Last week I talked about television advertising for attorneys. But what about internet marketing? Most attorneys aren’t fans.

Here is a portion of an email from a marketing list serve:

I too found [specific company’s] marketing worthless. I suspect the same is true of virtually all the pitches we receive from marketing companies. I tried a couple of them, and for 20+ years, I have cross examined their reps. Some of them generate a flow of trash calls but rarely a case on which I would open a file……but web marketing is now flooded with garbage. There is a mountain of trash with very few treasures.

I agree. My personal experience with web based marketing is that it is pouring money down a drain.

John Morgan writes that television advertising is what works. It’s hard to argue with his results.

It’s a rhetorical question. I know the answer.

The reason all state courts in Mississippi don’t use electronic filing is, in a word, politics.

Some clerks don’t want to adopt electronic filing even though it would make their lives easier. Forcing them to is not worth it politically to the Supreme Court or the Bar. I’m using the word ‘politically’ broadly here–like in the sense of ‘office politics.’ I’m not suggesting it has anything to do with elections.

Understand though, this is my interpretation based on things I’ve been told over the last few years. Some might differ with my conclusions. I suspect, however, upon hearing a more detailed or different explanation, I would say “that’s still politics.”

And I get the politics explanation. Just because someone could exercise power and force all state courts to adopt ECF, doesn’t mean they should. It might not be important enough.

But at some point, it will be. Apparently, not everyone can take a hint. I’m not sure we can wait on the biggest hard headed clerks.

As 2020 approaches, I don’t view ECF as a technology issue. We’re past that. It’s established.

ECF is now an access to justice issue. Most law firms are built around the assumption that filing will be done electronically. When they can’t, it throws a monkey wrench in the system.

Both from a money and time perspective, it’s less expensive to operate a practice when all filing is electronic. Not a little less expensive. A lot.

A solo who practices in an ECF venue probably can get by without an assistant. It takes seconds to file something and everyone registered in the case can download a copy. Just as importantly, there is a record that it’s filed.

Compare that to a paper filing jurisdiction. You have to mail to the clerk. If you want to be sure it was filed, you have to send them a copy and envelope so they can mail you a file stamped copy back. You also have to send copies to all other counsel and often the judge. Granted you can usually do that by email, although some lawyers don’t.

As a solo with a paperless practice, I shy away from taking cases in paper filing jurisdictions. It’s not going to be the decisive factor in whether I take a case, but it’s a factor. On a pro bono case it would be a deciding factor. If I’m going to take a case pro bono, I’m not going to make it harder on myself than I have to. I can’t imagine I’m the only attorney who feels that way.

It’s easier for solo and small firms to operate in ECF venues. It’s also less expensive for the clients, who end up paying the freight on paper filing and associated staff. This makes electronic filing an access to justice issue, not a tech issue.

Consider yourself lucky of you don’t have to do anything in a paper filing venue. The attorneys who complain the most about paper filing venues are the ones who practice full time in those venues. Just ask one. You’ll see.

Thinking about going paperless but don’t know how? Sam Glover’s post on the Lawyerist blog explains how.

Glover opens with a salient point: if you haven’t already gone paperless, you will.

If you arent paperless already, you need to catch up.

When you are ready to leave paper (mostly) behind, use [Sam’s] guide to get started.

The Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are paperless. Federal courts are paperless. The system just works better.

You can still print documents when you have a ‘paperless’ office, and you will. But you don’t have to and you will always be safe throwing paper in the trash once it’s scanned and filed. Most importantly, you will spend a fraction of the time looking for stuff.

And for God’s sake, don’t be the person in your firm who is keeping everyone else from going paperless.

Only legal tech nerds like me know there is actually a legal industry specific keyboard. But for many, the fact it wasn’t wireless was a deal-breaker. No more.

Bob Ambrogi reports that the LegalBoard now has a wireless model. So if you go out tonight and see a bunch of lawyers celebrating, don’t assume they had a big trial win. Maybe they just got their wireless LegalBoards.

You may ask, who cares? Apparently, lots of folks. Ambrogi writes:

“Never in my 14 years of blogging and more than two decades of covering legal technology have I seen the legal world react to a new product as it did this week to the LegalBoard, a keyboard designed for lawyers.”

That is what I wrote in 2017 after I published a blog post announcing the LegalBoard, a keyboard designed for lawyers by a lawyer. Hits to that post went through the roof, far exceeding any post I’d ever published.

Thus proving the axiom that many lawyers can’t see the forest for the trees.

I guess I’m going to have to see it in action before I buy into the hoopla. It’s an awfully wide keyboard, which isn’t great for shoulders and arm tendons.

Plus, I know how to insert the dreaded symbols ¶ and § in Word. Footnotes are no problem either–it’s on my shortcut bar.

If anyone has one, please leave a comment on whether you like it.

The Legal Skills Prof blog reports on Robert Ambrogi’s LawSites blog report that Georgia may join 37 states in addressing technology competence in its Rules of Professional Conduct.

