Before COVID-19, how many law firms had a plan in place for responding to an event that would close their offices and most state and federal courts for nearly three months?

Before COVID-19, how many law firms had a plan in place for keeping their offices functioning during which most, if not all, staff would be unable to enter their offices for nearly three months?

Before COVID-19, how many law firms had a plan in place that would allow some, or perhaps most, of their employees to work remotely, even full- or part-time?

Those are just a few of the questions that highlight the challenges that law firms faced—on literally a moment's notice—when Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, and the governors of most other states, issued orders immediately and indefinitely closing all nonessential businesses, including law offices, for what turned out to be approximately three months, sometimes longer.

No law firm was prepared for a pandemic, nor for any catastrophic event that would stop the legal system for months. But here we are. Just beginning to recover from the heretofore unthinkable.

COVID-19 changed everything. Unfathomable numbers of families lost loved ones, and will never recover fully, and most experts believe that more tragedy is on the way.

And for law firms, courts, governments and other businesses, there are many lessons to be learned from the pandemic, for both the short- and the long-term.

Some of the lessons are technical. Others are structural, as some entities recognize that past ways of functioning are either impractical or impossible. And some are ethical, implicating how law firms and law-related entities conduct business in light of challenges posed by remote work.

Let's take a look at some of the lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Good Old Days Weren't So Good

In January 2020, before the pandemic took hold in the United States, Cisco Chairman John Chambers proclaimed that "At least 40% of all businesses will die in the next 10 years … if they don't figure out how to change their entire company to accommodate new technologies." Among law firms, that percentage was probably higher. Simply put, if law firms did not have the technological infrastructure in place at the beginning of the shutdown, and did not take steps to quickly rectify that inadequacy, they would probably wither away and if they did not die, they certainly faced a challenging recovery after months of closure.

Most lawyers and law firms confronted the new reality. The Luddites who had previously refused to accept or use technology realized they had a Hobson's Choice: adapt to the brave new pandemic-induced world or ride out the pandemic and see if their office still had clients. The overwhelming majority of firms chose to use technology and pray for an early end to the quarantine. Most discovered that their lawyers and staff could handle remote work, and that it was a far better option than closing their doors. In fact, many firms have commented that using technology was easier and better than the old paper-based world.

Without physical access to their offices, lawyers and their staff suddenly had to use technology. This meant accessing documents and files electronically. This meant attending meetings and obtaining CLE credits online, using products such as Zoom, Webex and others. This meant handling online the limited universe of court matters that were still proceeding. This meant that the days of practicing law in the office and on paper were a thing of the past.

Not surprisingly, most lawyers discovered that working with electronic files wasn't a bad thing, and in fact was a very good thing. Many firms admitted that their newfound use of technology, whether it was GoToMyPC, or Zoom or Adobe Acrobat, was actually easier than they feared, and improved their practices. And they agreed almost unanimously that they were never going back to the days when everything they did was on paper.

Yet, their newfound admiration for technology was not without obstacles. They had to learn how to do things and, despite limited training and often less than optimal computer hardware, they realized the benefits of technology.

Working Remotely Raises Ethical Concerns

It is safe to assume that the majority of smart assistant users bought these products with minimal, if any, considerations about their security. As of 2019, there were an estimated 73 million smart assistants in use in the United States, including the Amazon Echo, various Google-branded devices, and other products such as the Apple HomePod, Harmon Kardon Invoke and Sonos One.

These devices are popular because of their ability to answer questions, play music and do other things just from a voice command. But to work, the devices must listen for the appropriate command, and react. To help their developers, and to improve their responsiveness, these devices listen for "cues" and record the resulting interactions. That may not be of concern when the request is to play a song by Fleetwood Mac, but it is when the devices record communications with or about clients, conversations intended to be protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Suddenly, these devices weren't as much fun; they were of concern. As was leaving files around where family could see them, or having a conversation within earshot of those nosy teenage children, and God knows who they will blab to.

But the warnings were clear. You cannot just assume that you have the same privacy, online or in person, that is available in a traditional brick and mortar office.

Online Meetings Are Good

Online conferences have transformed the practice of law in many ways. They have enabled lawyers to learn about options that allow them to remain in office, or at home, using products and services like Zoom, which most had never heard of, let alone used. Nor were they aware of services like online notarization, Remote Desktop Connection and numerous others that went from obscurity to prominence in seconds.

Suddenly, Zoom was the hottest name in legal circles. Courts were using Zoom to conduct video hearings, bar associations were using the platform to host meetings and CLE programs. Firms were using the medium to meet with clients.

It is safe to say that online videoconferences are here to stay. While it seems unlikely that all programming will remain exclusively online, it is a good bet that more conferences and programming will use the technology to accommodate those who cannot or who prefer not to attend in person.

