Taxonomy Development

The first step in revising or building a taxonomy should always be to evaluate the effectiveness of current conventions. What works well for the entire firm? Which standards only work well for specific practice areas or users? Which conventions serve little or no purpose? The method for creating the new legal document taxonomy is as simple as translating what is beneficial into the new system and discarding the rest.

If a firm, for example, follows the convention that certain template and master documents in each matter should be read-only for most people (so as to preserve them as templates,) that convention should be translated into the new taxonomy as a standard within each matter, saving user effort and ensuring consistent application of the best practice.

Current conventions work well as a guide, because they evolve from users’ natural innovations. They match how the firm thinks and works, and they feel familiar. Of course, if standards have been very loosely applied, the exceptions can be more common than the rule, and while some users may have a natural inclination for developing intuitive standards, not everyone is so lucky. This often creates the need for a redesigned system in the first place.

Of course, defining and implementing a new legal document taxonomy is not only an opportunity to promote good practices but also bury bad ones. Firms shouldn’t be held hostage by yesterday’s mistakes. Unfortunately, systems that have failed to meet a firm's needs can become standards on which the new system or taxonomy is built. For instance, if a law firm uses a “miscellaneous” classification for documents, and the classification has been over-used, then that standard should be jettisoned from system.

While the process of developing or revising a formal legal document taxonomy is not necessarily painful, it does require focus and effort, as it is often larger and more important than first thought. A well designed system will be tepidly accepted by users. A poorly designed system will be outright rejected.

But don’t get stuck in analysis paralysis. All too often legal document taxonomy discussions come to gridlock because firms try to find rules that match every exception, and compromise between everyone’s preferences. Keep on track by identifying important attributes and functions of documents rather than getting mired in too many details and “what ifs”.

Typically, firms go through two to three iterations of the legal document taxonomy before being prepared to implement. The first one is really just a starting point, something that may be more general than specific but will represent the initial work done by the team. The second and third iterations will incorporate more detail. Keeping this in mind, allow enough time to develop and analyze each iteration the taxonomy just enough to determine if it's ready for final approval.