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

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. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  2. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  3. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  4. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  5. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

ADVERTISEMENT