ILNews

Professor outlines how technology is changing the practice of law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As robots and computers entered factories, manufacturing became “advanced manufacturing,” bringing increased production at a lower cost.

 That upheaval, the result of innovations in technology, is now being felt within the legal profession. William Henderson, professor of law and director of the Center on the Global Legal Profession at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, explained that the growing legal services industry, populated largely by nonlawyers, is mechanizing and automating the work attorneys do, creating products that can be sold for a relatively cheap price.
 

henderson-bill Henderson

Henderson outlined the fundamental changes computer hardware and software are making to the legal profession when he addressed the Evansville Bar Association’s quarterly luncheon Aug. 29. About 120 attorneys attended the mid-day event held at the Tropicana – Evansville.

During his presentation, Henderson showed two photos. One picture depicted a mental artisan using 1700-era technology of an anvil and hammer to craft a nail. The other showed a modern-day high school graduate in an advanced manufacturing plant, running computer-controlled machines to produce inexpensive, environmentally friendly drive trains.

 “What’s happened to industrial arts is about to happen for all professional services including law,” Henderson said, referencing author Richard Susskind. “We can’t stop it and we don’t do ourselves any favors by resisting it or running it down.”

After the luncheon, attorney Lane Siesky, founder of Siesky Law Firm P.C., credited technology and the ability to hire contract workers with enabling his two-lawyer office to take bigger cases. For medical cases, he can temporarily hire a nurse paralegal, and to review 150,000 pages of documents on DVDs, he can enlist the aid of an information technology department to put the papers in a searchable format. Having the ability to connect with outside resources allows Siesky’s firm to ramp up to meet the needs of any particular case without taking on tremendous overhead costs.

siesky-lane Siesky

Even in its daily operations, Siesky’s office makes use of technology. It has swapped a traditional server for case management software that is based in the cloud. Now Siesky can open his laptop wherever he is and work on any file. With the case management system, he can see all who accessed the file, when it was opened and what was done.

Still Siesky tempers his use of new technology, not wanting to be the earliest adopter who has to work through all the problems the new gadget or system brings.

“We don’t want to be a trailblazer to the point where we’re making trouble for ourselves or our clients,” he said, “but we do definitely want to embrace and tweak certain aspects of what’s going on and then be ready to capitalize on what becomes a little bit more mainstream or accepted.”

Siesky founded his firm in 2006, about the time, according to Henderson, that the legal profession’s golden period was ending. Henderson drew upon statistics and studies to show how lawyers flourished over the past several decades as the complexity of business and government regulations increased. Beginning in 1978, the portion of the Gross Domestic Product allotted to lawyers grew from 0.4 percent to 1.8 percent by 2003.

That growth is now flattening, Henderson said, but the practice of law will not become obsolete.

“Law is so important to our future,” he said. “It’s so important to knitting together a globalized world, so important to avoiding civil unrest and so important to solving our complex problems of famine, energy shortages, water shortages; but the problem is we can’t afford to pay for it on a kind of time-and-materials basis. Our clients don’t want to pay for it.”

The legal services industry is providing an answer to consumer demands by working to make legal help better, faster and cheaper, Henderson said.

Some of these services, like LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer, target individuals who need legal help. Other vendors are vying for corporate customers. For example, Axiom markets to general counsels by offering to do sophisticated legal work like small mergers and acquisition transactions.

Henderson ended his presentation by showing a folksy video advertisement for Modria, a web-based company that offers online dispute resolution services.

Laura Scott, partner at Bamberger Foreman Oswald & Hahn LLP, found the video interesting but not surprising. And she does not anticipate online alternative resolution forums will eliminate the need for lawyers.

However, she does expect technology will change the way she practices and her approach to clients. In the past few years, her office has been integrating new software into the work flow and figuring out ways to use new computer products to deliver services more efficiently.

But more efficiency doesn’t necessarily mean fewer people. Day-to-day work created by the new technology has led to changes in the composition of the firm’s staff. Now, the office includes a three-person IT department. Ten years ago, no such department existed in-house.

“That’s one example,” Scott said, “but I think the human component will always be there, just maybe a little different expertise than what we’ve had in the past.”

Henderson underscored Scott’s point in his address by noting that to compete, knowledge of the law along with other expertise will be necessary. The practice of law will have to draw on other sources of human capital from such areas as information technology, system engineering, finance, and product management.

 “So we’re going to become more like a manufacturer as a profession than a service profession,” Henderson said. “The law is definitely important, but I emphasize collaboration and teamwork because I want them (students) to get used to listening to other people, tapping into diverse perspectives.”

Reiterating his point about the need to embrace interdisciplinary teamwork, Henderson told the EBA, “I think that lawyers are always at their best whenever we put our economic interests secondary to society and client and we kind of think how can we make this thing work and then we back our fear, we back our livelihood out of it,” he said. “But I think … there’s an opportunity here to collaborate to build better mouse traps to better serve the citizenry.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT