Training Tomorrow's Lawyer: The Evolution of Legal Education
"There's math and technology involved? Count me out, that's why I went to law school." The attorneys in the room nod at each other, smiling at this joke that more than a few of us have told at one point in our careers.
October 21, 2015 at 08:00 PM
6 minute read
“There's math and technology involved? Count me out, that's why I went to law school.” The attorneys in the room nod at each other, smiling at this joke that more than a few of us have told at one point in our careers.
But it looks like this joke has finally run its course. The practice of law is not immune to technological advances, especially in the areas of research methodologies and, of course, electronic discovery. Furthermore, clients are continuing to focus on value, whether that is in seeking alternative fee arrangements or evaluating outside counsel on their efficient delivery of legal services. For example, a former in-house attorney, Casey Flaherty, and the Institute on Law Practice Technology and Innovation at Suffolk University jointly developed the Legal Tech Assessment, a benchmarking test that evaluates attorneys and other timekeepers on their knowledge of basic technology that most use in the practice of law, such as word processing and spreadsheets. There might not be any math on this test, but the effective use of technology is measured in one simple metric: time.
Firms are certainly devoting many resources to technology to gain a competitive advantage. Entire departments, such as knowledge management or practice innovation, are tasked to identify areas for improvement and implement solutions by infusing technology or processes. For example, legal project management tools have been paired up with a document automation workflow. Some firms are extensively using document automation programs, which enable attorneys to create “TurboTax”-style questionnaires with logical decision trees on the back end to quickly produce a document. Those firms that have the right people with both technological understanding and legal knowledge will certainly have a competitive advantage with the implementation of such automation tools.
This content has been archived.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 AllAn Employer's Rule 34 'Possession, Custody and Control' Over ESI on 'BYOD' Devices
Trending Stories
- 1'Discordant Dots': Why Phila. Zantac Judge Rejected Bid for His Recusal
- 2Here's What Corporate Litigators Expect Del. Courts to Address in 2025
- 3U.S. Supreme Court Has No Jurisdiction Over Trump's New York Criminal Case: Prosecutors
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: With KPMG's Proposed Entry, Arizona's Liberalized Legal Market is Getting Interesting
- 5Womble Bond Dickinson Adds New Leaders as Merger Is Completed
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