BIALL ANNUAL LAW FIRM LIBRARY SURVEY...

BIALL ANNUAL LAW FIRM LIBRARY SURVEY

2015/16

2017 British and Irish Association of Law Librarians

2

All rights reserved by the British and Irish Association of Law Librarians. No part of this publication

may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electrical or mechanical, including

photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing

from the publishers. A single copy of one table would be considered permissible as fair dealing under

the terms of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and permission need not be sought to

make this single copy. Whilst every effort is made to ensure accuracy the publishers cannot be held

responsible for any errors or omissions.

Published by British and Irish Association of Law Librarians

Compiled on behalf of BIALL by Dr. Shona McTavish

3

Contents Pages

2. Charts 5

3. Tables 10

4. Background 12

4.1 Challenges faced 12

4.2 Firms that were surveyed 13

5. Analysis of respondents 13

5.1 Definitions 13

5.2 Survey Feedback 14

5.3 Acknowledgements 14

6. The Law Firm Respondents 15

7. Library and Knowledge Staff 21

7.1 FTE Library staff, Knowledge Management team and Professional Support

Lawyers 21

7.2 Ratio of library staff to legal staff in the UK and Ireland 25

7.3 Mean staffing numbers and global annual turnover 31

7.4 Do UK and Northern Ireland staff support fee-earners based outside the UK

and Ireland? 33

7.5 Employment status of FTE library staff 33

7.6 Percentage of library staff with qualifications 33

7.7 To whom does the Head of Library/Information Service report to? 40

7.8 Is the library/information service part of a specific department? 40

8. Library Services 41

8.1 Charging for staff time 41

8.2 Tasks that the library/information team are involved in 44

9. Enquiries 47

9.1 Collection of enquiry statistics and time spent on enquires 47

9.2 Types of enquiry undertaken and their frequency 55

10. Library Budget –hardcopy and online resources 69

10.1 Hardcopy and online resources 69

10.2 How the cost of major databases is charged within the firm 76

10.3 Total spend on resources other than the major databases 77

11. Hardcopy Resources 82

11.1 Hardcopy books 82

11.2 Hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions 86

11.3 Hardcopy law report subscriptions 90

11.4 Location of hardcopy resources 93

11.5 How UK and Ireland hardcopy collections have changed over the past 12 months 94

12. Electronic Resources 95

12.1 E-Books 95

12.2 Legal Research Resources and Systems 97

12.3 Enquiry Management Systems 112

12.4 Library management Systems 116

12.5 Database Access Management Systems 121

4

12.6 Current Awareness and Aggregator Products 125

12.7 Company and Business Intelligence Resources 131

12.8 Knowledge Management and Search Solutions 139

12.9 KYC / AML Services 143

12.10 Document Automation and Proof Reading Software 148

13. Training 152

13.1 To whom training is delivered 150

13.2 The format of training offered 154

13.3 Training topics 156

13.4 Steps taken to prepare for the training of new trainees 158

14. Future Challenges 161

15. Conclusion 176

5

2. Charts

Chart 6.1a Global annual turnover and percentage of respondents 15

Chart 6.1b Size of firm (fee-earners) and percentage of respondents 16

Chart 6.1c Global annual turnover and size of firm (fee-earners) 17

Chart 6.1d Global annual turnover and number of global offices 19

Chart 6.1e Global annual turnover by number of offices in the UK and Ireland 20

Chart 7.1a FTE Library staff, KM staff and PSL staff 22

Chart 7.2a Ratio of FTE library staff to fee-earners within firms with a global annual turnover of

<£20m 25

Chart 7.2b Ratio of FTE library staff to legal staff in the UK and Ireland (£20-34m global annual

turnover) 25

Chart 7.2c Ratio of FTE library staff to legal staff in the UK and Ireland (£35-49m global annual

turnover) 26

Chart 7.2d Ratio of FTE library staff to legal staff in the UK and Ireland (£50-99m global annual

turnover) 27

Chart 7.2e Ratio of FTE library staff to legal staff in the UK and Ireland (£100-149m global annual

turnover) 28

Chart 7.2f Ratio of FTE library staff to legal staff in the UK and Ireland (£150-499m global annual

turnover) 29

Chart 7.2g Ratio of FTE library staff to legal staff in the UK and Ireland (£500m+ global annual

turnover) 30

Chart 7.3a Mean FTE library staff, FTE knowledge team staff and FTE PSL staff by global annual

turnover 31

Chart 7.3b Mean FTE library staff, FTE knowledge team staff and FTE PSL staff by size of firm (fee-

earners) 32

Chart 7.6a Percentage of library/information staff with qualifications within organisations with a

global annual turnover of <£20m 34

Chart 7.6b Percentage of library/information staff with qualifications within organisations with a

global annual turnover of £20-34m 34

Chart 7.6c Percentage of library/information staff with qualifications within organisations with a

global annual turnover of £35-49 34

Chart 7.6d Percentage of library/information staff with qualifications within organisations with a


Chart 7.6e Percentage of library/information staff with qualifications within organisations with a


6

Chart 7.6f Percentage of library/information staff with qualifications within organisations with a


Chart 7.6g Percentage of library/information staff with qualifications within organisations with a

global annual turnover of £500m+ 36

Chart 7.6h Percentage of library staff with qualifications within organisations of 1-199

fee-earners 37

Chart 7.6i Percentage of library staff with qualifications within organisations of 200-249

fee-earners 37

Chart 7.6j Percentage of library staff with qualifications within organisations of 250-349

fee-earners 38

Chart 7.6k Percentage of library staff with qualifications within organisations of 350-599

fee-earners 38

Chart 7.6l Percentage of library staff with qualifications within organisations of 600-99

fee-earners 39

Chart 7.6m Percentage of library staff with qualifications within organisations of 1,000+

fee-earners 39

Chart 8.1a Charging time to client matters by global annual turnover 41

Chart 8.1b Charging time to client matters by size of firm (fee-earners) 42

Chart 8.2a Tasks undertaken by global annual turnover 45

Chart 8.2b Tasks undertaken by firms by size of firm (fee-earners) 46

Chart 9.1a Number of enquires received in an average week by global annual turnover 47

Chart 9.1b Number of enquires received in an average week by size of firm (fee-earners) 48

Chart 9.1c Percentage of enquiries received from offices outside of the UK and Ireland by global

annual turnover 50

Chart 9.1d Percentage of enquiries received from offices outside of the UK and Ireland and size of

firm (fee-earners) 50

Chart 9.1e Hours spent on enquires in an average week by global annual turnover 52

Chart 9.1f Hours spent on enquires in an average week by size of firm (fee-earners) 53

Chart 9.2a Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with <£20m global annual

turnover 56

Chart 9.2b Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with £20-34m global annual

turnover 57

Chart 9.2c Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with £35-49m global annual

turnover 58

7

Chart 9.2d Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with £50-99m global annual

turnover 59

Chart 9.2e Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with £100-149m global annual

turnover 60

Chart 9.2f Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with £150-499m global annual

turnover 61

Chart 9.2g Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with £500m+ global annual

turnover 62

Chart 9.2h Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with 1-199 fee-earners 63

Chart 9.2i Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with 200-249 fee-earners 64

Chart 9.2j Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with 250-349 fee-earners 65

Chart 9.2k Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with 350-599 fee-earners 66

Chart 9.2l Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with 600-999 fee-earners 67

Chart 9.2m Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with 1,000+ fee-earners 68

Chart 10.1a Library budget for hardcopy and online resources as a % of the firm’s annual global

turnover 69

Chart 10.1b Hardcopy and online budget as a % of global annual turnover and by global annual

turnover 70

Chart 10.1c Hardcopy and online budget as a % of global annual turnover and by size of firm (fee-

earners) 71

Chart 10.1d Percentage spend on the major databases of Lawtel, Lexis, Lexis PSL, Practical Law and

Westlaw by global annual turnover 73

Chart 10.1e Percentage spend on the major databases of Lawtel, Lexis, Lexis PSL, Practical Law and

Westlaw by size of firm (fee-earners) 74

Chart 10.2a How the cost of major database usage is charged within the firm 76

Chart 10.3a Percentage budget spend on databases other than the major legal databases 77

Chart 10.3b Percentage of budget spent on databases other than the major databases and by global

annual turnover 79

Chart 10.3c Percentage of budget spent on databases other than the major databases and by fee-

earner size of firm 80

Chart 11.1a Total number of hardcopy books held in UK and Ireland collection 82

Chart 11.1b Hardcopy books held by global annual turnover 83

Chart 11.1c Hardcopy books held by size of firm (fee-earners) 84

8

Chart 11.2a Hardcopy Loose-leaf subscriptions held by firms in the UK and Ireland 86

Chart11.2b Hardcopy Loose-leaf subscriptions by global annual turnover 87

Chart 11.2c Hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions by size of firm (fee-earners) 88

Chart 11.3aHardcopy Law Report subscriptions 90

Chart 11.3b Hardcopy law report subscriptions by global annual turnover 91

Chart 11.3c Hardcopy law report subscriptions held by size of firm (fee-earners) 91

Chart 11.4a Location of hardcopy resources 93

Chart 11.5b Reasons for changes in hardcopy collections 94

Chart 12.1a E-books held by global annual turnover 95

Chart 12.1b E-books held by size of firm (fee-earners) 96

Chart 12.2a Legal electronic resource subscriptions (all respondents) 97

Chart 12.2b Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with a global annual turnover of

£<20m 99

Chart 12.2c Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with a global annual turnover of £20-

34m 100

Chart 12.2d Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with a global annual turnover of

£35-49m 101

Chart 12.2e Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with a global annual turnover of

£50-99m 102

Chart 12.2f Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with a global annual turnover of

£100-149m 103

Chart 12.2g Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with a global annual turnover of

£150-499m 104

Chart 12.2h Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with a global annual turnover of

£500m+ 105

Chart 12.2i Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with 1-199 fee-earners 106

Chart 12.2j Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with 200-249 fee-earners 107

Chart 12.2k Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with 250-349 fee-earners 108

Chart 12.2l Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with 350-599 fee-earners 109

Chart 12.2m Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with 600-999 fee-earners 110

Chart 12.2n Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with 1,000+ fee-earners 111

Chart 12.3a Enquiry Management Systems in use or being considered 112

9

Chart 12.3b Enquiry management systems in ‘use’ by global annual turnover 113

Chart 12.3c Enquiry management systems in ‘use’ by size of firm (fee-earners) 114

Chart 12.4a Library Management Systems in use or being considered 116

Chart 12.4b Library Management Systems ‘in use’ by global annual turnover 118

Chart 12.4c Library Management Systems ‘in use’ by size of firm (fee-earners) 119

Chart 12.5a Database Access management systems in use or being considered 121

Chart 12.5b Database Access management systems in use and global annual turnover 123

Chart 12.5c Database Access management systems in use by size of firm (fee-earners) 123

Chart 12.6a Current Awareness and Aggregator Products in use or being considered 125

Chart 12.6b Current Awareness and Aggregator products in use by global annual turnover 127

Chart 12.6c Current Awareness and Aggregator products in use by size of firm (fee-earners) 128

Chart 12.7a Company and Business Intelligence resources in use or being considered 131

Chart 12.7b Company and Business Intelligence resources in use by global annual turnover 134

Chart 12.7c Company and Business Intelligence resources in use by size of firm (fee-earners) 135

Chart 12.8a Knowledge management and Search Solutions in use or being considered 139

Chart 12.8b Knowledge management and Search Solutions in use by global annual turnover 140

Chart 12.8c Knowledge management and Search Solutions in use by size of firm (fee-earners) 141

Chart 12.9a KYC/AML Services in use or being considered 143

Chart 12.9b KYC/AML Services in use by global annual turnover 145

Chart 12.9c KYC/AML Services in use by size of firm (fee-earners) 146

Chart 12.10a Document Automation and Proof Reading Software in use or being considered 148

Chart 12.10b Document Automation and Proof Reading Software in use by global annual

turnover 149

Chart 12.10c Document Automation and Proof Reading Software in use by size of firm

(fee-earners) 150

Chart 13.1a To whom training is offered by global annual turnover 152

Chart 13.1b To whom training is offered by size of firm (fee-earners) 153

Chart 13.2a Format of training by global annual turnover 154

Chart 13.2b Format of training by size of firm (fee-earners) 155

10

Chart 13.3a Training offered by global annual turnover 156

Chart 13.3b Training offered by size of firm (fee-earners) 157

Chart 13.4a Preparation for the training of new trainees 158

Chart 13.4b Preparation for the training of new trainees by global annual turnover 159

Chart 13.4c Preparation for the training of new trainees by size of firm (fee-earners) 160

Chart 14.1a Challenges facing firms with <£20m global annual turnover 163

Chart 14.1b Challenges facing firms with £20-34m global annual turnover 164

Chart 14.1c Challenges facing firms with £35-49m global annual turnover 165

Chart 14.1d Challenges facing firms with £50-99m global annual turnover 166

Chart 14.1e Challenges facing firms with £100-149m global annual turnover 167

Chart 14.1f Challenges facing firms with £150-499m global annual turnover 168

Chart 14.1g Challenges facing firms with £500m+ global annual turnover 169

Chart 14.1h Challenges facing firms with 1-199 fee-earners 170

Chart 14.1i Challenges facing firms with 200-249 fee-earners 171

Chart 14.1j Challenges facing firms with 250-349 fee-earners 172

Chart 14.1k Challenges facing firms with 350-599 fee-earners 173

Chart 14.1l Challenges facing firms with 600-999 fee-earners 174

Chart 14.1m Challenges facing firms with 1,000+ fee-earners 175

3. Tables

Table 6.1 Breakdown of the number of offices in the UK and Ireland and globally 19

Table 7.1a FTE library staff, FTE knowledge team staff and FTE PSL staff 22

Table 7.3a Mean FTE library staff, FTE knowledge team staff and FTE PSL staff by global annual

turnover 32

Table 7.3b Mean FTE library staff, FTE knowledge team staff and FTE PSL staff by size of firm (fee-

earners) 33

Table 8.1 Do the library staffs in the UK and Ireland charge their time to client matters? 41

Table 8.2 Tasks that the library/information team are involved in 44

Table 9.1a Does your library service collect enquiry statistics and if yes how many do you receive in

an average week? 47

11

Table 9.1b Percentage of enquiries received from people based in offices outside of the UK and

Ireland 49

Table 9.1c Time spent by library services in firms in the UK and Ireland answering enquiries in an

average week 52

Table 9.2a Time spent on specific types of enquires over the course of a year 55

Table 10.1 2015/16 spend on the major databases of ‘Lawtel’, Lexis Library’, ‘Lexis PSL’, ‘Practical

law’ and ‘Westlaw’ as a percentage of the UK and Ireland library budget 72

Table 10.3a Percentage budget spend on resources other than the major databases previously

outlined. 78

Table 11.5a How UK and Ireland hardcopy collections have changed over the last 12 months 94

Table 12.2a Legal Electronic Resource Subscriptions (all respondents) 98

Table 12.3a Enquiry Management Systems in use or being considered 112

Table 12.4a Library Management Systems in Use or being considered 117

12.4b Where there is a Library Management System is it used by offices outside of the UK and

Ireland? 120

Table 12.4c Is your Library Management System hosted externally? 121

Table 12.5a Database Access Management Systems in use or being considered 122

Table 12.6a Current Awareness and Aggregator products in use or being considered 126

Table 12.7a Company and Business Intelligence Resources in use or being considered 132

Table 12.8a Knowledge Management and Search Solutions in use or being considered 139

Table 12.9a KYC / AML Services in use or being considered 144

Table 12.10a Document Automation and Proof Reading Software 148

Table 14.1 Key issues facing law firms 2016/17 161

12

4. Background

In February 2015, a request was emailed to the BIALL JISCmail list asking if any members would be

interested in helping to create an annual law firm library survey. Seven volunteers came together to

form a Working Group from a range of large to medium sized firms and from an outsourcing

company.

The intention behind the survey was not to create industry standards but to help information

professionals understand where they sit in comparison to other law firms of the same size against a

backdrop of increasing supplier costs and budgetary pressures. There were three main aims:

Comparison and benchmarking

The ability to understand standard practice across the law firm library sector and to benchmark

certain aspects of a library's service against other firms, particularly when making a business

case or presenting data to senior management. There was no mechanism which law firm

librarians could use to do this.

Identification of trends and issues

The survey would identify and analyse trends and issues within the sector which could be used

by BIALL to generate press attention or used by individual libraries to highlight themes and

issues to senior management.

Reducing the need for ad-hoc surveys

Looking at the archive for the Lis-Law mailing list there had been a number of surveys posted in

recent years that could perhaps have been covered by a BIALL benchmarking survey. Topics had

included the use of enterprise and federated search, outsourcing, electronic resource

management, EBook usage, company and business intelligence resources, collection

development policies and embedded librarians. This survey would attempt to capture all such

information in one place.

The survey was finally launched in October 2016. SurveyMonkey was used as BIALL already had a

subscription to this and a member of the working group was experienced in using it.

