• Marketing Materials

• Accountants, Legal Services

• Required filings

Special Projects Spending:

• UTBMS Translation Project


UTBMS Translation Project

Jim Hannigan, Director

UTBMS Translation Project

• Project started in 2019 to translate UTBMS definitions into 10 languages

– Chinese (Mandarin)

– Spanish

– Arabic

– Brazilian Portuguese

– Russian

– Japanese

– German

– French

– Italian

• Goal is to normalize definitions across jurisdictions with a nod to local practices

• Cost is ≈ $1,500/translation

• Mandarin translation completed and available on the web site; our thanks to Jonathan Pfister of DaHui Lawyers for assistance with local practices and for proofing the translation


17

LEDES Standards ReportNicholas Puschak, Director



Current Standards Projects

• LEDES Software API v2 Subcommittee

• IP Improvement Subcommittee

• Timekeeper Process Review Subcommittee

• Error Code Subcommittee – Phase 2

If you are interested in participating, please send an email stating your interest to [email protected].


LOC Standards – Overview (LEDES)

THE STANDARD IS LEGAL DATA EXCHANGE LEDES.org

LEDES 98B

LEDES 98BI V2

LEDES 2000 (XML)

LEDES 2.0 (XML)

LEDES 2.1 (XML)

IPMM 1.0 (XML)

Budgeting Standard

Timekeeper Attributes

Timekeeper Classifications


LOC Standards – Overview (UTBMS)


Activity and Expense (old and revised)

Counselling Code Set (C-Codes)

Project Code Set (P-Codes) (old and revised)

Litigation Code Set (L-Codes)

Litigation Code Set (J-Codes – for England and Wales)

eDiscovery Code Set (enhanced L-Codes)

Governance Risk Compliance GRC Code Set (G-Codes)

IP Codes set (TR-Trademark and PA-Patent)

Knowledge Management Code Set (KM codes)

Bankruptcy Code Set - ABA (B-Codes)

Workers Compensation Code Set - ABA (WC-Codes)

Mergers and Acquisitions (M-Codes)

21

LEDES Standards Report – Software APINicholas Puschak, Director



LEDES Software API v2 Subcommittee

OVERVIEW: Law firm time and billing applications generate LEDES files which requires manual processing by a billing clerk. This processing generally involves a manual login and uploading of LEDES files to a variety of different corporate legal department e-billing systems to facilitate the exchange of invoices, accruals and other legal data.

PURPOSE: To extend the LEDES Software API v1 initiative to enable law firm time & billing system to communicate directly to corporate e-billing system for the exchange of legal invoices and other legal information.

STATUS: Monthly Subcommittee Meetings Ongoing

CONTACTS:Nicholas Puschak, Mitratech, [email protected]



LEDES Software API v1 Subcommittee Initiatives

• Security – details of how security and authentication will work.

• Send Invoice – ability for the law firm system to submit a LEDES file for payment.

• Send Shadow Invoice – ability for the law firm system to submit a shadow LEDES file for fixed fee engagements.

• Appeal Invoice – ability for the law firm system to appeal a rejected invoice.

• Resubmit Invoice – ability for the law firm system to resubmit a rejected invoice by sending a new invoice that will be associated to the previously rejected invoice.

• Invoice Status – the ability for the law firm to receive the status of an invoice with standard error codes and line item details.


LEDES Software API v2 Subcommittee Initiatives

• Multi-Client Support – when law firm systems communicate to an e-billing portal they need the ability to specify to which client their submitting data.

• LEDES JSON – new LEDES format using the industry standard JSON structure.

• Matter Information – the law firm systems need to be able to discover the list of matters for which the client will accept data.

• Timekeeper Information – the ability for the law firm system to submit timekeeper information

• Accrual Information – the ability for the law firm system to submit accrual data.

• Budget Information – the ability for the law firm system to submit budget data.


LEDES Intellectual Property Sub-CommitteeAdam Jaffe

Kroll (858-205-5056) – [email protected]

Background & Problem

• Intellectual Property invoices are different than many other types of legal invoices in the sense that they are typically high in volume and low in dollar amount. Those who review Intellectual Property invoices often note that is time-intensive and costly to review these invoices.

