Exploring Knowledge Sharing Motivational Factors for Intellectual

Property Lawyers: A Conceptual Framework

Nopphawat Ariyahchatraweekul

1 a

, Mongkolchai Wiriyapinit

2 b

and Jintavee Khlaisang

3 c

Technology Management and Innopreneurship Program, Graduate School, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

Department of Commerce, Chulalongkorn Business School, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

Center of Excellence in Educational Invention and Innovation, Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

Keywords: Knowledge Sharing, Lawyer, Intellectual Property, Law Firm.

Abstract: This study aims to explore the motivational factors affecting knowledge sharing among lawyers in intellectual

property law firms. Through an integrative review of existing empirical and theoretical literature, the research

develops a conceptual framework to understand these motivational factors. The findings identify eight key

extrinsic factors and two intrinsic factors influencing knowledge sharing for lawyers in intellectual property

law firms. This research provides valuable insights into motivational factors that can be used by intellectual

property law firms to improve knowledge sharing practices among lawyers.

1 INTRODUCTION

Intellectual property law is a complex legal field due

to the diversity of intellectual property (IP) types,

such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade

secrets. Each type of IP is governed by specialized

laws. In Thailand, patents for inventions, utility

models, and design patents fall under the Patent Act

B.E. 2522 (1979), which is considered the most

complex IP law compared to others. Lawyers and

legal counsels specializing in IP law must not only

understand the legal texts but also possess technical

knowledge in scientific and technological fields, such

as engineering, chemistry, biotechnology, and

pharmacy. This interdisciplinary expertise is essential

for effective prior art searches, legal opinions, patent

drafting, rights protection, infringement prevention,

and litigation (Levin & Cross, 2004).

IP law firms are unique in that they require

personnel with specialized knowledge in both IP law

and related technical fields. Besides lawyers, these

firms often employ scientists and technologists, who

may be either legal professionals with additional

science and technology education or experts with

scientific and technological qualifications.

https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7925-4055

https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4959-9225

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7572-9782

Collaboration and knowledge sharing among these

professionals are crucial for providing comprehensive

legal services to clients, which distinguishes IP law

firms from general law firms where lawyers typically

work independently (Levin & Cross, 2004). The core

operations of IP law firms are knowledge-intensive,

requiring in-depth legal expertise and professional

skills to advise clients on IP protection and utilization.

The rapid advancement of technology and

globalization have transformed the legal profession,

increasing the demand for adaptable, knowledgeable,

and skilled lawyers (Flood, 2012). Efficient

knowledge sharing among legal professionals within

law firms has become more important to facilitate

continuous learning and mutual assistance (Gardner,

2019). Knowledge sharing is the process of

exchanging tacit and explicit knowledge between

individuals or groups to utilize or create new

knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). For IP

lawyers, tacit knowledge includes legal analysis, case

prediction, negotiation, and understanding client

industries, all of which require experience. Explicit

knowledge involves documented legal texts, legal

opinions, court decisions, and IP application

preparation.

Ariyahchatraweekul, N., Wiriyapinit, M. and Khlaisang, J.

Exploring Knowledge Sharing Motivational Factors for Intellectual Property Lawyers: A Conceptual Framework.

DOI: 10.5220/0012995900003838

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2024) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 287-294

ISBN: 978-989-758-716-0; ISSN: 2184-3228

287

Client trust in law firms is built not only on the

reputation of individual lawyers but also on the firm’s

collective expertise in specific legal fields. Effective

legal services depend on the knowledge capital within

the firm (Forstenlechner, Lettice, Bourne, & Webb,

2007). Studies have shown that knowledge

management can support legal services, and

knowledge sharing, as a part of knowledge

management, is crucial for law firms (Zeide &

Liebowitz, 2012; Kabene et al., 2006). Successful law

firms focus on best practices for utilizing their

personnel’s knowledge (Fombad, Boon, & Bothma,

2009). According to Lambe (2003), law firms operate

in a highly competitive and constantly changing

environment, necessitating efficient knowledge

sharing for maintaining expertise.

