Blog

The America Bar Association’s Legal Technology Resource Center has released the results of its annual Legal Technology Survey. Composed of six volumes, it covers:

• Technology Basics
• Law Office Technology
• Litigation and Courtroom Technology
• Web and Communication Technology
• Online Research
• Mobile Lawyers

While  it is interesting that the volumes correlate to issues being addressed by the ABA’s Ethics 20/20 Commission, the results are just as interesting. Catherine Sanders Reach highlighted some aspects of the survey in a recent post on Law Technology News:

• Purchasing Influencers
• Tablets
• Software as a Service (SaaS/Cloud Computing)
• ESI in Discovery
• Social Networks
• Mobile Lawyers

Tablets and use of SaaS options in law practices presented some revealing statistics. Twenty percent reported a tablet of some kind, like an iPad, as being available at their firm. Those most likely to have a tablet available? Firms of 2-9 attorneys. In other words: small firm attorneys. And, not surprising, the majority of all respondents reported using iPads.

As for SaaS statistics, Reach points out that respondents were asked “what they see as the most important benefits of SaaS/cloud computing solutions for law related tasks.” The benefits broke down as such:

• 70%: Browser access anywhere
• 55%: 24/7 availability
• 49%: Low cost of entry and predictable monthly expense
• 44%: Quick to get up and running
• 43%: Elimination of IT and software management requirements

Judging from those numbers, accessibility trumps cost. That is interesting in and of itself as cost seems to be a sticking point for any software purchase. Perhaps the economy is turning around after all, or lawyers have discovered that accessibility makes them more productive, which directly impacts their bottom line. The numbers also seem to confirm that SaaS makes it easy for lawyers to get up and running while doing away with the expensive and time-consuming aspect of software management and maintenance. In other words, SaaS removes the burden of IT so lawyers can focus on lawyering, not tech support.

What was most fascinating, however, were the responses to why a law firm does not, or has not, used SaaS/cloud computing. Reach cited the top three reasons as:

• 63%: Lack of familiarity with the technology
• 47%: Confidentiality/security concerns
• 41%: Having less control over data due to third-party hosting

It’s no secret that confidentiality and security are areas of concern, and the results reflect that. What is surprising, given the amount of discussion across multiple channels, is the 63% that stated a lack of familiarity with cloud computing.

The top three objections with respect to cloud computing all have a simple solution: education.

Even though cloud computing is a hot topic, and is discussed across multiple channels like publications, blogs and social media, the information is getting lost in the shuffle. Not completely lost, though, and there seems to be a trend of bar associations taking advantage of captive audiences and adding cloud computing sessions to annual meetings and conferences.

For example, the Missouri Bar Association Solo and Small Firm Conference had three cloud computing-related sessions, as did the State Bar of Alabama Annual Meeting (PDF). Cloud computing was also covered as part of a Legal Technology Trends session at the State Bar of Texas Annual Meeting (PDF). Good bet cloud computing sessions trend will continue.

We’re believers in education, too, and our CEO Jack Newton continues to speak across the country about cloud computing, helping to raise awareness and address the same concerns cited in the survey.

One other thing to note, under the Mobile Lawyers section, is the top three ways such lawyers are using tablets:

• 83%: Internet access
• 73%: Email
• 51%: Calendars

Perhaps the tablet doesn’t spell the end of the desktop, after all. Yet.

It’s only July, and it’s still 2011, but there’s some buzz about ABA TECHSHOW 2012 already.

Its Facebook group page suddenly came to life with a link to the website that sports a new color scheme. It has changed from orange to blue, and there is a graphic akin to a tag cloud that highlights a number of technologies, like iPad and OneNote, as well as popular sessions, like 60 Sites in 60 Minutes.

Along with a different color scheme, the headline highlights potential themes for 2012:

• Tablets
• Paperless
• E-Discovery
• Virtual Law
• Cloud
• Social Media

We’ve discussed the rise of cloud computing at ABA TECHSHOW before, and it’s good to see it make the headline. It would not be surprising to see the cloud computing track expand again for 2012. It’s also good to see virtual law, tablets and paperless make the headline. Virtual law and tablets are budding areas in the legal sphere, and paperless remains a hot topic of discussion. We’re curious to see what the ABA TECHSHOW Planning Board has in mind.