The new proposed Rule 1.1 (Competence) would read in part:

Maintaining competence

[6] To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education, and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject. (emphasis added).

My Take:

Mississippi is virtually surrounded by states with a similar rule, with Alabama the exception. Suffice it to say that Mississippi might be the last one to the party, but it’s coming here too.

Technology competence is a big can of worms. It means different things to different people.

How much does anyone really know? How do you measure it? Being the cynic I am, 20 years ago when office computers didn’t work close to as well as they do now, I wondered how much some of the IT folks really knew. As long as they knew more than everyone else in your office, they looked like experts.

I have a better read on it now. Most IT folks address a problem by Googling for the solution. If you can Google, you can fix a lot of your tech problems.

I consider myself to have tech competence compared to most lawyers. But I’m always learning more and that I have much more to learn.

Currently, I’m reading a book on electronic discovery and digital evidence. There is a lot of law on the subject out there I didn’t know. That seems to be a theme in addressing tech competence–the more you learn, the more you realize how little you know.

Which brings me back to the professional rules requiring attorneys to have tech competence. I applaud them. But I have no idea how someone would define it. One man’s tech genius is the next man’s tech fool.

Above the Law is reporting that national firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius is offering voluntary buyout packages to all legal secretaries. The reason: “technology innovation” and “the practice needs of our lawyers.”

My Take:

I know where they are coming from.

Forcing attorneys to become tech proficient and slashing the ranks of support staff is a big thing on the horizon in the industry. My experience with support staff is illustrative.

When I opened my own practice in 2002, I had an assistant hired and ready to start day one. It was every bit as necessary as phones and computers. I could not practice without someone to answer the phone, type, handle bookkeeping and manage the paper flow.

The paper flow was ridiculous. Every couple of months, we filled another filing cabinet. Soon, we had to store files off site. Not to mention all the paper we were shipping to clerks, judges, attorneys and clients. I can still hear the sound of our copier churning out paper.

I didn’t type anything except emails. Dictation didn’t work for me. For whatever reason, the quality wasn’t there. I wrote everything out longhand and had my assistant type it. I revised by hand and she typed those. We exchanged drafts all day.

Answering the phone was more important than it is today. I primarily wrote in the morning, went to lunch and spent the afternoon on the phone. I had to be in the office because there was a lot of phone tag until you connected. Most communications done by email today was done by phone. Email is quicker and more efficient.

All of this made my assistant very busy. It was common for us both to work on Saturday.

Flash forward to 2019. I don’t have staff. I can’t keep someone busy. Why? Tech.

Somewhere along the way, all the emails taught me to type. Electronic filing allowed for a virtually paperless practice. I went from keeping someone busy over 40 hours a week to keeping them busy a couple of hours a day. It was hard to justify the expense of having staff, but I still had an assistant.

Then one day, something happened that required her termination. I decided to wait to fill the position. I signed up for a virtual receptionist to answer the phone and learned how to do the bookkeeping on Quickbooks. I quickly realized that I no longer needed or wanted an assistant.

There is no doubt that if I was still at a big firm, I would not know how to electronic file or that it only takes a couple of minutes. I would depend on others to do many things that I could do myself in virtually no time. I would not have learned to do all I have with tech because I wouldn’t have been forced to.

The Morgan Lewis buyouts suggest big firms are figuring this out. One way or another, attorneys are becoming tech proficient, reducing the need for secretaries. It’s a copycat industry. It’s probably a trend setting move.

Legal research company Casetext discusses Lexis’ new pricing model for small firms in this blog post. With the rising popularity of Casetext, Fastcase and other cheaper online legal research options, Lexis is loosening up on its unpopular selling practices.

From the article:

Traditionally, the legacy legal research providers negotiate each legal research contract in secret, requiring you to sign an NDA about the pricing and other terms of your contract. They do this to extract that maximum price from you possible. If you don’t know what the market rate is, they’ll keep on upping the price until you cry “uncle.” You might end up paying twice as much as a peer for exactly the same service and coverage, and you’ll be none the wiser.

According to publicly available data regarding LexisNexis and Westlaw contracts, the same service can range wildly—we’ve seen contracts from $1,200 to $14,000 per year per attorney for very similar plans.

Most attorneys absolutely hate this business practice. It’s unfair and done solely to take as much from you as possible….

That last part is an understatement. I use Casetext and Fastcase because of Lexis’ and Westlaw’s business practices. I’m not a fan of their contract term requirements or their practice of trying to jam a renewal on the back end. I doubt I’m alone.

Here is Lexis’ new pricing plan. State and federal case law is $115 per month plus a $25 per month administrative fee with a 3-year contract. The last time Lexis quoted me a price on this plan a couple of years ago it was around $200. The administrative fee reminds me of hotel resort fees, which aren’t exactly popular.

Casetext is $95 per month with no contract. Fastlaw is free through the Mississippi Bar. They work fine.