However, research by Schulz & Klugmann (2005)

indicates that implementing knowledge management

systems in law firms often faces challenges due to

lack of acceptance. Many legal professionals may not

recognize the importance of such systems or may

view them as disruptive to traditional practices. This

resistance can be particularly strong among senior

lawyers who may see knowledge management as

unnecessary, despite its potential benefits for

professional practice.

Research by Meso, Bosire, & Massey (2023)

highlights the importance of knowledge management

in enhancing law firm performance. Their study in

Nairobi, Kenya, involving 222 law firms, found that

86.5% of respondents recognized the importance of

knowledge management, and 64.9% noted its positive

impact on their firms’ efficiency. They emphasized

the need for investments in information and

communication technology to support knowledge

management.

Adeyemi et al. (2022) studied knowledge transfer

and use in Nigerian law firms, finding significant

positive correlations between these practices and firm

performance. Knowledge sharing through meetings,

training, seminars, and collaborative work improved

creativity, financial performance, and client

satisfaction.

Holinde (2015) identified intrinsic and extrinsic

motivational factors influencing knowledge sharing

in law firms. Intrinsic factors include altruism and

self-efficacy, while extrinsic factors involve

organizational rewards, reciprocity, and the use of

technology.

Research by Kabene et al. (2006) identified six

critical factors for successful knowledge management

in law firms: culture, trust and loyalty, communities

of practice, human resources roles, motivation and

rewards, and the role of technology.

The absence of effective knowledge-sharing

systems in law firms can lead to knowledge loss,

inconsistent legal service quality, and hindered

innovation (Schulz & Klugmann, 2005; Saunders,

2011; Evans et al., 2015). Despite existing research,

there is limited empirical study on knowledge sharing

among lawyers and the motivational factors affecting

this process in IP law firms. The complexity of IP

laws, the conflicts between the IP laws of different

countries protecting intellectual property rights, and

the challenges posed by emerging technologies create

numerous IP touchpoints and uncertainties.

Given the importance and challenges mentioned

above, as well as the lack of existing research on IP

lawyers in IP law firms regarding the motivational

factors influencing knowledge sharing, this study

aims to explore the factors influencing knowledge

sharing among IP lawyers and in IP law firms. The

findings will contribute to identifying key

motivational factors that significantly influence

knowledge sharing among lawyers in law firms. This

is achieved through an integrative review of existing

empirical and theoretical literature, which also

proposes a conceptual framework. The research

question for this study is: What are the motivational

factors affecting knowledge sharing among lawyers

in IP law firms?

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The authors conducted an integrative review of

existing empirical and theoretical literature to provide

a comprehensive understanding of knowledge

sharing among lawyers in law firms. The review

identifies both extrinsic and intrinsic motivational

factors that influence knowledge sharing and offers

insights into how these factors can foster knowledge

sharing within law firms.

2.1 The Importance of Intellectual

Property Law and Its Challenges in

the Digital Era

The World Intellectual Property Organization

(WIPO) indicates that hat in today’s rapidly evolving

world, IP and intangible assets are gaining increasing

significance. One of the crucial challenges is to

ensure that the current IP system continues to foster

innovation in the era of advanced technologies,

thereby driving economic growth globally.

Additionally, IP has become the most valuable asset

class worldwide (Ogier, 2016).

KMIS 2024 - 16th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

288

Intellectual property protection is provided by

laws such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks,

which allow individuals to gain recognition or

financial benefits from their inventions or creations.

By balancing the interests of innovators with those of

the public, the IP system creates an environment

conducive to creativity and innovation. IP covers a

broad range of activities and is vital to both cultural

and economic life, safeguarded by various national

and international laws (WIPO, 2020).

The digital economy has had an impact on IP law,

as evidenced by legislation addressing cybersquatting

and significant advancements in legal and economic

protections (Kahn & Wu, 2020). The emerging of

generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as

ChatGPT, Midjourney, Copilot and Firefly, presents

numerous IP issues and uncertainties regarding IP

infringement, IP rights ownership of AI-generated

outputs. To mitigate risks concerning IP rights and

ownership of AI outputs, it is essential to review the

terms and conditions of generative AI tools to

determine who owns the intellectual property in the

outputs (WIPO, 2024).