4.1 Challenges faced

It was decided to keep the questions fairly general so that they could be repeated each year,

although it became clear that the survey would develop organically as the profession changed.

The survey needed to be short enough for members to be willing to complete it but long enough to

capture all of the information required for benchmarking.

Most importantly, it was agreed that the results of the survey should be anonymised in order to

protect participants being directly linked with any sensitive data.

It was initially hoped that the content of the BIALL academic survey could be closely mirrored but it

became clear that many of the questions in the academic survey were not particularly relevant to

13

law firms. Drawing out comparisons between the two surveys was not as easy or useful as had first

been envisaged and a number of questions were revised before launching the final survey.

4.2 Firms that were surveyed

First and foremost, the survey was aimed at BIALL members across the UK and Ireland. The

intention was to make it applicable to as many types of commercial law library as possible – for

example, freelance librarians and firms in outsourced arrangements should all be able to participate.

The survey was restricted to a defined list of participants, the aim being to obtain a high response

rate and help to achieve consistency. This would be important for making year-on-year

comparisons. The survey was therefore sent largely only to firms included within:

The Lawyer UK Top 100

Chambers Irish Top 15

The Lawyer International Top 30

Using these categories allowed 68% of the law firms with BIALL members in the UK, Ireland or Crown

Dependencies to participate in the survey. BIALL members from the remaining 32% of firms were

invited to participate if they wished to. From the initial target list of 150 firms, only four reported

that they did not have a recognised member of staff responsible for library tasks.

5. Analysis of respondents

In all, 132 Law Firms were invited to respond to the survey. Out of these, a total of 58 respondents

completed questionnaires, a return of 44%. Out of these 58 respondents, 17 (9.86%), did not

complete all sections of the questionnaire but selected parts.

Where appropriate the number of respondents providing data is given for each Table/Chart.

(N.B. percentages have been rounded up or down as appropriate and due to rounding, some totals

may not correspond with the sum of the separate figures)

5.1 Definitions

• The mean has been calculated by adding up all the responses and dividing by the number

of responses to get an “average”. The mean can be distorted by one or two responses which

are very large or very small.

• The median is the mid-point and is calculated through ordering the responses by size from

the smallest to the greatest and finding the middle response. There will be an equal number

of responses below the median and above the median and so it provides a benchmark of

what a “typical” organisation is doing.

14

5.2 Survey feedback

We would like to thank all those who provided feedback. This will be extremely valuable in

developing the survey to meet the needs of members as closely as possible in the future. There

were some very appreciative comments about how useful the survey was, how carefully the

questions were crafted and that respondents were looking forward to seeing the first results and

trends in the future.

There were also comments about how onerous the survey was to complete and the difficulty of

fitting each situation into the questions as worded. Several respondents required clarification of the

questions on hard copies and budget spend or commented that they did not have the required data

easily at hand. The traditional roles referred to in some of the questions no longer existed in a

number of firms, hinting that future surveys may need to define recognisable staffing models to

allow for more accurate and consistent benchmarking. Several technical problems were also

reported.

Being the inaugural survey, this was the first attempt at trying to capture all the information and

analyse the results in various ways, the aim being to make the results as useful to as many BIALL

members as possible. Hopefully, in future years, the wording of the questions will more accurately

reflect all the various situations required and the technical problems can be resolved.

Further feedback would be very welcome at any time. Please email [email protected] or send

any comments to the BIALL President Elect.

5.3 Acknowledgements

A huge debt of gratitude is due to Claire Greening (Head of Library and Knowledge Services, Withers

LLP). Claire was the key driving force in getting the survey off the ground and leading the Working

Party.

Enormous thanks go to all the members of the Working Party who gave up their time to bring the

survey to fruition:

Karen Gray (Information and Research Services Manager, Gowling WLG)

Helen Gwinn (Legal Information Manager, Blake Morgan LLP)

Diane Nicholls (Knowledge Services Manager, Irwin Mitchell LLP)

Steven Riley (Library/Information Services Officer, Mills & Reeve LLP)

Janet Scoones (Director of Information and KM, Trowers & Hamlins LLP) (Interim Working Group

Leader)

Helen Williams (Senior Information Specialist, Integreon)

We are indebted to Shona McTavish who patiently and comprehensively carried out the analysis of

the survey results.

Finally, David Gee and Laura Griffiths provided valuable guidance based on their experience of

running the academic survey, which was very much appreciated.

mailto:[email protected]

15

6. The Law Firm Respondents

An overview of respondents, their annual turnover, the number of offices held in the UK and

Ireland and globally.



Chart 6.1a Global annual turnover and percentage of respondents

100% of respondents provided data

3% of all survey respondents had a global annual turnover of <£20m

12% of all survey respondents had a global annual turnover of £20-34m





22% of all survey respondents had a global annual turnover of £500m+

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents

Global annual turnover

% of respondents by global annual turnover

16

Chart 6.1b Size of firm (fee-earners) and percentage of respondents


26% of respondents are within firms of 1-199 fee-earners





10% of respondents are within firms of 1,000+ fee-earners

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Size of firm (fee-earners) and % of respondents

17

Chart 6.1c Global annual turnover and size of firm (fee-earners)




Firms with a global annual turnover of <£20m:

3% of all survey respondents (fee-earner size= 1-199)

Firms with a global annual turnover of £20-34m

7% of all survey respondents (fee-earner size = 1-199)












0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


Global Annual Turnover and size of firm (fee-earners)

1,000+

600-999

350-599

250-349

200-249

1-199

18











7% of all survey respondents (fee-earner size = 1,000+)

Firms with a global annual turnover of £500m+





3% of all survey respondents (fee-earner size = 1,000+)

19

Chart 6.1d Global annual turnover and number of global offices


12% of respondents noted having 1 global office

26% of respondents noted having between 2 and 5 global offices



34% of respondents noted having >15 global offices

Table 6.1 Breakdown of the number of offices in the UK and Ireland and globally


Firms 1 UK & Ireland Office 2-5 UK & Ireland Offices

>5 UK and Ireland Offices

1 Global Office 12% 22% 0%

2-5 Global Offices 3% 22% 0%



>15 Global Offices 10% 17% 7%

0% 20% 40% 60%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


Global annual turnover and number of global offices

>15 global offices

11-15 global offices

6-10 global offices

2-5 global offices

1 global office

20

Chart 6.1e Global Annual Turnover by number of offices in UK and Ireland




Within firms with <£20m global annual turnover (3% of all survey respondents)

50% have 1 office in the UK and Ireland (with 1-199 fee-earners staff)

50% have 2-5 offices in the UK and Ireland (with 1-199 fee-earners)

Within firms with £20-34m global annual turnover (12% of all survey respondents)

43% have 1 office in the UK and Ireland (all with 1-199 fee-earners)

43% have 2-5 offices in the UK and Ireland (14% with 1-199 fee-earners, 14% with 200-249

fee-earners and 14% with 200-249 fee-earners)

14% have >5 offices in the UK and Ireland (with 250-349 fee-earners)


38% have 1 office in the UK and Ireland (all with 1-199 fee-earners)

50% have 2-5 offices in the UK and Ireland (25% with 200-249 fee-earners, 13% with 250-349

fee-earners and 13% with 350-599 fee-earners)



11% have 1 office in the UK and Ireland (with 1-199 fee-earners)

44% have 2-5 offices in the UK and Ireland (11% with 250-349 fee-earners and 33% with 350-

599 fee-earners)

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


UK and Ireland offices and global annual turnover

>5 offices

2-5 offices

1 office

21

44% have >5 offices in the UK and Ireland (22% with 350-599 fee-earners and 22% with 600-

999 fee-earners)


22% have 1 office in the UK and Ireland (11% with 200-249 fee-earners and 11% with 350-

599 fee-earners)

56% have 2-5 offices in the UK and Ireland (33% have 350-599 fee-earners and 22% have

600-999 fee-earners)



30% have 1 office in the UK and Ireland (10% with 1-199 fee-earners, 10% with 200-249 fee-

earners and 10% with 350-599 fee-earners)

30% have 2-5 offices in the UK and Ireland (20% with 350-599 fee-earners and 10% with 600-

999 fee-earners)

40% have >5 offices in the UK and Ireland (all with 1,000+ fee-earners)

Within firms with £500m+ global annual turnover (22% of all survey respondents)

46% have 1 office in the UK and Ireland (31% with 1-199 fee-earners, 8% with 250-349 fee-

earners and 8% with 350-599 fee-earners)

54% have 2-5 offices in the UK and Ireland (23% with (350-599 fee-earners, 15% with 600-

999 fee-earners and 15% with 1,000+ fee-earners)

7. Library and Knowledge Staff

7.1 FTE Library, Knowledge Management (KM) Team and Professional Support Lawyers (PSL)

This section provides an overview of FTE library, KM team and PSL staff within respondent

organisations. Chart 7.1a and Table 7.1a provide an overall picture of staffing in respondent

organisations. These are followed by charts depicting the ratio of FTE library staffs to fee-earners by

global annual turnover and by size of organisation (fee-earners).

93% of respondents provided data in relation to FTE Library staff

22% of respondents noted having a separate Knowledge Team with FTE staff

74% of respondents noted having Professional Support Lawyers with FTE staff

22

Chart 7.1a FTE Library staff, KM staff and PSL staff

See Table 7.1a below for a percentage breakdown

Table 7.1a FTE Library staff, KM staff and PSL staff

Staff FTE <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >9

Library staff FTE

2% 19% 21% 10% 10% 9% 9% 2% 3% 2% 7%

Knowledge Team FTE

2% 3% 0% 2% 2% 0% 3% 2% 2% 0% 7%

Professional Support Lawyers FTE

21% 7% 5% 12% 7% 10% 3% 2% 5% 5% 17%

Within firms of <£20m global annual turnover:

50% of firms have 2FTE library staff (1-199 fee-earners)

Within firms of £20-34m global annual turnover:

57% have 1-1.9 FTE library staff (43% with 1-199 fee-earners and 14% 200-249 fee-earners)

14% have 2-2.9 FTE library staff (250-349 fee e-earners)

14% have 3-3.9 FTE library staff (1-199 fee-earners)

14% have 1-1.9 FTE PSL staff (1-199 fee-earners)


14% have 5.2 FTE PSL staff (200-249 fee-earners)

0% 10% 20% 30%

<1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

>9

% of respondents

FTE Staff

FTE Library Staff, KM Team & PSL staff

Library Staff FTE

Knowledge Team FTE

Professional SupportLawyers FTE

23


13% have <1 FTE library staff (1-199 fee-earners)



25% have 3-3.9 FTE library staff (13% with 200-249 fee-earners and 13% 350-599 fee-

earners)



50% have 3-3.9 FTE PSL staff (25% with 200-249 fee-earners and 25% 250-349 fee-earners)

13% have 7 FTE PSL staff (1-199 fee-earners)




earners)







11% have 4-4.9 FTE PSL staff )350-599 fee-earners)


11% have >9 FTE PSL staff (350-599 fee-earners)

11% have <1 FTE knowledge team staff (250-349 fee-earners)

11% have 8-8.9 FTE knowledge team staff (600-999 fee-earners)

11% have >9 FTE knowledge team staff (350-599 fee-earners)



earners)


earners)



11% have 9 FTE library staff (350-599 fee-earners)



24



11% have >9 FTE PSL 350-599 fee-earners)

11% have 6-6.9 knowledge team staff (350-599 fee-earners)

11% have 7-7.9 knowledge team staff (200-249 fee-earners)



10% have 3-3.9 FTE library staff (1,000+ fee-earners)


20% have 5-5.9 FTE library staff (10% with 350-599 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+ fee-earners)


earners)

10% have 8-8.9 FTE library staff 1,000+ fee-earners)

10% have >9 FTE library staff (1,000+ fee-earners)

20% have 4-4.9 FTE PSL staff (10% with 1-199 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+ fee-earners)

20% have 6-6.9 FTE PSL staff (10% with 200-249 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+ fee-earners)


50% have >9 FTE PSL staff (20% with 350-599 fee-earners, 10% 600-999 fee-earners and 20%

1,000+ fee-earners)




10% have >9 FTE knowledge team staff (1,000+ fee-earners)

Within firms of £500m+ global annual turnover:





8% have 8-8.9 FTE library staff (1,000+ fee-earners)

23% have >9 FTE library staff (8% with 350-599 fee-earners, 8% 600-999 fee-earners and 8%

1,000+ fee-earners)







25

31% have >9 FTE PSL staff (8% with 350-599 fee-earners, 8% 600-999 fee-earners and 15%

1,000+ fee-earners)



15% have >9 FTE knowledge team staff (8% with 600-999 fee-earners and 8% 1,000+ fee-

earners)

7.2 Ratio of library staff to legal staff in the UK and Ireland


Chart 7.2a Ratio of FTE library staff to fee-earners within firms with a global annual turnover of

<£20m

Within firms with a global annual turnover of <£20m 50% have 2.0 FTE library staff to 61 fee-earners.

Chart 7.2b Ratio of FTE library staff to legal staff in the UK and Ireland (£20-34m global annual

turnover)

Within firms with a global annual turnover of £20-34m:

14% have 1-1.9 FTE library staff to <50 fee-earners

14% have 1-1.9 FTE library staff to 50-99 fee-earners

0% 10% 20% 30%

<1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

>9

% of respondents

FTE library staff

Ratio of FTE library staff to fee-earners within firms with a global

annual turnover of £20-34m

300+ fee-earners

250-299 fee-earners

200-249 fee-earners

150-199 fee-earners

100-149 fee-earners

50-99 fee-earners

<50 fee-earners

26




Chart 7.2c Ratio of FTE library staff to legal staff in the UK and Ireland (£35-49m global annual

turnover)


13% have <1 FTE library staff to 300+ fee-earners






0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

<1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

>9

% of respondents

Ratio of FTE library staff to fee-earners within firms with a global annual

turnover of £35-49

300+ fee-earners

250-299 fee-earners

200-249 fee-earners

150-199 fee-earners

100-149 fee-earners

50-99 fee-earners

<50 fee-earners

27

Chart 7.2d Ratio of FTE library staff to legal staff in the UK and Ireland (£50-99m global annual

turnover)



11% have 1-1.9 FTE library staff to 300+ fee-earners







0% 10% 20% 30%

<1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

>9

% of respondents

FTE Library staff

Ratio of FTE library staff to fee-earners within firms with a global

annual turnover of £50-99m

<50 fee-earners

50-99 fee-earners

100-149 fee-earners

150-199 fee-earners

200-249 fee-earners

250-299 fee-earners

300+ fee-earners

28

Chart 7.2e Ratio of FTE library staff to legal staff in the UK and Ireland (£100-149m global annual

turnover)







11% have 9 FTE library staff to 50-99 fee-earners

0% 10% 20% 30%

<1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

>9

% of respondents

FTE library staff


turnover of £100-149m

300+ fee-earners

250-299 fee-earners

200-249 fee-earners

150-199 fee-earners

100-149 fee-earners

50-99 fee-earners

<50 fee-earners

29

Chart 7.2f Ratio of FTE library staff to legal staff in the UK and Ireland (£150-499m global annual

turnover)










0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

<1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

>9

% of respondents

FTE library staff


turnover of £150-499m

300+ fee-earners

250-299 fee-earners

200-249 fee-earners

150-199 fee-earners

100-149 fee-earners

50-99 fee-earners

<50 fee-earners

30

Chart 7.2g Ratio of FTE library staff to legal staff in the UK and Ireland (£500m+ global annual

turnover)

Within firms with a global annual turnover of £500m+:







25% have >9 FTE library staff to <50 fee-earners

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

<1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

>9

% of respondents

FTE library staff


turnover of £500m+

300+ fee-earners

250-299 fee-earners

200-249 fee-earners

150-199 fee-earners

100-149 fee-earners

50-99 fee-earners

<50 fee-earners

31

7.3 Mean staffing numbers and global annual turnover

NB: Mean figures have been calculated against those respondents who noted having FTE library,

knowledge team and/or professional support lawyer staff.

