The current edition of GPSolo magazine focuses on Security and Ethics. (Vol. 20, No. 4, June 2003) One intriguing article looks into the ethical and liability risks from not using new technology in one’s law practice. Written by Diane Karpman, a California legal ethics expert, the June ’03 article is entitled Keep Up or Face Peril. In it, Karpman discusses whether the availability and widespread use of computer technology will affect malpractice and negligence liability by changing the required standard of care. She also muses over the possible excessiveness of fees charged by a lawyer who does “book research” and takes significantly longer to complete a project, resulting in higher hourly fees. Here are some of Karpman’s thoughts [emphasis added]: Internet accessibility is about to profoundly change our research obligations, since vast amounts of information are readily available to everyone, including courts and clients. The information revolution is a double-edged sword, providing the power to decimate our opponents but also making lawyers targets for failing to take advantage of the bounty of information. “If the average attorney would have found and used that [important] case, then the failure to do so is below average and therefore below the ordinary standard in the community. Falling below the average, typical, ordinary standard in the community opens the door to charges of professional negligence. In this case liability would not be for failing to use technology, but for failing to find the information that other lawyers could find and use for their clients’ benefit.” Once it was common to obtain specific consent from a client in the fee agreement to employ computer-assisted research, which generally required an additional fee. Perhaps now the opposite should occur: Clients are not permitted to preapprove or waive negligence or incompetence, but if we choose not to use computer research, our clients should possibly be notified. “Computer-assisted legal research is faster, more complete, and more efficient. . . . . Someday lawyers may have to obtain client approval to use books, which are far more time consuming and inefficient. Of course, you don’t need your clients’ approval to be inefficient. You just can’t charge them for it.” If the use of computer research engines makes the average attorney in the community capable of researching a particular issue in 1.5 hours, while without the computer it takes an attorney six hours to do the work, the potential for litigation with clients respecting fees increases significantly. “Once access to legal information was within the dominion and control of the profession. That is simply no longer true, since computers are ubiquitous. When a clear tune is coming from the bench and from clients, lawyers simply cannot ignore the music.” Supplement (7/22/03): For a thoughtful, opposing perspective, see Mark Tuft‘s article in the same issue of GPSolo, entitled A Lawyer’s Judgment Will Never Be Automated . Tuft makes some good points, arguing that “Just because technology provides greater efficiencies and may afford lawyers a competitive advantage does not mean that it is unethical not to use technology. It’s the quality of the legal work-not the speed at which it is done-that matters.” Tuft adds, “Competence as an ethical matter is based on the lawyer’s legal ability, not technical ability, and implies keeping abreast of new developments in law. Employing electronic research may be efficient, but if a lawyer is able to find the law and apply it correctly, the lawyer is acting competently regardless of how the information was obtained.” He adds: “Lawyers are ethically obligated to communicate with their clients. This means keeping clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters, consulting with clients about the means by which the clients’ objectives are to be accomplished, and promptly complying with reasonable requests for information.4 Modern technologies afford efficient means of communication, including e-mail, extranets, and other wireless and web-based systems. Which to use, however, is for lawyers and their clients to work out.” [emphasis added] I’m not sure that “technical ability” can be totally removed from the concept of competence. I agree about the need to keep the client informed and in the loop concerning the means used to meet objectives. I would add, however, that the communication must ensure that the client is told when using a particular research method may result in considerably higher hourly fees. Update (7/23/03): Tom Mighell at Inter Alia added his Comments this morning on this topic (click on Discussion in the right margin for Tom’s comment, and that of MyShingle.com‘s Carolyn Elefant), and expanded his thoughts in a posting of his own that is worth a peek. TVC Alert has also pointed to this posting and the resulting discussion. (Welcome to the legions of Inter Alia fans and avid TVC Alert readers pointed in this direction by Tom and Genie.)
July 21, 2003
An Obligation to Use Computer Research?
12 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Was Karpman’s article some kind of joke? The problem these days is that lawyers do not know how to perform manual research, even in situations where it would prove more efficient. For example, I find it much simpler and quicker to page through the annotations in a written USC than to go through the cumbersome process of scrolling down LEXIS or typing in key words (and missing something). And if you work completely online, you may miss treatises or manuals which can give a good overview of the state of the law. In addition, many times, in embarking on a new topic, it’s more efficient to start with a treatise and then research rather than running endless searches on LEXIS.
Carolyn Elefant
elefant@myshingle.com
Comment by Carolyn Elefant — July 22, 2003 @ 1:01 am
Was Karpman’s article some kind of joke? The problem these days is that lawyers do not know how to perform manual research, even in situations where it would prove more efficient. For example, I find it much simpler and quicker to page through the annotations in a written USC than to go through the cumbersome process of scrolling down LEXIS or typing in key words (and missing something). And if you work completely online, you may miss treatises or manuals which can give a good overview of the state of the law. In addition, many times, in embarking on a new topic, it’s more efficient to start with a treatise and then research rather than running endless searches on LEXIS.
Carolyn Elefant
elefant@myshingle.com
Comment by Carolyn Elefant — July 22, 2003 @ 1:01 am
All good points, Carolyn. Those of us lucky enough to be on the cusp between “manual” and computerized legal research are in an enviable position, because we can indeed pick and choose the best mix — using judgment well is, of course, the sign of a good lawyer. I think Karpman’s points make the most sense in the context of keeping up to date on the very latest developments in law and fact (e.g., an appellate attorney who does not keep updated via computer technology is asking for trouble). For new areas, I have often found that gaining a quick overview in a book/treatise and then turning to computerized sources works well.
Comment by David Giacalone — July 22, 2003 @ 9:22 am
All good points, Carolyn. Those of us lucky enough to be on the cusp between “manual” and computerized legal research are in an enviable position, because we can indeed pick and choose the best mix — using judgment well is, of course, the sign of a good lawyer. I think Karpman’s points make the most sense in the context of keeping up to date on the very latest developments in law and fact (e.g., an appellate attorney who does not keep updated via computer technology is asking for trouble). For new areas, I have often found that gaining a quick overview in a book/treatise and then turning to computerized sources works well.
Comment by David Giacalone — July 22, 2003 @ 9:22 am
I agree, David. I think the point is that it’s important for lawyers to take advantage of the fact that computer-assisted research may provide them with recent, up-to-date information not available via a manual search. As computer-obsessed as I am, I usually start my research projects in the library, and finish up in front of the PC, in order to get the latest information. But let’s extend the argument a bit. Let’s say that an opposing party has a dirty little secret, or there’s information out there that would give your client an advantage in a particular lawsuit. Say that information is readily available online, for free (or cheap). “Should a lawyer’s obligation go that far?”
Comment by Tom Mighell — July 23, 2003 @ 9:01 am
I agree, David. I think the point is that it’s important for lawyers to take advantage of the fact that computer-assisted research may provide them with recent, up-to-date information not available via a manual search. As computer-obsessed as I am, I usually start my research projects in the library, and finish up in front of the PC, in order to get the latest information. But let’s extend the argument a bit. Let’s say that an opposing party has a dirty little secret, or there’s information out there that would give your client an advantage in a particular lawsuit. Say that information is readily available online, for free (or cheap). “Should a lawyer’s obligation go that far?”
Comment by Tom Mighell — July 23, 2003 @ 9:01 am
Perhaps of interest in terms of the Rule 11 aspect – law review article concerning Rule 11 sanctions for failure to conduct competent legal research:
Marguerite L. Butler, Rule 11 – Sanctions and a Lawyer’s Failure to Conduct Competent Legal Research, 29 CAP. U. L. REV. 681 (2002).
Comment by Priscilla M. Streightoff — July 23, 2003 @ 1:15 pm
Perhaps of interest in terms of the Rule 11 aspect – law review article concerning Rule 11 sanctions for failure to conduct competent legal research:
Marguerite L. Butler, Rule 11 – Sanctions and a Lawyer’s Failure to Conduct Competent Legal Research, 29 CAP. U. L. REV. 681 (2002).
Comment by Priscilla M. Streightoff — July 23, 2003 @ 1:15 pm
Thank you for the cite, Priscilla. Any chance the article is online?
Comment by David Giacalone — July 23, 2003 @ 2:01 pm
Thank you for the cite, Priscilla. Any chance the article is online?
Comment by David Giacalone — July 23, 2003 @ 2:01 pm
Thanks! But what you didn’t include was the wealth of information, ideas, and foresight that unpublished opinions provide for lawyers. Judges telecast their views with abandon in unpublished opinions, you can see opposing counsel’s prior positions, and get a sense of where the law is going.
Glad to know that you enjoyed the article….I write a monthly column in the Cal. Bar Journal and have for 5 years (on anything from Gandhi to surfing the internet)…. Something new will be coming in the GPSolo on inadvertent facsimiles…
Very Best
Diane Karpman
Comment by Diane Karpman — November 4, 2003 @ 9:25 am
Thanks! But what you didn’t include was the wealth of information, ideas, and foresight that unpublished opinions provide for lawyers. Judges telecast their views with abandon in unpublished opinions, you can see opposing counsel’s prior positions, and get a sense of where the law is going.
Glad to know that you enjoyed the article….I write a monthly column in the Cal. Bar Journal and have for 5 years (on anything from Gandhi to surfing the internet)…. Something new will be coming in the GPSolo on inadvertent facsimiles…
Very Best
Diane Karpman
Comment by Diane Karpman — November 4, 2003 @ 9:25 am