Social media making the headline is interesting, as is E-Discovery. We can’t help but wonder if there is a correlation. Or perhaps there is just so much more digital information to comb through now, even for solo and small firm lawyers, that sessions on E-Discovery have become a necessity.

Regardless, the headline suggests that ABATECHSOW 2012 will be another excellent conference, so mark your calendars. ABATECHSHOW is set for March 29-31, 2012 at the Hilton Chicago.

The ABA Journal wrote a nice summary of the Commission on Ethics 20/20 initial proposals regarding lawyer use of technology for client development, and then the Web lit up with first reactions to Google+. If there was need for a real-life example of technology moving faster than the law, or ethics rules, that is a good candidate.

Since then, there have been a number of write-ups on the Commission’s draft proposal on Lawyers’ Use of Technology and Client Development (PDF), and they cast the recommendations in a favorable light. The biggest thing is that the Commission opted not to create new rules but offer guidance instead. Robert Ambrogi summed it up nicely in his LawSites Blog post:

I believe that the proposed rules strike a sensible balance between regulating lawyer advertising and promoting the use of technology to educate consumers about law and legal services. Rather than create new restrictions on advertising, the proposed rules make modest changes that help answer questions many lawyers face.

Judging from the Report section of the proposal, the Commission did its homework on lawyers use of technology. The second paragraph of the introduction provides a lengthy list of sources it tapped to understand “how lawyers use various forms of marketing-related technology and whether these forms of marketing have had any adverse effect on the public or clients.” The Commission included American Bar Association sections we’d expect: Law Practice Management Section, Standing Committee on Delivery of Legal Services, Litigation Section, Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and the Young Lawyers Division. And then it went further:

• Received and reviewed recent surveys on lawyers’ use of technology.
• Reviewed relevant marketing websites.
• Studied litigation and disciplinary proceedings relating to Internet-based client leads.
• Reviewed information from the ABA Science and Technology Law Section, the Law Practice Management Section’s ELawyering Task Force, and the Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services.
• Heard testimony from providers of marketing-related technology.
• Heard testimony from lawyers who use those forms of technology.

Surveys. Disciplinary proceedings. Testimony. One can conclude that the Commission, rather than limiting itself to internal sources and ignoring the public outcry over perceived throttling of online marketing for lawyers, instead reached out, collected and analyzed information from multiple, external, sources. Put more simply: the Commission wanted to understand the full picture of how lawyers use technology for marketing and advertising.

Given the different modes of intelligence gathering and the Commission’s subsequent proposal, a key phrase sticks out from Ambrogi’s post: modest changes. Stephanie Kimbro, on her Virtual Law Practice blog, offers a good summary and analysis of those modest changes to Model Rules 1.18, 7.2 and 7.3

For example, she points out proposed word changes in Model Rule 1.18, changing “discusses” to “communicates,” and what that might mean. She goes a step further, though, by explaining how a single word change “would be a dangerous rewording” if the Commission left the definition of “prospective client” alone. The Commission seems to have had the same thought, and has proposed additional wording:

(a) A person who discusses communicates with a lawyer about the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship and has a reasonable expectation that the lawyer is willing to consider forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client.

As Kimbro points out, proposed comments to the rule “lay out what a ‘reasonable expectation’ might be” in an effort to both educate the public on potential pitfalls of communicating electronically, and to help lawyers to avoid inadvertently forming a client-lawyer relationship.

Guidance. Clarity.

Those words extend to Model Rules 7.2 and 7.3, which deal with advertising and direct contact with prospective clients, respectively. As both Ambrogi and Kimbro point out, the proposed changes clarify the definition of “recommendation,” providing ethical guidance so lawyers may now feel more comfortable using pay-per-click and other, similar, lead generation options. The Commission also, as Ambrogi states, “proposed rules to clarify the question that vexes many lawyers online, that of what constitutes an inappropriate solicitation. The rules take the sensible approach of recognizing that a website or banner ad directed to the public at large is not a solicitation.” The Commission, it seems, understands that a website is like a store front on Main Street: for the general public.

The proposed changes are certainly encouraging, and we chime in with applauding the Commission on its reasoned, balanced approach. But the end isn’t here yet. Remember, these are proposed changes.

Comments for Lawyers’ Use of Technology and Client Development are being accepted until August 31, 2011 while comments for Initial Draft Proposals on Technology and Confidentiality are being accepted until July 15, 2011. There’s still time to have your opinion heard, and help shape the future of your profession.