For me, Zoom conferencing was a blessing. Suddenly, I could attend meetings in Philadelphia without the roughly two hours of commuting that made frequent attendance impractical. For meetings with national organizations, we saw an increase in attendance from those people who could not travel to the meetings. All because Zoom went from obscurity to favored nation status overnight.

Online Meetings Are Terrible

With the advent of Zoom came Zoombombing, which occurs when unwanted and uninvited intruders disrupt online conferences. Although the term came into prominence because of Zoom's security vulnerabilities, the term applies to any intrusions on any videoconferencing platform.

As a result, lawyers were reminded or learned that the online world is dangerous, and requires layers of security. In other words, they needed to be vigilant about Zoom, as well as their remote hardware and every aspect of their remote technological existences. It was an eye-opener.

Online meetings also have other drawbacks. The most common is Zoom fatigue, a concept explained by Harvard Business Review: "'Zoom fatigue' stems from how we process information over video. On a video call the only way to show we're paying attention is to look at the camera. But, in real life, how often do you stand within three feet of a colleague and stare at their face? Probably never. This is because having to engage in a "constant gaze" makes us uncomfortable—and tired. In person, we are able to use our peripheral vision to glance out the window or look at others in the room. On a video call, because we are all sitting in different homes, if we turn to look out the window, we worry it might seem like we're not paying attention. Not to mention, most of us are also staring at a small window of ourselves, making us hyper-aware of every wrinkle, expression, and how it might be interpreted. Without the visual breaks we need to refocus, our brains grow fatigued."

Zoom fatigue is real, as are the other side effects of videoconferences. For example, because videoconferences replaced in-person meetings, all of the personal interaction so crucial to those get-togethers was gone. No longer could you glance at someone when a boring, or less than perceptive, comment was made. And the personal relationships that grow during live meetings do not occur online when conferences end when everyone presses the "leave meeting" button. Think about the people you have at CLEs or conferences and ask how many of those relationships would exist if the only way you met was by Zoom. Not many, that's for sure.

Brainstorming Is Harder

When I present oral argument, I have others ask me mock questions to help prepare for questions that the Judges will throw my way. In person, those prep sessions can help me focus on issues or simply do a back and forth to hash out the best way to say something. Online, people get drained, the calls have time limits, the Wi-Fi fades out and you lose a caller, kids whine for daddy, etc., and the benefits of that in-person session are gone. Consequently, I find that in-person preparation is better.

Technology Requires You to Think About Security

When the pandemic became a stay-at-home reality, many law firms were not ready for the cybersecurity challenges that arose. Whether it was the need to outfit staff home computers with proper anti-virus, anti-malware and firewall software, or the reality that you cannot discuss confidential and sensitive information on a speaker phone when children are present, suddenly lawyers had to reckon with concerns that do not arise in the safe confines of their offices. Fortunately, the Pennsylvania Bar Association and other groups came to the rescue and offered guidance about how to work remotely while complying with the Rules of Professional Conduct. The PBA Legal Ethics Committee, for example, published Formal Opinion 2020-300, which discusses how to practice remotely while complying with the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion went viral, was endorsed by many other bar associations, and adopted by some malpractice insurers as a best practice, and helped.

But in the end, because of the emergency nature of law office closures, many firms had to trust lawyers to protect their computers rather than install the security products as they would prefer. Somehow, lawyers and staff coped, and now they are dealing with the "next normal."

And that's where we are now. The "old normal" is gone, replaced by the "new normal," that is, life in quarantine. Slowly, but surely, we are now entering the "next normal," that world in which we cope with social distancing, the fear of a "second surge," and of course, the unknown within our legal worlds. One thing is clear, the Luddites who ignored the Henny Pennies of the world and denied that the sky was ever going to fall learned that the sky could and would fall. Now that the sky has fallen, and the sun arose another day, we know that technology isn't the savior, but imagine life without it.

Would anyone really want to have lived through the COVID-19 quarantine without internet, without Zoom, without the many benefits technology provided? No, and it is a practical impossibility to find anyone advocating for those days, which in the end weren't so good, not compared to the benefits technology has provided. Technology is not a savior, but it is far better than the alternative. That is a conclusion that lawyers everywhere must now concede.

Daniel J. Siegel, principal of the Law Offices of Daniel J. Siegel and Chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Association committee on legal ethics and professional responsibility, provides ethical guidance and Disciplinary Board representation for attorneys and law firms; he is the editor of "Fee Agreements in Pennsylvania (6^th Edition)" and author of "Leaving a Law Practice: Practical and Ethical Issues for Lawyers and Law Firms (Second Edition)," published by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. He can be reached at [email protected].