System Error: The IT Issues Plaguing Attorneys' Transition to Remote Work
As more attorneys work remotely during an unprecedented pandemic, limited network capacity, internet speed slowdowns and other technical issues may hinder their workflow.
March 19, 2020 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
As COVID-19 continues to force more attorneys to work remotely, many are finding working from home isn't a simple transition for the uninitiated. Besides balancing work-life and juggling child care at home, tech challenges can also further complicate attorneys' daily workflow and potentially disrupt billing.
For some, remote work can ultimately mean slower connections.
"A lot of firms have some capabilities around it [remote access] but they don't have all the capabilities they need," said Terry Dohrmann, chief revenue officer of cloud-based practice management platform Litify. "We've spoken to some firms that have remote access into document management, but it's done through an older VPN model and the speeds are super slow."
Dohrmann noted attorneys are "used to working on the same server beside their colleague. Now they are VPNing, [and] the function is a lot more clunky and peoples' frustration levels are rising."
Along with slower speeds, providing additional VPNs and access to collaboration platforms to staffers and lawyers can take time.
"If firms have not prepared for this, they need to work quickly to increase capacity for technologies like VPN or Remote Desktop to accommodate demand," said Matt Coatney, chief technology officer of HBR IT Managed Services. "But all those activities could have a time lag. It could take days or weeks to get new hardware and licenses," he noted.
Along with connection issues, observers noted that some law firms don't have the electronics needed to handle the levels of remote work now needed.
"One of the large issues I've seen speaking with some folks and leaders in the industry is they just don't have enough computers available for their workforce to take home of enterprise-quality," said Timothy Bowers, managing partner of VLP Law Group, a cloud-based law firm.
Additionally, law firms need to verify if their staffer or lawyer's internet connectivity is sufficient to run the programs needed, he added. If the transition to remote work isn't smooth and staff and lawyers need persistent assistance from IT, business disruptions may occur.
"Inevitably they will lose billable hours trying to get their network up and running to the level it was in their office," Bowers said.
Tech and security experts stressed an established remote working plan avoids a last-minute scramble and likely follow-up complications when quickly implementing software and training. Still, even for law firms acclimated to working remotely, this new reality brings some new questions.
Take Pennsylvania-based personal injury and worker's compensation firm KBG Injury Law, for example. Though it has leveraged remote access working capabilities and provided laptops to lawyers and staff previously, the prospect of government-mandated shutdowns and ongoing quarantines means the firm may need to go fully virtual.
"There will be certain aspects of the business we will have to be creative about. For example, mail," Kline said. "Fortunately in this day and age, paper mail has dropped dramatically but there still is some." The firm has explored forwarding the firms' mail to an employee's home and the employee scanning it into KBG's document management system.
Similarly, KBG also receives paper-based settlement checks from insurance companies that the firm and potentially the client are required to endorse. Pennsylvania law is unclear if online notarization is sufficient, Kline said, but alternatives to in-person notarizing would likely be considered if COVID-19 continues to disrupt normal business operations.
Still, for many firms this may be a "trial by fire" to determine if they are equipped to handle infrastructure stress or if other solutions are needed to secure data and provide legal services, Kline said.
"There's now an ethical obligation for a basic level of tech competency, and I think for some firms they are finding out if they satisfy that requirement or not. Most firms are, but I'm sure some are not," he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllContract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readFlorida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250