I do think that the vast majority of solo and small firm lawyers have a good sense of how to run a business.  The failure is often in the execution.  Development usually does not go beyond the business plan stage, if it ever even gets there.

Businesspersons often think of creating systems, and then choosing programs to run those systems.  The question is usually not asked in the reverse.  Hence, ‘here’s my paperless workflow, what system should I use now’ is a more common application than ‘I bought Adobe Acrobat, let me build a paperless workflow around its functions’.  I would submit that the second arrangement might be the better formulation.

If, in defining your law firm’s communication methodology, you based that determination on how you would use Slack, as an internal and external conversations driver, you might discover a more seamless approach than if you stumbled upon it later. If it’s true that a law practice management software is the most important product a law firm can invest in, doesn’t it make sense to choose that anchor software first, and then create your workflows based on its features?  Isn’t this a better approach than choosing the same old software, because you don’t want to test anything else, and then complaining, after you start using it, that it doesn’t do what you want it to do?  One of the reasons lawyers don’t like to adopt new technology (even when it’s better) is because they don’t want to undergo a learning curve.  Selecting a software product with a full understanding of its features, and building your practices around that, reduces or eliminates that learning curve.

With the current focus on attorney competence related to technology, taking a more proactive approach to software choice and implementation not only makes sense from an efficiency perspective, it may also be a new and improved way to ward off malpractice.

. . .

Liner Notes

‘Keep on Tryin’’ by Timothy B. Schmit

Law schools have begun to recognize the value of technology competence and management training.  They’re trying to produce a new type of lawyer; but, the more immediate question is how that new type of lawyer fits into existing law firm structures, while the change they hope to accelerate has not yet been effectuated.

While most law students and young lawyers view, or are asked to view, themselves as moldable clay, that’s not likely the best option in this case.  While things like fitting a role, and taking constructive criticism have their places, young lawyers presented with the opportunity to affect the practice of law in new and exciting ways should approach that challenge with the gusto of a start-up businessperson.  If you’re being asked to blaze a new trail, blaze the fucking trail.  The legal industry is all about precedents; and, the chance to work without the past as a counterweight should be embraced.

When a law firms ask a new attorney to assist in developing a revised technology platform, there is probably no better place for that young lawyer to immediately affect the management of that law firm, and its bottom line.  If said young lawyer has had the law school training, or the wherewithal to develop the skillset necessary to accomplish what she is being asked, it could be an entirely revised springboard for launching a legal career.

. . .

Liner Notes

‘Pumped Up Kicks’ by Weezer

This is an excellent cover of one of the catchiest songs of the last 20 years, subject matter notwithstanding.

Keeping more than one calendar invites transposition errors.  Plus, it’s more likely that any one person will fail to do two things, than any one person will fail to do one thing.  (Enter a meeting twice?  The chances of success go down from it happening once.)  Then there’s the whole ‘too many chefs’ thing.  And, though it won’t matter for ethics purposes, under the dual calendar system, it’s too easy for lawyers to pin scheduling mistakes on staff.

The justification for a dual calendar system made some sense prior to the internet age.  There wasn’t really a better solution.  (I imagine Bob Cratchit keeping two sets of books for Ebenezer Scrooge.)  Now, there is.

In 2017 (wow – that was weird), the better strategy by far is to maintain one calendar.  Of course, that doesn’t mean that you access only one calendar.  The rise of cloud computing, including the modern facility of integrating between systems, makes it possible to link several calendars.  Enter appointments and tasks into any of those calendars, and the events and responsibilities will populate to every other calendar you’ve linked to it.  In terms of streamlining that process, a preferred workflow would be to utilize your law practice management system calendar as your primary entry point, and sync it to your email system,  which method would also allow you access to each of those systems’ mobile applications.

Create once, and populate everywhere . . . Just don’t get a God complex about your newfound power.

And, if you don’t think calendar management is essential to law practice management, I can tell you that the number of ethics and malpractice claims that arise out of missed deadlines and appointments is staggering.

. . .

Liner Notes

That’s some ill communication right there.

‘Sabotage’ by Beastie Boys

I’m not taking sides here.  I understand where solo and small firm lawyers are coming from; I consult with those folks regularly, and I know that they have to be head-down on work, and on top of managing the practice, to make it all come together.  I also know that there are a lot of nifty things going on in terms of technology generally, and artificial intelligence specifically, in legal.  Heck, my guy Ed Walters even teaches a robotics course at Georgetown; the only other person to have done that was Elroy Jetson, in the year 2274.

