As we come to the end of another year, and another decade, there are naturally the slew of recapitulations floating about. Most take the form of “top 10” lists of no lasting consequence, but others are a retrospective on more substantive matters. The former are, also naturally, more popular as they take far less effort to absorb.
At Law 21, Jordon Furlong writes of the changes of the closing decade:
At Law 21, Jordon Furlong writes of the changes of the closing decade:
What’s left to say about the 2000s? What the legal profession (and the marketplace in which it operates) have just gone through was, as Brad Hildebrandt points out, unprecedented in almost every way. I won’t recap the changes — as Law21’s second full year draws to a close, you can read about them in many of the 274 previous posts here. But at a glance, we’ve seen astounding technological advances (primarily online) that change how legal services are accomplished and delivered, the rapid development of service providers outside the confines of national borders and the legal profession, and two recessions, the latter serious enough to trigger a long-overdue shift in the balance of power between lawyers and their clients. By the decade’s end, we saw the first signs that fundamental change in the marketplace, talked about for so long, was finally, really happening.
How did I miss it? As far as I can tell, there are a bunch of new gadgets to buy, and ways to waste time that never before existed, but clients still call on the phone and then come in for a meeting. I go to court and wait until my case is called. A year or two later, the case gets tried before a bunch of people who reach a verdict.
True, in federal court I must file papers electronically, using a system that was difficult and unwieldy on the day it was introduced and remains unchanged since. State court papers will move by hand or snail mail though. Somehow, I don’t think this is what Jordon is talking about.
I’m not arguing about whether Jordon is right in claiming that we’ve seen “astounding technological advances” in the law over the past decade. I’m wondering why, if this has happened in other practice areas, why criminal law has been left out?
I read all of Jordon’s posts to keep abreast of developments in legal technology. If I didn’t read Jordon’s posts, I wouldn’t know about many of these developments, as they rarely make their way into the world of the criminal defense lawyer. While others have “virtual offices” and “cloud computing” and outsourcing to places where they pay pennies on the dollar for legal services, we still do things pretty much the same way as we did since the day I got my ticket, except that cool lawyers now use computers instead of IBM Selectrics. That was a huge advance, I admit.
Why have we been left out of this technological revolution? Why do we not have virtual meetings with clients, and virtual court appearances? Why do state courts not have electronic filing, and why is ECF still almost impossible to navigate? Why do prosecutors not send papers and discovery in pdf files via email, instead using email to make sure we received them a week later than the judge (assuming that it’s not an intentional ex parte communication)?
But Jordon’s real joy is raised by what technology has done for our clients.
True, in federal court I must file papers electronically, using a system that was difficult and unwieldy on the day it was introduced and remains unchanged since. State court papers will move by hand or snail mail though. Somehow, I don’t think this is what Jordon is talking about.
I’m not arguing about whether Jordon is right in claiming that we’ve seen “astounding technological advances” in the law over the past decade. I’m wondering why, if this has happened in other practice areas, why criminal law has been left out?
I read all of Jordon’s posts to keep abreast of developments in legal technology. If I didn’t read Jordon’s posts, I wouldn’t know about many of these developments, as they rarely make their way into the world of the criminal defense lawyer. While others have “virtual offices” and “cloud computing” and outsourcing to places where they pay pennies on the dollar for legal services, we still do things pretty much the same way as we did since the day I got my ticket, except that cool lawyers now use computers instead of IBM Selectrics. That was a huge advance, I admit.
Why have we been left out of this technological revolution? Why do we not have virtual meetings with clients, and virtual court appearances? Why do state courts not have electronic filing, and why is ECF still almost impossible to navigate? Why do prosecutors not send papers and discovery in pdf files via email, instead using email to make sure we received them a week later than the judge (assuming that it’s not an intentional ex parte communication)?
But Jordon’s real joy is raised by what technology has done for our clients.
Clients (both consumer and corporate) possess more knowledge of and more influence over legal services delivery than they’ve ever had, and both will grow. In sheer numbers, more people figure to have real access to justice in the 2010s than at any time in history.