• The purpose of the subcommittee is to establish recommendations to streamline and improve how Intellectual Property costs are managed, and how Intellectual Property invoices are created, reviewed, processed and reported on.


Approach

• Stage 1: A subcommittee will be formed and will be comprised of LEDES general membership interested in the project, as well as individuals outside the LEDES organization who are involved in Intellectual Property. (Please see membership note above.)

• Stage 2: Subcommittee will meet on a regular basis to discuss various solutions to the state problems and will record its discussions.

• Stage 3: The subcommittee will create recommendations for the LEDES organization for review

WE ARE HERE

• Stage 4: Incorporation/review of comments and recommendations received from general membership regarding recommendations and submission for ratification by the LEDES Board of Directors.

• TIMELINE: It is anticipated that the sub-committee’s work will be completed by the end of 2021


Initial Recommendations


Code Code Level 1 Code Level 2 DefinitionPA1 Evaluation and Analysis In progress

PA1.1 Pre-filing assessment Evaluation of a

PA1.2

Portfolio assessment and opinion

prep/drafting Activities relating to review of an overall portfolio

PA1.3 General Advice In progress

PA2 Prosecution In progress

Proposed Updated Patent UTBMS Code Set:

The redesigned Patent task codes were developed with the intent of representing work output and deliverables

as it pertains to a particular application. Flaws in the existing set of codes that this set intend to correct include:

- assessment phase codes lifted from the UTBMS litigation set and not relevant to patent prosecution

- unnecessary categories for the various application types, which are more appropriately a project-level

designation and not task, and that do not render useful data in the context of a single patent application as it

says nothing about the timekeeper’s work on the application.

Sample:

Initial Recommendations


Code Category PAIR Transaction

PA2.1 Preparation and Filing

Request for Foreign Priority (Priority Papers May Be

Included)

Non-Provisional Application Preparation

Transmittal Letter

Affidavit(s) (Rule 131 or 132) or Exhibit(s) Received

Track 1 Request

Proposed USPTO PAIR Validation:

One of the main purposes of our code changes is to align them more closely with the USPTO's PAIR activity descriptors. This will help vendors provide services

that were not possible with previous LEDES code sets. For applicants, the vendors can provide a service that flags invoice line items that were invoiced but do

not appear to have been performed. For law firms, vendors can provide a service that identifies activity that either was or should have been performed but was

not invoiced.

For example, if an invoice contains a line item for preparation and filing a PCT application, the vendor can check PAIR to insure that an RO/101 was filed and flag

the line item if not. Similarly, if a response to an office action was due in a given month, but the response does not appear in the invoice for that month, the

vendor can flag the item for the law firm to determine why it was not invoiced.

Since there are over 1,000 PAIR activity descriptors, it was not possible to map our code set directly to the PAIR activity. Instead, we generalized the PAIR

activity into categories and created a code for each category. In this document, we list our suggestions of what PAIR activity can be used to validate each invoice

line item, however, vendors may choose to add or remove PAIR activity to our suggested list for each category. Because there isn't a direct mapping between

PAIR activity and LEDES codes, it will be impossible to validate line items with complete certainty. However, a vendor can flag certain line items as "suspect" if

one of the suggested correlated activities does not appear in PAIR.

To conserve the size of the code set, we rely on the vendors' ability to identify certain characteristics of each case to generate summary reports. For example, we

do not have separate codes for the type of case such as PCT, re-exam, trademark or design application. We rely on the vendors being able to pull that

information from the applicant's matter management system to be able to summarize, for example, all the line items for responses to office actions for design

applications, utility applications and re-exams separately.


Timekeeper Processes Review SubcommitteeDavid Nelson

Timekeeper Review Sub Committee - Progress

• Purpose:

– The collate the issues surrounding the provision/upload of Timekeeper details to the various eBilling portals

– To review the issues and produce the following…

• A single ‘standard’ timekeeper upload template suitable for use in all portals

• Recommended resolutions and guidelines to the various issues

• Look for other areas of possible improvements

• Progress to date:

– Issues Log drafted in Aug2020

– Timekeeper template drafted (meetings held to discuss issues and revise the initial draft)

• Next steps:

– Publish the draft template to sub committee members

– Contact eBilling vendors to enroll them onto the consultation

– Consultation period to scope the opinion of eBilling vendors



Error Code Subcommittee ReportCathi Collins, VP LOC


Error Code Subcommittee


OVERVIEW: Today each e-Billing vendor produces a unique set of error codes/descriptions when an invoice is rejected, with some errors not being understood. This causes confusion and wastes a great deal of time and resources for law firms and their corporate clients.

