Four ‘considerations’ to ensure law firm online training suppliers offer value and expertise

Why should online training be secondary to in-person training? Answer: it shouldn't!  

 Although the online learning space can be daunting to those in traditional firms, this generation of legal L&D professionals have been quick to adapt. Yet even these computer-savvy millennials still struggle with all the variables. The following four "considerations" will help even the most computer-sceptical teams choose the best online providers for their training objectives.

Consideration #1: Reasonable pricing

Without the need for fancy hotels and travel expenses, the online trainer is already lowering the high cost of great training. Then why is online training for law firms still at a premium?

 Because many trainers in the legal field are sole proprietors and consultants that have a minimum rate based on in-house training that requires travel. For example, when I travel to Japan or India it requires at least an additional day before and after the training for flights.

But when an online business model is used, then the training suppliers effectively have zero travel days, and therefore can arguably spend up to half their time doing other courses. Even though the providers are arguably offering the ‘same’ training, they haven’t needed to get out of their house slippers to do it.

My company adjusted our prices 25% lower for online versions of live training already in 2018. This is a good pricing benchmark across the board and might give reluctant partners an incentive to go online. Basically, L&D professionals should

feel open to negotiate with providers for a lower online than in-person price.

 Consideration #2 Simple IT functionality

Making sure your providers have competent use of IT systems is crucial for successful training. Think of this as a ‘tickbox’ of IT functionality that modern online training should have, including easy access points, LMS systems that make sense, and the least possibility for user error. 

All platforms should have easy access. 

Oftentimes providers use their own platform but the best-case-scenario is that the training takes place on the firm's internal system. This ensures you have the data from the course and minimize the learning curve of new technologies.

LMS Systems can capture data and simplify learning, but can also be complex and hard to integrate. Although Moodle or Canvas will capture data and offer robust self-study options, MS Teams and Zoom can can be useful for live and recorded training. Most larger law firms have a budget for a premium LMS, but the needs of specific firms vary, so instead of paying a premium for new tools, ensure the trainer is competent in your existing system: or your people are competent in the system used by the trainer.

Although we can bemoan ‘technology issues’, we can also create an environment with the lowest-possibility for user error. I mean ‘user’ as the computer developer term for every person in the system. Students, teachers, guests, admin, etc. are all simply ‘users.’ What happens with each click by the user?  What options does the user have to click, swipe, motion, on any given page?  Based on your user profile, you can be led quickly and easily to a goal, or make tremendous errors and get lost along the way.  In fact, the more options you have as a user the more chance to mess something up - hence the need for ‘super-admin.’ The best systems minimize your risk of error by following a principle of least possible interactions for users to reach a goal.

Consideration #3 Multiple modes of instruction

Synchronous or asynchronous?  Chat rooms, breakout rooms, whiteboard, video/audio mix

whiteboard, breakout rooms, chat with file, and polls - all terms thrown around in today’s modern mix of technology-enhanced learning.  But this has been piled onto an already complex combination of competencies, learning styles, multiple intelligences, and various in-person formats - presentation, lecture, workshop, blended learning, self-study. The list goes on.

With even basic LMS systems like Moodle, competencies and frameworks can be embedded into the training design. Multiple modalities, such as recorded video, live training, file sharing, group discussion, automated activities, and testing can be employed in most systems.  Consider a training provider based on their ability to

appropriately match the modality with the content of their training.

For most online learners, a one-hour lecture is too long, whereas a 2-hour interesting podcast conversation is just right.  Live training has been the norm in law firms for millennia. Now that everyone has smart phones, lawyers can read short documents, respond to group interactions, or complete ‘micro-learning’ type activities while on the go or between trials. Yet if their attention isn’t fully engaged, it will slip away into something different. It is important to ensure your providers are using multiple modes of instruction that keep the user's attention on the training.

Consideration #4 Flexible scheduling

 If time is the #1 issue lawyers have with training, then why do some providers and L&D departments require 3-6 hours or longer for online sessions?

Easier scheduling and less travel are commonly cited benefits of online learning - but ‘time’ used effectively has even better benefits: it can create more lawyer engagement and improved learning outcomes. Online methods can be both spread as thin as minutes, to over weeks and months, and provided at times when lawyers aren’t being distracted by ‘billable time’, for example before work or at lunch.

When the coronavirus hit we moved our half and full-day Legal Writing courses online. On various occasions we suggested multiple one-hour sessions, but about half of the firms resisted this change, opting for the ‘allotted time block’ of three to eight hours.  Instead of trying to explain the value of shorter, more frequent learning intervals, we innovated ‘Drop-in’ Legal Writing Lunch sessions. So now, for a lower price than usual, lawyers could join any live session when they have exactly an hour on a Wednesday to get off the legal treadmill.

The idea was backed by L&D professionals who started to pitch to us their schedule ideas. So the law firm L&D departments organized our time for their benefit. 

The takeaway of the scheduling story is this:

ask training providers to fit the best schedule for the law firm.

Usually a “no” or “I can’t do it” reveals only that the provider has difficulty splitting their training into smaller intervals. But this is quite simple and with a little push most providers will adapt to your needs. From our experience, scheduling for non-billable time, or specific training hours, are beneficial ways to keep participants ‘zoomed in’ to the training.

Whether zoomed in or videocall-fatigued out, these four "considerations" will help firms get top quality online training with the best price, functionality, modality, and scheduling possible.