In a recent episode of the Bits and bytes for advokater podcast, hosted by the Norwegian Bar Association, Sorainen founder Aku Sorainen shared practical insights into how our firm has successfully built a data-centric culture.
“A data-centric culture doesn’t stand in opposition to being client-centric. All law firms must be client-centric – that’s fundamental. But being data-centric is something additional,” Sorainen said. He explained that everyone in the firm, at all levels, is responsible for entering data into the system, using it exclusively from the system rather than private devices and maintaining data hygiene to ensure the information remains updated and relevant.
Sorainen explained that the firm’s transition towards data-centric operations began early when it established offices across multiple Baltic states. This required visibility into operations across locations – to manage conflicts of interest and cross-sell services to shared clients. “We started measuring data, particularly what partners were entering into the system. It became part of annual partner appraisals: What high-quality business development entries have been made? Not just ‘I had lunch with a client,’ but what was discussed? What insights were gained?” he shared.
Tracking outbound referrals to foreign law firms also became a priority. Sorainen’s team wanted to know what kinds of work were being sent elsewhere and to whom, enabling them to identify valuable cooperation partners. This structured data management helped streamline collaboration and organize key insights systematically.
Building a strong data-centric system
Beyond operational data, the firm began analyzing how lawyers and partners used precedent templates and automated documents. Sorainen observed that different teams, even within the same firm, sometimes favored different tools, which influenced profitability. “I noticed that our M&A team in Estonia sometimes uses different tools than the teams in Latvia or Lithuania, even when working on similar transactions for the same client. One team might favor automated documents; another might rely on precedents. Digging into this revealed differences in profitability between cases – highlighting the impact of how well knowledge management tools are used.”
One of the biggest challenges was ensuring lawyers actually used the centralized system instead of relying on personal document collections stored on laptops. This practice prevents firms from benefiting from shared knowledge. A data-centric approach ensures institutional knowledge is preserved, even when individual lawyers leave the firm. “In traditional law firms, when someone leaves, their knowledge leaves with them. But if you have a strong data-centric system, that knowledge becomes institutionalized,” Sorainen pointed out.
Twenty-five years ago, Sorainen chose a flexible CRM system to suit the firm’s needs, building an integrated platform for case management, invoicing, and revenue tracking. Seven years ago, the firm reevaluated market options but found that most commercial platforms focused too heavily on financial reporting rather than relationship management. As a result, Sorainen rebuilt its system from scratch, keeping CRM at the core. “Client relationships are the foundation. Everything else is derived from that,” he explained.
This system has been in place for seven years, and two years ago, Sorainen spun off the platform into a separate company, Crespect, which now provides the same data-centric infrastructure to other law firms.
