I,illl
Ullill' TI'fhnlllllg~
THE HIGH-TECH
LAw
OFFICE:
BEYOND THE YEAR 2000 by Jeane"e Hamilcon, Chai" Arkansas Ba, Assoc;a,jon Technology Comm;"ee We sure don't practice law like we used to, technology-wise, anyway. During my fourteen years in this profession, I have witnessed the transition from electric typewriters to mag cards to word processors in law offices. I can seill recall the day in the late 80's when my law partner debated with himself ahour whether co go ahead and buy a fax machine now or wait to see if it was going to be "just a fad." I remember first hearing about me internet and e-mail from a technology-savvy attorney friend in the eaely 90's. I though, he was ,alking abour something he had seen in a movie. I simply couldn't comprehend that such miracles were truly possible, much less actuaJly in existence and available to regular folks here in Arkansas. And, I certainly couldn't figure out why anyone would really need these things to practice law more efficiently. For the early years of the law office technology boom, the emphasis seemed to be on obtaining more and better equipment, I.e., "upgrading"; new hardware, software, and faxes, more sophisticated telephone systems. Although atcorneys are still concerned with keeping up with the latest innovations in equipment for their practices, the emphasis is shifting to knowledge management, or information management. The concept of information management in today's law office is a broad one. One of the most important aspects of this concept is the sharing of information between anorneys and other staff within ,he office. A good example of this is the development of new programs such as CaseMap. CaseMap is a da,abase application offering a template into which members of the same office can enter data easily, about a case, for instance. It permits anorneys co organize cases and look at facts, issue by issue, and determine what facts each witness will prove. It also provides a method for creating rimelines, by issue or by witness. Dennis Kennedy, a well recognized anomey who is an expert in
,he field oflaw office ,echnology, has called CaseMap a "classic litigation knowledge management tool." Steven Athenon, an anorney who writes a legal technology column for me Vermont Bar Journal, has formulated three rules (Q approach knowledge information issues. Rule One: "Everything mus' be available electronically;" Rule Two: "Critical information must be securely available outside of the office;" and Rule Three: "Knowledge must be aCces5ible to those who need it when they need it." The ,a,ionale behind Rule One is '0 increase efficiency by having all information immediately accessible to each person in the office at his or her desktop. The reason for Rule Two, having all information available outside the office, is self-evidel1t: giving lawyers access to critical information while taking depositions at another lawyer's office, while in coun, or even on vacation decreases or eliminates the need for lawyers to be in a particular place (Q practice law, thereby allowing more efficient use of time. A5 for Rule Three, the idea is to have all information electronically captured once but used multiple times and in various databases maintained by several individuals within or outside the law firm. An example given by Atherton is an anorney, a client, and an expert witness all working from remote locations on the same case file via a password-protected site accessible over the internet (an extranet). For litigation attorneys and firms, this type of accessibility will soon be viewed as essential for an attorney to remain competitive. Another trend in me area of information management is the ever- increasing portability of the equipment lawyers use to do ,heir jobs. Use of handheld PC's is pcolifera,ing in ,he legal field. Originally used primarily for calendaring and contact/client management, many of these tiny wonders have developed into mini computers and wireless communication
devices. They can be lIsed for e-mail, web access, faxing, paging, money managemenr and word processing. Cellular telephone companies are now beginning co integrate the Palm Pilo, and other hand-held PC's into combination phone/PC's. Michael Arkfeld, author of The Digila! Prac,ice of Law, says handheld PC's are the nex' seep coward "a truly wireless legal system." For fearless, tech-minded attorneys, these advances appear to have unlimited potential for good with )jttle, if any, downside. But as wonderful as these new technologies are, lawyers muS[ keep in mind the purpose for which the technology exists. A balance must be struck between staying on the cutting edge of technology and constantly honing one's legal competency. The best hardware and software in the world can't compensate for inadequate lawyering skills. And sometimes the changes wrought by new technology have unexpected impact in ways that are detrimental to productivity and morale. Costly technological "solutions" may end up only causing more problems. To maximize the chance for positive change as a result of adopting new technology in the law office, attorneys and office managers must first identify and anticipate possible effects before they happen. The need for additional training for attorneys and other staff must be recognized. Objections ro the new equipment should be listened to and responded co. Technological changes tha, are advantageous to one law firm may be disastrous to another. The new technology promises attorneys ,educed drudgery, increased p,oducciviry and a bener quality work product. So long as the changes in equipment and information management allow us ro continue to improve the service we provide, then the practice of law beyond the year 2000 is an exciting prospect.o)