93% of respondents provided data regarding FTE library staff

22% of respondents noted having a separate knowledge team

74% of respondents noted having professional support lawyer staff

Chart 7.3a Mean FTE library staff, FTE knowledge team staff and FTE PSL staff by global annual

turnover

See Table 7.3a below for a tabular explanation

0 5 10 15 20

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499

£500m+

Number of staff


Mean FTE library, knowledge and PSL staff by global annual turnover

Mean FTE library staff

Mean FTE knowledgeteam staff

Mean FTE PSL staff

32

Table 7.3a Mean FTE library staff, FTE knowledge team staff and FTE PSL staff by global annual

turnover

Global turnover

<£20m £20-34m £35-49m £50-99 £100-149m

£150-499m

>£500m


2.0 1.7 2.3 3.1 4.0 6.0 8.0

Mean FTE Knowledge team staff

0 0 0 9.7 6.8 13.2 14.5

Mean FTE PSL staff

0 3.0 3.6 4.2 8.1 11.1 15.8

Chart 7.3b Mean FTE library staff, FTE knowledge team staff and FTE PSL staff by size of firm (fee-

earners)

See Table 7.3b below for a tabular explanation

0 10 20 30 40

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

Number of staff

Fee-earners

Mean FTE library, knowledge and PSL staff by size of firm (fee-earners)


Mean FTE knowledge teamstaff

Mean FTE PSL staff

33

Table 7.3b Mean FTE library staff, FTE knowledge team staff and FTE PSL staff by size of firm (fee-

earners)

1-199 200-249 250-349 350-599 600-999 1,000+


2 2.74 2.5 5 13.4 10.5

Mean FTE Knowledge team staff

2.5 4.7 0.7 8.9 14.7 36.7

Mean FTE PSL staff

3.4 4.82 4.25 7.7 14 20

7.4 Do UK and Ireland library staff support fee-earners based outside the UK and Ireland?


50% of respondents providing data noted ‘yes’

50% of respondents providing data noted ‘no’

Of those who responded ‘yes’ 96% provided data as to the number of fee-earners supported

26% supported up to 19 fee-earners outside of the UK and Ireland

30% supported 20-49 fee-earners outside of the UK and Ireland



15% supported 200+ fee-earners outside of the UK and Ireland

7.5 Employment status of the FTE library staff

90% of all respondents noted being ‘employed directly by the firm’

5% of all respondents noted being employed through an ‘outsourcing agency’

2% of all respondents noted being ‘freelance’

7.6 Percentage of library staff with qualifications

91% of all respondents provided data in relation to LIS qualifications

The following charts provide an overview of ‘the percentage of staff with qualifications within

organisations by global annual turnover’ followed by ‘percentage of staff with qualifications within

organisations by size (fee-earners)’.

34

Chart 7.6a Percentage of library/information staff with qualifications within organisations with a

global annual turnover of <£20m

There was insufficient data to produce a chart. 50% of respondents in this grouping had library staff

with LIS degrees and CILIP Chartership.

Chart 7.6b Percentage of library/information staff with qualifications within organisations with a

global annual turnover of £20-34m

Chart 7.6c Percentage of library/information staff with qualifications within organisations with a


0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

LIS qualifications

Law Degree

CILIP Chartership

CILIP Fellowship

Other Professional Legal…

% of respondents

Percentage of library/information staff with qualifications within

organisations with a global annual turnover of £20-34m

75-100% of staff

50-74% of staff

25-49% of staff

<25% of staff

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

LIS qualifications

Law Degree

CILIP Chartership

CILIP Fellowship


% of respondents



75-100% of staff

50-74% of staff

25-49% of staff

<25% of staff

35

Chart 7.6d Percentage of library/information staff with qualifications within organisations with a


Chart 7.6e Percentage of library/information staff with qualifications within organisations with a


0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

LIS qualifications

Law Degree

CILIP Chartership

CILIP Fellowship


% of respondents



75-100% of staff

50-74% of staff

25-49% of staff

<25% of staff

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

LIS qualifications

Law Degree

CILIP Chartership

CILIP Fellowship


% of respondents



75-100% of staff

50-74% of staff

25-49% of staff

<25% of staff

36

Chart 7.6f Percentage of library/information staff with qualifications within organisations with a


Chart 7.6g Percentage of library/information staff with qualifications within organisations with a

global annual turnover of £500m+

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

LIS qualifications

Law Degree

CILIP Chartership

CILIP Fellowship


% of respondents



75-100% of staff

50-74% of staff

25-49% of staff

<25% of staff

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

LIS qualifications

Law Degree

CILIP Chartership

CILIP Fellowship


% of respondents


organisations with a global annual turnover of £500m+

75-100% of staff

50-74% of staff

25-49% of staff

<25% of staff

37

Chart 7.6h Percentage of library staff with qualifications within organisations of 1-199 fee-earners

Chart 7.6i Percentage of library staff with qualifications within organisations of 200-249 fee-

earners

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

LIS qualifications

Law Degree

CILIP Chartership

CILIP Fellowship


% of respondents


organisations of 1-199 fee-earners

75-100% of staff

50-74% of staff

25-49% of staff

<25% of staff

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

LIS qualifications

Law Degree

CILIP Chartership

CILIP Fellowship


% of respondents



75-100% of staff

50-74% of staff

25-49% of staff

<25% of staff

38

Chart 7.6j Percentage of library staff with qualifications within organisations of 250-349 fee-

earners

Chart 7.6k Percentage of library staff with qualifications within organisations of 350-599 fee-

earners

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

LIS qualifications

Law Degree

CILIP Chartership

CILIP Fellowship


% of respondents



75-100% of staff

50-74% of staff

25-49% of staff

<25% of staff

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

LIS qualifications

Law Degree

CILIP Chartership

CILIP Fellowship


% of respondents



75-100% of staff

50-74% of staff

25-49% of staff

<25% of staff

39

Chart 7.6l Percentage of library staff with qualifications within organisations of 600-999 fee-

earners

Chart 7.6m Percentage of library staff with qualifications within organisations of 1,000+ fee-

earners

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

LIS qualifications

Law Degree

CILIP Chartership

CILIP Fellowship


% of respondents



75-100% of staff

50-74% of staff

25-49% of staff

<25% of staff

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

LIS qualifications

Law Degree

CILIP Chartership

CILIP Fellowship


% of respondents


organisations of 1,000+ fee-earners

75-100% of staff

50-74% of staff

25-49% of staff

<25% of staff

40

7.7 Whom does the Head of Library/information team report to?


The title of the person to whom the Head of the Library/Information team reported to varied across

the 58 respondents to this survey. In total there were 37 differing titles including:

‘CEO’, ‘Chief Knowledge Officer’, ‘Chief Operating Officer’, ‘Chief People Officer’,

‘Director’, ‘Director of Administration’, ‘Director of Business Transformation’, ‘Director of IT’,

‘Director of IT and Operations’, ‘Director of Knowledge Management’, ‘Director of

Knowledge’, ‘Director of Knowledge and Learning’, ‘Director of Knowledge, Information and

Data’, ‘Director of Knowledge, Learning and Development’, ‘Director of Operations and

Performance’, ‘Director of Quality and Risk’, ‘Director of Risk Management’, Director of

Library and Research Services’,

‘General Counsel’, ‘Global Head of Knowledge’,

‘Head of Information and Research’, ‘Head of Innovation and Digital’, ‘Head of Knowledge

Management’, ‘Head of Knowledge’, ‘Head of Learning and Development’, ‘Head of Learning

and Talent Development’, ‘Head of Research and Information Services’, ‘Human Resources

Director’,

‘Information Partner’,

‘KM Manager Global’, ‘KM Partner’, ‘Know-How Partner’,

‘Managing Partner’,

‘Operations Director’, ‘Operations Manager’,

‘Partner’, ‘Partnership Secretary’

7.8 Is the Library/information service part of a specific department?

57% of all respondents noted that their library/information service is part of a specific department

within the firm. These included:

‘Admin/Business Support’

‘Business Services’, ‘Business Support’,

‘Digital Information and Legal Systematics’,

‘Global Knowledge’,

‘HR’,

‘Information and Knowledge Management’, ‘Information Services’,

‘Knowledge Management’, ‘Knowledge Management Services’, ‘Know-How’, ‘Knowledge

and Information Services’, ‘Knowledge and Learning’, ‘Knowledge and Library’, ‘Knowledge

Learning and Development’, ‘Knowledge Team’, ‘Knowledge Information and Data’,

‘Legal Information Centre’, ‘Library and Information Services’, ‘Library and Knowledge

Services’, ‘Library and research Service’,

‘Practice development’,

‘Research and Information Services’, ‘Research and Library’, Risk Management’

41

8. Library Services

8.1 Charging for staff time

Table 8.1 Do the library staff in the UK and Ireland charge their time to client matters?

Always charge

Frequently charge

Sometimes charge

Rarely charge

Option to charge but do not charge

No option to charge

% of respondents

10% 5% 9% 17% 7% 45%

It is clear from the above table that is more common within respondent firms to ‘NOT’ charge

library/information staff time to client matters.

The following two charts provide a graphic presentation depicting charging time to client matters by

global annual turnover followed by size of firm (fee-earners).

Chart 8.1a Charging time to client matters by global annual turnover

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


Charging time to client matters by global annual turnover

No option to charge

Option to charge but do notcharge

Rarely charge

Sometimes charge

Frequently charge

Always charge

42

Chart 8.1b Charging time to client matters by size of firm (fee-earners)



Within firms with <£20m global annual turnover:

50% sometimes charge (1-199 fee-earners)

50% have no option to charge (1-199 fee-earners)

Within firms with £20-34m global annual turnover:

29% rarely charge (14% with 1-199 fee-earners and 14% 250-349 fee-earners)

14% have the option to charge but do not charge (1-199 fee-earners)

43% have no option to charge (29% with 1-199 fee-earners and 14% 200-249 fee-earners)


13% always charge (1-199 fee-earners)





22% rarely charge (350-599 fee-earners)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Charging time to client matters by size of firm (fee-earners)

No option to charge

Option to charge but do notcharge

Rarely charge

Sometimes charge

Frequently charge

Always charge

43


66% have no option to charge (11% with 1-199 fee-earners, 11% 250-349 fee-earners, 33%

350-599 fee-earners and 11% 600-999 fee-earners)


11% always charge (350-599 fee-earners)

11% frequently charge (200-249 fee-earners)





20% frequently charge (1,000+ fee-earners)


10% rarely charge (1,000+ fee-earners)

60% have no option to charge (10% with 200-249 fee-earners, 30% 350-599 fee-earners,

10% 600-999 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+ fee-earners)

Within firms with £500m+ global annual turnover:

31% always charge (8% with 1-199 fee-earners, 15% 350-599 fee-earners and 8% 1,000+ fee-

earners)

15% sometimes charge (8% with 1-199 fee-earners and 8% 350-599 fee-earners)

8% rarely charge (1-199 fee-earners)


23% have no option to charge (8% with 250-349 fee-earners, 8% 350-599 fee-earners and

8% 1,000+ fee-earners)

44

8.2 Tasks that the library/information team are involved in

Table 8.2 Tasks that the library/information team are involved in

Task % of respondents undertaking task

Anti-money laundering or know your client research 45%

Contributing to or formulating the firm’s business strategy 41%

Creating and/or indexing know-how 50%

Dealing with circulation queries 91%

Delivering current awareness and updating services 88%

Fulfilling legal information and research requests 90%

Fulfilling non-legal research requests, e.g., background research on target companies or competitors

83%

Managing the firm’s intranet 24%

Negotiating contracts and purchasing new subscriptions or resources

88%

Processing/cataloguing new library resources 90%

Researching and testing new products 90%

Training users 93%

Updating specific pages on the firm’s intranet 79%

Other 26%

Other included: ‘Attending practice group meetings’, ‘Budgeting’, ‘Client advice’, ‘Copyright advice’,

‘Creation and maintenance of an approved experts database’, ‘Creation and maintenance of client

contract database’, ‘Deal analysis’, ‘Developing team databases’, ‘Direct work for clients’, ‘Extranets’,

‘Federated search engine technology’, ‘Financial modelling’, ‘Firm wide projects’, ‘Fulfilling firm’s KM

strategy’, ‘Knowledge technology tools’, ‘Licences’, ‘Loose leafing’, ‘Maintaining library intranet’,

‘Managing firm document assembly function’, ‘Managing firm’s enterprise search engine’,

‘Managing firm’s professional memberships’, ‘Managing practice group files’, ‘Managing library

catalogue as part of global team’, ‘Managing relationship with subscription agents’, ‘Managing wikis

within the firm’, ‘Sector specialisation’, ‘Taxonomies’, ‘Updating firm history and managing an

archive of staff photos’, ‘Vessel tracking for shipping group’.

The following charts provide a graphic breakdown of ‘tasks undertaken’ by global annual turnover

followed by size of firm (fee-earners).

45

Chart 8.2a Tasks undertaken by global annual turnover

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Anti-money laundering or know yourclient research

Contributing to the firm’s business strategy

Creating and/or indexing know-how

Dealing with circulation queries

Delivering current awareness andupdating services

Fulfilling legal information andresearch requests

Fulfilling non-legal research requests

Managing the firm’s intranet

Negotiating contracts and purchasingnew subscriptions or resources

Processing/cataloguing new libraryresources

Researching and testing new products

Training users

Updating pages on the firm’s intranet

% of respondents

Tasks undertaken by global annual turnover

£500m+

£150-499m

£100-149m

£50-99m

£35-49m

£20-34m

<£20m

46

Chart 8.2b Tasks undertaken by firms by size of firm (fee-earners)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Anti-money laundering or knowyour client research

Contributing to the firm’s business strategy

Creating and/or indexing know-how

Dealing with circulation queries

Delivering current awareness andupdating services

Fulfilling legal information andresearch requests

Fulfilling non-legal researchrequests

Managing the firm’s intranet

Negotiating contracts andpurchasing new subscriptions or…

Processing/cataloguing newlibrary resources

Researching and testing newproducts

Training users

Updating pages on the firm’s intranet

% of respondents

Tasks undertaken by size of firm (fee-earners)

1,000+

600-999 fee-earners

350-599 fee-earners

250-349 fee-earners

200-249 fee-earners

1-199 fee-earners

47

9. Enquiries

59% of all respondents noted that they collected enquiry statistics.

60% of all respondents provide data in relation to the number of enquiries received in an

average week.

9.1 Collection of enquiry statistics and time spent on enquiries

Table 9.1a Does your library service collect enquiry statistics and if yes how many do you receive

in an average week?

Number of enquires received in an average week

0-25 26-50 51-100 101-250 251-500 >500

Received by UK & Ireland

10% 12% 28% 10% 5% 0%

The median range for ‘enquiries received in an average week’ is ‘51-100’.

Chart 9.1a Number of enquires received in an average week by global annual turnover


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


Number of enquires received in an average week and global annual

turnover

251-500

101-250

51-100

26-50

0-25

48

Chart 9.1b Number of enquires received in an average week by size of firm (fee-earners)



Within firms with a turnover of <£20m:

50% received 51-100 enquiries in an average week (1-199 fee-earners)

Within firms with a turnover of £20-34m:

29% received 0-25 enquires in an average week (1-199 fee-earners)




50% received 26-50 enquiries in an average week (13% with 1-199 fee-earners, 25% 200-249

fee-earners and 13% 350-599 fee-earners)





22% received 51-100 enquiries in an average week (11% with 350-599 fee-earners and 11%



0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Number of enquiries received in an average week by size of firm (fee-

earners)

251-500

101-250

51-100

26-50

0-25

49









40% received 51-100 enquiries in an average week (10% with 350-599 fee-earners and 30%

1,000+ fee-earners)

10% received 101-250 enquires in an average week (1,000+ fee-earners)


Within firms with a turnover of £500m:


23% received 51-100 enquiries in an average week (8% with 250-349 fee-earners, 8% 350-

599 fee-earners and 8% 600-999 fee-earners)

23% received 101-250 enquires in an average week (15% with 350-599 fee-earners and 8%

1,000+ fee-earners)

8% received 251-500 enquires in an average week (1,000+ fee-earners)

No organisation received in excess of 500 enquiries in an average week

Table 9.1b Percentage of enquiries received from people based in offices outside of the UK and

Ireland

31% of all respondents provided data in relation to the percentage of enquiries received

from outside the UK and Ireland.

% of enquires received

1-5% 6-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% >40%

% received from offices outside of the UK & Ireland

17% 5% 5% 2% 3% 0%

50

Chart 9.1c Percentage of enquiries received from offices outside of the UK and Ireland by global

annual turnover

Chart 9.1d Percentage of enquiries received from offices outside of the UK and Ireland and size of

firm (fee-earners)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


% of enquiries received from offices outside of the UK and Ireland by global

annual turnover

>40%

31-40%

21-30%

11-20%

6-10%

1-5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% respondents

Fee-earners

% of enquiries received from offices outside of the UK and Ireland and

size of firm (fee-earners)

>40%

31-40%

21-30%

11-20%

6-10%

1-5%

51

Within firms with a turnover of <£20m, £20-34m and £35-49m

No enquires were received from offices outside of the UK and Ireland


For 11% of firms 6-10% of their enquiries came from offices outside of the UK and Ireland

(350-599 fee-earners)








(10% with 350-599 fee-earners, 10% 600-999 fee-earners and 20% 1,000+ fee-earners)


(10% with 1-199 fee-earners and 10% 350-599 fee-earners)


(1,000+ fee-earners)

Within firms with a turnover of £500m+:

For 31% of firms 1-5% of their enquiries came from offices outside of the UK and Ireland (8%

with 1-199 fee-earners, 8% 250-349 fee-earners, 8% 350-599 fee-earners and 8% 600-999

fee-earners)




(1,000+ fee-earners)

52

Table 9.1c Time spent by library services in firms in the UK and Ireland answering enquiries in an

average week

86% of all respondents provided data in relation to the time spent answering enquiries in an average

week.