2.2 The Role and Types of Intellectual

Property Law Firms

Sammon (2024) highlights the key roles of IP law

firms. Firstly, they must serve as reliable business

advisors, understanding each client’s specific needs

and business context to provide tailored legal advice,

even for seemingly simple tasks like trademark

registration. Beyond protecting IP rights, IP law firms

should help clients plan and implement IP strategies,

identify valuable IP assets, and secure the necessary

protections.

Sammon categorizes IP law firms into two types:

traditional and modern.

Traditional IP Firms operate as partnerships with

partners, associate attorneys, solicitors, trainees, and

paralegals. They offer services on fixed fees and

hourly rates, including:

▪ Assessing IP infringement risks

▪ Filing applications for IP protection

▪ Advising on IP acquisition from state offices

▪ Litigating IP infringement cases

▪ Defending against IP infringement lawsuits

▪ Renewing registered IP rights

▪ Advising on copyright issues.

Modern IP Firms have emerged due to regulatory

modernization and alternative business structures.

They offer flexible fee structures, addressing

concerns about hourly rates and providing budget

clarity, which benefits startups and SMEs. This

approach helps clients plan their budgets effectively

and make informed decisions about their projects

without financial uncertainty.

2.3 Knowledge Management in Law

Firms

Client trust in law firms is built not only on the

reputation of the lawyers but also on their knowledge,

skills, and expertise in specific legal areas. Effective

legal services depend on the knowledge capital that

the law firm possesses (Forstenlechner, Lettice,

Bourne, & Webb, 2007). According to Zeide &

Liebowitz (2012), knowledge management supports

lawyers in delivering legal services, with knowledge

sharing being a crucial aspect, driven by lawyers’

accumulated experience (Kabene et al., 2006).

Therefore, law firms focus heavily on best practices

for utilizing their personnel’s knowledge (Fombad,

Boon, & Bothma, 2009). In legal practice, knowledge

management involves applying legal knowledge to

specific client issues to find solutions. Lawyers

represent clients in legal matters, present evidence

and legal arguments, and advise on legal rights and

obligations. Effective knowledge management can

enhance service quality and client satisfaction,

particularly in knowledge-intensive organizations

like law firms (Gottschalk, 2002).

Many researchers focus on knowledge

management in law firms (Rusanow, 2003; Edwards

& Mahling, 1997; Gottschalk, 1999; Parsons, 2004;

Du Plessis, 2004; Holinde, 2015; Meso et al., 2023).

Law firms are particularly suited for knowledge

management research due to their reliance on

knowledge to operate and create value

(Forstenlechner, 2005). Key aspects of knowledge

management include improving organizational

efficiency through knowledge control (Van Engers,

2001).

Effective knowledge management in law firms

reduces errors, avoids duplication, solves problems

faster, and enhances decision-making (Olson, 1971;

Hayek, 2013; Coase, 1937). It also strengthens client

relationships and improves services. However, law

firms need ongoing support for knowledge

management implementation and improvement.

Some firms have introduced roles like Chief

Knowledge Officer (CKO) to facilitate knowledge

management and drive innovation (Apistola &

Gottschalk, 2012).

Exploring Knowledge Sharing Motivational Factors for Intellectual Property Lawyers: A Conceptual Framework

289

2.4 Knowledge Sharing Among

Lawyers in Law Firms

Knowledge sharing is essential for transforming law

firms into learning organizations. Clients expect

excellent legal services, including prompt and robust

communication from lawyers. Effective knowledge

sharing and collaboration within teams enhance law

firm performance (Apistola & Gottschalk, 2012). Van

den Brink (2003) emphasizes that knowledge sharing

is a prerequisite for knowledge development in law

firms, as it allows individuals to build on existing

knowledge (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).

Laudon & Laudon (2011) argue that knowledge

must be communicated and shared to be useful.

Successful knowledge sharing involves not only

intra-departmental but also inter-departmental and

even inter-organizational exchange. Legal fields

often overlap, and lawyers in large firms may work

across multiple legal areas, necessitating sufficient

knowledge in all relevant fields to provide the best

advice. Effective knowledge sharing among lawyers

is crucial for achieving this (Apistola, 2006).

