Technology Is a Solo Attorney's Silent Partner
Whether purchasing equipment, using software to research matters or tracking billed hours, you must rely on technology products and solutions to operate your practice. In her Best Practices for Solo Practices column, Janet Falk explores how solo practitioners utilize various types of technology.
July 30, 2019 at 11:00 AM
7 minute read
Whether you're planning to venture out on your own or you've been managing a solo practice for some time, you will encounter many business and operational issues that were not discussed in your law school education nor in your first position as a law clerk or an associate in private practice.
This is the second in a series of occasional columns, Best Practices for Solo Practices, that will discuss how several attorneys with a solo practice manage various aspects of the business side of their firm, in an effort to share insights, highlight potential solutions and avoid costly mistakes.
According to ABA Model Rule 1.1.8: “To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” (emphasis added)
Technology is a silent partner in a solo attorney's practice. Whether purchasing equipment, using software to research matters or tracking billed hours, you must rely on technology products and solutions to operate your practice.
Your first purchase is likely to be a computer; some attorneys choose a laptop for ease of mobility, while others prefer the old-style desktop; many use both, some even add a tablet.
Andrew Berks, whose practice at Berks IP Law focuses on intellectual property, patents and litigation, prefers a “13 inch laptop, model Lenovo Yoga730, with a USB extender and 27 inch external monitor. 13 inch laptops are a sweet spot, a relatively small, lightweight computer, that I can travel with easily.”
On the other hand, Yifei He, The Law Office of Yifei He, with a practice focused on immigration law, criminal defense and general civil litigation, uses “a traditional office desktop setup. I find the office atmosphere conducive to productivity. Moreover, a desktop offers more computing power than a laptop,” in his view.
Consider that when you are away from your office, the “combination of a laptop, tablet and smart phone” will likely meet all your needs, as it does for Eric M. Sarver, who represents businesses in employment law and business law matters at The Law Offices of Eric M. Sarver. He notes: “Commuting to/from my office, waiting for a client, or having time between meetings are all opportunities to finish some work on client or administrative matters. Having the portability of a laptop, tablet and smart phone helps me work from within and outside my office.”
Zara Watkins, who focuses her practice, On Point Expertise, on appeals and substantive motions in state, federal and immigration cases, also favors the combination approach. She added a desktop to her laptop and tablet. “I have a paperless office, so I use my tablet to read and notate the records on appeal; and I use my widescreen computer to draft and revise my briefs (the extra large print on the widescreen helps me catch typos).”
After a computer, the next most expensive purchase is likely to be a telephone. Many attorneys opt for the reliability of a landline, in addition to cellphone service, perhaps also adding an answering service or call forwarding. For Yifei He, calls on a cellphone may be interrupted or he may receive patchy service. “A lot of my interactions with clients, opposing counsel, and court personnel require clarity, focus, and continuity. For the times I am not in the office, I subscribe to an answering service. A live representative of my office takes client calls and relays them to me. I am able to get in touch with the callers via cellphone after I screen and review their details.”
Call forwarding is a valuable option. Investigative counsel Charles-Eric Gordon, of the Law Office of Charles-Eric Gordon, says: “Because I am on the road often, I use call forwarding to have calls rerouted to one of my cellphones.” This solution works whether he is on the west coast or in Europe.
You should also consider your model of a cellphone. Craig Wolson, who leads Wolson Litigation Support Group with a practice focused on securities, lending and other finance, opted for a “Blackberry cellphone. I like having a real keyboard. I have a model that looks like an iPhone,” so it appears current.
Now that you are in touch with clients, you probably have to conduct legal research for statutes and precedents. Watkins suggests: “Before you start looking at different technology and software options, think about the type of practice you have. You could save precious time and money by not signing up for a service that you don't really need.”
Indeed, William B. Stock, whose practice at Law Office of William B. Stock is writing appeals and motions, plus research, found that he “bought an expensive legal research package, [WestlawNext] only to realize that my present needs could be met with inexpensive systems such as Fastcase, with an occasional trip to the City Bar's library for heavy-duty legal matters.”
Jamie Mogil uses Google Scholar, a free service that is searchable for full state and federal case law, as well as Lexis, at her practice of general litigation for individuals and business at JR Mogil Law. Watkins prefers Lexis Advance over the alternative services. “I've tried Westlaw, Fastcase, Casetext, and FindLaw and I have never gotten used to any of them and have always preferred Lexis. Its interface and style make intuitive sense to me. I research case law and statutes almost every day, so the monthly fee makes sense for my practice.”
The libraries of the local law schools are also ready resources for their alumni.
Keeping track of one's time is essential. Some off-the-shelf options are designed specifically for law practices. Berks reviewed several software packages and found they “lacked critical features” or were “difficult to set up;” he uses Clio. Mogil favors Harvest, a general-purpose time management package that is moderately priced; its capability to track expenses and export reports to an accountant permits her to maintain a paperless office.
Of course, one can always record billed hours manually.
Organizing the mounds of paperwork and data in a law practice is a challenge. That's why many solo practitioners use external drives for backups and a document scanner. Berks, Mogil and Watkins rely on Dropbox to store data files and documents. They scan documents and store them in Dropbox, then email a link to items in a specified folder to clients and co-counsel.
Sharing documents may prompt you to use Adobe Acrobat DC Pro. Berks finds the monthly subscription ($14) valuable. He especially likes its built-in Optical Character Recognition (OCR) capability; “it's very fast and very accurate.” Mogil notes that within Acrobat you can perform several activities on the saved document: redact, add notes, highlight, complete forms, underline and input additional typed text.
Separately, Mogil urges attorneys to “Utilize what is free but also invest in what is most efficient as your time is precious. An investment in a cloud storage service is great. You can access these documents from anywhere.”
Managing all these technology resources is daunting for people who are not technically inclined. Some attorneys are self-sufficient. Watkins says: “I continuously read up on emerging issues and products to make sure I am complying with professional responsibility rules.” If you are not tech-minded, there may be a skilled colleague in your co-working space to help you out. Others contact the Geek Squad, whose tech staff will visit your office if you cannot bring your computer to them.
Finally, other nice-to-have technology tools include recording devices and contact management software. As noted, the nature of your practice, not to mention the size of your budget, will be a crucial factor in making your selection from among the computer, cellphone, landline and software services mentioned here.
Janet Falk is the head of Falk Communications and Research in New York. She provides media relations and marketing communications services to law firms and consultants. She may be reached at (212) 677-5770 or [email protected].
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 All'So Many Firms' Have Yet to Announce Associate Bonuses, Underlining Big Law's Uneven Approach
5 minute readTik Tok’s ‘Blackout Challenge’ Confronts the Limits of CDA Section 230 Immunity
6 minute readEnemy of the State: Foreign Sovereign Immunity and Criminal Prosecutions after ‘Halkbank’
10 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Appellate Division Greenlights State Bar's Leadership Diversity Initiatives
- 2SEC’s Latest Enforcement Actions Fuel Demand for Big Law
- 3Sterlington Brings On Former Office Leader From Ashurst
- 4DOJ Takes on Largest NFT Scheme That Points to Larger Trend
- 5Arnold & Porter Matches Market Year-End Bonus, Requires Billable Threshold for Special Bonuses
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