Hours spent 0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >50 Unable to estimate

% of respondents

7% 12% 16% 10% 9% 5% 21% 7%

The median range for ‘time spent answering enquiries in an average week’ is ‘21-30’.

Chart 9.1e Hours spent on enquires in an average week by global annual turnover

0% 20% 40% 60%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


Hours spent on enquiries each week by global annual turnover

unable to estimate

>50 hours

41-50 hours

31-40 hours

21-30 hours

11-20 hours

6-10 hours

0-5 hours

53

Chart 9.1f Hours spent on enquires in an average week by size of firm (fee-earners)



Within firms with an annual turnover of <£20m:

50% spend between 0-5 hours in an average week (1-199 fee-earners)


Within firms with an annual turnover of £20-34m:


29% spend between 6-10 hours in an average week (14% with 1-199 fee-earners and 14%




38% spend between 6-10 hours in an average week (13% with 1-199 fee-earners, 13% 200-





13% spend >50 hours in an average week (200-249 fee-earners)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Hours spent on enquiries each week by size of firm (fee-earners)

>50 hours

41-50 hours

31-40 hours

21-30 hours

11-20 hours

6-10 hours

0-5 hours

54



33% spend between 21-30 hours in an average week (22% with 350-599 fee-earners and

11% 600-999 fee-earners)



22% were unable to estimate (11% with 250-349 fee-earners and 11% 350-599 fee-earners)







11% were unable to estimate (200-249 fee-earners)


40% spend between 11-20 hours in an average week (10% with 1-199 fee-earners, 10% 200-

249 fee-earners, 10% 350-599 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+ fee-earners)



10% spend between 31-40 hours in an average week (1,000+ fee-earners)

20% spend >50 hours in an average week (10% with 350-599 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+

fee-earners)

10% were unable to estimate (350-599 fee-earners)

Within firms with an annual turnover of £500m+:




54% spend >50 hours in an average week (8% with 1-199 fee-earners, 8% 250-349 fee-

earners, 15% 350-599 fee-earners, 8% 600-999 fee-earners and 15% 1,000+ fee-earners)

55

9.2 Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency

Table 9.2a Time spent on specific types of enquires over the course of a year

Several times a day

Several times a week

Several times a month

Less frequently

Never

AML documentation 10% 14% 5% 19% 34%

Business development research (e.g., competitive intelligence, information for pitches and tenders)

17% 19% 31% 16% 3%

Company secretarial information (e.g., due diligence, winding up checks)

5% 16% 14% 22% 29%

Current awareness (e.g., searching press, setting up alerts)

29% 38% 12% 3% 3%

Finding information (e.g., a specific document or piece of information, e.g. a treaty or a share price; research that cannot be classed as legal or business development)

14% 34% 29% 7% 2%

Individuals’ information (e.g., bankruptcy searches, electoral roll)

2% 16% 10% 31% 28%

Legal research (e.g., assistance with commentary, guidance, articles, cases, legislation, precedents)

34% 40% 9% 2% 2%

Library administration (e.g., finding missing books)

10% 40% 22% 12% 2%

Online technical (e.g., forgotten passwords)

26% 40% 12% 7% 2%

Property searches (Land registry, radon searches, OS maps etc.)

2% 3% 5% 24% 52%

Straightforward copying or retrieval requests (e.g., cases, articles, legislation)

34% 40% 7% 3% 2%

Other included:

‘There is a separate business research team and risk and compliance team’,

‘Intranet help – several times a day’,

‘Historical company searches – several times a day’,

‘Company searches, news searches’ – no frequency given.

Commonly undertaken enquiries included:

On a daily basis the enquiry work most commonly undertaken by 34% of all respondents

were ‘straightforward copying’ and ‘legal research’.

56

On a weekly basis 40% of respondents undertook enquiries that involved ‘straightforward

copying’, ‘legal research’, ‘library administration’ and ‘online technical tasks’.

On a monthly basis, 39% and 29% of respondents respectively, undertook the enquiries

involving ‘business development research’ and ‘finding information’.

Enquiries less frequently undertaken but undertaken by 31% of respondents involved

‘individuals’ information’

Enquiries never undertaken by a number of respondents included ‘property searches’ (52%)

and ‘AML documentation’ (34%)

The following charts provide a breakdown of enquires undertaken and their frequency by global

annual turnover

Chart 9.2a Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with <£20m global annual

turnover

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AML documentation

Business Dev. Res.

Company secretarial info.

Current awareness

Finding information

Individual's info.

Legal research

Library admin.

Online technical

Property searches

Straightforward copying

% of respondents

Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency - firms with <£20m

global annual turnover

Daily (several times)

Week (several times)

Month (several times)

Less Frequently

Never

57

Chart 9.2b Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with £20-34m global annual

turnover

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

AML documentation

Business Dev. Res.


Current awareness

Finding information

Individual's info.

Legal research

Library admin.

Online technical

Property searches


% of respondents

Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency - firms with £20-34m global

annual turnover




Less Frequently

Never

58

Chart 9.2c Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with £35-49m global annual

turnover

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

AML documentation

Business Dev. Res.


Current awareness

Finding information

Individual's info.

Legal research

Library admin.

Online technical

Property searches


% of respondents

Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency - firms with £35-49m





Less Frequently

Never

59

Chart 9.2d Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with £50-99m global annual

turnover

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

AML documentation

Business Dev. Res.


Current awareness

Finding information

Individual's info.

Legal research

Library admin.

Online technical

Property searches


% of respondents






Less Frequently

Never

60

Chart 9.2e Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with £100-149m global

annual turnover

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

AML documentation

Business Dev. Res.


Current awareness

Finding information

Individual's info.

Legal research

Library admin.

Online technical

Property searches


% of respondents

Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency - firms with £100-149





Less Frequently

Never

61

Chart 9.2f Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with £150-499m global

annual turnover

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

AML documentation

Business Dev. Res.


Current awareness

Finding information

Individual's info.

Legal research

Library admin.

Online technical

Property searches


% of respondents






Less Frequently

Never

62

Chart 9.2g Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with £500m+ global annual

turnover

0% 20% 40% 60%

AML documentation

Business Dev. Res.


Current awareness

Finding information

Individual's info.

Legal research

Library admin.

Online technical

Property searches


% of respondents

Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency - firms with £500m+





Less Frequently

Never

63

Chart 9.2h Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with 1-199 fee-earners

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

AML documentation

Business Dev. Res.


Current awareness

Finding information

Individual's info.

Legal research

Library admin.

Online technical

Property searches


% of respondents

Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency - firms with 1-199 fee-

earners




Less Frequently

Never

64

Chart 9.2i Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with 200-249 fee-earners

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

AML documentation

Business Dev. Res.


Current awareness

Finding information

Individual's info.

Legal research

Library admin.

Online technical

Property searches


% of respondents


earners




Less Frequently

Never

65

Chart 9.2j Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with 250-349 fee-earners

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

AML documentation

Business Dev. Res.


Current awareness

Finding information

Individual's info.

Legal research

Library admin.

Online technical

Property searches


% of respondents


earners




Less Frequently

Never

66

Chart 9.2k Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with 350-599 fee-earners

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

AML documentation

Business Dev. Res.


Current awareness

Finding information

Individual's info.

Legal research

Library admin.

Online technical

Property searches


% of respondents

Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency - firms with 350-599

fee-earners




Less Frequently

Never

67

Chart 9.2l Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with 600-999 fee-earners

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

AML documentation

Business Dev. Res.


Current awareness

Finding information

Individual's info.

Legal research

Library admin.

Online technical

Property searches


% of respondents

Enquiries undertaken and their frequency - firms with 600-999 fee-

earners




Less Frequently

Never

68

Chart 9.2m Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency – firms with 1,000+ fee-earners

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

AML documentation

Business Dev. Res.


Current awareness

Finding information

Individual's info.

Legal research

Library admin.

Online technical

Property searches


% of respondents

Types of enquiries undertaken and their frequency - firms with 1,000+ fee-

earners




Less Frequently

Never

69

10. Library Budget

10.1 Hardcopy and online resources

66% of all respondents provided data in relation to the total library budget for 2015/16 for hardcopy

and online resources in the UK and Ireland as a percentage of their firm’s annual global turnover.

Chart 10.1a Library budget for hardcopy and online resources as a % of the firm’s annual global

turnover

The library budget for hardcopy and online resources was <1% of the global annual turnover for 33%

of all respondents.

The library budget for hardcopy and online resources was =>1% but <3% of the global annual

turnover for 33% of all respondents.

The median budget for hardcopy and online resources was 1% of the global annual turnover.

The mean budget for hardcopy and online resources was 1.16% of the global annual turnover.

The following charts provide a graphic presentation of library budgets as a % of the firm’s global

annual turnover by global annual turnover and by size of firm (fee-earners) followed by a written

breakdown.

0% 10% 20% 30%

0.0 - 0.5

0.6 - 0.9

1.0 - 1.2

1.3 - 1.5

1.6 - 1.9

2

3

% of respondents

% figure of annual global

turnover

Library budget for hardcopy and online resources as a % of the firm's annual

global turnover

Libray budget for hardcopyand online respurces as a %of the firm's annual globalturnover

70

Chart 10.1b Hardcopy and online budget as a % of global annual turnover and by global annual

turnover

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

>1,000

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Hardcopy and online budget as a % of global annual turnover and by number of

fee-earners in UK and Ireland offices

3%

2%

1.6 - 1.9%

1.3 - 1.5%

1.0 - 1.2%

0.6 - 0.9%

0.0 - 0.5%

71

Chart 10.1c Hardcopy and online budget as a % of global annual turnover and by number of fee-

earners in UK and Ireland offices



Within firms with <£20m global annual turnover:

50% had a budget of 1.3-1.5% of their global annual turnover (1-199 fee-earners)


43% had a budget of 1.0-1.2% of their global annual turnover (29% with 1-199 fee-earners

and 14% 250-349 fee-earners)





0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

>1,000

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Hardcopy and online budget as a % of global annual turnover and by number of

fee-earners in UK and Ireland offices

3%

2%

1.6 - 1.9%

1.3 - 1.5%

1.0 - 1.2%

0.6 - 0.9%

0.0 - 0.5%

72

40% had a budget of 1.0-1.2% of their global annual turnover (13% with 1-199 fee-earners,

13% 200-249 fee-earners and 13% 250-349 fee-earners)









44% had a budget of 1.0-1.2% of their global annual turnover (11% with 200-249 fee-

earners, 22% 350-599 fee-earners and 11% 600-999 fee-earners)


50% had a budget of 0.0-0.5% of their global annual turnover (10% with 1-199 fee-earners,

10% 200-249 fee-earners, 10% 350-599 fee-earners and 20% 1,000+ fee-earners)


and 10% 1,000+ fee-earners)

10% had a budget of 1.0-1.2% of their global annual turnover (1,000+ fee-earners)

Within firms with £500m+ global annual turnover:




8% had a budget of 2% of their global annual turnover (1,000+ fee-earners)

8% had a budget of 3% of their global annual turnover (600-999 fee-earners)

Table 10.1 2015/16 spend on the major databases of ‘Lawtel’, Lexis Library’, ‘Lexis PSL’, ‘Practical

law’ and ‘Westlaw’ as a percentage of the UK and Ireland library budget


% of UK & Northern Ireland budget

0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

% of respondents

0% 7% 22% 24% 16%

73

The following charts provide a graphic presentation of spend on the major databases by global

annual turnover by global annual turnover and by size of firm (fee-earners) followed by a written

breakdown.

Chart 10.1d Percentage spend on the major databases of Lawtel, Lexis, Lexis PSL, Practical Law and

Westlaw by global annual turnover

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-449m

£500m+

% of respondents


% spend on the major databases of Lawtel, Lexis, Lexis PSL, Practical Law

and Westlaw by global annual turnover

81-100%

61-80%

41-60%

21-40%

0-20%

74

Chart 10.1e Percentage spend on the major databases of Lawtel, Lexis, Lexis PSL, Practical Law and

Westlaw by fee-earner size of firm




50% spent between 81-100% of their budget on the major legal databases (1-199 fee-earners)

Within firms of £20-34m global annual turnover

57% spent between 61-80% of their budget on the major legal databases (43% with 1-199


14% spent between 81-100% of their budget on the major legal databases (200-249 fee-

earners)



fee-earners, 25% 200-249 fee-earners, 13% 250-349 fee-earners and 13% 350-599 fee-

earners)


0% 20% 40% 60%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

>1,000

% of respondents

Fee-earners

% spend on the major legal databases of Lawtel, Lexis, Lexis PSL, Practical

Law and Westlaw by size of firm (fee-earners)

81-100%

61-80%

41-60%

21-40%

0-20%

75


earners)


earners)


fee-earners, 11% 250-349 fee-earners and 22% 350-599 fee-earners)







earners)


10% spent between 21-40% of their budget on the major legal databases (1,000+ fee-

earners)


fee-earners, 10% 200-249 fee-earners, 10% 350-599 fee-earners, 10% 600-999 fee-earners


20% spent between 81-100% of their budget on the major legal databases (1,000+ fee-

earners)

Within firms of £500m+ global annual turnover


fee-earners, 8% 350-599 fee-earners and 8% 1,000+ fee-earners)


fee-earners, 15% with 350-599 fee-earners and 8% 600-999 fee-earners)


earners)

76

10.2 How the cost of major database usage is charged within the firm.

Chart 10.2a How the cost of major database usage is charged within the firm.

(NB: respondents may have selected more than one option)

60% of all respondents noted that the costs of the major online databases were charged to a

central budget code for the UK and Ireland.

2% of all respondents noted the costs as being evenly split across offices.

2% of all respondents noted the costs as being evenly split across practice areas.

7% of all respondents noted the costs as being charged against headcount across offices.

2% of all respondents noted the costs as being charged against headcount across practice

areas.

7% of all respondents noted the costs as being charged according to usage.

14% of all respondents also included ‘other’ approaches. These included:

Some specific services are charged to a department, e.g., Justis

Recharged internally to other offices

Mixed allocation methods according to product

Charged to practice groups and offices based on the number of passwords or office or

practice group headcount depending on the database

Charged to a central budget for administration but the allocated across practice groups for

financial reporting.

Unable to give breakdowns

Allocated to industry group based on content on resource

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

How costs for the major databases used are charged within the firm

% of respondents

77

10.3 Total spend on resources other than the major databases (outlined in 10.1 above)

63% of all respondents provided data in relation to spending on ‘other databases’

71% of all respondents provided data in relation to spending on ‘hardcopy books’ and ‘loose-

leaf’ services

69% of all respondents provided data in relation to spending on hardcopy journals and

reports

Chart 10.3a Percentage of budget spent on resources other than the major legal databases (given

in chart 10.1 above)

See Table 10.3 below for a percentage breakdown

0% 20% 40% 60%

0-10%

11-20%

21-30%

31-40%

41-50%

>50%

% of respondents

% budget spend

% of Budget spent on resources other than the major legal databases

Hardcopy Journals andReports

Hardcopy Books andLoose-leaf services

Other databases, e.g.,Business databases

78

Table 10.3a Percentage budget spend on resources other than the major legal databases

previously outlined (chart 10.3a above)

% of UK and Ireland library budget

0-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% >50%

Spend on other databases e.g., business

38% 10% 5% 5% 2% 3%

Spend on hardcopy books and loose-leaf services

41% 26% 0% 2% 2% 0%

Spend on hardcopy journals and reports

60% 7% 0% 0% 2% 0%

The following charts provide a graphic presentation of spend on resources other than the major

databases by global annual turnover by global annual turnover and by size of firm (fee-earners)

followed by a written analysis.

79

Chart 10.3b Percentage budget spend on databases other than the major databases by global

annual turnover

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-449m

£500m+

% of respondents


% of budget spent on databases other than the major legal databases

by global annual turnover

>50%

41-50%

31-40%

21-30%

11-20%

0-10%

80

Chart 10.3c Percentage budget spend on databases other than the major databases and by fee-

earner size of firm




50% spent between 0-10% on databases other than the major legal databases (1-199 fee-

earners)


71% spent between 0-10% on databases other than the major legal databases (43% with 1-

199 fee-earners, 14% 200-249 fee-earners and 14% 250-349 fee-earners)



199 fee-earners, 13% 200-249 fee-earners, 13% 250-349 fee-earners and 13% 350-599 fee-

earners)




0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

>1,000

% of respondents

Fee-earners

% of budget spent on databases other than the major legal databases

by size of firm (fee-earners)

>50%

41-50%

31-40%

21-30%

11-20%

0-10%

81

11% spent between 11-20% on databases other than the major legal databases (350-599

fee-earners)


33% spent between 0-10% on databases other than the major legal databases (22% with

350-599 fee-earners and 11% 600-999 fee-earners)

22% spent between 11-20% on databases other than the major legal databases (11% 200-




600-999 fee-earners and 20% 1,000+ fee-earners)


fee-earners)


fee-earners)



10% spent >50% on databases other than the major legal databases (1-199 fee-earners)



earners)


fee-earners)




earners)

8% spent between 41-50% on databases other than the major legal databases (1,000+ fee-

earners)

8% spent >50% on databases other than the major legal databases (350-599 fee-earners)

82

11. Hardcopy Resources

11.1 Hardcopy Books

Chart 11.1a Total number of hardcopy books held in UK and Ireland collection

66% of all respondents provided data in relation to the number of hardcopy books held.