Studies show that lawyers typically share

knowledge within their departments but struggle to do

so across departments. Senior lawyers often lack time

to reflect on and share their experiences (Rusanow,

2002; Khandelwal & Gottschalk, 2003; Hunter et al.,

2002). Apistola & Lodder (2005) identified that

knowledge processes include activities related to

creating, sharing, using, and preserving knowledge,

enabling efficient knowledge transfer and utilization.

2.5 Motivational Factors Affecting to

Knowledge Sharing Among

Lawyers in Law Firms

Understanding the motivational factors that influence

knowledge sharing among lawyers is crucial for

fostering an environment conducive to collaboration

and learning within law firms. This section explores

both extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors that

encourage knowledge sharing, drawing on insights

from existing empirical and theoretical literature.

2.5.1 Extrinsic Motivational Factors

Extrinsic motivational factors typically come from

management and include bonuses, special awards,

and other incentive methods that encourage

employees to share knowledge (Disterer, 2003). From

a review of the literature on knowledge sharing

among lawyers and legal counsels, several extrinsic

motivational factors have been identified.

Organizational culture is crucial for promoting

knowledge sharing in law firms. Wong (2005) states

that firms must develop a culture that values and

promotes knowledge sharing, development, and use.

Schulz & Klugmann (2005) highlight that a

knowledge management system fosters this culture

among lawyers. Key requirements include

management commitment, performance evaluations

based on desired behaviors, and hiring aligned with

the new culture (Kabene et al., 2006). Organizational

culture in law firms consists of shared norms, values,

and perceptions developed through interactions,

making it challenging to change (Hofstede et al.,

1990).

Team interaction can motivate knowledge sharing

and the development of tacit knowledge (Gore &

Gore, 1999). This includes reciprocity, where mutual

benefits are exchanged (Holinde, 2015). Law firms

should emphasize personal relationships and clear

communication to enhance knowledge sharing

(Osterloh & Frey, 2000). Increasing interdependence

among lawyers and fostering a collaborative

environment are key strategies for improving

knowledge sharing (Huysman & De Wit, 2000).

Extrinsic rewards are significant motivators.

These include tangible financial incentives like salary

increases, bonuses, vacations, or promotions (Hau et

al., 2016; Bock & Kim, 2002; Nguyen et al., 2021).

Knowledge sharing should be integral to

opportunities for becoming a partner in a law firm

(Apistola, 2006). Performance evaluations tied to

knowledge sharing can encourage lawyers to support

their colleagues (Huysman & De Wit, 2000).

Knowledge champions within the firm can

stimulate knowledge sharing. Tjaden (2007) suggests

leveraging the influence of these individuals, often

partners, who naturally share their knowledge in daily

activities, significantly impacting their peers’

behavior.

Time allocation is another critical factor. In large

law firms, time is often equated with money, making

it challenging to allocate time for knowledge

management activities (Terret, 1998; Gottschalk,

1999). Providing dedicated time for meetings and

interactions can help foster a culture of knowledge

sharing (Huysman & De Wit, 2000). Changing the

billing structure from hourly rates to value-based

billing can incentivize more efficient work and

emphasize the importance of knowledge sharing

(Rusanow, 2003).

Management involvement is essential for

fostering a knowledge-sharing culture. Knowledge

sharing relies on consistent, reliable, and credible

management behavior (Disterer, 2003). Management

KMIS 2024 - 16th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

290

must lead by example, actively communicating and

reflecting on knowledge-sharing practices. Support

from top management positively correlates with

employees’ perceptions of a knowledge-sharing

culture and their willingness to share knowledge

(Connelly & Kelloway, 2003; Lin, 2007).

Annual appraisements can effectively motivate

lawyers to share knowledge. Forstenlechner (2005)

suggests that incorporating knowledge sharing into

annual performance evaluations ensures it is viewed

as an essential part of professional development and

organizational support.

Investing in technology is crucial for supporting

knowledge management in law firms (Meso et al.,

2023). Digital technologies enhance coordination and

communication, significantly improving knowledge

sharing and organizational performance (Deng et al.,

2023). Technologies such as email, instant

messaging, social media, blogs, wikis, discussion

forums, video conferencing, document sharing tools,

and web conferencing tools facilitate knowledge

sharing among lawyers (Olatokun & Nneamaka,

2013). Intranets and company databases enable

employees to share experiences and knowledge,

promoting collaboration (Arora, 2002).

