Technology Competence Instruction and Assessment under the Principles and Standards of Legal Research Competency

Abstract

Many states require lawyers to maintain technology competence. This article discusses the importance of teaching technology competency to law students. It describes the recent technology competency updates made to the Principles and Standards for Legal Research Competency. It provides suggestions for teaching and assessing technology competency in legal research or other skills-related instruction.

Keywords:

• legal research competency
• technology competency
• instruction
• assessment

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to research assistants Clayton Dubin and Arlee Biggins for their valuable research support.

Disclosure statement

The author confirms that there are no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 Robert Ambrogi, Tech Competence, LawSites Blog (June 10, 2021, 12:08 PM), https://www.lawsitesblog.com/tech-competence.

2 See, e.g., ABA Standing Comm. on Ethics & Pro. Resp., Formal Op. 477R (2017) (discussing securing communications of protected client information); ABA Comm. on Ethics & Pro. Resp., Formal Op. 483 (2018) (discussion lawyers’ obligations after electronic data breach or cyberattack); Ethics Opinions Related to Technology, The State Bar of California (June 10, 2021), http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/Conduct-Discipline/Ethics/Ethics-Technology-Resources/Ethics-Opinions-Related-to-Technology; NC State Bar, 2011 Formal Ethics Op. 6 (2012) (discussing software as a services and duties of confidentiality and preservation of client property); Miss. Bar, Ethics Op. no. 263 (2020) (discussing use of online cloud-based storage companies).

3 See, e.g., Stephanie Francis Ward & Jason Tashea, Too Far Ahead of the Curve, 105 A.B.A. J. 36 (2019).; Abigail Johnson Hess, Experts Say 23% of Lawyers’ Work Can Be Automated—Law Schools Are Trying to Stay Ahead of the Curve, CNBC (Feb. 7, 2020, 9:01 am), https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/06/technology-is-changing-the-legal-profession-and-law-schools.html; Natasha Chua Tan, Teaching Tech: How Legal Education Coursework is Changing in Today’s Digital Era, Law.com: Legaltech News (Oct. 1, 2019, 7:00 am), https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2019/10/01/teaching-tech-how-legal-education-coursework-is-changing-in-todays-digital-era/.

4 See, e.g., Matthew Stubenberg, Better Position Yourself for the Legal Technology Wave, 23 TYL 5 (2019); Nick Gaffney, Transforming a Law Prac. with Technology, 43 Law Prac. 38 (2017); Nicolle L. Schippers, Become More Client-Centric Using Technology, 35 GPSolo 54 (2018); Richard Marx, Law Office Technology Prognostication for 2017, 34 GPSolo 48 (2017).

5 See Caroline L. Osborne, The State of Legal Research Education: A Survey of First-Year Legal Research Programs, or Why Johnny and Jane Cannot Research, 108 Law Libr. J. 403 (2016); Alyson M. Drake, The Need for Experiential Legal Research Education, 108 Law Libr. J. 511 (2016).

6 Am. Ass’n of Law Libraries, Principles & Standards for Legal Research Competency (2013, revised 2020), https://www.aallnet.org/advocacy/legal-research-competence/principles-and-standards-for-legal-research-competence/.

7 Id.

8 Model Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.1 cmt. 8 (Am. Bar Ass’n 2012).

9 Robert Ambrogi, Tech Competence, LawSites Blog (June 10, 2021, 12:08 pm), https://www.lawsitesblog.com/tech-competence.

10 State Bar of Ga. Board of Gov. Board Book (2019), https://www.gabar.org/committeesprogramssections/boardofgovernors/upload/BoardBook_fall19_web.pdf;

11 Or. State Bar, Formal Op. 2013-189 (2013); Me. Board of Overseers of the Bar, Formal Op. 217 (2017).

12 Miss. Bar, Ethics Op. No. 263 (2020); Me. Board of Overseers of the Bar, Formal Op. 207 (2013).

13 Me. Board of Overseers of the Bar, Formal Op. 196 (2008); Or. State Bar, Formal Op. 2011-187 (2011, revised 2015); Miss. Bar, Ethics Op. 259 (2012).

14 State Bar of Nev., Formal Op. No. 33 (2006); Me. Board of Overseers of the Bar, Formal Op. 220 (2019).

15 Natasha Bertrand, Manafort’s Own Lawyers May Have Hastened His Downfall, The Atlantic (Jan. 9, 2019), https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/01/paul-manafort-lawyers-failed-to-redact-documents/579910/.