Where are these clients and why are mine not enjoying this benefit? Mine are no more knowledgeable than they’ve ever been. At least based upon the number and nature of questions asked, they surely don’t seem to have any greater depth of understanding than before. As for influence of legal services delivery, they hated paying for a criminal defense 25 years ago and still do today. I’m not at all clear what this means, but I don’t believe that it’s making clients any happier.
I certainly don’t doubt that Jordon’s observations, about this tech revolution in the law, is happening. I’m just not seeing any of it. About the only difference I’ve seen are the emails from people seeking free advice and representation. Is that it? Have criminal defense lawyers been left out of the technology revolution, or is it just me? Or is it not quite as revolutionary as it sounds?
Lawyers who are really devoted to service, to stewardship, and to the best interests of others will welcome the coming explosion in access to justice, whether it benefits us financially or not. If the resources are emerging outside our walls to provide people with better legal services at a lower price, then the real professionals in our midst will make those resources available to clients and make whatever adjustments are necessary to their own business models to ensure their continued viability.Now I’m devoted to client service, and welcome the “explosion in access to justice.” Of course, my justice may not be your justice, but let’s not get bogged down in semantics. But there is remarkably little in what technology offers that reduces the cost for criminal defendants. This may have to do with the fact that there has been little change in our practice, or that we’ve been left out of this exploding access to justice. Either way, every cost associated with the practice of law seems to go up every year, leaving me to wonder why lawyers in other practice areas are able to serve their clients at a lower price while criminal defense lawyer costs only move higher.
I certainly don’t doubt that Jordon’s observations, about this tech revolution in the law, is happening. I’m just not seeing any of it. About the only difference I’ve seen are the emails from people seeking free advice and representation. Is that it? Have criminal defense lawyers been left out of the technology revolution, or is it just me? Or is it not quite as revolutionary as it sounds?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Before I became an attorney, I was a “tech guy.” I had tech certifications up the wazoo, taught as a contract instructor in my free time from my job as Director of Information Systems for a multi-million-dollar company and wrote a chapter for book called “Migrating NT4 to Windows 2000.”
I thought this would maybe put me ahead technology-wise as an attorney.
What I’ve found is that, other than the fact I can build and maintain my own websites and blogs, and build, maintain and support my own office network (with a whopping two computers — three, if you count my new mini!), it hasn’t really meant much.
The tech seems very important for civil attorneys. Most of the “practice management software” I’ve tried over the last few years is huge overkill for what I need in my criminal defense practice. (In fact, Amicus Attorney won’t even function on my notebook, since it runs Windows 7 Starter — I’d call it the crippled version of Windows 7 if it didn’t seem that everything Microsoft turns out is crippled.) Microsoft OneNote is more sophistication than my criminal law practice needs.
I think the answer to your question is that tech didn’t pass us by. We just don’t need it. The stuff we have to do is — as far as TECHNOLOGY goes — fairly basic.
If you live in an apartment, how much can the revolution in lawn care products impact your life?
Since you obviously know more than I do (since I don’t know what NT4 is), two questions: Is there anything we can/should do to make tech work for us and our clients? Is this true for all small and solo firms, or just criminal defense lawyers?
And if you two guys come up with a brand new way to make tech work for your kinds of lawyer, do you need someone who is still a “tech guy” to help you build a service or product we can market? ‘Cause the way this last year went, I could sure use some more income…
So, is there “practice management software” you have found useful?
I use a pen and my never-ending supply of “recycled” paper. It works just great for me.
My thoughts on this would take too long to write out completely here. But the reader’s digest version is that even though I’ve been much into tech for years — I didn’t mention my entire pre-lawyer history but I’ve been on the Internet since before it was commercially available and my history includes running ISPs once it became commercially available — I’ve found that I typically use paper more than tech for my cases.
Plus, there are (at least) two aspects to this question. One has to do with “practice management” or “case management.” The other has to do with how tech works in our cases (e.g., whether it’s an attorney using tech such as PowerPoint in court, or using tech outside the courtroom, such as with electronic discovery issues, particularly in child porn, cyberstalking, or other computer- and Internet-related crimes).