16% of all respondents hold 1,000 or less hardcopy books

16% of all respondents hold between 1,001 and 2,000 hardcopy books







7% of all respondents hold between 8,001 and 9.000 hardcopy books

7% of all respondents held > 9,000 hardcopy books

The following two charts provide a graphic presentation of books held by ‘global annual turnover’

and by ‘size of firm (fee-earners)’. A textual analysis can be found after the second chart that

combines both global annual turnover and fee-earners size of firm.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

up to 1,000

2,001-3,000

4,001-5,000

6,001-7,000

8,001-9,000

Hardcopy books held by

firms

Total number of hardcopy books in UK and Ireland collection

% of respondents

83

Chart 11.1b Hardcopy books held by global annual turnover


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


Hardcopy books held by global annual turnover

>9,000

8,001-9,000

7,001-8,000

6,001-7,000

5,001-6,000

4,001-5,000

3,001-4,000

2,001-3,000

1,001-2,000

up to 1,000

84

Chart 11.1c Hardcopy books held by size of firm (fee-earners)

Number of hardcopies held by global annual turnover (N.B. percentages have been rounded up or

down as appropriate and therefore can differ slightly from the total number of respondents providing

data):


50% hold between 2,001 and 3,000 hardcopy books (1-199 fee-earners)


29% hold up to 1,000 hardcopy books (14% with 1-199 fee-earners and 14% 250-349 fee-

earners)

43% hold between 1,001-2,000 hardcopy books (29% with 1-199 fee-earners and 14% 200-

249 fee-earners)


0% 2% 4% 6% 8%

1-199 fee-earners

200-249 fee-earners

250-349 fee-earners

350-599 fee-earners

600-999 fee-earners

>1000 fee-earners

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Hardcopy books held by size of firm (fee-earners)

>9,000

8,001-9,000

7,001-8,000

6,001-7,000

5,001-6,000

4,001-5,000

3,001-4,000

2,001-3,000

1,001-2,000

up to 1,000

85


earners)

25% hold between 1,001-2,000 hardcopy books (250-349 fee-earners)

25% hold >9,000 hardcopy books (13% with 1-199 fee-earners and 13% 350-599 fee-

earners)


11% hold up to 1,000 hardcopy books (350-599 fee-earners)

22% hold between 1,001-2,000 hardcopy books (11% with 1-199 fee-earners and 11% 250-

349 fee-earners)










10% hold between 1,001-2,000 hardcopy books (1,000+ fee-earners)

20% hold between 2,001 and 3,000 hardcopy books (10% with 200-249 fee-earners and 10%




20% hold between 8,001-9,000 hardcopy books (10% with 350-599 and 10% 1,000+ fee-

earners)

Within firms of £500m+ global annual turnover:


earners)


15% hold between 8,001-9,000 hardcopy books (8% with 1-199 fee-earners and 8% 1,000+

fee-earners)

15% hold >9,000 hardcopy books (8% with 1-199 fee-earners and 8% 600-999 fee-earners)

86

11.2 Hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions held by firms in the UK and Ireland


Chart11.2a Hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions held by firms in the UK and Ireland

Hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions held (N.B. percentages have been rounded up or down as

appropriate and therefore can differ slightly from the total number of respondents providing data):

36% of respondents held =<50

17% of respondents held between 51 and 100





5% of respondents held >300

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

0-50

51-100

101-150

151-200

201-250

251-300

>300

Number of Loose-leaf

subscriptions

Number of hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions held by firms

% of respondents

87

Chart11.2b Hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions by global annual turnover


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


Hardcopy Loose-leaf subscriptions by global annual turnover

>300

251-300

201-250

151-200

101-150

51-100

0-50

88

Chart 11.2c Hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions by size of firm (fee-earners)




Within firms of <£20m global annual turnover

50% hold 0-50 hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions (1-199 fee-earners)


57% hold 0-50 hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions (29% with 1-199 fee-earners, 14% 200-249


14% hold between 51-100 hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions (1-199 fee-earners)



fee-earners and 13% 250-349 fee-earners and )

0% 5% 10% 15%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1000+

% of firms by fee-earner size

Fee-earners

Hardcopy Loose-leaf subscriptions held by size of firm (fee-earners )

>300

251-300

201-250

151-200

101-150

51-100

0-50

89

25% hold between 51-100 hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions (13% 200-249 fee-earners and




22% hold between 51-100 hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions (11% with 1-199 fee-earners



11% hold >300 hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions (350-599 fee-earners)



11% hold between 201 and 250 hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions (350-599 fee-earners)



fee-earners and 10% 1,000+ fee-earners)

30% hold between 51-100 hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions (10% with 200-249 fee-earners



10% hold >300 hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions (1,000+ fee-earners)




15% hold between 51-100 hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions (8% with 1-199 fee-earners and



8% hold between 201 and 250 hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions (350-599 fee-earners)

8% hold >300 hardcopy loose-leaf subscriptions (1,000+ fee-earners)

90

11.3 Hardcopy law report subscriptions

Chart 11.3a Hardcopy law report subscriptions


Hardcopy law report subscriptions held (N.B. percentages have been rounded up or down as

appropriate and due to rounding, some totals may not correspond with the sum of the separate

figures)

26% of respondents held 0-1





10% of respondents held more than 8 (it should be noted here that the number of law

reports held varied from 13-14, 22-23 up to as many as 160)

0% 10% 20% 30%

0-1

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-9

>9

No. Hardcopy Law reports

Hardcopy law reports held by firms

% of respondents

91

Chart 11.3b Hardcopy law report subscriptions by global annual turnover

Chart 11.3c Hardcopy law report subscriptions held by size of firm (fee-earners)



0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents

Hardcopy Law reports held by global annual turnover

>9

8-9

6-7

4-5

2-3

1

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Hardcopy law reports held by size of firm (fee-earners)

>9

8-9

6-7

4-5

2-3

0-1

92


50% hold 1 hardcopy law report subscription (1-199 fee-earners)


29% have between 2-3 hardcopy law report subscriptions (1-199 fee-earners)



25% hold 1 hardcopy law report subscription (13% with 1-199 fee-earners and 13% 250-349

fee-earners)



25% have >9 hardcopy law report subscriptions (13% with 1-199 fee-earners and 13% 200-

249 fee-earners)


33% hold 1 hardcopy law report subscription (11% with 1-199 fee-earners and 22% 350-599

fee-earners)









30% have between 2-3 hardcopy law report subscriptions (10% 350-599 fee-earners, 10%


20% have between 4-5 hardcopy law report subscriptions (10% with 200-249 fee-earners,


10% have between 6-7 hardcopy law report subscriptions (1,000+ fee-earners)

10% have >9 hardcopy law report subscriptions (1,000+ fee-earners)






23% have >9 hardcopy law report subscriptions (8% with 350-599 fee-earners, 8% 600-999


93

11.4 Location of hardcopy resources

62% of respondents noted their collection or part of their collection being held in a central

Library.

64% of respondents noted their collection or part of their collection being held in satellite

libraries or in team collections.

59% of respondents noted their collection or part of their collection being held by

individuals.

Chart 11.4a Location of hardcopy resources

From the chart above we can see that:

For 9% of respondents 81-100% of their hardcopy collection is held in a central library

for 19% of respondents 61-80% of their hardcopy collection is held in a central library




for 5% of respondents 81-100% of their hardcopy collection is held in a satellite library or

team collection


team collection


team collection


team collection


team collection

for 2% of respondents 81-100% of their hardcopy collection is held by individuals

0% 20% 40% 60%

0-20%

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100%

% of firms

% of hardcopy collection

Location of hardcopy collection

Held by indivdiuals

Held in satellite library orteam collection

Held in central library

94




11.5 How UK and Ireland hardcopy collections have changed over the last 12 months

Table 11.5a How UK and Ireland hardcopy collections have changed over the last 12 months

71% of all respondents provided data



Increased since previous year

Decreased since previous year

No noticeable change since previous year

Size of hardcopy book collection

9% 34% 28%

Size of hardcopy journals collection

5% 34% 31%

Size of hardcopy loose-leaf collection

3% 45% 22%

Size of hardcopy law report collection

2% 22% 47%

Chart 11.5b Reasons for changes in hardcopy collections

Respondents were entitled to select more than one option

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Other

Reduction in budget forlibrary resources

Move to online resources

Lack of space

Fee-earner preference

Reasons for changes in hardcopy collections

% of respondents

95

12. Electronic Resources

12.1 E-Books

Chart 12.1a E-books held by global annual turnover

29% of all respondents to the survey noted subscribing to e-books.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


E-books held by global annual turnover

>9 e-books

8-9 e-books

6-7 e-books

4-5 e-books

2-3 e-books

1 e-book

96

Chart 12.1b E-books held by size of firm (fee-earners)




50% held 8-9 e-books (1-199 fee-earners)




13% held 1 e-book (200-249 fee-earners)

13% held >9 e-books (1-199 fee-earners)


22% held 1 e-book (11% with 1-199 fee-earners and 11% 350-599 fee-earners)



11% held 1 e-book (350-599 fee-earners)


0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% of respondents

Fee-earners

E-books held by size of firm (fee-earners)

>9 e-books

8-9 e-books

6-7 e-books

4-5 e-books

2-3 e-books

1 e-book

97


10% held >9 e-books (350-599 fee-earners)



23% held 4-5 e-books (8% with 1-199 fee-earners and 15% 350-599 fee-earners)

15% held >9 e-books (1,000+ fee-earners)

12.2 Legal Research Resources and Systems

Chart 12.2a Legal electronic resource subscriptions (all respondents)

See Table 12.2a below for a full breakdown of resources and subscription options taken

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Other

Westlaw UK

Westlaw IE Irish Law

Westlaw International

Practical law

Perspective (Pendragon)

Lexis PSL

Lexis Library

Lexis Hong Kong

Lexis.com USA

Lawtel EU

Lawtel UK

Kluwer Law International

Kluwer Arbitration

Justis

JustCite

Other Jordan's Services

Jordan's Family Law Online

i-law

ICLR Online

Aries

% of respondents

Legal Electronic Resource Subscriptions

Complete

Considering

Selected Parts

98

Table 12.2a Legal Electronic Resource Subscriptions



Complete service Selected parts Considering a subscription

% of respondents to survey

Aries 3% 0% 0% 3%

i-law 5% 19% 0% 24%

ICLR Online 3% 0% 0% 3%

JustCite 16% 2% 0% 17%

Justis 12% 14% 2% 28%

Jordan’s Family Law Online

0% 3% 2% 5%

Other Jordan’s Services

2% 7% 0% 9%

Kluwer Arbitration 24% 2% 0% 26%


2% 3% 0% 5%

Lawtel EU 26% 0% 0% 26%

Lawtel UK 59% 3% 0% 62%

Lexis.com (USA) 9% 9% 0% 17%

Lexis Hong Kong 2% 7% 0% 9%

Lexis Library 52% 19% 0% 71%

Lexis PSL 9% 40% 7% 55%


33% 2% 0% 34%

Practical Law 60% 7% 0% 67%

Westlaw (IE) Irish Law 0% 3% 0% 3%

Westlaw International 3% 3% 0% 7%

Westlaw UK 40% 29% 2% 71%

Other 14%

Databases subscribed to by 50% plus respondents included: ‘Lexis Library’, ‘Lawtel UK’ and

‘Practical Law’.

‘Other’ Legal Electronic Resource subscriptions included: ‘Achilles THEMis’ (complete),

‘Binley’s’ (selective), ‘BNA Tax Management Portfolios’ (complete), ‘Cayman Islands Judicial

and Legal Information’ (complete), Commercial Dispute Resolution’ (complete), ‘Estates

Gazette Interactive’ (complete and selective) ‘Garant’ (selective), ‘GTDT’ (complete), ‘IBFD’

(complete), ‘ISLG’ (selective), ‘JCT Contracts Digital Service’ (complete), ‘Jersey Legal

Information Board’ (complete), ‘Law 360’ (complete), ‘Legislation Monitoring Service for

Charities’ (complete), ‘Mint’ (complete), ‘Mlex’ (selective) and ‘Nexis’ (complete).

Darts-IP, Global and Tax Explorer were also listed.

99

Chart 12.2b Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with a global annual turnover of

£<20m

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Westlaw UK



Practical law


Lexis PSL

Lexis Library

Lexis Hong Kong

Lexis.com USA

Lawtel EU

Lawtel UK


Kluwer Arbitration

Justis

JustCite



i-law

ICLR Online

Aries

% of respondents

Legal Electronic Resource Subscriptions within Firms with a global annual turnover of <£20m

Complete

Considering

Selected Parts

100

Chart 12.2c Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with a global annual turnover of

£20-34m

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Westlaw UK



Practical law


Lexis PSL

Lexis Library

Lexis Hong Kong

Lexis.com USA

Lawtel EU

Lawtel UK


Kluwer Arbitration

Justis

JustCite



i-law

ICLR Online

Aries

% of respondents

Legal Electronic Resource Subscriptions within Firms with a


Complete

Considering

Selected Parts

101

Chart 12.2d Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with a global annual turnover of

£35-49m

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Westlaw UK



Practical law


Lexis PSL

Lexis Library

Lexis Hong Kong

Lexis.com USA

Lawtel EU

Lawtel UK


Kluwer Arbitration

Justis

JustCite



i-law

ICLR Online

Aries

% of respondents



Complete

Considering

Selected Parts

102

Chart 12.2e Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with a global annual turnover of

£50-99m

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Westlaw UK



Practical law


Lexis PSL

Lexis Library

Lexis Hong Kong

Lexis.com USA

Lawtel EU

Lawtel UK


Kluwer Arbitration

Justis

JustCite



i-law

ICLR Online

Aries

% of respondents



Complete

Considering

Selected Parts

103

Chart 12.2f Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with a global annual turnover of

£100-149m

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Westlaw UK



Practical law


Lexis PSL

Lexis Library

Lexis Hong Kong

Lexis.com USA

Lawtel EU

Lawtel UK


Kluwer Arbitration

Justis

JustCite



i-law

ICLR Online

Aries

% of respondents



Complete

Considering

Selected Parts

104

Chart 12.2g Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with a global annual turnover of

£150-499m

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Westlaw UK



Practical law


Lexis PSL

Lexis Library

Lexis Hong Kong

Lexis.com USA

Lawtel EU

Lawtel UK


Kluwer Arbitration

Justis

JustCite



i-law

ICLR Online

Aries

% of respondents



Complete

Considering

Selected Parts

105

Chart 12.2h Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with a global annual turnover of

£500m+

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Westlaw UK



Practical law


Lexis PSL

Lexis Library

Lexis Hong Kong

Lexis.com USA

Lawtel EU

Lawtel UK


Kluwer Arbitration

Justis

JustCite



i-law

ICLR Online

Aries

% of respondents

Legal Electronic Resource Subscriptions within Firms with a global annual turnover of £500m+

Complete

Considering

Selected Parts

106

Chart 12.2i Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with 1-199 fee-earners

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Other

Westlaw UK



Practical law


Lexis PSL

Lexis Library

Lexis Hong Kong

Lexis.com USA

Lawtel EU

Lawtel UK


Kluwer Arbitration

Justis

JustCite



i-law

ICLR Online

Aries

% of respondents

Legal Electronic Resource Subscriptions within Firms with 1-199

Fee-earners

Complete

Considering

Selected Parts

107

Chart 12.2j Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with 200-249 fee-earners

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Other

Westlaw UK



Practical law


Lexis PSL

Lexis Library

Lexis Hong Kong

Lexis.com USA

Lawtel EU

Lawtel UK


Kluwer Arbitration

Justis

JustCite



i-law

ICLR Online

Aries

% of respondents

Legal Electronic Resource Subscriptions within Firms with 200-

249 Fee-earners

Complete

Considering

Selected Parts

108

Chart 12.2k Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with 250-349 fee-earners

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Other

Westlaw UK



Practical law


Lexis PSL

Lexis Library

Lexis Hong Kong

Lexis.com USA

Lawtel EU

Lawtel UK


Kluwer Arbitration

Justis

JustCite



i-law

ICLR Online

Aries

% of respondents


349 Fee-earners

Complete

Considering

Selected Parts

109

Chart 12.2l Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with 350-599 fee-earners

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Westlaw UK



Practical law


Lexis PSL

Lexis Library

Lexis Hong Kong

Lexis.com USA

Lawtel EU

Lawtel UK


Kluwer Arbitration

Justis

JustCite



i-law

ICLR Online

Aries

% of respondents


599 Fee-earners

Complete

Considering

Selected Parts

110

Chart 12.2m Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with 600-999 fee-earners

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Westlaw UK



Practical law


Lexis PSL

Lexis Library

Lexis Hong Kong

Lexis.com USA

Lawtel EU

Lawtel UK


Kluwer Arbitration

Justis

JustCite



i-law

ICLR Online

Aries

% of respondents


999 Fee-earners

Complete

Considering

Selected Parts

111

Chart 12.2n Legal electronic resource subscriptions within firms with 1,000+ fee-earners

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Westlaw UK



Practical law


Lexis PSL

Lexis Library

Lexis Hong Kong

Lexis.com USA

Lawtel EU

Lawtel UK


Kluwer Arbitration

Justis

JustCite



i-law

ICLR Online

Aries

% of respondents

Legal Electronic Resource Subscriptions within Firms with

1,000+ Fee-earners

Complete

Considering

Selected Parts

112

12.3 Enquiry Management Systems

Chart 12.3a Enquiry Management Systems in use or being considered

See Table 12.3a below for a breakdown of percentages for all respondents.