PURPOSE: Enable law firms to quickly identify an error in e-Bill validation, regardless of vendor, through a consistent set of Error Codes.




STRUCTURE: The Subcommittee took a Phased approach to this code set. Phase 1 dealt with common error codes and all portions of the LEDES 98bi format (except tax due to its complexity). Phase 2 will deal with tax and the more complex portions of the LEDES XML formats. Phase 3 will deal with custom requirements and any new code sets that may have been introduced.


• STATUS: Phase 1 was submitted for publication and feedback in September 2019 and posted to the LEDES website. Phase 1 Error Codes were ratified on November 17, 2020, by the Oversight Committee and posted to the LEDES website.

• https://ledes.org/ledes-error-codes/

• Phase 2 which will deal with tax and the more complex portions of the LEDES XML formats will hold its first meeting on October 6, 2021 @ 10am Eastern. If anyone is interested in joining the LEDES Error Code Subcommittee, please contact me at [email protected].


https://ledes.org/ledes-error-codes/


Error Code Subcommittee Members

Name Email CompanyCathi Collins [email protected] Legal Systems Automation

Nathan Cemenska [email protected] Wolters Kluwer

Shernett Myers [email protected] Ropes & Gray

Marie Burgess [email protected] Aderant

Chri Sevo [email protected] Perkins Coie

Jim Hannigan [email protected] Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP

Nicholas Puschak [email protected] Mitratech

Jane Bennitt [email protected] President, LEDES Oversight Committee











Regional Groups ReportAndrew Dey, Director

Regional Group Meetings - Background

• We have held quarterly, UK-based meetings for members at a variety of London venues since 2015

• Due to the COVID-19 virus our meetings this year have all been virtual – but have still had good attendance and discussion

• Meeting participants include law firms, clients, independent consultants, and an increasing number of eBilling vendors

• Participants include representatives from the UK, US, Australia and Singapore

• LOC membership is not a pre-requisite to participate in the meetings


Regional Group Meetings - Meeting Format

• Welcome to new members to the group and encouragement to join the LOC

• Updates on progress of on-going LEDES sub-committee projects

• Updates on meetings held with between Law Firms and eBilling vendors

• General discussion topics proposed by the group participants

• Review progress regarding actions from previous meetings

• Agree next meeting topics and date


Regional Group Meetings - Initiatives

• The Regional Group is a vibrant forum – in the last six months participants have:

– discussed some of the challenges related to the management of Timekeepers, and reviewed some of the fields to be included by the Timekeeper Processes Review Subcommittee in the proposed standard

– shared thoughts on how to best handle eBilling during a Finance system migration and impacts on law firms when clients migrate to a new eBilling solution

– discussed best practice on the benefits of using standard codes and shared general eBilling tips and common issues

– looked at best practice for billing for international Alliance Firms.


Regional Group Meetings

• The next (virtual) meeting of the UK Regional Group will be held on 12 October 2021

• If you are interested in attending, please contact Andrew Dey ([email protected])




Marketing ReportDavid Nelson, Director

Marketing Report - Ongoing Objectives

• OBJECTIVE:

– Need to increase awareness of the LOC and its purpose and web presence

– Increase awareness of the issues inherent with eBilling and resolutions to them.

• METHODS:

– Legal Tech – maintain links and have a presence at trade shows

– Linked-in –

• Elaborate the LOC’s profile to provide increased further

• Start to make posts about various topics

– Wikipedia - elaborate the LOC/LEDES pages in more details

– Google - Utilise Google so that LEDES in eBilling related keyword searches

– eBilling Vendors – liaise with eBilling vendors to make sure their clients and law firms are aware of the LOC as a standards body, and refer to it in their eBilling Guideline documentation


Thank You

• CSC – Discounted Agent Services

• Global Legal Ebilling - Website maintenance

• LSG – Special BILR offering to LOC members

• Slide deck will be circulated and posted to member website


45

THANK YOU


ledes oversight committee

Documents