ILNews

Schocke: Tech saves money, attracts talent, keeps employees happy

May 17, 2017
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Schocke Schocke

By Mark Schocke

Have you noticed that many of the articles written about the new generation of millennial attorneys are written by an older law firm partner who is tasked with supervising millennial associates? While this perspective can have value, it is also important to consider the perspective of the young attorney seeking to make the most of their career. The hallmark of the typical millennial attorney is the ability to work efficiently and to use technology to enhance and streamline their work. As the saying goes, the key to professional success is working smarter, not harder. Using this mantra, there are certain benefits to be maximized to the advantage of all practitioners, not only those of the “millennial” generation.

The legal profession is not always known for its innovation; overall, being an attorney has not changed drastically in several centuries. Attorneys and judges still rely on common law legal precedent and historical positions of the courts, and we still use outdated phrases including “wherefore,” “comes now” and “whereas” in everyday legal briefing. Although we no longer wear robes and powdered wigs, there are still ways to further improve the efficiency of our practice.

Not long ago, legal research could be done only by reviewing volumes of reporters inside physical buildings called legal libraries. Most medium to large firms had libraries with private hard-bound collections of cases with an indexing system and secondary sources to assist in finding the correct case. However, about 15 years ago, the legal research industry shifted to resources like LexisNexis, Westlaw, and Casemaker. Now, it appears that most firms have eliminated the large libraries in favor of these online resources, and the entire process has gained efficiency.

Although legal research has become more efficient, most attorneys still work in the traditional office while sitting at a desk. However, with tools like widespread broadband access, videoconferencing and file sharing systems, it begs the question as to whether the large office footprints and office settings are truly necessary to achieve success. It seems that many attorneys can comfortably draft motions, memoranda and contracts from the comfort of their own homes and on their own schedules. Face time is becoming less critical, and efficiency is becoming much more important.

Many Indiana courts now permit telephonic attendance at court hearings, and it is only a matter of time before the courts accept attorney appearances via videoconferencing. While some attorneys may not like these developments in the practice of law, there are certain benefits of embracing virtual offices for younger and older attorneys alike.

Law firms seeking to employ talented young lawyers and support staff would do well to offer good candidates a fair compensation package along with useful benefits. One large benefit could be the flexibility to complete work assignments outside of the traditional office setting. We all take home work from time to time; however, the flexibility to work from a location of your own choosing and on your own schedule is a large benefit that is sure to attract talented attorneys and support staff. Not only does this flexibility serve as a benefit to attract good talent, but it can also save costs for the firm.

A brief Google search suggests that rent for premium office space in downtown Indianapolis averages at an annual rate of approximately $26.00 per square foot. Assuming a reasonably sized attorney office is 10x10, multiplying that space by each attorney, and add additional space for support staff, common areas, copy facilities, file storage and conference rooms, the annual cost quickly adds up. Do law firms really need this much physical space? More importantly, do law firms really want to continue to burden themselves with these expenses? When you boil down the law profession, there are not many unique tools that must be completed within an office setting.

Practicing law is not like performing surgery; whereas an operating room must remain sterile, there is no similar corollary in a law office. If legal practitioners work smarter, use remote file sharing and videoconferencing technology, and communicate electronically, there can be an immense financial savings to the firm all while creating employee flexibility and freedom.

To achieve the cost savings and freedom of efficiency, transitioning to a paperless format is a critical part of the process. Eliminating paper files will free up file rooms and create a convenient repository whereby practitioners can access documents remotely and in an orderly fashion. In the ideal setting, traditional file clerks would transition to “intake scanners” that scan all incoming paper documents directly into the firm’s server and label the scans to correspond to the digital version of each file. Electronic filing of internal documents not only creates the flexibility of remote access and saves physical space/rent, but it also forces the firm to be organized in its filing system.

Despite the benefits of the virtual office space, admittedly there are some aspects of practicing law that are particularly well-suited for a physical presence. For example, it is important to have a space to meet clients, conduct depositions and participate in mediations. Moreover, there are real benefits to conducting in-person face-to-face meetings with employees, colleagues and clients. This article is not meant to advocate for the abolition of traditional law firm office space. Rather, the goal is to highlight the efficiencies, employee benefits and cost savings that can come from using technology to reduce the physical footprint of large physical law firm office spaces.

The key takeaway that we can learn from our millennial colleagues is to work smarter, not harder, using the technology available to get the job done. After all, no matter how impressive or vast the office space, it is seemingly more impressive for a firm to display their success by attracting and keeping happy, talented employees while saving costs.•

__________

Mark Schocke is an attorney in the Merrillville office of Kightlinger & Gray LLP. He specializes in complex litigation including professional negligence and product liability law. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Technology Insight
    You outline the aspects and benefits of using technology to accomplish superior service to your clients, while keeping the overhead costs to a minimum and conserving passed down ethics. As a result, legal fees may become more affordable to the middle class client who require legal assistance. Great article. I look forward to the next.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  2. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  3. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  4. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

  5. Unlike the federal judge who refused to protect me, the Virginia State Bar gave me a hearing. After the hearing, the Virginia State Bar refused to discipline me. VSB said that attacking me with the court ADA coordinator had, " all the grace and charm of a drive-by shooting." One does wonder why the VSB was able to have a hearing and come to that conclusion, but the federal judge in Indiana slammed the door of the courthouse in my face.

ADVERTISEMENT