Practice/case management is where my current concerns lie. I do own 2 licenses for Amicus Attorney Small Firm and my recently-acquired office manager is using it, although I don’t much because it won’t run on the notebook computer I bought to make me more productive away from the office. So I’ve been playing around with trying to create a set-up with Microsoft Word and/or Excel and/or OneNote that gives me what I want. Frankly, things like Amicus have far more bells and whistles than I need for 99% of my criminal law cases. I’d love to see someone gear something toward the needs of criminal defense lawyers; something much more stripped down than Amicus, or Abacus, or other tools for snivel law attorneys.
I don’t want to write a book here — and I don’t think Scott wants me to, either. Maybe I’ll blog about my thoughts on criminal law and tech. Or you can send me email.
And, Scott, I’ve notice your posts lately about people misusing comments — I apologize if this too-long response is an abuse of your comment system!
I don’t mind the length (mostly because I won’t read it), but who are you talking to?
It’s like a long, boring answer to a question no one asked. Have you ever considered brevity?
Scott, thanks very much for the link and for your comments. You and Rick are both right: my observation was directed more towards civil practice rather than criminal defence practice. I’m not nearly as well-acquainted with developments in the criminal bar, but I’d agree with you that the sorts of improvements in both access to justice and client knowledge I’m seeing on the civil side appear to be making their way to the criminal side. It’s a very good question why that is, and I’d be interested in getting your thoughts and the thoughts of your colleagues on this point, because it’s an important one.
Most civil access improvements are along the lines of both the price of the services and the knowledge (I’m reluctant to say “sophistication,” since that’s a loaded term) of clients. Prices are going to drop because there are now more ways to get the job done rather than just by your local law firm (offshored lawyers, automated document assembly, etc.), and because sooner or later, lawyers are going to lose their de facto monopoly on civil legal service provision in North America. Client knowledge is improving because more legal, procedural and experiential information is becoming available on the web, and so clients come into the lawyer’s office better prepared and start off further along the process than they used to — I think they’re less easily led than they once were.
At a glance, I’m not sure either of these trends translate easily to criminal defence practice. Your internal costs and procedures are, I would think, already pretty streamlined, and it’s not like someone in Mumbai can represent your client at a bail hearing. Also, and this is pure conjecture so feel free to contradict it, but I don’t think criminal defence lawyers have as much of the passive-aggressive antagonism that some civil lawyers seem to have with their clients — the constant dance around costs and results. It may be, basically, that there are already fewer systematic inefficiencies in the criminal lawyer-client relationship than there are in the civil lawyer-client relationship.
The other aspect of it, I think, is that clients on the civil side have a lot of institutional support. Corporate law departments, obviously, have money and infrastructure with which to influence their outside counsel, while civilian or consumer clients have non-profit entities and courthouse services to help them out (especially in family law, which is just a train wreck in terms of access to justice). Criminal defence clients, as I don’t need to tell you, don’t have anything resembling that sort of societal support — they’re normally portrayed as the kind of people civil clients need to be protected from.
So those would be my guesses as to why we haven’t seen these sorts of changes happening on the criminal defence side, but they’re only guesses — I’d be seriously interested in getting your take on it. Thanks, and best wishes for the holiday season.
Cripes, lengthy answer and I leave out a key word. The sentence should read:
“I’d agree with you that the sorts of improvements in both access to justice and client knowledge I’m seeing on the civil side DON’T appear to be making their way to the criminal side.”
Sorry about that.
I would have just added the “don’t” into your first comment, but I wouldn’t pass up a comment that included “cripes” no matter what.
But where’s my tech explosion? I want cool, new stuff too. I think you’re quite right that we have always operated on a highly efficient/effective basis, but I’m sick and tired of hearing about civil lawyers having all the new toys and criminal lawyers getting squat!
Merry Christmas to you too, Jordon.
IANAL, but I work at a biglaw that uses a lot of ‘technology.’ I think the big issue is the economics of scale. We handle so many matters, that if we saved a dollar a matter, some random expensive tech widget would pay for itself in no time. The other issue is, the more hands you have, the more coordination and organization you need. Most of this sort of thing does is coordinate dockets, work flow, communications, etc. For a small firm or single person, you can do that with a pen. When I’m being coordinated by four people in four time zones, it’s a big thing.
We don’t do a lot of outsourcing, so I can’t really speak to that.