No, I’m not taking sides.  I’m standing in the valley, looking up at either cliff-face, watching the shouting take place.  From my vantage point, there are two commingled reasons for why the artificial intelligence revolution does not resonate as such with solo and small firm lawyers.

The problem tracks back to communication and economics.

In the first instance, solo and small firm lawyers are tired of being portrayed as Luddites.  They’re also sick of, especially in this economy, being threatened with job loss.  How many hundreds (thousands?) of articles have been written with the tagline ‘The End of Lawyers’?  If the standard approach is always: ‘You suck hard; and soon, you won’t have a job because you suck so hard’ — well, wouldn’t you tune out the noise, too?  The fact of the matter is that the real, creative work that attorneys do is not going be replaced anytime soon, nor should it be.  (I mean, do you really want to live in a society overrun with intelligent androids?  If you said yes, you probably didn’t watch the season finale of Westworld.)  The other John Mayer likes to talk about lawyers practicing ‘at the top of their law licenses’.  The truly creative work that lawyers do, the emotional intelligence they must exhibit in dealing with clients, those things are not going to be replicated by machines any time soon.  Lawyers working in those spaces will continue to succeed; and, they will be delighted when services arise that can ease their research burden, for example.  Neither do lawyers fear technology.  They’re comfortable with the technology they have, sure; but, that’s in large part because the concept of new technology (as it now exists) is fairly overwhelming to them.  Hell, I do this for a living, and I can’t keep up.  The truth is that law firm technology has advanced from the Model T to the 2017 Ford Mustang in about 10 years; and, if a law firm can’t choose from more than 100 cloud-based law practice management tools, when not even one existed a decade ago . . . well, what the fuck did you expect?  Solo and small firm lawyers have been asked to seamlessly pull a Captain America; and, then everyone is surprised when they can’t.  The new regulations respecting data protection and technology competence are not onerous; but, lawyers tend to believe they are, because they are trying to catch up at ludicrous speed.  Legislative and ethics authorities need to get better about addressing technology rules to laypersons; but, technology stalwarts need to figure out a way to more effectively translate their service offerings to the needs of solo and small firm attorneys, as those attorneys feel them.

In a larger sense, though, this is a question of economics.  As AI develops, someone needs to pay for the time and space developers need to refine their products.  That’s why a computer used to be larger than a small dinosaur and a terabyte of data now costs, like, 30 cents.  It makes sense that these services would be developed with the support of venture capital firms and large law firms.  It’s safe to ignore solo and small firm lawyers, when gathering a large-enough collective of them to support an artificial intelligence program would not be worth the time spent to unify it.

The ultimate questions is whether and how AI becomes useful to solo and small firm lawyers, rather than if it can be used to squeeze them further out of the market.  In the most perfect world that can be imagined, AI developed for large firms would, in fits and starts, begin to trickle down to solo and small firms, who would be able to access similar programs, at a more reasonable cost.  But, if that hasn’t happened with big data (and won’t still, for a while), what makes you think it’s going to happen with artificial intelligence?

Don’t get me started on driverless cars . . .

. . .

Liner Notes

I blame the Moog synthesizer.

‘Daily Nightly’ by The Monkees

Of course, usability is a two-way street.  Software vendors have to build and update truly useful platforms for law firms; but, law firms must also engage those platforms effectively.  Lawyers must decide to put the effort in to make the most of their use of software.  In the end, software requires data and direction.  Users must submit relevant information, and perform, or set in motion, certain functionality.  The typical lawyer’s dream, of a zero-effort installation, where the new software works just like the old software — right away, avoiding any initial productivity dip — is a fantasy.

In sum, if you don’t want to pay for licenses you’re not using, or if you want to use more than 5% of a program’s functionality, it is incumbent upon lawyers and staff to understand the software they’re attached to, at a more than superficial level.

The following represents a three-point strategery check, to help you figure out whether you’re getting the most out of your software.

Sherpas in the Low Altitudes.  Gladys Knight had the Pips.  Harold Melvin had the Blue Notes.  Ringo has his All-Starr Band.  Who you got?  Lawyers have traditionally leaned on often-younger, presumably more tech-savvy staff to act as in-house troubleshooters respecting the use of software programs.  If there is a candidate in your law firm, it can be tremendously helpful to have a resident ‘technology expert’; and, if that expert exists mostly to support one program, and if it is a high-use program, like an accounting software or a case management system, then that’s probably all right.  Finding someone on your staff who can perform this role can lighten the load on your IT staff (if you have one), will likely reduce your out-of-pocket support costs and can reduce the time you waste developing unnecessary workarounds.