These factors illustrate the various extrinsic

motivations that can encourage lawyers to share

knowledge within their firms, ultimately enhancing

the efficiency and effectiveness of legal services.

2.5.2 Internal Motivational Factors

Intrinsic motivational factors are non-monetary

incentives that have psychological impacts and play a

crucial role in encouraging individuals to share

knowledge (Kabene et al., 2006). Osterloh & Frey

(2000) noted that intrinsic motivation promotes tacit

knowledge sharing, particularly when extrinsic

motivations fail. From a literature review on

knowledge sharing in both general organizations and

law firms, the intrinsic motivational factors identified

include intrinsic rewards and trust.

Intrinsic rewards refer to psychological incentives

such as oral praise (Donnelly, 2018), recognition

(Malek et al., 2020), reputation (Hung et al., 2011;

Nguyen & Malik, 2020; Choi et al., 2008), and

altruism (Holinde, 2015). These rewards motivate

individuals to share knowledge to help others and

demonstrate collegiality (Kabene et al., 2006). Law

firms should acknowledge and enhance the reputation

of lawyers who actively participate in knowledge

sharing (Hunter et al., 2002). Forstenlechner, citing

Schulz & Klugmann (2005), stresses the importance

of intrinsic rewards like praise and recognition from

senior management to highlight effective knowledge

management.

Trust among colleagues significantly influences

knowledge sharing. Evans et al. (2015) found that

perceived trustworthiness mediates the relationship

between social factors, like shared language and

vision, and knowledge-sharing behavior. Trust

enables employees to share knowledge more freely

and use it effectively. It is a critical component of

interpersonal interactions and can be a crucial

motivator for knowledge sharing (Van den Brink,

2003). When employees recognize that their

knowledge is handled carefully, they are more likely

to share it (Hall, 2001; Huysman & De Wit, 2002).

Trust is needed not only between individuals sharing

knowledge but also within the organization as a

whole (Hinds & Pfeffer, 2001).

Law firms must cultivate an attitude of trust among

their members (Disterer, 2003). Mutual trust is

essential for open sharing (Disterer, 2003), as it

reduces the fear of opportunistic behavior. Building trust

between employees and different groups facilitates

more open and proactive knowledge sharing (Wong,

2005). Organizational development processes should

establish a set of shared ethical standards and values

for the law firm and reach consensus on acceptable

practices and work habits (Disterer, 2003). These

standards and values should be clearly communicated

throughout the law firm to foster trust. Ensuring

sufficient interaction among employees is also crucial

for building trust (Kabene et al., 2006).

These intrinsic motivational factors highlight the

importance of psychological incentives and trust in

fostering a knowledge-sharing culture within law

firms, ultimately enhancing their operational

efficiency and effectiveness.

Despite existing research, there is limited

empirical study on knowledge sharing among lawyers

and the motivational factors affecting this process in

IP law firms. The complexity of IP laws, the conflicts

between the IP laws of different countries protecting

intellectual property rights, and the challenges posed

by emerging technologies create numerous IP

touchpoints and uncertainties. Given the importance

and challenges mentioned above, IP lawyers need to

continuously update, discuss, and share knowledge

among their teams to provide up-to-date legal advice

that meets client satisfaction.

Exploring Knowledge Sharing Motivational Factors for Intellectual Property Lawyers: A Conceptual Framework

291

Table 1: Motivational factors affecting knowledge sharing among lawyers in IP law firms.

Factors

Authors

Extrinsic

Motivation

Organizational Culture

(Wong, 2005; Kabene et al., 2006; Hofstede et al., 1990)

Team Interaction

(Gore & Gore, 1999; Osterloh & Frey, 2000; Huysman & De Wit, 2000)

Reward

(Hau et al., 2016; Bock & Kim, 2002; Nguyen et al., 2021; Apistola, 2006)

Knowledge champions

Tjaden (2007)

Time Allocation

(Terret, 1998; Gottschalk, 1999; Huysman & De Wit, 2000; Rusanow, 2003)

Management Involvement

(Disterer, 2003; Connelly & Kelloway, 2003; Lin, 2007)

Annual Appraisement

Forstenlechner (2005)

Technology

(Meso et al., 2023; Deng et al., 2023; Olatokun & Nneamaka, 2013; Arora,

2002)

Intrinsic

Motivation

Oral Praise

Donnelly (2018)

Recognition

(Malek et al., 2020; Schulz & Klugmann, 2005)

Reputation

(Hung et al., 2011; Nguyen & Malik, 2020; Choi et al., 2008; Hunter et al.,

2002)

Altruism

Holinde (2015)

Trust

(Evans et al., 2015; Hall, 2001; Huysman & De Wit, 2002; Disterer, 2003;

Wong, 2005; Kabene et al., 2006)

3 FINDING

The findings of this study, derived from an integrative

review of existing empirical and theoretical literature,

identify eight key extrinsic motivational factors and

five intrinsic motivational factors, as summarized in

Table 1, that significantly influence knowledge

sharing among lawyers in law firms.

Based on the literature review and identified

factors, the author proposes the conceptual

framework shown in Figure 1. This framework

illustrates the extrinsic and intrinsic motivational

factors and their impact on knowledge sharing among

lawyers in IP law firms.

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework.

4 DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes the significance of both

extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors in fostering

knowledge sharing among lawyers in IP law firms.

Our research contributes to the filed by identifying

eight key extrinsic motivational factors and five

intrinsic motivational factors, offering novel insights

specific to IP law firms regarding the factors

influencing knowledge sharing among lawyers in this

specialized domain.

The extrinsic factors such as a supportive

organizational culture, team interactions, rewards,

knowledge champions, sufficient time allocation,

proactive management involvement, comprehensive

annual appraisals, and robust technology investments

are crucial in creating a knowledge-sharing

environment. These factors provide the necessary

structural support to facilitate open communication

and collaboration among lawyers, ensuring that

knowledge can be efficiently shared within the law

firm. The intrinsic factors, including oral praise,

recognition, reputation, altruism and trust, are also

vital in motivating lawyers to share their knowledge

voluntarily and openly. By cultivating trust and

offering recognition, law firms can foster an

environment where lawyers feel valued and more

willing to share their expertise.

By addressing these factors, lawyers in IP law

firms can improve their knowledge-sharing practices,

leading to enhanced efficiency, innovation, and

effectiveness in providing legal services.

Extrinsic Motivation Factors

▪ Organizational Culture

▪ Team Interaction

▪ Reward

▪ Knowledge champions

▪ Time allocation

▪ Management Involvement

▪ Annual Appraisement

▪ Technology

Intrinsic Motivation Factors

▪ Oral Praise

▪ Recognition

▪ Reputation

▪ Altruism

▪ Trust

Knowledge Sharing

Among Lawyers in

Intellectual Property

Law Firm

KMIS 2024 - 16th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

292

It is important to acknowledge that this study is based

on a review of existing literature, and the proposed

conceptual framework has not been empirically

tested. Therefore, the findings are not generalizable to

all IP law firms, and further empirical testing is

recommended.

REFERENCES

Adeyemi, I. O., Uzamot, W. O., & Temim, F. M. (2022).

Knowledge Transfer and Use as Predictors of Law

Firm Performance: Nigerian Lawyer’s Perspectives.

International Journal of Knowledge Management

(IJKM), 18(1), 1-17.

Apistola, M. (2006). Advocaat en Kennismanagement

(Lawyer and Knowledge Management), dissertation

VU University, Amsterdam.

Apistola, M., & Gottschalk, P. (2012). Essential knowledge

and management issues in law firms. Universal-

Publishers.

Apistola, M., & Lodder, A. R. (2005). Law Firms and IT–

Towards Optimal Knowledge Management. Journal of

Information, Law and Technology, 2(3), 1-28.

Arora, R. (2002). Implementing KM–a balanced score card

approach. Journal of knowledge management, 6(3),

240-249.

Bock, G.-W. and Kim, Y.-G. (2002). Breaking the myths of

rewards: an exploratory study of attitudes about

knowledge sharing. Information Resources

Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 14-21.

