Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
David Whelan, who has led the American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Research Center for the last five years, is heading to Ohio to be the new director of the county law library in Cincinnati. One of his final tasks was to send the latest ABA technology survey to the printer. I pestered Whelan for a sneak preview, and I was stunned by the litigation support results. The results chart shows that only 11.7 percent of lawyers use trial software. Assuming the methodology was correct, how could that be? In today’s competitive environment, I think any lawyer who would go into a courtroom without even basic litigation support software should make sure the firm’s malpractice premium is paid. Puzzled, I turned to our cadre of experts. I was, frankly, surprised that they weren’t too terribly surprised by the results. Houston attorney Craig Ball consults on trial technology, and is among several who suggest semantics are at play. “I give seminars on computer forensics, and often ask the lawyer audiences, ‘How many of you have a tape-based electromagnetic storage system in your homes?’ I get few hands.” The audience, he said, doesn’t make the connection to VCRs, cassette players and answering machines. “Here, I’m in the same boat. Just what are we calling litigation support software? PowerPoint certainly can serve a litigation support function. I bet if you asked the litigators how many of them personally use PowerPoint you’d find many do — at least more than 11.7 percent! Is Microsoft Word litigation support software? What if you use Word at depositions and in the courtroom to search ASCII transcriptions of testimony or access the exhibit list?” he asked. Excel? Sanction? Trial Director? Samuel Guiberson of Guiberson Law Offices agreed. And he’s not too fond of existing litigation technology anyway. He suggested savvy lawyers are better off bypassing “the fat price and product support contracts” of legal-specific tools. “Maybe what [the ABA is] measuring is not how clueless, but how sophisticated those polled actually were.” OUTSOURCING Are the numbers skewed because firms are outsourcing litigation support? “There is no need to have everything in-house at all times,” noted Chicago’s Audrey Rubin, chief operating officer of Butler Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd. Her firm prefers to outsource exhibit preparation to consultants, who stay up on the latest tools. But others suggest money and fear are at the heart of the disconnect. “Small firm attorneys who are cost conscious are unlikely to be outsourcing,” said Bruce Olson, of Green Bay’s Davis & Kuelthau. “Outsourcing takes money away from cash flow. There is always a fear that the client might refuse to pay for the added expense that outsourcing involves.” Phoenix litigator Michael Arkfeld, author of two books on trial technology, said solos and small firms resist trial technology because of “lack of interest, lack of technology understanding, lack of training, billable hour obstacles and, sometimes, cost.” Three San Franciscans saw eye-to-eye. Jon Sigerman, president of Summation Legal Technologies Inc., (which produces Summation), said many lawyers simply don’t understand how the technology works and what it can do. Some, he said, still think of litigation technology “as a back office or paralegal tool for static information delivery and management.” Others, he said, expect it to be used to deliver boxes of paper. “These lawyers don’t understand that they can have this information in seconds, not days, at their fingertips in a laptop computer,” said Sigerman. They don’t understand that scrolling search results on a computer screen is faster than thumbing through paper, he said. Ted Brooks, president of Litigation-Tech, summed it up: “Firms are not really sure what is available, often it just looks too expensive, and there are too many systems to choose from. It is largely a fear of the unknown.” “Fear, fear, fear,” agreed Vicki Lee Clewes, senior consultant with Baker+Cadence Solutions. She sees firms that are put off by the perceived expense. The reality of adopting the process (even more so than the software) is overwhelming. Indeed, it is paralyzing, said Cleveland consultant Dean Boland: “The availability of so many competing products overwhelms purchasers. They are making a $500 to $1,000 investment for even a small shop and then not knowing if what they’re getting will suffice. They are concerned, rightly so, that if they spend two or three years with one product, they will be unable to migrate to another easily, if at all.” Milwaukee’s Ross Kodner said he has “dozens of clients with significant trial practices that have no lit support applications.” Kodner, president of MicroLaw Inc., said they either “haven’t gotten around to it or have a very real fear of learning and mastering what they perceive as a radically different approach to trial preparation and presentation.” “The fear factor cannot be underestimated,” said Kodner. SIZE MATTERS Many observers disagree with the notion that all cases deserve trial technology. “The vast bulk of litigation attorneys feel that litigation support software is for the ‘big files’ and they don’t handle them,” said David Bilinsky, practice management advisor and staff lawyer for The Law