COVID-19 has undoubtedly served as a catalyst for technological revolution within the legal industry. In addition to shifting away from brick-and-mortar workspaces, the pandemic has pressed law firms and factions of the legal industry (including the judiciary), to employ alternatives to traditional in-person collaboration that may endure long after the virus subsides.
By Niki Namazi, Daily Business Reivew | January 4, 2020Â
COVID-19 has undoubtedly served as a catalyst for technological revolution within the legal industry. In addition to shifting away from brick-and-mortar workspaces, the pandemic has pressed law firms and factions of the legal industry (including the judiciary), to employ alternatives to traditional in-person collaboration that may endure long after the virus subsides.
For example, many employers have relied exclusively on technology for remote attorney onboarding during this time. The key to success: streamlined and team-oriented systems that minimize excessive paperwork and physical documents. More than ever, law firms are readily turning to web-based software like Microsoft Teams as an alternative to in-person collaboration.
Transitioning attorneys can get ahead of the induction process and “preboard” by taking advantage of the free tutorials and demos available online. In addition to developing a working mastery of the firm’s software, attorneys can ease their assimilation by working with their employer to create a broader preboarding plan which includes gaining familiarity with company procedures and methodology. Employers can also work to further streamline the process by creating a structured plan and communicating expectations with new employees. Better yet, implementing virtual check-ins or virtual happy hours can create a unique space for new hires to observe and partake in company culture.
Further, attorneys have quickly adapted to combatting remote work challenges through adopting techy solutions such as Zoom video conferencing, which is efficient and cost effective. Long gone are the days of catching costly red-eye flights to attend back-to-back depositions.
With that said, Zoom leaves the door open to a myriad of ethical concerns. Most notably, video conferencing implicates Rules 1.1 and 1.6 of the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility on competence and confidentiality. In today’s climate, competence under Rule 1.1 includes working knowledge of video conferencing platforms and a thorough understanding of associated risks. Every attorney utilizing Zoom must have working mastery of the software to avoid inadvertently sharing confidential and privileged information that may jeopardize a client’s case or complicate the attorney-client relationship.
Further, attorneys must remain vigilant and minimize privacy risks associated with video conferencing. To effectively do so, attorneys must be familiar with the software and its recently added (and frequently evolving) privacy features. For example, if you are the host, do not schedule new meetings with your personal meeting ID (PMI). Instead, generate a random meeting ID so that participants who know your unique PMI cannot join without receiving an invitation. With this said, a phenomenon called “Zoom-bombing” (similar to photobombing) has also taken off wherein pranksters enter and hijack your meeting by guessing the correct information to join. This nightmare situation can jeopardize the integrity of your private client conference, deposition, hearing, etc. You can take security a step further and require participants to enter a passcode in order to join the meeting. Within the platform, you can also utilize additional safety features that will allow you to lock the meeting, enable a waiting room, and manage participants.
In addition to taking the proper precautions to secure meetings, attorneys must maintain the integrity of the profession by behaving responsibly. Technologists and sociologists have studied the phenomena of internet bravery wherein users are emboldened and more likely to act recklessly online. This occurrence is heightened during the pandemic as there is increased screen time and decreased in-person interaction. The Social
Presence Theory helps to explain internet bravery: different modes of communication (i.e., video conferencing) differ in their ability to convey the physical presence of others due to an inability to transmit certain visual and verbal cues (e.g., physical distance, posture, etc.).
Perhaps this technological revolution within the legal industry will also encourage more attorneys to pursue aggressive social media discovery. In the United States, more than 79% of adults utilize social media (a figure up by 74% since 2005). Many of these individuals share virtually all aspects of their lives online, cataloguing their intimate thoughts and observances on the daily. This is significant and, in some cases, the information uncovered on these platforms could be critical evidence of liability and/or damages. While there are endless examples, one would be a suit against the former shareholder of a company for the disclosure of trade secret information wherein Twitter reveals a pattern of late-night rants revealing confidential information; or a suit for trademark infringement wherein consumers’ Facebook comments are used to show confusing similarities between two products. With Facebook being the most popular social media platform, netting 2.3 billon users, followed by YouTube, Instagram, WeChat, Tumblr, TikTok, Weibo, Google +, Reddit, and Twitter, and social media use on the rise during quarantine, attorneys must ensure that all apps listed are on their radar.
Niki Namazi, is a junior attorney at Mark Migdal & Hayden with experience representing both individual clients and major corporations in high stakes matters. Namazi focuses her practice primarily on complex commercial litigation and mass torts.
