Lawyers and case managers: outcome centred vs categorical (file) centred GTD projects?

[TronYuuNao]

Hi all,

As I've posted here before, I'm an advocate/litigator in the labour sphere. I have about 50 to 60 cases on the go at any given time. Some take 2-3 years to resolve, some take several months, and some I'm just watching or advising on until that case comes to me (or is otherwise resolved). I have about 8 organizations that I represent and I deal with about 8 counterparts on a regular basis.

To date, I've been creating a numbered project in OmniFocus for each case file. Sometimes, if the file is big, I create a folder for the project which allows for subprojects. I also maintain numbered files in my computer for maintaining the record and reference material. But lately, it just seems like a pain to keep matched up and I dread going into omnifocus with all of these cases, some on hold, some waiting, some really active and time intensive, some active but less intensive. It just feels like my GTD system is not a place to "do" but a stalled vehicle.

So I've been thinking a lot lately about the natural planning model and outcome centred thinking and project naming. And I think I'm going to stop trying to overcategorize my file list, stop worrying so much about which "project (i.e. case) where a task goes and work more from contexts rather than projects, per se.

So, for example, "202001 Jim Jones Arbitration" is no longer a project in my system, but instead is found on my "list" of open files which I can review on my weekly review. The project becomes "Agree to arbitrator for Jim Jones Arbitration (202001)" or "Finish and submit draft brief for Jim Jones (20200). And, according to the natural planning model, I move that along through next actions and not plan too far ahead if I don't really have to. One-off tasks associated with all my files all go into one Area of Focus called "Work" rather than trying to ensure that I have a "project" for every case file in Omnifocus. I'm going to try to trust my reviews to move projects and their "files" forward and incorporate a new review of my open case files list into my weekly review. This way, outcome-centred projects may emerge for each file according to the natural planning model and as a result of a thorough review of my "files" outside Omnifocus rather than within it.

We'll see how this goes. I hope that this may help me in that everything in my OF has clear outcomes, that it is actionable and does not appear "stalled". In short, I'm going to test and see to what extent outcome centred naming matters and is superior to maintaining a list of all my open files in my "todo" system.

For those of you managing "files" rather than "projects" on regular ongoing basis, I'm curious to hear how you approach this - and if you yourself would feel comfortable pulling the case files out of your task/project system, and manage those files somewhere else as a separate list.

Any other thoughts or insights are welcome, thanks for reading.

 

[Pgrady13]

Following. Just starting to use a modified GTD in my practice. Looking to incorporate ”capture” and “delegate” into my practice management software Clio. Any advice or other resources would be much appreciated.

 

[Ger80C]

Hello talundb,

First of all let me say that I am really happy to meet/read from other legal practitioners using GTD. There are not enough of us utilizing this systematic approach, to my mind!

I am a lawyer dealing with commercial contracts and commercial litigation and arbitration, and I feel your pain! As may every GTD practitioner that deals with larger "projects" and "customers".

I use a similar approach than you describe. I, however, only record subprojects with an intermediate step as outcome (such as brief drafting, review of draft v2, arbitrator selection etc.) where the case is so large that many subprojects exist in parallel. I mainly only record the "end goal", i.e. I list ongoing matters (such lists exist for the purposes of tracking deadlines and for reporting purposes anyhow) as part of my project list. I also keep a separate list of my clients. I review both in my weekly review.

This is working fine for me. I try to only record projects that are tied to a tangible outcome, though, so the matter is not recorded as "matter1234" but as "Coyote x Roadrunner - contract drafted and negotiated to the benefit of my client". This helps me stay focused and motivated.

In commercial you usually do not have 50-60 smaller matters open but rather 10-30 cases, so this works. Adding up the concrete subprojects to bigger cases, the maintenance/administrative, CLE and marketing projects lets me end up with around 50-70 projects, and this still works for me.

Regards
Sebastian

 

[GTDengineer]

I’m not a lawyer, but my experience may relate to your situation. I plan my engineering projects which have a 2-3 year development cycle in great detail in a Gantt chart which resides in my file system. This plan used a hierarchy, with many sub projects during the cycle.

I would not attempt to track the entire project in my GTD system. It’s not meant for that. Instead, I track the currently active sub-project(s) from the Gantt chart in my GTD projects list, and the next action from each sub project in my GTD actions list. I use my weekly review to make sure my GTD system is synced up with the overall project Gantt chart.

 

[TronYuuNao]

Hi all,

Thanks so much for the thoughtful replies!

I think that one thing that has really bothered me is my tendency to strictly structure things. By that I mean, I've always struggled with "is a casefile, as a type, a project or an Area or something in between?" and aligning that with the fact that casefiles can be at various stages of actionability and various scales. But the more I've been thinking about GTD the method is not really about the structure of things, but about the lists you use to get things off your mind. A list of casefiles or clients is just that, a list. Some case file names or clients can also be a project on the project list, or they can just be on another "list" of "pending" files that I review weekly and may encourage the creation of other "sub" projects or actions.

I use a similar approach than you describe. I, however, only record subprojects with an intermediate step as outcome (such as brief drafting, review of draft v2, arbitrator selection etc.) where the case is so large that many subprojects exist in parallel. I mainly only record the "end goal", i.e. I list ongoing matters (such lists exist for the purposes of tracking deadlines and for reporting purposes anyhow) as part of my project list. I also keep a separate list of my clients. I review both in my weekly review.

This was helpful, and I think it validates the road I'm now going on. I'm realizing that good organization does not mean forcing a structure when one is not required.

