States Require Lawyers to Have Tech Competency, But Observers See Some Struggling
In 2012 the American Bar Association enacted an amendment requiring lawyers to have knowledge of technology's risks and benefits. Currently 33 states have officially followed suit. Some lawyers are faring better than others in adapting to tech, said observers.
October 25, 2018 at 12:00 PM
4 minute read
This month the Vermont Supreme Court issued an order adding continuing knowledge of technology's benefits and risks to Vermont lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct. Vermont now joins 32 states that officially require tech competency of its lawyers. The trend nationwide, however, is one that observers said some lawyers aren't prepared for.
What exactly does a lawyer need to know about technology's benefits and risks? Well, the answer is vague.
Michael Kennedy, past president of the Vermont Bar Association, noted that while the new Vermont rule amendment isn't specific, he's understood tech competency to include understanding e-discovery and safeguarding client data when transmitting or storing it in an electronic format.
The Vermont rule, set to go into effect in December, comes six years after the passage of a similar American Bar Association amendment.
In 2012, the ABA amended its Model Rules of Professional Conduct based on a Commission on Ethics 20/20 report. The report stated the technology knowledge requirement was needed “to make clear that a lawyer's duty of competence, which requires the lawyer to stay abreast of changes in the law and its practice, includes understanding relevant technology's benefits and risks.”
Ronald Minkoff, a Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz partner and ABA Center for Professional Responsibility policy implementation committee member, said he was one of a very few who had reservations about the requirement.
“I personally had some misgivings about the rule when it was proposed because I thought there would be problems when older lawyers who aren't as technologically in-depth were being judged by young bar regulators,” Minkoff conceded. “I thought that would present some problems. Frankly, as we've progressed I've seen the benefits of having technical knowledge.”
Minkoff recalled most took the view that the amendment provided a minimum and required standard for lawyers.
Robert Ambrogi, a Massachusetts lawyer and LawSites founder, said this rule may serve as “a very scary wake-up call for some lawyers.”
“I think this rule requires more [than] a passing familiarity and requires a more in-depth understanding of issues, such as data security. … I don't think a lot of lawyers have depth of knowledge [in tech].”
Minkoff noted that older or solo practitioners, who may face issues of computer literacy, financing or carelessness, may find technology acumen harder to obtain. At larger firms, Minkoff said, lawyers may rely on associates, secretaries or IT to make sure their client data is secure.
Still, age may not pose much of a gap, Ambrogi said, because a young lawyer may have mastered social media in comparison to their older counterparts, but may not have experience in protecting clients' data.
To be sure, technology misuses could lead to sanctions, fines or professional malpractice claims. Judges haven't issued many ethical opinions or guidance regarding lawyers' technology competency, according to lawyers contacted by Legaltech News.
If lawyers aren't sure what to do about their tech competency, Minkoff suggested they reach out to their state bar associations or others for assistance.
“There's a lot of things you can do to learn this. If I'm a solo practitioner, look at what the state bar is offering you [and ] your members on training. Whoever you are using for IT, hire them. … You have to learn it.”
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
© 2025 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Has New York Sentence Pardoned by Trump
- 2Settlement Allows Spouses of U.S. Citizens to Reopen Removal Proceedings
- 3CFPB Resolves Flurry of Enforcement Actions in Biden's Final Week
- 4Judge Orders SoCal Edison to Preserve Evidence Relating to Los Angeles Wildfires
- 5Legal Community Luminaries Honored at New York State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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