Taking on the Ethical Obligation of Technology Competency in the Academy: An Empirical Analysis of Practice-Based Technology Training Today

• Author: Jessica De Perio Wittman and Kathleen (Katie) Brown
• Position: Director of the Law Library, Associate Professor of Law, and Cornelius J. Scanlon Scholar, University of Connecticut School of Law/Associate Dean for Information Resources, Charleston School of Law
• Pages: 1-60

ARTICLES

Taking on the Ethical Obligation of Technology

Competency in the Academy: An Empirical

Analysis of Practice-Based Technology Training

Today

JESSICA DE PERIO WITTMAN* AND KATHLEEN (KATIE) BROWN**

“Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you

could miss it.”

1

ABSTRACT

Today’s lawyers must be technologically competent, per Model Rule of

Professional Conduct 1.1. Law schools and law firms were keenly aware of this

expectation and summarily responded. While law firms offered more professio-

nal development opportunities, law schools began offering various courses fo-

cusing on technology skills. These courses have increased and evolved over

time as the curriculum has changed with the technology.

First, we present the evolution of ethical requirements surrounding legal

technology competency and offer a description of the lawyering competency

models most discussed today. We then review data about technology trends at

the most innovative law firms and examine curricular offerings in technology or

technology-related fields at American Bar Association-accredited law schools.

Next, we offer a comparative analysis of multiple empirical studies to determine

whether key areas of technology training were reflected in the legal education

curriculum and were sufficient to meet ABA ethical expectations. Finally, we

recommend solutions law schools may implement to increase technology

* Director of the Law Library, Associate Professor of Law, and Cornelius J. Scanlon Scholar, University of

Connecticut School of Law.

** Associate Dean for Information Resources, Charleston School of Law. The authors thank Rebecca

Fordon for sharing her study results. We would also like to thank Dean Larry Cunningham and Professor Leslie

C. Levin for their feedback. We also thank our student research assistants, Julia Audibert, Joanna Averch,

Haley Hinton, Sarah Hollis, Heide Hernandez Jimenez, and Joseph (Dante) Meade. © 2023, Jessica de Perio

Wittman and Kathleen (Katie) Brown.

1. FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF (Paramount Pictures 1986).

1

instruction, services, and infrastructure to meet ethical standards. ABA-accred-

ited schools should implement these recommendations in light of ABA Standard

301(a), the forecasted changes planned by the National Conference of Bar

Examiners, and the new virtual practice landscape set by the COVID-19

pandemic.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

I. TODAY’S LAWYERS AND THE DUTY OF TECHNOLOGY

COMPETENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

A. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF COMPETENCE IN THE

PROFESSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

B. STATE BAR REQUIREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

C. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR ATTORNEYS . . . . . . 13

D. LAWYERING COMPETENCY MODELS AND THE RISE OF

TECHNOLOGY COMPETENCY TO MEET CLIENT NEEDS

. . 15

1. THE I-SHAPED LAWYER MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2. THE T-SHAPED LAWYER MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3. THE DELTA MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4. THE O-SHAPED LAWYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5. THE WHOLE LAWYER MODEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

E. TECHNOLOGY COMPETENCY REFLECTED IN LEGAL

POSITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

F. TECHNOLOGY COMPETENCY SKILLS IN LAW SCHOOLS . . 19

II. EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON TECHNOLOGY HIRING IN LAW FIRMS 21

III. EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON TECHNOLOGY OFFERINGS IN LAW

SCHOOL CURRICULA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

A. 2017 LEGAL TECHNOLOGY SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

B. 2020 LEGAL TECHNOLOGY SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

C. 2021 E-DISCOVERY SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LEGAL ETHICS [Vol. 36:1

D. TRENDS IN SURVEY DATA AFTER CODING TO THE LEGAL

SERVICES INNOVATION INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

E. 2021 LAW SCHOOL WEBSITE DATA MINING PROJECT. . . . 35

IV. POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

A. THE IMPACT OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION,

STATE COURTS, AND STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONS. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40

B. ONCE A BASE CURRICULUM IS ESTABLISHED, LAW

SCHOOLS CAN IMPLEMENT UNIFORM TECHNOLOGY

TRAINING IN THEIR JURISDICTION 42

1. OPTION 1: ALL SCHOOLS SHOULD STRIVE TO BE 100%

COMMITTERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

2. OPTION 2: SCHOOLS SHOULD ADOPT A ROBUST PRACTICE-

RELATED TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3. OPTION 3: SCHOOLS SHOULD ADOPT A UNIVERSAL DESIGN

APPROACH AND FULLY INTEGRATE TECHNOLOGY TRAINING

INTO THE ENTIRE CURRICULUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4. OPTION 4: SCHOOLS SHOULD CREATE IMMERSIVE

ENVIRONMENTS WITH INCREASED EXPOSURE TO TECHNOLOGY

IN SPACES, SERVICES, AND SCHOLARLY DISCOURSE . . . . . . . . 45

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

APPENDIX A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

APPENDIX B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

INTRODUCTION

The legal landscape is constantly changing, and the need to implement technol-

ogy competence has increased.

2

In turn, the legal profession has reformed ethical

and professional norms concerning the use of technology. At times, this reform

manifests as a disconnect between the guidelines suggested by the American Bar

2. The terms “competence” and “competency” will be used throughout this article. The authors specifically

use the term “competence” when discussing Model Rule 1.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct

(“Model Rules”), as this is the specific term used in the rule. The authors define technology competence as an

individual’s capacity to perform specific technology skills and/or responsibilities. The authors define technol-

ogy competency as an individual’s actual knowledge and performance when handling technology (or technol-

ogy-related) issues in a particular situation or in relation to legal practice. See generally Heidi Frostestad

Kuehl, Technologically Competent: Ethical Practice for 21st Century Lawyering, 10 CASE W. RSRV. J.L.,

TECH. & INTERNET 1 (2019).

2023] THE ETHICAL OBLIGATION OF TECHNOLOGY COMPETENCY 3