The other thing that has helped in the short term, surprisingly, is discarding my need to have actions linked explicitly to projects as well as contexts in my system. For years, using omnifocus, I've refused to believe that that David Allen and his army could be at all right about that having any value whatsoever. But in hindsight, I really was wasting a lot of time and mental energy deciding what project an action goes to when it comes up on my list when really I just need to think about whether I'm going to defer/do/delegate. On the flipside, rather than plan to far ahead on project tasks (and thus deciding on what "context" this might be done in the future") I've been trusting the project support notes to help generate a next action when the time is right.

Third, the "give every project an action" and "make every case file a project" was seriously seizing up my workflow. If half my cases are waiting for arb dates to be scheduled over the next three months, do I really need to keep reviewing those projects again and again? Just put a note in the Waiting for list and move that case off the projects list. Or even better, create a list just for cases on the docket for regular review!

So I'm trying this out, it feels more loose and a bit free-ing, although I'm still a bit skeptical that context based rather than project based workflow is better. But at a runway level, I can certainly see how it frees the mind. I've realized now after several years that the most difficult part of GTD is not strictly adhering to the system, but rather making the system your own. It really is about designing lists that suit your specific situation and not trying to create some Rube Goldberg machine of productivity.

 

[slwoitena]

Any thoughts for a CPA in mid level management in a public accounting firm trying to set up GTD? My list constantly overwhelm me.

 

[Ger80C]

I think that one thing that has really bothered me is my tendency to strictly structure things. By that I mean, I've always struggled with "is a casefile, as a type, a project or an Area or something in between?" and aligning that with the fact that casefiles can be at various stages of actionability and various scales.

I know the feeling! Case management and client management spawns "meta-projects" and "meta-layers" and one has to define its way to manage these. Most important is that you always remember that this systematic approach is flexible, maybe the most flexible one - and therefore the most "realistic" one - you will find on this planet. For me, tracking those things without sub-project-division works (as depicted above), but you could totally impose a rather firm structure with the client as a top project group, the case as a main project layer and specific steps in each litigation as projects. You then should treat them differently in the weekly review: the main (sub)projects will need (and generate) next actions, the super-projects are just for review and overview purposes, maybe also for reporting purposes ("what's your caseload").

But the more I've been thinking about GTD the method is not really about the structure of things, but about the lists you use to get things off your mind. A list of casefiles or clients is just that, a list. Some case file names or clients can also be a project on the project list, or they can just be on another "list" of "pending" files that I review weekly and may encourage the creation of other "sub" projects or actions.

You are absolutely on point!

This was helpful, and I think it validates the road I'm now going on. I'm realizing that good organization does not mean forcing a structure when one is not required.

Or, to change that message a bit: Only impose structure where *you* require it. Just enough that you feel comfortable and not "over-structured". It varies with every implementation, even if the system used (e.g. Omnifocus, Outlook, Paper...) is the same.

The other thing that has helped in the short term, surprisingly, is discarding my need to have actions linked explicitly to projects as well as contexts in my system.

Yes, this realization can help. I don't do this as I have been using Outlook for a long time where this is rather difficult to implement (in my mind) and am now about to switch to either an excel file or a text file (trying to keep things simple, don't like the restraints of software).

If you look closely, linking projects to next actions is nowhere to be found in the book - it is not part of the overall systematic approach, which makes sense since the approach is system/tool-agnostic.

Practicing GTD this way means the weekly review gets even more important (in terms of tying projects and actions together).

For years, using omnifocus, I've refused to believe that that David Allen and his army could be at all right about that having any value whatsoever. But in hindsight, I really was wasting a lot of time and mental energy deciding what project an action goes to when it comes up on my list when really I just need to think about whether I'm going to defer/do/delegate.

This is *exactly* why I switched to paper for my private/personal system. I had an epiphany when I wanted to enter an action and Omnifocus more or less "forced" me to look for a project. I thought: You would have been free to engage after having recorded the next action, instead Omnifocus forces you to switch to meta-mode and engage with your system instead with your life. This was a powerful moment for me, I now know that I was rather "playing" GTD than using it for some time in the last months.

Again, this is a very personal approach to GTD, I fully understand that some people live on the opposite side of the fence and say "without tying a n/a to a project, I cannot engage with something else". It comes down to David's main message: Do as much planning and systematizing as *you* need to feel free and appropriately engaged, nothing more, nothing less. And this versatility makes GTD so, so, so much more powerful than any "1-2-3-,do this do that" approach out there!

On the flipside, rather than plan to far ahead on project tasks (and thus deciding on what "context" this might be done in the future") I've been trusting the project support notes to help generate a next action when the time is right.

...and that's all right too. If your "legal life" is somewhat similar to mine, you rewrite those project plans all the time...

Third, the "give every project an action" and "make every case file a project" was seriously seizing up my workflow. If half my cases are waiting for arb dates to be scheduled over the next three months, do I really need to keep reviewing those projects again and again? Just put a note in the Waiting for list and move that case off the projects list. Or even better, create a list just for cases on the docket for regular review!

Great idea! A separate "docket/waiting-for" is perfect if you have a high caseload. You can also use the tickler file/calendar system to spark a regular review in larger intervals, and disregard the list in your standard weekly review. That keeps your weekly review swift and manageable, and at the same time you get reminders of the cases on the docket regularly.

So I'm trying this out, it feels more loose and a bit free-ing, although I'm still a bit skeptical that context based rather than project based workflow is better.

I think this opens up another discussion / food for thought: What are your contexts? Do they help you to subdivide your next actions?

But at a runway level, I can certainly see how it frees the mind. I've realized now after several years that the most difficult part of GTD is not strictly adhering to the system, but rather making the system your own. It really is about designing lists that suit your specific situation and not trying to create some Rube Goldberg machine of productivity.

Couldn't agree more!

Cheers
Sebastian