16 In re: Joyce Nanine McCool, No. 2015-B-0284 (Sup. Ct. of La. 2015).

17 Order, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Ca. 2012), ECF No. 1894; Sanctions Order, DR Distributors, LLC v. 21^st Century Smoking, Inc., No. 12-CV-50324 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2021), ECF No. 439.

18 Satterlee v. Allen Press, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (D. Kan. 2006) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 [1993]).

19 Kanoff v. Better Life Renting Corp., 350 F. App'x 655 (3d Cir. 2009).

20 Daniel Victor, ‘I’m Not a Cat,’ Says Lawyer Having Zoom Difficulties, N.Y. Times (Feb. 9, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/style/cat-lawyer-zoom.html.

21 Andrew DaRosa, CT Prosecutor Disciplined after Reportedly Calling Boss a ‘Liar’ on Zoom Call, CT Post (July 15, 2020), https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/CT-prosecutor-disciplined-after-calling-boss-a-15410926.php.

22 See, e.g., Andrew Perlman, The Implications of ChatGPT for Legal Services and Society, The Practice Magazine (Mar./Apr. 2023), https://clp.law.harvard.edu/knowledge-hub/magazine/issues/generative-ai-in-the-legal-profession/the-implications-of-chatgpt-for-legal-services-and-society/; Kimbrilee M. Weber, ChatGPT as a Legal Tool? Ethical Considerations in the Evolving Generative AI Landscape, Law.com: New York Law Journal (Apr. 21, 2023 at 9:39 am), https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/04/21/chatgpt-as-a-legal-tool-ethical-considerations-in-the-evolving-generative-ai-landscape/; Devin Bates, ChatGPT: A Lawyer’s Friend or Ethical Time Bomb? A Look at Professional Responsibility in the Age of AI, JDSupra (Apr. 20, 2023), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/chatgpt-a-lawyer-s-friend-or-ethical-5156254/; Aimee Furness & Sam Mallick, Evaluating the Legal Ethics of a ChatGPT-Authored Motion, Law360 (Jan. 23, 2023 at 5:36 pm), https://www.law360.com/articles/1567985/evaluating-the-legal-ethics-of-a-chatgpt-authored-motion.

23 See Legal Services Innovation Index, https://www.legaltechinnovation.com/law-school-index/ (listing law schools with course offerings that cover different aspects of technology.)

24 Dyane L. O’Leary, “Smart” Lawyering: Integrating Technology Competence into the Legal Practice Curriculum, 19 U.N.H. L. Rev. 197 (2021).

25 See, e.g., Laura P. Graham, Generation Z Goes to Law School: Teaching and Reaching Law Students in the post-Millennial Generation, 41 UALR L. Rev. 29 (2018); Anthony Volini, A Perspective on Technology Education for Law Students, 36 Santa Clara High Tech. L. J. 33 (2020); Dyane L. O'Leary, “Smart” Lawyering: Integrating Technology Competence into the Legal Practice Curriculum, 19 U.N.H. L. Rev. 197 (2021); Iantha M. Haight, Digital Natives, Techno-Transplants: Framing Minimum Technology Standards for Law School Graduates, 44 J. Legal Prof. 175 (2020); Kristen E. Murray, Take Note: Teaching Law Students to Be Responsible Stewards of Technology, 70 Cath. U. L. Rev. 201, 211 (2021).

26 See, e.g., Kurt Meyer, Teaching Legal Research to Today’s Digital Natives, 21 AALL Spectrum 12 (2017); Iantha M. Haight, Digital Natives, Techno-Transplants: Framing Minimum Technology Standards for Law School Graduates, 44 J. Legal Prof. 175 (2020).

27 See, e.g., Dyane L. O’Leary, “Smart” Lawyering: Integrating Technology Competence into the Legal Practice Curriculum, 19 U.N.H. L. Rev. 197 (2021).; Emily Janoski-Haehlen, Robots, Blockchain, ESI, Oh My! Why Law Schools Are (or Should Be) Teaching Legal Technology, 38(3) Legal Ref. Servs Q. 77 (2019); Katrina June Lee, Susan Azyndar, & Ingrid A. B. Mattson, A New Era: Integrating Today’s Next Gen Research Tools Ravel and Casetext in the Law School Classroom, 41 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 31 (2015); Joseph D. Lawson, Talking Tech: Teaching Legal Tech Is Not Optional, 25 AALL Spectrum 35 (2021).

