Are Technophobes Incompetent?

I recently attended a continuing legal education seminar at which the speaker questioned whether a client involved in a non-compete dispute would be better off hiring an experienced litigator or a green but computer-savvy attorney.  He was trying to make a point about how advances in technology are redefining an attorney's duty to provide competent representation.  In his opinion, providing competent representation is no longer limited to an understanding of the relevant law.  It also requires some understanding of the interplay between law and technology.  As a result, a greener but more techno-savvy lawyer may be more competent than a much more senior attorney.

I agree.  Comment 5 to Rule 1.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct provides:  "Competent handling of a particular matter includes inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem, and the use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners. It also includes adequate preparation...."  Likewise, Comment 6 provides:  "To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should engage in regular continuing study and education that is pertinent to the lawyer’s practice...."    In my opinion, changes in the federal discovery rules and the corresponding increase in e-discovery require that practitioners of all levels educate themselves on technology issues affecting their practice.  This is particularly true in non-compete and business interference cases since they often involve either electronic discovery or the use of computer forensics to resolve claims of misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information.  While I'm far from a techno-geek, I have learned a lot about these issues through experience, self-study, working closely with vendors, and my involvement with the Law Practice Management and Technology Sections of the Tennessee and American Bar Associations.  Needless to say, being a competent attorney is more challenging than it was in the past. 

Comments

[Dan Berexa]

You make an excellant point. 10 or 15 years ago staying current and "competent" meant keeping up with recent appellate decisions and legislative enactments. Now keeping up with technological change is just as important to a lawyer as keeping up with the substantive law. It is also clear that technology is evolving a much faster rate than the law.