Choi, S. Y., Kang, Y. S., & Lee, H. (2008). The effects of

socio-technical enablers on knowledge sharing: an

exploratory examination. Journal of information

science, 34(5), 742-754.

Coase, R.H. (1937). The Nature of the Firm, Economica

(4)-16.

Connelly, C. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Predictors of

employees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

24(5), 294-301.

Deng, H., Duan, S. X., & Wibowo, S. (2023). Digital

technology driven knowledge sharing for job

performance. Journal of Knowledge Management,

27(2), 404-425.

Disterer, G. (2003). Fostering Knowledge Sharing: Why

and How?, Proceedings of the IADIS International

Conference e-Society (IADIS), Lissabon, pp. 219 –

226.

Donnelly, R. (2018). Aligning knowledge sharing

interventions with the promotion of firm success: the

need for SHRM to balance tensions and challenges.

Journal of Business Research, Vol. 94, pp. 344-352.

Du Plessis, T. (2004). Information and knowledge

management in support of legal research in a digital

information environment (Doctoral dissertation).

Edwards, D. L., & Mahling, D. E. (1997). Toward

knowledge management systems in the legal domain. In

Proceedings of the 1997 ACM International

Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 158-166).

Evans, M., Wensley, A., & Frissen, I. (2015). The

Mediating Effects of Trustworthiness on

Social‑Cognitive Factors and Knowledge Sharing in a

Large Professional Service Firm. Electronic Journal of

Knowledge Management, 13(3), pp240-253.

Flood, J. (2012). Lawyers as Sanctifiers: The Role of Elite

Law Firms in International Business Transactions.

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 19(1), 109-

147.

Fombad, M. C., Boon, J. A., & Bothma, T. J. D. (2009).

Strategies for knowledge management in law firms in

Botswana. South African Journal of Information

Management, 11(2), 1-16.

Forstenlechner, I. (2005). Impact of Knowledge

Management on Law Firm Performance. An

Investigation of Causality Across Cultures.

(Dissertation) School of Industrial and Manufacturing

Science.

Forstenlechner, I., Lettice, F., Bourne, M., & Webb, C.

(2007). Turning knowledge into value in professional

service firms. Performance Measurement and Metrics,

8(3), 146-156.

Gardner, H. K. (2019). Smart Collaboration: How

Professionals and Their Firms Succeed by Breaking

Down Silos. Harvard Business Review Press.

Gore, C., & Gore, E. (1999). Knowledge management: the

way forward. Total quality management, 10(4-5), 554-

560.

Gottschalk, P. (1999). Use of IT for Knowledge

Management in Law Firms. The Journal of Information,

Law and Technology (JILT)-3.

Gottschalk, P. (2002). A stages of growth model for

knowledge management technology in law firms. The

Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT), 2,

02-2.

Gottschalk, P., & Khandelwal, V. K. (2003). Determinants

of knowledge management technology projects in

Australian law firms. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 7(4), 92-105.

Hau, Y.S., Kim, B. and Lee, H. (2016). What drives

employees to share their tacit knowledge in practice?,

Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 14

No. 3, pp. 295-308.

Hayek, F. A. (2013). The use of knowledge in society. In

Modern Understandings of Liberty and Property (pp.

27-38). Routledge.

Hinds, P. J., & Pfeffer, J. (2001). Why organizations don’t

“know what they know”: Cognitive and motivational

factors affecting the transfer of expertise. Stanford:

Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, (pp.

3-26).

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G.

(1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A

qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases.

Administrative science quarterly, 286-316.

Holinde, S. (2015). Knowledge sharing in an international

law firm–A case study examining practice, barriers and

motivation. Doctoral dissertation, Aberystwyth University.

Exploring Knowledge Sharing Motivational Factors for Intellectual Property Lawyers: A Conceptual Framework

293

Hung, S. Y., Durcikova, A., Lai, H. M., & Lin, W. M.

(2011). The influence of intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation on individuals’ knowledge sharing

behavior. International journal of human-computer

studies, 69(6), 415-427.

Hunter, L., Beaumont, P., & Lee, M. (2002). Knowledge

management practice in Scottish law firms. Human

Resource Management Journal, 12(2), 4-21.