Table 12.3a Enquiry Management Systems in use or being considered



In use Considering % of respondents to survey

None 33% 0% 33%

In-house system 9% 3% 12%

KnowAll Enquire 3% 7% 10%

Landesk 2% 0% 2%

Onelog 0% 2% 2%

Quest 2% 2% 2%

Research Monitor 9% 9% 17%

SydneyPLUS 3% 0% 3%

Other 17% 0% 17%

33% of respondents did not use an Enquiry Management System

‘Other’ systems in use included: InMagic DB Textworks, JIRA Service Desk, KnowAll Research,

ManageEngine Service Desk, Record Time on Intapp, Ref Tracker by Aktarama, Request

Tracker (PTFS), ServiceNow and ZenDesk.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Other

SydneyPlus

Research Monitor

Quest

Onelog

Landesk

KnowAll Enquire

In-house system

None

Enquiry Management systems

In Use

Considering

113

The following 2 charts provide the reader with a graphic presentation of ‘Enquiry Management

systems in use’ by ‘global annual turnover’ and ‘size of firm (fee-earner)’. Those that are ‘being

considered’ by firms can be found in the analysis following the two charts.

Chart 12.3b Enquiry management systems in ‘use’ by global annual turnover

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


Enquiry Management Systems in 'use' by global annual turnover

None

In-house system

KnowAll Enquire

Landesk

Onelog

Quest

Research Monitor

SydneyPlus

Other

114

Chart 12.3c Enquiry management systems in ‘use’ by size of firm (fee-earners)



Within firms with <£20m global annual turnover

50% of respondents are using an in-house system (with 1-199 fee-earners)

Within firms with £20-34m global annual turnover

71% of respondents are not using an enquiry management system (43% with 1-199 fee-



63% are not using an enquiry management system (25% with 1-199 fee-earners, 13% 200-


25% are using ‘other’ enquiry management systems (13% with 1-199 fee-earners and 13%



0% 20% 40% 60%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Enquiry Management Systems in 'use' by size of firm (fee-earners)

None

In-house system

KnowAll Enquire

Landesk

Onelog

Quest

Research Monitor

SydneyPlus

Other

115

44% are not using an enquiry management system (11% with 1-199 fee-earners and 33%


11% are using an in-house system (with 350-599 fee-earners)

11% are using Sydney Plus (with 350-599 fee-earners)

11% are using ‘other’ enquiry management systems (with 250-349 fee-earners)


22% are not using an enquiry management system (with 11% 350-599 fee-earners and 11%


11% are considering an in-house system (with 600-999 fee-earners)

22% are considering Knowall Enquire ( 11% with 350-599 fee-earners and 11% 600-999 fee-

earners)

22% are considering Research Monitor (11% with 350-599 fee-earners and 11% 600-999 fee-

earners)

22% are using ‘other’ enquiry management systems (with 350-599 fee-earners)


20% are not using an enquiry management system (10% with 200-249 fee-earners and 10%

with 1,000+ fee-earners)

30% are using an in-house system (10% with 350-599 fee-earners and 20% with 1,000+ fee-

earners).

10% are considering an in-house system (with 200-249 fee-earners)

20% are considering Knowall Enquire (10% with 200-249 fee-earners and 10% 600-999 fee-

earners)

10% are using Landesk (with 1,000+ fee-earners)

10% are considering Onelog (with 200-249 fee-earners)

20% are using Research Monitor (10% with 600-999 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+ fee-

earners)

10% are considering Research Monitor (with 350-599 fee-earners)

10% are using Sydney Plus (with 1-199 fee-earners)


with 1,000+ fee-earners)

Within firms with £500m+ global annual turnover

8% are not using an enquiry management system (with 350-599 fee-earners)

15% are using Knowall Enquire (8% with 350-599 fee-earners and 8% with 1,000+ fee-

earners)

8% are using Quest (with 1-199 fee-earners)

8% are considering Quest (with 350-599 fee-earners)

23% are using Research Monitor (8% with 1-199 fee-earners and 15% 350-599 fee-earners)

15% are considering Research Monitor (8% with 35-599 fee-earners and 8% 1,000+ fee-

earners)

116


with 600-999 fee-earners)

12.4 Library Management Systems

Chart 12.4a Library Management Systems in use or being considered

(Respondents can select more than one option)


0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Other

Sydney Plus

Softlink

OLIB

Knowall

Heritage

Capita

247lib

None

Library Management systems

In Use

Considering

117

Table 12.4a Library Management Systems in Use or being considered




None 3% 0% 3%

In-house system, e.g., Access database

0% 0% 0%

247Lib 0% 0% 0%

Autolib 2% 0% 2%

Capita 0% 0% 0%

EOS 5% 2% 7%

Heritage 2% 0% 2%

Inmagic 2% 0% 2%

KnowAll 26% 2% 28%

Konduct 0% 0% 0%

OLIB 2% 0% 2%

Penlib 10% 0% 10%

Softlink 7% 0% 7%

Soutron 5% 2% 7%

Sydney Plus 3% 0% 3%

Unicorn 0% 0% 0%

Other 5% 2% 7%

Library Management systems in use or being considered by 25% plus respondents included:

KnowAll

‘Other’ Library Management Systems in use included: ‘Koha’

‘Other’ Library management Systems being considered included: ‘Simply little Library

System’ (Bailey Solutions)

The following 2 charts provide the reader with a graphic presentation of Library management

systems ‘in use’ by ‘global annual turnover’ and ‘size of firm (fee-earner)’. Those that are ‘being

considered’ by firms can be found in the analysis following the two charts.

118

Chart 12.4b Library Management Systems ‘in use’ by global annual turnover

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

<£20m

£20-34m

£34-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


Library Management Systems 'in use' by global annual turnover

Other

Sydney Plus

Soutron

Softlink

Penlib

OLIB

Knowall

Inmagic

Heritage

EOS

Autolib

119

Chart 12.4c Library Management Systems ‘in use’ by size of firm (fee-earners)




50% of respondents are using Penlib (with 1-199 fee-earners)


14% of respondents are using Autolib (with 1-199 fee-earners)

14% of respondents are using Soutron (with 200-249 fee-earners)

29% of respondents are using Penlib (14% with 1-199 fee-earners and 14% 250-349 fee-

earners)

14% of respondents are using Knowall (with 1-199 fee-earners)

14% of respondents are considering Knowall (with 1-199 fee-earners)

14% of respondents are using ‘other’ systems (with 1-199 fee-earners)


13% of respondents are using Inmagic (with 200-249 fee-earners)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

1-199 fee-earners

200-249 fee-earners

250-349 fee-earners

350-599 fee-earners

600-999 fee-earners

1,000+ fee-earners

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Library Management Systems 'in use' by size of firm (fee-earners)

Other

Sydney Plus

Soutron

Softlink

Penlib

OLIB

Knowall

Inmagic

Heritage

EOS

Autolib

120

50% of respondents are using Knowall (25% with 1-199 fee-earners, 13% 200-249 fee-

earners and 13% 350-599 fee-earners)

13% of respondents are using Penlib (with 250-349 fee-earners)



22% of respondents are using Penlib (11% with 250-349 fee-earners and 11% 350-599 fee-

earners)

11% of respondents are using Softlink (with 350-599 fee-earners)

11% of respondents are using Sydney Plus (with 350-599 fee-earners)



11% of respondents are using OLIB (with 600-999 fee-earners)

11% are using Soutron (with 600-999 fee-earners)


10% are using Heritage (350-599 fee-earners)

50% are using Knowall (10% with 200-249 fee-earners, 10% 350-599 fee-earners, 10% 600-

999 fee-earners and 20% 1,000+ fee-earners)

10% are using Softlink (1,000+ fee-earners)

10% are using Soutron (1,000+ fee-earners)

10% are using Sydney Plus (1-199 fee-earners)

10% are using ‘other’ library management systems (1,000+ fee-earners)


23% are using EOS (8% with 1-199 fee-earners and 15% 350-599 fee-earners)

8% are considering EOS (with 350-599 fee-earners)

15% are using Knowall (8% with 1-199 fee-earners and 8% 350-599 fee-earners)

15% are using Softlink (8% with 350-599 fee-earners and 8% 1,000 fee-earners)

8% are considering Soutron (with 1,000+ fee-earners)

15% are using ‘other’ library management systems (8% with 600-999 fee-earners and 8%

1,000+ fee-earners)

Table 12.4b Where there is a Library Management System is it used by offices outside of the UK

and Ireland?

19% of respondents noted that the Library Management System was being used by all

outside offices

15% of respondents noted that the Library management System was being used by some

outside offices

121

2% of respondents noted that the Library Management System was not being used by

outside offices

29% of respondents noted this question was not applicable as although they a Library

Management System they did not have offices outside of the UK and Ireland

Table 12.4c Is your Library Management System hosted externally?

69% of all respondents provided data

Yes No

36% 33%

12.5 Database Access Management Systems

Chart 12.5a Database Access Management Systems in use or being considered


0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Other

Not Known

Research Monitor

Quattrove

Precision

Onelog

None

% of respondents

Database Access Management Systems

In Use

Considering

122

Table 12.5a Database Access Management Systems in use or being considered




None 34% 0% 34%

Onelog 3% 2% 5%

Precision 0% 0% 0%

Quattrove 0% 0% 0%

Research Monitor 22% 9% 31%

Not known 0% 0% 0%

Other 3% 0% 3%

34% of respondents did not use a Database Access Management System

‘Other’ Database Access Management Systems included: PTFS

The following 2 charts provide the reader with a graphic presentation of database access

management systems ‘in use’ by ‘global annual turnover’ and ‘size of firm (fee-earner)’. Those that

are ‘being considered’ by firms can be found in the analysis following the two charts.

123

Chart 12.5b Database Access Management Systems in use and global annual turnover

Chart 12.5c Database Access Management Systems in use by size of firm (fee-earners)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


Database Access Management Systems 'in use' by global annual

turnover

Other

Not known

Research Monitor

Quattrove

Precision

Onelog

None

0% 20% 40% 60%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Database Access Management Systems 'in use' by size of firm (fee-

earners)

Other

Not known

Research Monitor

Quattrove

Precision

Onelog

None

124




50% are not using a database access management system (1-199 fee-earners)


43% do not use a database access management system (29% with 1-199 fee-earners and


14% are considering Research Monitor


75% do not use a database access management system (25% with 1-199 fee-earners, 25%

200-249 fee-earners, 13% 250-349 fee-earners and 13% 350-599 fee-earners)




11% are using Research Monitor (350-599 fee-earners)

11% are considering Onelog (1-199 fee-earners)


22% do not use a database access management system (350-599 fee-earners)

11% use Onelog (600-999 fee-earners)

11% are using Research Monitor (600-999 fee-earners)

22% are considering Research Monitor (350-599 fee earners)




10% use Onelog (200-249 fee-earners)

30% use Research Monitor (10% with 350-599 fee-earners, 10% 600-999 fee-earners and


10% are considering Research Monitor (1-199 fee-earners)


62% are using Research Monitor (15% with 1-199 fee-earners, 23% 350-599 fee-earners, 8%


8% are considering Research Monitor (350-599 fee-earners)

125

12.6 Current Awareness and Aggregator Products

Chart 12.6a Current Awareness and Aggregator Products in use or being considered


0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Other

Not known

Manual extraction of newspapers…

Westlaw Next

Ozmosys

Nexis

Newsedge

Newsdesk -LexisNexis

Manzama

Linex

Lexis Publisher

InfoNgen

Bulletin Pro

Attensa

None

% of respondents

Current Awareness and Aggregator Products

In use

Considering

126

Table 12.6a Current Awareness and Aggregator Products in use or being considered




None 7% 0% 7%

Attensa 2% 0% 2%

Bulletin Pro 0% 9% 9%

InfoNgen 0% 0% 0%

Lexis Publisher 12% 2% 14%

Linex 17% 7% 24%

Manzama 12% 10% 22%

Newsdesk – LexisNexis

12% 12% 24%

Newsedge 2% 0% 2%

Nexis 33% 0% 33%

Ozmosys 7% 0% 7%

Westlaw Next 5% 0% 5%

Manual Extraction of newspapers etc.

12% 2% 14%

Not known 2% 0% 2%

Other 2% 2% 3%

Current awareness and aggregator products used by 30% plus respondents include ‘Nexis’

‘Other’ included: ‘Google News Alerts’ and ‘Signal’

The following 2 charts provide the reader with a graphic presentation of current awareness and

aggregator products ‘in use’ by ‘global annual turnover’ and ‘size of firm (fee-earner)’. Those that are

‘being considered’ by firms can be found in the analysis following the two charts

127

Chart 12.6b Current Awareness and Aggregator Products in use by global annual turnover

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


Current Awareness and Aggregator Products 'in use' by global annual turnover

Other

Not known

Manual Extraction ofnewspapers

Westlaw Next

Ozmosys

Nexis

Newsedge

News Desk

Manzama

Linex

Lexis Publisher

128

Chart 12.6c Current Awareness and Aggregator Products in use by size of firm (fee-earners)




50% use manual extraction of newspapers (1-199 fee-earners)


43% do not use a current awareness product (14% with 1-199 fee-earners, 14% 200-249 fee-

earners and 14% 250-349 fee-earners)

14% are considering Bulletin Pro (200-249 fee-earners)

14% use Linex (1-199 fee-earners)

14% are considering using Linex (200-249 fee-earners)

29% are considering Manzama (14% with 1-199 fee-earners and 14% 200-249 fee-earners)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Current Awareness and Aggregator Products 'in use' by size of firm (fee-

earners)

Other

Not known

Manual Extraction ofnewspapers

Westlaw Next

Ozmosys

Nexis

Newsedge

News Desk

Manzama

Linex

Lexis Publisher

129

14% are considering Newsdesk (1-199 fee-earners)

29% use Nexis (1-199 fee-earners)





13% use Manzama (200-249 fee-earners)

13% use Newsdesk (350-599 fee-earners)

25% use Nexis (13% with 200-249 fee-earners and 13% 250-349 fee-earners)

13% use Westlaw Next (1-199 fee-earners)

13% do not know (1-199 fee-earners)


11% do not use a current awareness product (1-199 fee-earners)

11% are considering Bulletin Pro ( 250-349 fee-earners)

11% are considering lexis Publisher (350-599 fee-earners)



22% are considering Manzama (11% with 250-349 fee-earners and 11% 350-599 fee-earners)




11% are considering manual extraction (250-349 fee-earners)


11% use Attensa (600-999 fee-earners)

11% use Lexis Publisher (350-599 fee-earners)

11% are considering Linex (600-999 fee-earners)




22% use Nexis (11% with 350-599 fee-earners and 11% 600-999 fee-earners)

11% use Ozmosys (350-599 fee-earners)


11% use ‘other’ current awareness products (350-599 fee-earners)



30% use Lexis Publisher (10% with 200-249 fee-earners, 10% 350-599 fee-earners and 10%

1,000+ fee-earners)

10% use Linex (1,000+ fee-earners)

130


30% use Manzama (10% with 1-199 fee-earners, 10% 600-999 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+

fee-earners)

20% are considering Manzama (350-599 fee-earners)


40% are considering Newsdesk (20% with 350-599 fee-earners and 20% with 1,000+ fee-

earners)

10% use Newsedge (350-599 fee-earners)

70% use Nexis (10% with 200-249 fee-earners, 20% 350-599 fee-earners, 10% 600-999 fee-

earners and 30% 1,000+ fee-earners)

10% use Ozmosys (1,000+ fee-earners)




23% use Lexis Publisher (350-599 fee-earners)

46% use Linex (8% with 1-199 fee-earners, 23% 350-599 fee-earners, 8% 600-999 fee-

earners and 8% with 1,000+ fee-earners)