Yeti in the High Altitudes.  Law firms have often applied the above-referenced formula to graft technology expertise onto an existing staffing infrastructure.  Far too often, however, such a scheme becomes a crutch, allowing attorneys a ready excuse to avoid learning about, and coming to a deeper understanding of, the software they regularly use.  Total reliance on staff, however, is a bad decision at a number of levels.  For one, it decreases your personal efficiency; and, for another, it places you at the mercy of a particular staffperson.  If you have ‘one person who knows how to use the software’, what happens if they want to leave, or if they want a raise?  Also, given new ethics requirements respecting technology competence for lawyers, it could be argued that a totally hands-off approach contravenes, at least the spirit, of those rules, as well as existing rules concerning the supervision of staff.

Knowing When to Call for Help.  Just as there is no perfect software, there is no perfect software user.  Unless you’re the law office equivalent of Bo Jackson in ‘Tecmo Super Bowl’, you’ll need a hand every now and then.  So, you want to be careful to pick a software program that features a robust knowledgebase and support structure, potentially including a paid support component.  Plans will differ for various providers; so, you should ask, and the select the option that works best for you.  If you can’t figure it out, and the support desk can’t help, it may be time to consider a consultant.

. . .

Liner Notes

My understanding is that this would have been the perfect song, if it wasn’t just a tribute.

‘Tribute’ by Tenacious D

But, you know what’s alien to a not insignificant number of small law firms?  Effective data controls.

To that end, I intend to examine three potential security loopholes, and then the methods to close them.

Logging In.  There are a number of ways you may be failing to properly secure your hardware and software — the chief access points for the majority of your law firm data.  The good news (if this is bad news for you) is that tweaking some of your existing protocols can go a long way to beefing up your existing protections against data breach.  The most obvious method is to create more secure passwords, and require your team to do the same.  People use simplistic passwords because they’re easy to remember; but, those same passwords are easy to crack.  Many lawyers operate on the thesis that, if one simple password is easy to remember for one program or device, then that same simple password will be similarly easy to remember across multiple programs and devices.  If you’re using the same password across a number of programs and devices, you’re exposing a large swath of your data in what would otherwise be a single, controlled breach — there’s a reason jailors have massive key rings and for each cell being tied to a single key.  If you’re having trouble remembering the multitudes of passwords you must recall, try a password manager.  This is a good guide for crafting more complex passwords — which don’t, by the way, have to include a bunch of special characters.  Beyond passwords, adding a second factor of authentication, where available, will better secure your accounts.  The most common second factor (in addition to a password) is a texted access code.  The theory behind this measure is that, even if a hacker does figure out your password, that same hacker is not very likely to also possess your phone — though, there are potentially stronger options available.

Screening.  Controlling access to internal systems is also important, especially given the rising use of case management programs by law firms.  While this is often an issue viewed through the prism of ethics, there are other concerns at play, as well.  A driving theory behind data management is that access should be given to those who require it to perform a job, to the exclusion of others.   Limiting engagement on matters only to those who need to access those matters limits the possibility of breach by limiting the number of parties who could easily effectuate it.  Reducing associate access to only those matters on which associates are directly working offers less exposure to your complete client lists and contacts, which would otherwise be more easily accessible by a break-off firm.  Effectively screening support staff from accounting features and reports could save you from becoming the victim of embezzlement.  It may go without saying that eliminating access for departing staff as soon as practicable is a protective measure that law firms would be negligent in waiting on employing.

Let’s Get Physical.  Even at this late date, most law firms are not entirely paperless, such that access controls should extend to the paper files that law firms maintain — even where there exist a limited number of those files.  Paper files are not subject to global exposure, like electronic data is; but, paper files are far easier to remove from a physical space, and are much harder to track if lost, mislaid or stolen.  Lawyers tend to leave paper files that they work on out on their desks.  Those documents are prime targets for being swiped; so, file all your paper documents before going home for the night.  Use file cabinets that lock, and actually lock them.   Make sure that associates and staff are aware of the need for securing confidential paper-based data, too; create a policy respecting the firm’s treatment of such documents.

It’s easy to overlook information security — until you’ve had a breach.  Not every breach is preventable; but, if you can stop those that are, and install a response and recovery plan for those that aren’t, you will have shown your commitment to your clients, and will have met your ethical and legal obligations.

. . .

Liner Notes

Speaking of aliens . . .

‘David Duchovny’ by Bree Sharp

Shout out to my boy, Glenn Dennis.