Society of British Columbia. “Their files are too small to pour in the time and resources to learn and use the software.” Colorado consultant Phil Shuey, of Shuey Robinson, said many small firms are a blend of transactional and litigation practice, and often feel that “substantial dollar and/or time commitment for the litigation side of their practice is ill-advised.” Keith Lipman argued that there’s a critical mass to reach before using technology. “These tools only make sense once a litigation, in paper terms, exceeds one or two copier boxes of relevant content, and/or three or more depositions,” said Lipman, senior product manager, at Interwoven Inc. “Before this point, the effort and work to apply the technology may not be worth the results.” Solo Bruce Dorner agreed. “Some cases don’t require heavy artillery. I don’t need litigation support (depending upon how it is defined) to go into court to collect on a promissory note which is in default,” he said. “The types of cases requiring litigation support are, in their nature, complex matters which have piles of related and un-related documents, facts, witnesses, etc. Therefore, it is more likely that a smaller firm would be handling less complex cases requiring less complex technology,” said Dorner, of Londonderry, N.H. Jennifer Stevenson, marketing director of Dataflight Software Inc. (manufacturer of Concordance), confronted these same issues. “Most small firm lawyers don’t get litigation cases big enough (in their opinion) to warrant the expenditure of litigation support software. If they are brought into a larger litigation case as co-counsel, they will often purchase our software. However, we’ve found that they do not continue using the software after the case is over,” said Stevenson. “What we’ve learned is that they do not see the value of scanning one or two boxes of documents. They believe that doing it the old-fashioned way works just fine.” Training is another huge issue — many firms protest that they just don’t have time. “A small firm attorney told me that to learn a new way of doing things is like asking him to change his car’s transmission on the freeway,” said Stevenson. Another common concern: Firms worry that using technology will actually reduce their billable hours. “Many attorneys need to be open to working more efficiently before they’ll adopt software. Oftentimes the clients of small law firms aren’t experienced enough to question such unnecessary administrative overhead,” Stevenson noted. WHO’S RESPONSIBLE? Why are lawyers resisting technology that can improve productivity, accuracy, client service and profits? Kodner places part of the blame right at the feet of the vendors. They do a great job telling prospective buyers about the plethora of features, “but do little or nothing to educate lawyers about why trying cases without these products is so illogical,” he said. “There’s a very real and very wide gap between the relative knowledge of the prospective buyer and what the vendors seem to presume their buyers know.” Vendors trumpet their miraculous new case organizers while prospective buyers are scratching their heads saying, “What is a case organizer?” said Kodner. The answer: Vendors must “demystify their products, stop assuming people know what their products do,” said Kodner. “Stop presuming lawyers ‘get it’ as to the reasons why they would be nuts not to use these products, and finally, make the prices reasonable and affordable (and provide plain English ROI analyses to make it economically obvious). It’s not a problem with users, it’s an educational shortcoming on the part of vendors.” MALPRACTICE? Most legal technologists brush off the notion that failure to use litigation tools may trigger malpractice claims. “Any skilled advocate can still make a hell of a persuasive and winning presentation in the courtroom without using a bit (or byte) of litigation support software,” said Craig Ball. “In the right hands, a flip chart, overhead projector or any prop can be used to good, even captivating, effect. It’s not malpractice to head to court without circuit boards in tow — if you can pull it off,” asserted Ball. But others see fire on the horizon. “It is certainly getting to the point where the failure to use litigation support is arguably malpractice, and there are even a few appellate cases out there that have said so,” said Bruce Olson. Most litigators, he said, “would scoff at the idea that the failure to use litigation support technology meant they were negligent.” But the fastest way to get religion is to be badly beaten up in court by an opponent who uses litigation support technology effectively and victoriously, said Olson. He admonished lawyers that cost concerns are short-sighted. “Too often the focus is only on the up front cost, and not on the total cost of managing a file. Litigators who look at the big picture, and who integrate litigation support effectively into their day-to-day practice, understand that they will ultimately reap long-term savings through the systematic daily use of litigation support software.” The bottom line, suggested Michael Arkfeld, is to face your fears, and do it even if it hurts. “Though change is difficult, it benefits your clients.”

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 Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.