Technology Learning Curve Requires Patience, but It's Worth It
I find it interesting that some of the younger attorneys I know, and most of the older ones too, do not share my fascination with computer technology. Perhaps my interest is not shared by younger attorneys because they find no novelty in something they have lived with for most of their lives.
January 22, 2019 at 01:21 PM
6 minute read
I find it interesting that some of the younger attorneys I know, and most of the older ones too, do not share my fascination with computer technology. Perhaps my interest is not shared by younger attorneys because they find no novelty in something they have lived with for most of their lives. They have no frame of reference for what it was like in the pre-digital age, and they have no baseline with which to compare the analog and digital worlds. The resulting digital apathy is unfortunate because the practice of law benefits greatly from the application of computer technology and the functionality of that technology is growing exponentially.
In the early days of the digital age, technology involved the transition from typewriters to electronic word processing. Even that undeniably useful technology was resisted by some attorneys because they did not want to invest in computer hardware, they did not want to learn how to use the software, or their legal assistants were fearful of the unknown. There was the inevitable resistance to change that has always been characteristic of the legal profession. Of course, the passage of time has shown that word processing makes us more efficient, although some would argue that since it is no longer necessary to get it right the first time, we have become somewhat lazy and sloppy. It is, after all, easy to change our minds, correct mistakes, and make wholesale changes to a document. The end result, however, is a more polished product.
When electronic legal research became available in the early 1980s, many attorneys preferred the tactile feel of holding a book in their hands to looking at a computer screen, and they felt more comfortable with West Digests as a starting place for legal research. They did not trust keyword searching and were not willing to invest the time needed to perfect the skill required to perfect online legal research. Now, of course, law books and law libraries have virtually become extinct, and an attorney who cannot perform legal research online is at a disadvantage. You cannot read a case if you do not know how to find a case.
Today, there are tools and emerging technologies that did not exist a little over a decade ago. The iPhone, which has become the communication device of choice for many attorneys, was released on June 29, 2007, and the iPad first became available on April 3, 2010. The advances in smartphone and tablet-computing technology have been outstanding in terms of processing power, storage capacity, screen resolution and the availability of applications. There are hundreds of apps that facilitate document creation, document management, legal research, marketing, billing, scheduling, cloud storage, among many others. These apps are readily available on both iOS and Android devices.
It is one thing to find and install the apps, but it is quite another to master their use. Although there are many tasks that can be effectively delegated to an administrative assistant, paralegal or junior attorney, there are others that even partners should learn how to perform. It starts with mastery of the device itself. If you can do little more than turn on your smartphone or tablet, and then perform only the most elementary tasks (phone calls, texts, email, web surfing and checking social media), you will find that your children are light years ahead of you in technological competence. There is a learning curve that must be endured to make effective use of new technology, but it is almost always easier than it looks. It requires persistence, reading instructions or watching instructional videos and benefitting from trial and error. My point is that you cannot expect to make effective use of computer software and mobile apps if you do not know how to use the devices on which the software and apps reside.
Technological tools can no longer be regarded as toys to be safely ignored. Aside from making use of the available tools for practical reasons, the use and understanding of technology has been addressed in competency standards adopted by at least 28 states. In fact, Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1(h), provides that “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 …” It is no longer safe to defer to others to worry about the “technology stuff.”
There are rapidly developing and emerging technologies that involve artificial intelligence, e-discovery, and cybersecurity that attorneys must understand. In an article titled “Tech-Savvy Attorneys in Heavy Demand Amid Emerging Tech,” written by Roger Yu for Bloomberg Law on Feb. 22, Yu wrote that new technology competency standards “require lawyers to keep abreast of the risks and benefits of technology relevant to their practice (referencing data analysis by attorney Robert J. Ambrogi).” As Yu explains, the bottom line according to Ambrogi is that “lawyers need to understand cyberrisks, encryption and even basic social media skills that can be relevant during discovery.” (Ambrogi practices media and technology law and has found that there are clients who have been harmed by their own lawyer's incompetence in technology).
It all starts with becoming comfortable with technological devices and then learning how to use related software applications. There is no reason to be intimidated, and once you develop the skills, you will wonder how you practiced law without them. As explained in my recent article, “From the Legal Pad to the iPad Pro: The End of Paper is Near,” many tasks once reserved for computers can now be performed on tablets. For example, there are apps for word processing, document assembly, legal research, organizing deposition and trial exhibits, creating presentations, organizing electronic trial notebooks, synopsizing deposition and trial transcripts, annotating documents, reading books and articles, watching videos and listening to podcasts, among others. While much of the underlying work can be delegated to assistants and subordinates, the attorney will benefit from being comfortable with the operation of the device and the applications that were utilized. Spend the time—it is worth it!
Michael H. Payne is chair of the government contracting group at Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman. Contact him at [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 AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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