15% use Newsdesk (8% with 350-599 fee-earners and 8% with 1,000+ fee-earners)


38% use Nexis (23% with 350-599 fee-earners, 8% 600-999 fee-earners and 8% 1,000+ fee-

earners)

15% use Ozmosys (8% with 1-199 fee-earners and 8% 350-599 fee-earners)


131

12.7. Company and Business Intelligence Resources

Chart 12.7a Company and Business Intelligence Resources in use or being considered


0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Bloomberg

Catalyst

Cisco

Datamonitor

Dun & Bradstreet

Experian

Fame

Global Data

IBIS World

Key Note

The Lawyer Market Intelligence

Legalinx 7side

Marketline

Mergermarket

Mint

Morning Star

Nexis UK

OneSource

Orbis

Perfect Information - Debt

Perfect Information - Navigator

Perfect Information - UK/International…

Pitchbook

Prequin

Research IQ

Thomson One

Zephyr

Other

Not known

None

% of respondents

Company and Business Intelligence Resources

In Use

Considering

132

Table 12.7a Company and Business Intelligence Resources in use or being considered



In use Considering % of respondents to this survey

Bloomberg 17% 2% 19%

Catalyst (Bureau Van Dijk

0% 0% 0%

Cisco 0% 0% 0%

Datamonitor 0% 0% 0%

Dun & Bradstreet 26% 2% 28%

Experian 12% 0% 12%

Fame (Bureau Van Dijk)

3% 0% 3%

Global Data 2% 0% 2%

IBISWorld 5% 2% 7%

Key Note 0% 0% 0%


12% 2% 14%

Legalinx 7side 31% 0% 31%

Marketline 2% 2% 3%

Mergermarket 17% 2% 19%

Mint (Bureau Van Dijk) 26% 0% 26%

Morning star 3% 0% 3%

Nexis UK 34% 0% 34%

OneSource (Avention) 16% 2% 17%

Orbis (Bureau Van Dijk) 21% 2% 22%

Perfect Information – Debt

14% 0% 14%

Perfect Information – Navigator

31% 0% 31%

Perfect Information – UK/International Private Company Data

2% 0% 2%

Pitchbook 2% 0% 2%

Prequin 12% 0% 12%

Research IQ 0% 0% 0%

Thomson One 9% 0% 9%

Zephyr (Bureau Van Dijk)

2% 0% 2%

Not known 0% 0% 0%

None 5% 0% 5%

Other 0% 0% 16%

Company and Business Intelligence databases in use by 30% plus respondents included:

‘Legalinx 7side’, ‘Nexis UK’ and ‘Perfect Information Navigator’

133

‘Other’ included comments such as: ‘There are 90 more resources with contracts’ and ‘too

many to list’.

‘Other’ databases listed as being in use included: ‘Capital IQ’, ‘Capital Structure’, ‘CRO’,

‘Compliance Complete’, ‘Creditflux’, ‘Creditsafe’, ‘Debtwire’, ‘DebtXplained’, ‘Duedil’,

‘eFinancial News’, ‘EIU’, ‘FT.com’, ‘Global Capital’, ‘Hoovers’, ‘Moody’s’, ‘Structured Credit

Investor’, ‘Private Equity News’, ‘Reorg Research’, ‘Tracker’ and ‘Xtract Research’.

The following 2 charts provide the reader with a graphic presentation of company and business

intelligence resources ‘in use’ by ‘global annual turnover’ and ‘size of firm (fee-earner)’. Those that

are ‘being considered’ by firms can be found in the analysis following the two charts

134

Chart 12.7b Company and Business Intelligence Resources in use by global annual turnover

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Bloomberg

Dun & Bradstreet

Experian

Fame

Global Data

IBIS World


Legalinx 7side

Marketline

Mergermarket

Mint

Morning Star

Nexis UK

OneSource

Orbis

Perfect Inf. - Debt

Perfect Inf. - Navigator

Perfect Inf. - UK Int.

Pitchbook

Prequin

Thomson One

Zephyr

Other

None

% of respondents

Company & Business Intelligence Resources 'in use' by global annual turnover

£500m+

£150-499m

£100-149m

£50-99m

£35-49m

£20-34m

<£20m

135

Chart 12.7c Company and Business Intelligence Resources in use by size of firm (fee-earners)




50% use Mint (1-199 fee-earners)


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Bloomberg

Dun & Bradstreet

Experian

Fame

Global Data

IBIS World


Legalinx 7side

Marketline

Mergermarket

Mint

Morning Star

Nexis UK

OneSource

Orbis

Perfect Inf. - Debt

Perfect Inf. - Navigator

Perfect Inf. - UK Int.

Pitchbook

Prequin

Thomson One

Zephyr

Other

None

% of respondents

Company & Business Intelligence Resources 'in use' by size of firm (fee-

earners)

1,000+

600-999

350-599

250-349

200-249

1-199

136

14% use Dun & Bradstreet (250-349 fee-earners)

14% use Experian (250-349 fee-earners)

14% use Legalinx 7side (250-349 fee-earners)

14% use Mint (1-199 fee-earners)


14% use Perfect Information – Navigator (1-199 fee-earners)

14% use ‘other’ databases (200-249 fee-earners)

14% use ‘none’ (1-199 fee-earners)


38% use Dun & Bradstreet (25% with 1-199 fee-earners, 13% 350-599 fee-earners)


13% use FAME (350-599 fee-earners)

38% use Legalinx 7side (13% with 1-199 fee-earners, 13% 250-349 fee-earners and 13% 350-

599 fee-earners)

25% use Mint (13% with 200-249 fee-earners and 13% 350-599 fee-earners)

25% use Nexis UK (200-249 fee-earners)





22% use Experian (11% with 250-349 fee-earners and 11% 350-599 fee-earners)

11% use FAME (350-599 fee-earners)

11% use IBIS World (1-199 fee-earners)

11% use The Lawyer Market Intelligence (350-599 fee-earners)

33% use Legalinx 7side (11% with 250-349 fee-earners and 22% 350-599 fee-earners)


33% use Nexis UK (11% with 1-199 fee-earners and 22% 350-599 fee-earners)

11% are considering OneSource (1-199 fee-earners)

11% use Orbis (350-599 fee-earners)

11% are considering Orbis (350-599 fee-earners)


11% use Prequin (350-599 fee-earners)


11% use ‘none’ (350-599 fee-earners)



11% are considering Dun & Bradstreet (600-999 fee-earners)


22% use The Lawyer Market Intelligence (11% with 350-599 fee-earners and 11% 600-999

fee-earners)

137

11% use Legalinx 7side (11% with 600-999 fee-earners)


33% use Nexis UK (22% with 350-599 fee-earners and 11% 600-999 fee-earners)

11% use OneSource (350-599 fee-earners)

22% use Perfect Information – Navigator (11% with 350-599 fee-earners and 11% with 600-

999 fee-earners)



30% use Bloomberg (10% with 200-249 fee-earners, 10% 350-599 fee-earners and 10%

1,000+ fee-earners)

40% use Dun & Bradstreet (10% with 350-599 fee-earners, 10% 600-999 fee-earners and


10% use Experian (1,000+ fee-earners)

10% are considering IBIS World (1,000+ fee-earners)

20% use The Lawyer Market Intelligence (1,000+ fee-earners)

40% use Legalinx 7side (10% with 350-599 fee-earners and 30% 1,000+ fee-earners)

40% use Mergermarket (10% with 1-199 fee-earners, 10% 350-599 fee-earners and 20%

1,000+ fee-earners)

40% use Mint (10% with 200-249 fee-earners, 10% 600-999 fee-earners and 20% 1,000+ fee-

earners)

50% use Nexis UK (10% with 200-249 fee-earners, 10% 350-599 fee-earners and 30% 1,000+

fee-earners)

20% use OneSource (10% with 350-599 fee-earners and 10% 1,000 fee-earners)

40% use Orbis (10% with 200-249 fee-earners, 20% 350-599 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+

fee-earners)

10% use Perfect Information – Debt (350-599 fee-earners)

50% use Perfect Information – Navigator (10% with 1-199 fee-earners, 20% 350-599 fee-

earners, 10% 600-999 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+ fee-earners)

10% use Prequin (1,000+ fee-earners)

11% use Thomson One (1-199 fee-earners)

11% use ‘other’ databases (1,000+ fee-earners)


53% use Bloomberg (8% with 1-199 fee-earners, 23% 350-599 fee-earners, 8% 600-999 fee-


8% are considering Bloomberg (350-599 fee-earners)

38% use Dun & Bradstreet (23% with 350-599 fee-earners, 8% 600-999 fee-earners and 8%

1,000+ fee-earners)


8% use Global data (1,000+ fee-earners)

15% use IBIS World (350-599 fee-earners)

138

15% use The Lawyer Market Intelligence (8% with 350-599 fee-earners and 8% 600-999 fee-

earners)

8% are considering The Lawyer Market Intelligence (350-599 fee-earners)

46% use Legalinx 7side (8% with 1-199 fee-earners, 23% 350-599 fee-earners 8% 600-999


8% use Marketline (1,000+ fee-earners)

8% are considering Marketline (350-599 fee-earners)

46% use Mergermarket (8% with 1-199 fee-earners, 15% 350-599 fee-earners, 8% 600-999


8% are considering Mergermarket (350-599 fee-earners)

23% use Mint (15% with 350-599 fee-earners and 8% 1,000+ fee-earners)

15% use Morning Star (8% 1-199 fee-earners and 8% 350-599 fee-earners)

46% use Nexis UK (23% with 350-599 fee-earners, 8% 600-999 fee-earners and 15% 1,000+

fee-earners)

46% use OneSource (15% with 1-199 fee-earners, 23% with 350-599 fee-earners and 8%


54% use Orbis (8% with 1-199 fee-earners, 23% with 350-599 fee-earners, 8% 600-999 fee-


54% use Perfect Information - Debit (15% with 1-199 fee-earners, 23% with 350-599 fee-


62% use Perfect Information - Navigator (8% with 1-199 fee-earners, 31% with 350-599 fee-

earners, 8% 600-999 fee-earners and 15% 1,000+ fee-earners)

8% use Perfect Information - UK/International Private Company Data (1,000+ fee-earners)

8% use Pitchbook (350-599 fee-earners)

38% use Prequin (8% with 1-199 fee-earners, 15% 350-599 fee-earners, 8% 600-999 fee-


31% use Thomson One (15% with 350-599 fee-earners, 8% 600-999 fee-earners and 8%

1,000+ fee-earners)

8% use Zephyr (350-599 fee-earners)

31% use ‘other’ databases (8% with 1-199 fee-earners, 8% 350-599 fee-earners and 15%

1,000+ fee-earners)

139

12.8 Knowledge Management and Search Solutions

Chart 12.8a Knowledge Management and Search Solutions in use or being considered

See table 12.8a below for a percentage breakdown

Table 12.8a Knowledge Management and Search Solutions in use or being considered




None 7% 0% 7%

In-house system 19% 3% 22%

Autonomy IDOL 2% 0% 2%

BA Insight 0% 0% 0%

KnowAll 0% 2% 2%

RAVN Connect 3% 9% 12%

Recommind Decisiv 9% 3% 12%

SharePoint 22% 5% 28%

Solcara Know How 7% 0% 7%

Solcara Legal search 5% 5% 10%

Tikit KHS 5% 0% 5%

Not known 3% 2% 5%

Other 5% 2% 9%

Knowledge Management and Search Solutions in use by 20% plus respondents included:

‘Sharepoint’

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Other

Tikit KHS

Solcara Know How

Recommind Decisiv

KnowAll

Autonomy IDOL

None

% of respondents

Knowledge Management & Search Solutions

In use

Considering

140

‘Other’ included: ‘Evolve’ (does not mention whether in use or considering) ‘Imanage

FileSite’ –(in use), ‘Intrafind’ – (in use) ‘Sysero’ (in use) and ‘Tiger eye’ (considering).

The following 2 charts provide the reader with a graphic presentation of knowledge management

and search solutions ‘in use’ by ‘global annual turnover’ and ‘size of firm (fee-earner)’. Those that

are ‘being considered’ by firms can be found in the analysis following the two charts

Chart 12.8b Knowledge Management and Search Solutions in use by global annual turnover

0% 20% 40% 60%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


Knowledge Management & Search Solutions 'in use' by global annual

turnover

Other

Not known

Tikit KHS

Solcara Legal Search

Solcara Know How

SharePoint

Recommind Decisiv

RAVN Connect

KnowAll

Autonomy IDOL

In-house

None

141

Chart 12.8c Knowledge Management and Search Solutions in use by size of firm (fee-earners)




50% use an in-house system (1-199 fee-earners)

Within firms of 20-34m global annual turnover

29% use SharePoint (14% with 1-199 fee-earners and 14% 250-349 fee-earners)

14% are considering SharePoint ( 200-249 fee-earners)

14% use ‘other’ systems (1-199 fee-earners)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Knowledge Management & Search Solutions 'in use' by size of firm (fee-

earners)

Other

Not known

Tikit KHS

Solcara Legal Search

Solcara Know How

SharePoint

Recommind Decisiv

RAVN Connect

KnowAll

Autonomy IDOL

In-house

None

142


13% use SharePoint (1-199 fee-earners)

13% use Solcara Know How (200-249 fee-earners)

13% are considering Solcara Legal Research (200-249 fee-earners)

13% use Tikit KHS (350-599 fee-earners)

25% use ‘other’ systems (13% 1-199 fee-earners and 13% 200-249 fee-earners)


11% are considering KnowAll (350-599 fee-earners)

11% use RAVN Connect (1-199 fee-earners)

11% use Recommind Decisiv (350-599 fee-earners)


11% are considering Solcara Legal Research (350-599 fee-earners)


11% do not know


22% are considering RAVN Connect (11% with 350-599 fee-earners and 11% 600-999 fee-

earners)

11% use Recommind Decisiv (350-599 fee-earners)


11% are considering SharePoint (350-599 fee-earners)

22% use Solcara Know How (350-599 fee-earners)

11% use Solcara Legal Research (350-599 fee-earners)



10% do not use a system (600-999 fee-earners)

10% use RAVN Connect (200-249 fee-earners)

30% use Recommind Decisiv (10% with 1-199 fee-earners, 20% 350-599 fee-earners)

20% use SharePoint (10% with 200-249 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+ fee-earners)

10% are considering SharePoint (35-599 fee-earners)

20% use Solcara Legal Research (10% with 350-599 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+ fee-earners)

10% are considering Solcara Legal Research (1,000+ fee-earners)

10% use Tikit KHS (350-599 fee-earners)

10% do not know

Within firms of 500m+ global annual turnover

8% use Autonomy (600-999 fee-earners)

23% are considering RAVN Connect (15% with 350-599 fee-earners and 8% 600-999 fee-

earners)

15% are considering Recommind Decisiv (350-599 fee-earners)

143

38% use SharePoint (15% with 1-199 fee-earners, 15% 350-599 fee-earners and 8% 1,000+

fee-earners

8% use Solcara Know How (1,000+ fee-earners)

8% use Tikit KHS (1,000+ fee-earners)

8% do not know

12.9 KYC / AML Services

Chart 12.9a KYC/AML Services in use or being considered


0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

None

192.com

Accelus Screening Online

Accelus World-Check

Accuity Online Compliance

Avention

Callcredit

CallML

Dun & Bradstreet

LexisNexis Risk Solutions…

Market IQ

Not known

Other

% of respondents

KYC / AML Services

In use

Considering

144

Table 12.9a KYC / AML Services in use or being considered




None 22% 0% 22%

192.com 14% 0% 14%

Accelus Screening Online 3% 0% 3%

Accelus World-Check 12% 0% 12%

Accuity Online Compliance 5% 2% 7%

Avention 2% 0% 2%

Callcredit 2% 0% 2%

CallML 3% 0% 3%

Dun & Bradstreet 14% 0% 14%

LexisNexis Risk Solutions (TraceIQ) 0% 2% 2%

Market IQ 2% 0% 2%

Not known 9% 3% 12%

Other 10% 0% 19%

KYC/AML services in use by 14% of respondents included: ‘192.com’ and ‘Dun & Bradstreet’

‘Other’ KYC/AML Services listed included: ‘Complinet’ (does not mention whether in use or

considering), ‘Credit Assist’ (does not mention whether in use or considering), ‘Creditsafe’ (in

use), ‘Equifax’ (in use), ‘Experian’ (in use), ‘Lexis Bridger’ (in use), ‘Lexis Diligence’ (in use),

‘Mint’ (in use), ‘TracelQ’ (does not mention whether in use or considering), and ‘URU’ (does

not mention whether in use or considering)

