Few would disagree that IT now is central to the delivery of legal services.

But technology - and new management practices driven by it - is not without its dangers.

For some firms, heavy inve stment in IT has not brought the anticipated benefits but has caused severe problems instead.Bristol practice Clarke Wilmott & Clarke found the firm's IT cart firmly positioned before the legal horse.

The needs of everyday management of the firm's IT systems increasingly disrupted the course of normal legal business.

In one instance, desktop maintenance prevented a litigator from preparing a court case.

Ultimately the firm arrived at the view that the IT department no longer regarded fee earners or the core legal business as its clients.'The department ceased to realise our business as lawyers,' explains managing partner David Sedgwick.

He attributes this attitude to lack of commerciality.

'Lots of IT people are not commercially driven,' he says.

'They look at IT as an academic exercise.'The solution Clarke Wilmott & Clarke found was to sign a massive £1.9 million deal over a period of three years with Quiss Technology, an IT outsourcing company, to contract out its entire IT department.

The firm will spend more than its current IT budget but a sum substantially less than the future projections made by its former IT department.

Mr Sedgwick remains optimistic that the firm will get better value for money as a result.Winner of the 1997 Society for Computers and Law Award, Exeter firm Rundle Walker - a practice commended for its innovative use of IT - takes a different view.

Managing partner Nick Sanders encourages lawyers at the firm 'to get their hands dirty' and learn about computer software themselves.

'If you treat IT as a separate part of the business and not as an integral part of the whole system it will lead to problems,' he explains.Rundle Walker's IT is principally run in-house but the firm contracts out some of its IT needs, such as support for systems administration and specialist network services.'The problem which often arises with law firms is that the business works for the IT department rather than the other way round,' says Mr Sanders.

'We retain enough expertise to deal with household tasks, such as setting up new network PCs or in-house training.'John Irving, an IT consultant and joint chairman of the Society for Computers and Law, explains that in the past high technology costs forced firms towards outsourcing, but as capital costs fell many firms preferred to buy and manage their own technology.Driven by the standardisation of software systems, outsourcing has once again become a viable business option for legal firms.

But for Mr Irving there is one golden rule - do not outsource something which is strategically important.He concedes that both hardware and systems maintenance can always be contracted out, as can training.

However, he adds: 'I'd be very reluctant to outsource anything to do with case management and knowledge management because it is strategically important to the law firm - and commercially risky.'He recalls one case in which a director of IT maintained he could make more money for the company by outsourcing the firm's in-house facility as a separate business profit centre.

The firm's partners took a different view, that this was not to be part of the law firm's core business.

As a result the IT director and law firm parted company.'Outsourcing is a valid option where you've got standard systems in a stable environment', says Mr Irving.

But he warns: 'It shouldn't be used as a knee-jerk short term reaction to cut costs.'City law firm Bird & Bird has built up its IT department during the past decade.

The firm currently employs an IT Director with ten full-time staff to delive r a support service and development infrastructure in-house.

The firm outsources services when there is a perceived business need and has developed its in-house facility on the same basis.

Dominic Cook is one of two partners involved in overseeing the IT framework.

He explains: 'If the network crashes the implications are huge - by necessity the investment we make in IT is huge.

Our clients expect a service from us within a time scale for a particular task - we can't do it unless we have reasonable expertise.'As a result Bird & Bird has developed its own in-house training seminar for IT personnel on client care.

Mr Cook says: 'Unless the service mentality is instilled in all our staff we cannot deliver the proper client care.'John Yates, an IT lawyer and managing partner with Rotherham firm Oxley & Coward, has overseen IT expenditure of £500,000 at the practice over three years.

The medium-sized law firm has a number of support staff who deal with routine PC housekeeping such as rebooting computer systems and installing PCs and software.

But on site, the firm has only one full time IT specialist to oversee a network of five servers and 66 PCs.For Mr Yates, the benefits of outsourcing operational services are straightforward.

But he would be reluctant to contract out Oxley & Coward's entire IT facility.

He says: 'From a management point of view I think it's important that the customer retains someone on site to manage the contract, otherwise you're going in blind, and putting yourself potentially at mercy of the supplier.'Continuity of service and support is high on the agenda for all lawyers but opinion is divided on how best to provide it.

Some lawyers feel continuity of service is better maintained with a specialist service provider because the quality of service is not dependent on key personalities within the firm.

Conversely, other lawyers maintain that continuity of service is best achieved with an in-house IT support resource.Where all lawyers agree is that technology works best when used as an enabler - and not a means for IT departments to create a business within a business.

Technology is the plumbing through which the firm's core business is carried.

The challenge for lawyers is to find the best methods to exploit it.Mr Yates sums up: 'Try before you buy.

Outsourcing should be approached rather like a modern marriage - couples should get to know each other before they tie the knot, to avoid making mistakes they will regret for the rest of their lives.'