28 See, e.g., Iantha M. Haight, Digital Natives, Techno-Transplants: Framing Minimum Technology Standards for Law School Graduates, 44 J. Legal Prof. 175, 191-192 (2020); Jon M. Garon, Legal Education in Disruption: The Headwinds and Tailwinds of Technology, 45 Conn. L. Rev. 1165,1220 (2013); Richard S. Granat & Stephanie Kimbros, The Teaching of Law Practice Management and Technology in Law Schools: A New Paradigm, 88 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 757 (2013).; Femi Cadmus, Five Steps to Successfully Developing a Law Practice Technology Course, 24 Trends L. Libr. Mgmt. & Tech. 25 (2014).

29 See, e.g., Emily Janoski-Haehlen & Sarah Starnes, The Ghost in the Machine: Artificial Intelligence in Law Schools, 58 Duq. L. Rev. 3,22 (2020); Kevin D. Ashley, Teaching Law and Digital Age Legal Practice with an AI and Law Seminar, 88 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 783 (2013).

30 See, e.g., Mark Fenwick, Wulf A. Kaal, & Erik P. M. Vermeulen, Legal Education in the Blockchain Revolution, 20 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 351, 380 (2017).

31 See, e.g., Anthony Volini, A Perspective on Technology Education for Law Students, 36 Santa Clara High Tech. L. J. 33,51 (2020); Eric Goldman, Teaching Cyberlaw, 52 St. Louis U. L. J. 749 (2008).

32 See, e.g., Emily Janoski-Haehlen, Robots, Blockchain, ESI, Oh My! Why Law Schools Are (or Should Be) Teaching Legal Technology, 38(3) Legal Ref. Servs Q. 77 (2019); Kathleen Elliott Vinson & Samantha A. Moppett, Digital Pro Bono: Leveraging Technology to Provide Access to Justice, 92 St. John’s L. Rev. 551, 560 (2018); Simon Canick, Infusing Technology Skills into the Law School Curriculum, 42 Cap. U. L. Rev. 663, 680 (2014); Ronald W. Staudt & Andrew P. Medeiros, Access to Justice and Technology Clinics: A 4% Solution, 88 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 695 (2013).

33 See, e.g., Kathleen Elliott Vinson & Samantha A. Moppett, Digital Pro Bono: Leveraging Technology to Provide Access to Justice, 92 St. John’s L. Rev. 551, 560 (2018); Martha F. Davis, Institutionalizing Legal Innovation: The (Re)Emergence of the Law Lab, 65 J. Legal Educ. 190 (2015); John M. Facciola, A Judicial Perspective: Technological Competence and the Law Schools, 2015 J. Prof. Law. 119, 123 (2015).

34 Am. Ass’n of Law Libraries, Principles & Standards for Legal Research Competency, supra note 5.

35 Id.

36 Id.

37 Id.

38 Id.

39 Id.

40 Michelle Hook Dewey & G. Patrick Flanagan, Litigation Analytics: Bringing Experience to New Tools, 23 AALL Spectrum 41 (2019).

41 Sara Anne Hook & Cori Faklaris, Oh Snap: The State of Electronic Discovery Amid the Rise of Snapchat, WhatsApp, Kik, and Other Mobile Messaging Apps, 63 Fed. Law. 64 (2016).

42 Id. at 70.

43 Clio Academic Access Program, https://www.clio.com/partnerships/academic-access/ (last visited June 15, 2021).

44 Susan Nevelow Mart, The Algorithm as a Human Artifact: Implications for Legal [Re]Search, 109 Law Libr. J. 387 (2017).

45 See, e.g., John Simons, The Creator of ChatGPT Thinks AI Should be Regulated, Time Magazine (Feb. 5, 2013, 9:00 am), https://time.com/6252404/mira-murati-chatgpt-openai-interview/; Chris Gloriosi, Fake News? ChatGPT has a Knack for Making up Phony Anonymous Sources, NBC New York (Feb. 23, 2023), https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/fake-news-chatgpt-has-a-knack-for-making-up-phony-anonymous-sources/4120307/.