The following 2 charts provide the reader with a graphic presentation of KYC / AML services ‘in use’

by ‘global annual turnover’ and ‘size of firm (fee-earner)’. Those that are ‘being considered’ by firms

can be found in the analysis following the two charts

145

Chart 12.9b KYC/AML Services in use by global annual turnover

0% 20% 40% 60%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


KYC / AML Services 'in use' by global annual turnover

Other

Not Known

Market IQ

LexisNexis Risk Solutions

Dun & Bradstreet

CallML

Callcredit

Avention


Accelus World-Check


192.com

None

146

Chart 12.9c KYC/AML Services in use by size of firm (fee-earners)




50% use ‘other’ services (1-199 fee-earners


29% do not use a KYC / AML service (14% with 1-199 fee-earners and 14% 200-249 fee-

earners)

43% use 192.com (29% with 1-199 fee-earners and 14% 250-349 fee-earners)

14% use Accuity Online Compliance (1-199 fee-earners)


14% are considering LexisNexis Risk Solutions (1-199 fee-earners)

57% use ‘other’ services (43% with 1-199 fee-earners and 14% 250-349 fee-earners)

0% 20% 40% 60%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% of respondents

Fee-earners

KYC / AML services 'in use' by size of firm (fee-earners)

Other

Not Known

Market IQ

LexisNexis Risk Solutions

Dun & Bradstreet

CallML

Callcredit

Avention


Accelus World-Check


192.com

None

147



earners)

25% use Dun & Bradstreet (13% with 250-349 fee-earners and 13% 350-599 fee-earners)




earners)

11% use 192.com (350-599 fee-earners)

11% use Accelus Screening (350-599 fee-earners)

11% use Accelus World Check (350-599 fee-earners)

22% use Accuity Online Compliance (350-599 fee-earners)

11% use Callcredit (350-599 fee-earners)

11% use CallML (350-599 fee-earners)


11% use Market IQ (350-599 fee-earners)



11% do not use a KYC / AML service (350-599 fee-earners)

22% use 192.com (11% with 350-599 fee-earners and 11% 600-999 fee-earners)

11% use Accelus Screening (350-599 fee-earners)

11% use Accelus World Check (600-999 fee-earners)

11% use CallML (600-999 fee-earners)


22% use ‘other’ services (11% with 350-599 fee-earners and 11% 600-999 fee-earners)


20% do not use a KYC / AML service (10% with 200-249 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+ fee-

earners)

20% use 192.com (10% with 350-599 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+ fee-earners)

20% use Accelus World Check (10% with 600-999 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+ fee-earners)

10% use Dun & Bradstreet (1,000+ fee-earners)

20% do not know (10% with 350-599 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+ fee-earners)

10% know a service is under consideration but do not know which one (1-199 fee-earners)

20% use ‘other’ services (1,000+ fee-earners)

Within firms of 500m+ global annual turnover

8% do not use a KYC / AML service (600-999 fee-earners)

23% use Accelus World Check (8% with 1-199 fee-earners, 8% 350-599 fee-earners and 8%

1,000+ fee-earners)

148

8% are considering Accuity (1,000+ fee-earners)

8% use Avention (350-599 fee-earners)

15% use Dun & Bradstreet (8% with 350-599 fee-earners and 8% with 1,000+ fee-earners)


8% know a service is under consideration but do not know which one (1-199 fee-earners)

15% use ‘other’ services (350-599 fee-earners)

12.10 Document Automation and Proof Reading Software

Chart 12.10a Document Automation and Proof Reading Software in use or being considered


Table 12.10a Document Automation and Proof Reading Software




None 17% 0% 17%

Deal Proof 2% 3% 5%

DealBuilder 2% 2% 3%

HotDocs 3% 0% 3%

Lexis Draft 12% 16% 28%

Xref 9% 5% 14%

Not known 12% 0% 12%

Other 2% 2% 3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

None

Deal Proof

DealBuilder

HotDocs

Lexis Draft

Xref

Not known

Other

% of respondents

Document Automation and Proof Reading Software

In use

Considering

149

17% of respondents did not use Document Automation and Proof Reading Software

12% of respondents used Lexis Draft

12% of respondents did not know.

‘Other’ Document Automation and Proof Reading Software included: ‘Contract Express’ from

Reuters (considering) and In-house system (in use).

The following 2 charts provide the reader with a graphic presentation of document automation and

proof reading software ‘in use’ by ‘global annual turnover’ and ‘size of firm (fee-earner)’. Those that

are ‘being considered’ by firms can be found in the analysis following the two charts.

Chart 12.10b Document Automation and Proof Reading Software in use by global annual turnover

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


Document Automation and Proof Reading Software 'in use' by global

annual turnover

Other

Not known

Xref

Lexis Draft

HotDocs

DealBuilder

Deal Proof

None

150

Chart 12.10c Document Automation and Proof Reading Software in use by size of firm (fee-

earners)




50% do not use document automation and proof reading software (1-199 fee-earners)



29% use Lexis Draft (14% with 200-249 fee-earners and 14% 25-349 fee-earners)

14% are considering Lexis Draft (1-199 fee-earners)


50% do not use document automation and proof reading software (13% with1-199 fee-


13% use Xref (1-199 fee-earners)

13% do not know (250-349)


0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Document Automation and Proof Reading Software 'in use' by size of firm

(fee-earners)

Other

Not known

Xref

Lexis Draft

HotDocs

DealBuilder

Deal Proof

None

151


11% are considering Deal Proof (350-599 fee-earners)

11% use HotDocs (350-599 fee-earners)

11% use Lexis Draft (200-249 fee-earners)

22% are considering Lexis Draft (11% with 1-199 fee-earners and 11% 350-599 fee-earners)


22% are considering Xref (350-599 fee-earners)

11% do not know (350-599)



11% use DealBuilder (350-599 fee-earners)

11% use Lexis Draft (600-999 fee-earners)



10% do not use document automation and proof reading software (1,000+ fee-earners)

20% use Lexis Draft (10% 200-249 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+ fee-earners)


40% do not know (10% with 1-999 fee-earners, 10% 350-599 fee-earners, 10% 600-999 fee-


20% use ‘other’ software (10% with 350-599 fee-earners and 10% 1,000+ fee-earners)


8% use Deal Proof (350-599 fee-earners)

8% are considering Deal Proof (1,000+ fee-earners)

8% use HotDocs (350-599 fee-earners)

8% use Lexis Draft (1,000+ fee-earners)

31% are considering Lexis Draft (8% with 1-199 fee-earners, 8% 35-599 fee-earners, 8% 600-

999 fee-earners and 8% 1,000+ fee-earners)


8% are considering Xref (600-999 fee-earners)


152

13 Training

13.1 To whom and how training is delivered

Chart 13.1a To whom training is offered by global annual turnover

Respondents were entitled to select more than one option and not all respondents will have

provided data.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


To whom training is offered by global annual turnover

Don't provide training

Other

Support staff

Secretaries

>1 PQE

Trainees

Newly qualified lawyers

Partners

153

Chart 13.1b To whom training is offered by size of firm (fee-earners)

Respondents were entitled to select more than one option and not all respondents will have

provided data.

‘Other’ included: ‘we arrange online resource training and research training for anyone’, ‘paralegals’,

‘new starters’ and ‘compliance team’.

From the responses it is clear that all firms provide training of some sort to selective groups of staff.

41% of all respondents noted providing training for all categories of staff. These respondents had

between 1 and 24 FTE library/information staff.

71% of all respondents noted that library staff provided training and 57% noted that vendors

provided training. 57% of all respondents noted having both library staff and vendors providing

training.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% of respondents

Fee-earners

To whom training is offered by size of firm (fee-earners)

Don't provide training

Other

Support staff

Secretaries

>1 PQE

Trainees

Newly qualified lawyers

Partners

154

13.2 The format of training offered

The following two charts provide a graphic presentation of the format of training offered by global

annual turnover and by size of firm (fee-earners).

Chart 13.2a Format of training by global annual turnover

Respondents were entitled to select more than one option.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


Format of training by global annual turnover

Webinars

Video conferencing

Vendor e-learning

Scenario based

One-to-one at desk

In-house e-learning

Group hands-on sessions

Classroom demo/lecture

155

Chart 13.2b Format of training by size of firm (fee-earners)

One-to-one at desk training (71%) and classroom demonstration/lectures (66%) are the more

frequently adopted formats of training offered by respondents.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Format of training by size of firm (fee-earners)

Webinars

Video conferencing

Vendor e-learning

Scenario based

One-to-one at desk

In-house e-learning

Group hands-on sessions

Classroom demo/lecture

156

13.3 Training topics

The following two charts provide a graphic presentation of training topics offered by global annual

turnover and by size of firm (fee-earners).

Chart 13.3a Training offered by global annual turnover


0% 50% 100%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


Training offered by global annual turnover

Other

Legal research andinformation literacy skills

How to use onlinesubscription services

How to use hardcopyresearch materials

157

Chart 13.3b Training offered by size of firm (fee-earners)

‘Other’ formats of training included: ‘the role of information services and how we can assist and

enable research’, ‘questions for summer students and trainees to work on in a classroom setting’,

‘matter inception’, ‘how to use automated templates’, ‘KM product’, ‘how to use in-house

resources, e.g., how to log a query with the help desk and use the catalogue’, ‘business research

skills’ and ‘how to get the best out of the internet’.

0% 50% 100%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Training offered by size of firm (fee-earners)

Other

Legal research andinformation literacy skills

How to use onlinesubscription services

How to use hardcopyresearch materials

158

13.4 Steps taken to prepare for the training of new trainees

Chart 13.4a Preparation for the training of new trainees

Respondents could select more than one option

‘Liaison with Professional Support Lawyers’ (26%), ‘surveying lawyers to identify training needs’

(24%) and ‘no special training offered’ (22%) were the three most popular options selected by

respondents to the survey.

10% of respondents were found to ‘contact trainees before they commenced work with the firm’

and 5% of respondents were found to ‘liaise with Law Schools’.

‘Other’ steps taken included: ‘working together with HR and training committee’, ‘preparing

additional documentation to take away from sessions’, ‘liaise with learning and development team

and specifically those with responsibility for trainees’, ‘liaise with graduate recruitment team’, ‘liaise

with 2nd year trainees for feedback on their experience and what they would have found useful’ and

‘included in firm wide induction programme’.

The two charts below provide a graphic presentation of preparation undertaken for the training

needs of new trainees by global annual turnover and by size of firm (fee-earners)

0% 10% 20% 30%

Other

Survey lawyers to identify…

Liaise with Practice…

Liaise with Law Schools

Contact trainees before…

No special training offered

% of respondents

Preparing for the training of new trainees

% of respondents

159

Chart 13.4b Preparation for the training of new trainees by global annual turnover


0% 20% 40% 60%

<£20m

£20-34m

£35-49m

£50-99m

£100-149m

£150-499m

£500m+

% of respondents


Preparation for the training of new trainees by global annual turnover

Other

Survey lawyers to identifytraining needs

Liaise with PracticeSupport Lawyers


Contact trainees beforethey start work

No special trainingoffered

160

Chart 13.4c Preparation for the training of new trainees by size of firm (fee-earners)


0% 50% 100%

1-199

200-249

250-349

350-599

600-999

1,000+

% of respondents

Fee-earners

Preparation for the training of new trainees by size of firm (fee-earners)

Other

Survey lawyers to identifytraining needs

Liaise with Practice SupportLawyers


Contact trainees before theystart work

No special training offered

161

14 Future Challenges

Table 14.1 Key issues facing law firms 2016/17

Key issue Aware of but not an issue

Not relevant or not of interest

Library training (improving or re-developing)

53% 16% 2%

Moving to online rather than hardcopy resources

40% 31% 0%

Negotiating global or multi-office licences

36% 17% 17%

Mobile or remote working (facilitating of resources)

34% 33% 3%

Reduction in physical space within the library

28% 22% 21%

Staffing levels 26% 22% 22%

Serving a growing number of legal staff in satellite offices

24% 21% 26%

Coordinating the library service globally across the firm

22% 19% 28%

Personalisation of online services, e.g., user-tagging and self-service

21% 29% 21%

Information literacy 17% 43% 9%

Other key challenges 12%

Federated search solution (increasing requirement for)

10% 28% 33%

Embedding librarians into practice areas

7% 24% 38%

Enterprise search solution (increasing requirement for)

7% 33% 31%

Offering library services directly to the firm’s clients

7% 40% 24%

Library as a profit centre – charging for staff time

5% 31% 33%

Outsourcing of your service 3% 17% 50%

A Key issue identified by 50% plus of respondents is ‘improving or re-developing library

training’

An issue that was identified by 50% of respondents as ‘not being relevant or not of interest’

is ‘outsourcing your service’

‘Other’ key challenges noted by respondents included:

‘using technology to automate some elements of the service and bring in new efficiencies’

‘redevelopment of intranet and move to Sharepoint’, ‘how we collect and manage our

know-how’ and ‘improving and automating CA provision’

‘playing a role in KM developments’, ‘AI’ and ‘business developments’

162

‘implementing password monitoring tool’, ‘dealing with post-merger issues in integrating

collections’, ‘implementing new enquiry database’, ‘raising profile of library team

capabilities within the firm’, ‘building partnerships with marketing and RD team’

‘growing demand for support by business function’

‘global budget reduction target’

‘cost cutting - amount of time spent on online services’

The following charts provide a graphic presentation of the ‘key issues’ identified by global annual

turnover and then by size of firm (fee-earners). The headings in the charts have been altered slightly

in some instances to aid clarity. For example ‘increasing requirement for federated search solution’

has been labelled ‘federated search solution’.

163

Chart 14.1a Challenges facing firms with <£20m global annual turnover

‘Other’ included: ‘using technology to automate elements of the service and bring in new

efficiencies’

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Coordinating library servicesglobally across the firm

Embedding librarians intopractice areas

Enterprise search solution(increasingly required)

Federated search solution(increasingly required)

Library training improvement /development

Information literacy


Mobile or remote working(resources)

Moving to online resources

Negotiating licenses (global ormulti-office)

Offering clients a service

Outsourcing your service

Personalisation of onlineservices, e.g., user-tagging and…

Reduction in physical spacewithin the library

Serving satellite offices

Staffing levels

% of respondents

Challenges facing firms with <£20m global annual turnover

Key issue

Aware but not an issue


164

Chart 14.1b Challenges facing firms with £20-34m global annual turnover

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%





Library training improvement/ development





Negotiating licenses (globalor multi-office)



Personalisation of onlineservices, e.g., user-tagging…



Staffing levels

% of respondents

Challenges facing firms with £20-34m global annual turnover

Key issue



165

Chart 14.1c Challenges facing firms with £35-49m global annual turnover

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
















Staffing levels

% respondents


Key issue


Not relevant or not ofinterest

166

Chart 14.1d Challenges facing firms with £50-99m global annual turnover

‘Other’ included: ‘cost cutting, particularly the amount of time spent on online services’

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
















Staffing levels

% of respondents


Key issue



167

Chart 14.1e Challenges facing firms with £100-149m global annual turnover

‘Other’ included: ‘growing demand for support by business function’, ‘implementing password

monitoring tool’, ‘dealing with post-merger issues in integrating collections’, ‘implementing new

enquiry database’, ‘raising profile of library team capabilities’, ‘building partnerships with marketing

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%





Library trainingimprovement /…











Staffing levels

% of respondents


Key issue



168

and RD team’ ‘re-developing intranet and moving to Sharepoint’, ‘how we collect and manage our

know-how’, ‘improving and automating CA provision’.

Chart 14.1f Challenges facing firms with £150-499m global annual turnover

‘Other’ included: ‘playing a role in KM developments’, ‘AI’, ‘business development’

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
















Staffing levels

% of respondents


Key issue



169

Chart 14.1g Challenges facing firms with £500m+ global annual turnover

‘Other’ included: ‘global budget reduction target’

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
















Staffing levels

% respondents

Challenges facing firms with £500m+ global annual turnover

Key issue



170

Chart 14.1h Challenges facing firms with 1-199 fee-earners

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%





Library trainingimprovement /…











Staffing levels

% of respondents

Challenges facing firms with 1-199 fee-earners

Key issue



171

Chart 14.1i Challenges facing firms with 200-249 fee-earners

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
















Staffing levels

% of respondents


Key issue



172

Chart 14.1j Challenges facing firms with 250-349 fee-earners

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
















Staffing levels

% of respondents


Key issue



173

Chart 14.1k Challenges facing firms with 350-599 fee-earners

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%





Library training improvement /development











Staffing levels

% of respondents


Key issue



174

Chart 14.1l Challenges facing firms with 600-999 fee-earners

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
















Staffing levels

% of respondents


Key issue



175

Chart 14.1m Challenges facing firms with 1,000+ fee-earners

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%





Library trainingimprovement / development











Staffing levels

% of respondents

Challenges facing firms with 1,000+ fee-earners

Key issue



176

15. Conclusion

We hope the survey will prove to be a useful tool and would like to thank everyone who took part.

The BIALL President Elect will oversee the survey in the future and the next one is planned for the beginning of

2018.

Date post:	18-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

BIALL ANNUAL LAW FIRM LIBRARY SURVEY...

Documents