Last week I stepped off my e-soapbox and blogged that Tech Competence Isn’t Everything: Soft Skills Matter.
Today I’m e-jumping back onto the e-soapbox. (Sadly, my e-vertical is infinitely higher than my real vertical was in my playing days.)
Tech encompasses things less techy than you think.
The Legal Rebels section of the ABA Journal has a very interesting new post from Ivy Grey. It’s here: Not competent in basic tech? You could be overbilling your clients – and be on shaky ground.
I recommend reading the entire post. But, here are 3 sections that caught my eye.
- “Data security and e-discovery may get attention in the press, but lawyers should not neglect learning about the mundane tools that they use every day. Document preparation, drafting, and polishing consumes a significant amount of every lawyer’s time regardless of practice area. And MS Word is more sophisticated with greater capabilities for meeting our complex needs than you might otherwise think. It is an area ripe for learning. Ignoring that touches on bigger issues like unearned fees.”
- “Technology competence is broad. However, its definition must include the tools that lawyers use to practice law, such as case management software, document management software, billing software, email, a PDF system with redacting capabilities, and the MS Office Suite, particularly MS Word. Any lawyer who does not develop basic skills in these six types of programs will risk ethical rebuke”
- “By remaining technologically incompetent, lawyers are knowingly wasting clients’ time and money due to lack of computer skills. That is unacceptable. It is time to recognize that inefficient use of technology, such as MS Word, could mean overbilling a client. When lawyers choose not to learn technology because the old way of doing things leads to more billable hours, they are not serving their clients fairly.”
Here’s my takeaway.
Rule 1.1 mandates competence. Rule 1.5 prohibits unreasonable fees. At some point, an inability to use the most basic tech tools causes an attorney to spend an unreasonable amount of time on a task. Billing for that time might violate Rule 1.5.
Food for thought.