The Mississippi Bar recently announced an affiliate promotion with Identillect Technologies for its Delivery Trust Email Encryption. The Bar offers a 20% discount on annual licenses and Identillect is currently offering a one year subscription to Bar members for the stupid-cheap price of $25.

I subscribed last week and give the software high marks. I bought the option that ties into Outlook, which I recommend.

Delivery Trust makes it easy to send encrypted emails with extra layers of security. Options include requiring passwords. There are options for retracting emails, preventing recipients from forwarding or printing emails and making an email inaccessible to the recipient after a set amount of time. It also tells you exactly when the recipient read an email.

From the Bar’s website:

As cyber-security concerns have become more ethically relevant for attorneys when communicating digitally, it is essential MS Bar Members have access to secure communication products at an affordable price. The Mississippi Bar is proud to be the 7^th state Bar to partner with Identillect Technologies, a well-respected company which provides simple, secure communication methods which plug directly into your existing email platform, including Gmail, Outlook, Office 365, Hotmail, and more.

Identillect’s services ensure total security and control over sensitive email communications, for both outbound and inbound email. Features of the service include unlimited secure email communication; the ability to restrict forwarding/printing of emails; full read receipt and retraction capabilities; easily customizable security settings; and much more. Click here for more information about getting started with Identillect today, and check the Bar’s CLE calendar for upcoming cyber-security lectures.

There are YouTube videos explaining the software on the Bar’s website.

I had a few issues with installation. Support was immediate and solved my problems.

Encrypted email is probably unnecessary for most garden variety communications. But sometimes, it’s nice to have. And sometimes you really need it. Particularly when your client prefers it.

Delivery Trust merits a close look for attorneys wiling to practice with 21st century tech.

Here is the brochure for the upcoming legal tech CLE scheduled for April 16 in Jackson: Tech CLE Brochure.

The seminar will more than pay for itself in savings on overhead and time from implementing some or all of the suggestions for utilizing tech to make practicing easier.

Attorneys should also consider sending their legal assistants to the seminar.

I attended the last version two years ago and learned a lot.

The Mississippi Bar’s Technology Committee will hold its biannual CLE on April 16 at the Hilton on County Line Road in Jackson. This is a great CLE that I highly recommend for all lawyers and legal assistants.

This CLE is for legal professionals who want to make their practice and life easier. It’s also for professionals who want to reduce overhead by implementing easy tech. solutions that will save money.

Big firm lawyers may think there will be nothing useful for them here because they have in-house IT people. I used to be a big firm lawyer, and I disagree. You’re going to learn stuff too. You might learn more than most attendees because you overly rely on your in-house IT people.

Also, many of your clients expect you to be tech. competent. If you aren’t, you could make bad impressions on them without knowing it. All lawyers in private, public and in-house practice need to be tech. competent.

Here is the agenda and speakers’ bios:

8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Registration Desk Open

9:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. Welcome
Hunter Twiford, IV- Technology Committee Chair

9:15 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. Why Case Management is Essential to a Secure and Successful Law Firm
Allan McKenzie

10:15 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Mid-Morning Break (Included in Registration Fee)

10:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. Top Tech Tips for Microsoft Word and Outlook
Adriana Linares

11:30 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. How Being a Professional Drummer Taught Me to Be a Tech-Savvy Lawyer
Henry Herrman

12:15 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. Lunch (Included in Registration Fee)

1:00 p.m. – 2:15 p.m. Excel for Data Management and Manipulation-Allan Mackenzie

2:15 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. Mid-Afternoon Break (Included in Registration Fee)

2:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. The Electronic Form- Efficiently Collect and Use Client Data
Allan Mackenzie

3:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Ethics Hour- Recognizing and Addressing Common Security Threats in Your Own Law Firm
Adriana Linares

Speakers:
Adriana Linares– Adriana is a legal technology consultant with her company, LawTech Partners. Using her practical and personal approach to technology she helps legal professionals use technology to maximize skills and investments through training and consulting. She served as Chair of ABA TECHSHOW 2017; works as a technology consultant to the Florida Bar Board of Governors and the San Diego County Bar Associations as well as hosting monthly episodes of the New Solo podcast on the Legal Talk Network.

Allan Mackenzie– Allan is a law practice management consultant and legal technology trainer. His experience ranges from that of a once night-shift word processor to a Wall Street IT Director. He has a specialty in litigation technology and support. He has led the charge in multiple-year litigation with discovery volumes measured in terabytes and as end-user trainer, he has demystified Word Styles and the mouse’s right-click. Today, Allan is serving his fourth year on the Planning Board of ABA TECHSHOW.

Henry A. Herrman– Henry is a licensed attorney in CA and NY. His work focuses on commercial real estate. His practice includes: drafting and negotiating all real estate related transactional and joint venture agreements, loan documents, construction agreements (including AIA), development agreements, and related real estate development documentation. Having been a partner in a premier LA-based law firm, he now runs a mobile solo practice coast to coast.

Linares and McKenzie were the presenters at the Committee’s CLE two years ago. They were great.