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

AuthorJessica De Perio Wittman and Kathleen (Katie) Brown
PositionDirector 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
Pages1-60
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 BUELLERS 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. TODAYS 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 competenceand competencywill be used throughout this article. The authors specifically
use the term competencewhen 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

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT