{"id":4515,"date":"2003-07-21T20:03:15","date_gmt":"2003-07-22T00:03:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2003\/07\/21\/an-obligation-to-use-computer"},"modified":"2011-08-05T15:00:49","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T19:00:49","slug":"an-obligation-to-use-computer-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/07\/21\/an-obligation-to-use-computer-research\/","title":{"rendered":"An Obligation to Use Computer Research?"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n


\n

The current edition of GPSolo<\/I> magazine<\/A> 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 <\/B>in one’s law practice.<\/P>
\n

Written by Diane Karpman<\/U>, a California legal ethics expert, the June ’03 article is entitled Keep Up or Face Peril<\/A><\/STRONG><\/I>.  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<\/U>. 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. <\/P>
\n

Here are some of Karpman’s thoughts [emphasis added]:<\/P>
\n

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<\/U>, providing the power to decimate our opponents but also making lawyers targets for failing to take advantage of the bounty of information. <\/EM><\/P>
\n

“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<\/U>, but for failing to find the information that other lawyers could find and use for their clients’ benefit.”<\/P>
\n

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<\/U>.<\/EM><\/P>
\n

“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.” <\/P>
\n

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<\/U> increases significantly. <\/EM><\/P>
\n

“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.” <\/P>
\n