Huysman, M., De Wit, D. (2000). Kennis delen in de

praktijk. Vergaren, uitwisselen en ontwikkelen van

kennis met ICT, Assen: Van Gorcum.

John, P Ogier (2016). Intellectual property, finance and

economic development. WIPO Magazine.

Kabene, S. M., King, P., & Skaini, N. (2006). Knowledge

management in law firms. Journal of Information Law

and Technology (JILT)(1), 1-21.

Kahn, A., & Wu, X. (2020). Impact of digital economy on

intellectual property law. J. Pol. & L., 13, 117.

Lambe, P (2003), What does KM mean for Law Firms?.

Retrieved from http://greenchameleon.com/

Laudon, K.C., Laudon, J.P. (2010). Management

Information Systems – Managing the Digital Firm, 12th

Edition, Pearson.

Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties

you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective

knowledge transfer. Management science, 50(11),

1477-1490.

Lin, H. F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation

capability: an empirical study. International Journal of

manpower, 28(3/4), 315-332.

Malek, S.L., Sarin, S. and Haon, C. (2020). Extrinsic

rewards, intrinsic motivation, and new product

development performance. Journal of Product

Innovation Management, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 528-551.

Meso, A., Bosire, E., & Massey, E. (2023). Knowledge

management as a tool for improving work performance

in selected law firms in Nairobi county, Kenya: An

assessment. Journal of Education, Society and

Behavioural Science, 36(7), 85-95.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital,

intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage.

Academy of management review, 23(2), 242-266.

Nguyen, M., Malik, A. and Sharma, P. (2021). How to

motivate employees to engage in online knowledge

sharing? Differences between posters and lurkers.

Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp.

1811-1831.

Nguyen, T. M., & Malik, A. (2020). Cognitive processes,

rewards and online knowledge sharing behaviour: the

moderating effect of organisational innovation. Journal

of Knowledge Management, 24(6), 1241-1261.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-

Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create

the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press.

Olatokun, W. M., & Nneamaka, E. I. (2013). Analysing

lawyers’ attitude towards knowledge sharing. South

African Journal of Information Management, 15(1), 1-11.

Olson, M. (1971). The Logic of Collective Action. Public

Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard.

Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge

transfer, and organizational forms. Organization

science, 11(5), 538-550.

Parsons, M. (2004). Effective knowledge management for

law firms. Oxford University Press.

Rusanow, G. (2003). Knowledge management and the

smarter lawyer. ALM Publishing.

Sammon (2024). How to Choose the Best IP Law Firm for Your

Brand?. Retrieved from https://www.sonderandclay.com

Saunders, C. (2011). Knowledge sharing in legal practice.

In Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management, Second

Edition (pp. 935-945). IGI Global.

Schulz, M., & Klugmann, M. (2005). Creating a Culture of

Knowledge Sharing in Law Firms., 386-387.

https://doi.org/10.1007/11590019_44.

Terrett, A. (1998). Knowledge management and the law

firm. Journal of knowledge management, 2(1), 67-76.

Tjaden, T. (2007). The Role of Law Firm Culture in

Knowledge Management. Retrieved from

http://www.Slaw.Ca/2007/06/29/The-Role-OfLaw-

Firm-Culture-In-Knowledge Management

Van den Brink, P. (2003). Social, organizational, and

technological conditions that enable knowledge

sharing.

Van Engers, T.M. (2001), Knowledge Management. The

Role of Mental Models in Business Systems Design.

(diss. Amsterdam VU), Belastingdienst 2001, p. 5.

Wong, K. Y. (2005). Critical success factors for

implementing knowledge management in small and

medium enterprises. Industrial management & Data

systems, 105(3), 261-279.

WIPO. Intellectual Property and Frontier Technologies.

Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/about-

ip/en/frontier_technologies/

WIPO (2020). What is intellectual property?. Geneva:

World Intellectual Property Organization.

WIPO (2024). Generative AI Navigating intellectual

property. Geneva: World Intellectual Property

Organization.

Zeide, E., & Liebowitz, J. (2012). Knowledge management

in law: a look at cultural resistance. Legal Information

Management, 12(1), 34-38.

KMIS 2024 - 16th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

294