Law and Modern Technology: Lack of Tech Knowledge in Legal Profession May Cause Injustice

There is no such field where technology hasn’t reached. It will be a dream to think something without technology. In today’s world every field requires tech knowledge. The courtroom and law offices have changed with the evolution of technology. Most courts don’t accept paper files anymore. Law offices use virtual file to store client information. However, due to old age or other reason a significant number of attorneys and judges are not competent in technology. This paper will examine the use of technology in our legal system and what problem arises due to lack of proper tech knowledge. Increasing use of computer and internet in the courtroom and law office, trial presentation, keeping client’s confidential data secure, legal researching, e-filing document with the court require tech knowledge. This paper will discuss the necessity of tech knowledge, ethical obligation, expert’s opinions and case laws to demonstrate that to practice laws nowadays requires tech knowledge. After examining all relevant materials, this paper has revealed that to comply with the digital world all legal professionals should have enough tech knowledge for better litigation and avoid errors in the litigation

Weathering the Perfect Legal Storm: Novel Virus, Novel Instruction, Novel Course

For this legal educator, in the spring and fall of 2020, three simultaneous and novel events-Corona virus, virtual synchronous instruction, and teaching a new interdisciplinary course for the first time, created an environment that could have resulted in the perfect legal storm. Instead, these events contributed to beneficial teaching and learning experiences from which arose many “first-ever” innovative faculty and student endeavors

All Rise: Suiting Up when Showing Up for the Practice of Law in the COVID-19 Virtual Legal Environment

The age-old advice: “No matter how you feel, get up, dress up, and show up for work and life!” may be worth remembering as more legal professionals participate in virtual environments due to the COVID-19 mandated court closures. Virtual court hearings, mediations, and meetings are taking place. Attorneys and legal educators have adapted to changes in how we meet clients and students by utilizing Blackboard Collaborative, Zoom, Cisco WebEx, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet/Hangouts, and Skype. Do such changes in our ways of meeting and communicating-within the virtual environment-bring with them a corresponding change in expectations of what is appropriate attire for the practice of law? Enclothed Cognition is a term coined by Hajo Adam and Adam D. Galinsky, two cognitive psychologists at Northwestern University. Galinsky asserts “It has long been known that clothing affects how other people perceive us, as well as how we think about ourselves.” In their study, they “examin[ed] the psychological and performance-related effects that wearing specific articles of clothing have on the person wearing them.” Customs and traditions are woven into the apparel of our courts in the United States. Most striking is the clothing, the long black robes worn by the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and judges in the federal and state courts in the United States, as they enter the courtroom and take the bench to preside over cases. The black robes of justice worn by the members of the U.S. Supreme Court dates back to the 1800s. Notable exceptions were Chief Justice John Jay, “wearing robes with a red facing” and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, adorning “his robe with four gold stripes on each sleeve.” A court\u27s authority to regulate an attorney\u27s dress is partially based on statutory rules of conduct and ethics. For example, “The Dress Code” policies adopted by The New York City Law Department cautions that “Traditional business attire should be worn in all circumstances where it is customary to dress in that manner.” Judge Clifford R. Weckstein of Virginia begins a letter to lawyers about proper attire with a few lines from the movie My Cousin Vinny. Court: Mr. Gambini, didn’t I tell you that the next time you appear in my court that you dress appropriately? Counsel: You were serious about that? Kansas City attorney Charles W. Gotschall cautions legal professionals to literally “not get caught with your pants down,” and asks us to imagine “sitting in a home office or dining room office, and the court hearing starts. What do you do when [the bailiff exclaims:] ‘All rise’ and you’re wearing shorts?

A New Frontier Facing Attorneys and Paralegals: The Promise & Challenges of Artificial Intelligence as Applied to Law & Legal Decision-Making

Artificial Intelligence/AI invisibly navigates and informs our lives today and may also be used to determine a client’s legal fate. Through executive order, statements by a U.S. Supreme Court justice and a Congressional Commission on AI, all three branches of the United States government have addressed the use of AI to resolve societal and legal matters. Pursuant to the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct[i] and New York Rules of Professional Conduct (NYRPC), [ii] the legal profession recognizes the need for competency in technology which requires both substantive knowledge of law and competent use of technology for lawyers in the practice of law. Comment 8 of the NYRPC states, “To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should … (ii) keep abreast of the benefits and risks associated with technology the lawyer uses to provide services to clients.”[iii] This duty implies that in leveraging the potential of AI, legal professionals must also be cognizant of the challenges and limitations presented by its use in law. For it is the nuances of law, non-binary in nature, and the many and varied characteristics involved with judicial decision-making which “make it especially interesting and challenging for AI.”[iv] [i] “Rule 1.1 Competence - Comment.” American Bar Association, www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_1_competence/comment_on_rule_1_1/. [ii] New York Rules of Professional Conduct.www.nysba.org. [iii] An Update on Lawyers Duty of Technological Competence: Part 1. https://www.hinshawlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/Articles/ADavis-NYLJournalArticle 03-01-2019.PDF. [iv] Rissland, EL; Ashley, KD; and Loui, RP, AI and Law: A fruitful synergy (2003). ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. 990. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cs_faculty_pubs/990. The characteristics mentioned for the legal domain include Diverse categories of knowledge; Explicit styles and standards of justification; Different modalities of reasoning; Specialized repositories of knowledge; A variety of task orientations; Open-textured concepts; Adversarial truth seeking; and Highly reflective