ILNews

From iPhones to networks, law firm spending on systems ticks up

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

If your firm hasn’t bought you a new smartphone, provided better remote access options, or replaced an aging monitor lately, you might nudge the purchasing department.

Among large law firms, 52 percent spent more on technology last year, compared with 50 percent in 2011, according to an annual survey released by the International Legal Technology Association in August.

il-technology05-15col.jpg Hall Render attorney Kendra Conover displays her company-issued iPhone. The firm bought iPhones for all 185 of its lawyers about a year ago.(IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

The numbers represent a slow but steady recovery after a slump in tech spending that began after the economic downturn in 2008. Firms are investing most in hardware and desktop upgrades; laptops; notebooks; wireless devices; and network, server and storage upgrades.

At Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman P.C., an Indianapolis firm that took part in the survey, the biggest recent technology investment went right into the hands of 185 attorneys.

“About a year ago we distributed iPhones to everyone,” said Jeff Short, a Hall Render shareholder and chair of the firm’s IT committee. “We were due for an upgrade.”

Hall Render’s big purchase replaced a former network of BlackBerry devices after Short said the firm reviewed wireless solutions, a process it does every couple of years.

The switch reflects a trend that’s been expedited in recent years. The once-venerable BlackBerry is now virtually even in market share with the Apple iPhone among large-firm attorneys, according to the survey.

“People love them, and it’s an almost weekly occurrence, someone calling me up and telling me about some new app they found that helps them,” Short said.

At Benesch, the focus on tech spending has shifted toward mobile devices, said Jeff Kosc, partner in charge of the technology group for the Indianapolis office that employs 29 attorneys.

“We still have the standard-issue laptops, and we offer full support for mobile devices,” Kosc said. The firm takes a different approach on smartphones, though. Attorneys get allowances to choose the kind of mobile device that meets their preference and to pay for data plans and maintenance. Most prefer iPhones, Kosc said.

Benesch also is considering providing an allowance for tablet support and has given its staff remote desktop access from any number of platforms, Kosc explained. “The force behind it is really making sure we can empower folks to get work done as easily and efficiently as possible. That’s the goal.”

Hall Render, which focuses its practice on health law, had explored iPhones previously and had the infrastructure in place to support them, Short said. There had been concerns about security that were resolved in subsequent Apple operating systems.

“It’s been great as a firm to give everyone that freedom that you can still attend to what you need to do because you’re away from your desk,” Hall Render shareholder Regan Tankersley said.

“I don’t so much use the iPhone for productivity,” she said. “I and a lot of people in the firm are also using iPads, and everything works so well together.” She’s found apps useful for annotating digital documents, for instance.

“The iPhone for work has been great for purposes of keeping in touch and email,” she said. “I think everybody’s come to an understanding now that they’re going to be reachable by email all the time.”

That might be the prevailing view, but there still are places where such accessibility is patently rejected – the patent law firm Woodard Emhardt Moriarty McNett & Henry LLP among them.

Given the firm’s practice niche, few time-sensitive matters come through the doors, said senior associate Bill McKenna. “Most of our work is handled on defined windows – 30 days, 60 days, 90 days – and it’s a little more amenable to planning ahead. … We don’t have urgent general rush business.”

“We have quite a few attorneys who by choice don’t receive email on their phones,” McKenna said. “Certainly some of our more senior partners fit that category. Some literally believe email causes more harm than good. Some choose to have email accessible on the phone but not automatically forwarded.”

Nevertheless, McKenna said the overwhelming majority of the firm’s 30 or so attorneys carry iPhones they purchased for themselves. The firm supports any and all mobile devices its attorneys might use, he said, including tablets.

And while Woodard is a smaller firm compared with those surveyed, its tech support reflects trends among bigger firms. In 2012, 74 percent of firms in the ILTA survey reported their IT departments support their attorneys’ tablet use regardless of who purchases the device.

While tech budgets increasingly embrace smartphones and tablets, firms last year also recommitted to hardware in the office. A whopping 75 percent of firms surveyed reported spending on desktop hardware in 2012, an increase from the 59 percent of firms that did so a year earlier.

Woodard also reflected that trend. “In the last three years, everyone at the firm has gotten at least a 24-inch monitor,” McKenna said, including his own 30-inch monitor. It sits between two vertically oriented monitors he uses for work and for legal research.

McKenna said he strives for a paperless office, and files from his desktop computer are updated daily and synched to his iPad and iPhone.

Such a commitment to letting attorneys work anywhere is one that Harrison & Moberly LLP also takes seriously. Partner A. Barclay Wong chaired the firm’s IT committee a couple of years back when the decision was made to install VMware, giving the full-service firm’s 26 lawyers a virtual computing model.

The system allows attorneys to sign in from their home computer, laptop, iPad or smartphone, Wong said. Once logged in, an attorney has his office computer desktop at his fingertips.

Wong said such arrangements were more common for other businesses, but law firms were slower to adopt. Security was a chief concern. “We have access to internal document servers, so we can access internal documents everywhere.

“I think we were kind of on the forefront of this movement,” he said. “It’s really helped us have people be able to be more productive remotely.”

The investment up front also has meant that Harrison & Moberly hasn’t had to allocate as much for technology purchases in the years since, Wong said. It’s meant less wear on office machines, for example.

“We used to be on a three- to four-year machine rotation where everyone would get a new computer,” he said. “Now we basically use them till they break.”

Among other findings, the ILTA survey also revealed:

• 63 percent of firms responding reported 2 to 4 percent of firm revenue is invested in technology.

• 32 percent of firms indicated they are using or implementing a cloud solution, but security, reliability, performance, cost and speed are concerns.

• 35 percent of firms have a tablet security policy.•
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  2. A high ranking bureaucrat with Ind sup court is heading up an organization celebrating the formal N word!!! She must resign and denounce! http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  3. ND2019, don't try to confuse the Left with facts. Their ideologies trump facts, trump due process, trump court rules, even trump federal statutes. I hold the proof if interested. Facts matter only to those who are not on an agenda-first mission.

  4. OK so I'll make this as short as I can. I got a call that my daughter was smoking in the bathroom only her and one other girl was questioned mind you four others left before them anyways they proceeded to interrogate my daughter about smoking and all this time I nor my parents got a phone call,they proceeded to go through her belongings and also pretty much striped searched my daughter including from what my mother said they looked at her Brest without my consent. I am furious also a couple months ago my son hurt his foot and I was never called and it got worse during the day but the way some of the teachers have been treating my kids they are not comfortable going to them because they feel like they are mean or don't care. This is unacceptable in my mind i should be able to send my kids to school without worry but now I worry how the adults there are treating them. I have a lot more but I wanted to know do I have any attempt at a lawsuit because like I said there is more that's just some of what my kids are going through. Please respond. Sincerely concerned single parent

  5. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

ADVERTISEMENT