COLLOQUIUM

... as featured in

Net-literacy for lawyers?

The huge growth of the Internet in the last five years has fundamentally altered the legal profession's commercial and cultural environments. While many lawyers have learned to use the Net for research and communication - "reading" and "writing" online, as it were - many have not. Do lawyers have a professional responsibility to become Net-literate? If not, why not? If so, what should "Net literacy" entail, and what might firms, bar associations and law schools be doing to encourage it? Send your comments using the form below or e-mail JURIST@law.pitt.edu.

—————————————————————————————

• [Robert L. Cerefice, Essex County (N.J.) Prosecutor's Office (Appellate Section)] When I became a lawyer in 1966 an older attorney told me that a lawyer was a "jack of all trades." In all my years of practice I have come to value that piece of wisdom more and more. Therefore, the answer is an emphatic yes to your inquiry. Not only must an attorney be net litterate, he must be completely computrer literate.

• [Jim Maule, Villanova University School of Law] It is not surprising to read the comments in support of the proposition that lawyers need to be technologically competent. In the CLE sessions that I have taught on this issue, I encounter little if any opposition to the proposition, however it is worded.

  I think the more difficult question is how to deal with lawyers and law professors who cannot or will not "bring themselves up to speed." Eventually the marketplace will push out the lawyers who are incapable of competent representation of clients in the 21st century. Unfortunately, tenure seems to prevent removal of faculty who fail to keep their courses current with respect to any sort of development or change. Goodness, in some law schools, first year curricula, approach and content don't differ that much from what existed 20 or 40 years ago.

  Fortunately, technological changes and faculty adaptation (or lack thereof) are so stark that today's students can easily identify faculty who care and those who don't, and it shows up in elective enrollment numbers.

  Given that it really isn't that difficult to learn both the substantive issues raised by technology (jurisdiction, tax, cybercrimes, privacy, e-commerce, etc) and the technological tools available to lawyers (Internet searching, encryption, courtroom technology, etc), it amazes me how the "I can't do it" excuse continues to be advanced. Growth involves learning, learning involves learning curves, learning curves require effort, and that's what clients and students have a right to expect. And it really is easy.... the number of people wrongly stereotyped as supposed technophobes (e.g., those who are "older") who are now reveling in the use of technology proves the point. Perhaps I can't = I won't.

• [Pierre Mackay, Faculty of Law & Political Science, University of Quebec at Montreal, CANADA] I think lawyers should not only be net-literate but also computer literate. In 1995, the UQAM law school was the first in Canada to state this principle in its academic objectives "All graduates should have a working knowledge of computers for the legal profession" This includes the use of online databases, and today of email, using and searching the web, etc...

  This goal, once approved by our Academic Council, entailed the introduction of a series of measures, including a new, mandatory course for first year students, and a substantial increase in the use of the web for delivery of course materials, communication with faculty, online registration for courses, etc... Today 98% of Faculty members use email, and 24 courses have online materials. New students are more and more techno-literate and this year less than 5% did not have internet access at home when they entered law school.

  Some faculty members, as some lawyers, have difficulty coping with the pace of change. We jurists are used to a much slower, evolutionary rhythm. For Faculty members as well as for practicing lawyers, net literacy should be mandatory. Lawyers should not wait for the day when a malpractice claim will be filed for having missed crucial information that was available on the net.

• [Bill Slomanson, Thomas Jefferson School of Law] I will limit my reaction to myself and my colleagues who are academicians. We can no longer claim that net literacy is "someone else's" responsibility. I cannot hide behind my tenured status to avoid playing a collaborative role in preparing my students for the real world of e-mail, e-filing, web pages, and the electronic realities which my graduates must face now--as opposed to the hackneyed "21st century," or "tomorrow," or whatever formulation is conveniently used to descibe this phenomenon as if it were somewhere off in the future. I will continue to stand on my challenge issued in "Electronic Lawyering and the Academy," 48 Journal of Legal Education 216 (1998).

• [Sandra Burns, Griffith Law School, Queensland, AUSTRALIA] As a legal academic in a small Australian law school, I do not think I could function efficiently or effectively without a reasonable degree of "net literacy". Increasingly, it is much easier to access current legal information using the internet than by relying upon traditional library resources. Our students are introduced to on line legal resources in their first year of law studies. With the mostly senior students I teach, study guides are routinely posted on the net and where an on line resource is available, the URL is provided along with the traditional case or statutory citation.

  While some of us are skeptical of internet resources, I find that accessing them enables me to conduct research effectively and at times which are convenient to me, rather than at times when library resources are available.

  Within the next ten to twenty years, I believe that practitioners in major firms will be unable to function effectively without net awareness and the use of on line resources. Although many people prefer paper based resources, I have found that with a little practice and some mental "retraining" I find on line resources as easy to use as paper based resources.

• [Dawn McNeil, McNeil & McFarlane, JAMAICA] I share the view that attorneys-at-law should be net -literate. The curriculum of law faculties and law schools must be reviewed and revised as the traditional business law subject will need to be internationalized.

  Bar associations need to become involved in the process by granting CLE credits for internet- related subject matter.

  As attorneys we will come to realize that much of our work will be about managing risk when doing business on the internet thereby imposing an obligation on us to be net-literate.

• [Marietta Karadimova, lawyer, BULGARIA] I am a lawyer from Bulgaria. In my country the use of Internet is just starting to crawl now. These days in our capital was a conference for the usefullness of Internet and in the Millenium its use will be enlarged. I think it is more than nessecary for a lawyer to be Net-educated. My practice is just from one month and [through the Internet] I have already made invaluable contacts for getting higher degree in USA University and to become a member of International organisation /of women seeking good career/.What is more i am looking for online education.

• [Paul Nosek, attorney, California] The net is something new, and many lawyers are probably not confident enough to compete with the techies. Law offices are still using WordPerfect for DOS, and that is as high tech as it gets. Some of the older attorneys feel uncomfortable with the net, as they did not grow up in the world of computers. This may be the reason for the lack of lawyers on the net. Of course, maybe the lack of security of files and the ease of an inserted virus may be the reason. I would like to know the reason.

• [Claudia, student, AUSTRALIA] Absolutely. All lawyers ought to have basic net literacy. Its a matter of professional integrity. Lawyers are known for their intelligence and are entrusted with complicated legal affairs. It would very much place a client in doubt of their lawyer's abilities in representing them if they knew that their own net knowledge far exceeded that of the person being paid $$$ to do their legal work.

The discussion goes on...

• Diversity and Supreme Court Law Clerks
• Connecticut Gun Seizure Law
• Justice Ginsburg on Internet Law Schools