The
American
Lawyer survey of
midlevel
associates
at
large
law
firms
recently
came
out
and it’s got
some
sad
findings.
The
survey
revealed
several
troubling
trends:
• 56%
of
the
firms
had
at
least
one
associate
who complained about
the
firm technology,
in particular
the
laptops
they
were
issued.
• Many
say
the firm’s security
software
slowed
their
devices
down.
• Many
use
their
own money to
buy their
own technology
to
help
them
do
their
work.
• Many
say
they
wished
they
had
more
time
to
do
the
training
to
learn
how
to
use
the
technology
the firm
does have.
• A
number
of associates
say
partners
either aren’t
using
the
technology
the
firm
has,
were skeptical of
it,
or
just
plain
don’t
understand
it.
This
was particularly the
case
with
AI, as
partners
seemed
skeptical both about
using it and
its
impact.
• 34%
say
the
biggest
threat
to their career
was
technology
replacing
humans.
Why
So
Sad?
The
findings are
sad
in
so
many
ways.
The
fact
that
so
many associates are dissatisfied with
the
technology
of
the
firm
and
the
hardware
they
are given to
do
the
work
is
especially
significant.
This
means
that
it’s
taking associates longer
to
do
work that
could
be
done
more
efficiently if
they
had
better
hardware.
And
this
translates
into more
time
spent
on
tasks
and
higher
bills
to clients.
And
it
leads
to
poorer
quality.
I
know
from
experience
that
frustration
trying
to
use
technology
often
results
in
giving
up
on
a
task
that
might
be beneficial.
Add
to
this
the pressure to
bill
more
hours
and
get
more
work
done
on
a timely basis
and
you
end
up
with stressed
and
burned
out
associates. And
it’s
even
worse
when
you
consider
the
additional
delay
and frustration
from the
security
software.
Not
good
for
service
and
not
good
for
morale.
The
fact
that
associates
are buying and
more
importantly
using
their
own
hardware
is
also
disturbing.
It
means
there
is
a
significant
“shadow
use”
going
on
that
may
not
have
the
security
protections
the
firm
and
sometimes
even clients
mandate. Indeed,
coming
out
of
law
schools,
many associates may
already
have better performing equipment. In the
throes
of
stress
and
need
to
meet
client
and
partner
deadlines,
the
temptation
to
use
this
better
equipment
will
always
be
there.
I’ve
been
there.
I’ve
seen
it.
Next,
the training issue.
I’m
amazed
that
firms
aren’t
mandating
the requisite training
for
associates
to
use
the
firm’s
technology.
Talk about
being
penny
wise
and
pound
foolish:
the
firm
buys
expensive
tech
that
presumably
will
make
work
more
efficient
but won’t invest
the
time
to
make
sure
people
know what
it
does
and
how
to
use
it.
And
when
you
impose
things
like
a
quota
of
2400
hours
of
work
per
year,
you
can’t
expect
associates to
learn
technology
tools on
their
own. So the
firm
spends
thousands
of
dollars
on
platforms that go unused and
everyone is
unhappy.
Add
to
this
the
fact
that partners themselves
aren’t
using
the
tech
and
don’t
understand
it and
you
get
a
culture
that
ignores
tech
and
encourages
inefficiencies.
It’s
a
poor
example
for
associates
when
partners fail
to
meet
their
ethical obligation
to
understand
the
risks
and
benefits
of
technology.
It’s
a
sad
example
when
partners
don’t
use
technology
to
work
more efficiently,
get
better
results,
and
be
more
efficient.
In
addition,
by
not
understanding
AI,
AI
that
associates
are
no
doubt
using,
partners
are
not
ensuring
that
the
use
is
proper, consistent with
firm
guidelines,
and
making
sure
that
associates
using
it
are
getting
the
type
of
training
to
become
good
lawyers
in
the
future.
As
I
have written
before,
without
good
training on
how
to
use
AI,
interpret
its
output,
and
think
critically,
associates
simply
won’t
develop
the
judgment
skills
that
make
for
good
lawyers.
It’s also
ironic
that associates fear
that
AI
will
replace
them
when
partners
don’t
really understand it. Perhaps
they have
less
to
worry
about
than
they
think.
But Why?
Given
all
this,
you have
to ask
why
all
these
associate attitudes.
There
are
several
reasons.
First,
if
the
partners
don’t
understand
and
use
the
technology
and
presumably hardware, they
really
have
no
way
of
understanding
the
frustration
with
it.
And
if
you
don’t
pay
attention
to
technology,
you
can’t
know
that
there
is
better
tech
than
what
you
have. If
you
don’t
use
it
and
don’t
understand,
you
can’t
be
up
on
how
tech
changes
and
improves
and
what
those
changes
may
mean. So what
is
going
on
at
the
associate
level
is unknown
to
partners.
It
becomes
a
different
world.
Second,
law
firms
often
make purchase
or
lease
decisions,
including
those
for technology,
that box
them in for
some period
of
time.
But
technology isn’t like
conference
room
furniture
that
just
sits
there
and
perhaps
goes
out
of
style
every
10
years
or
so. Technology changes,
and
changes
dramatically,
year
over
year. Or
with
AI,
perhaps
week by
week.
But by
boxing
themselves
in,
firms
ensure an
inherent
lack
of
flexibility.
Next,
when
it
comes
to
technology,
most
often
decisions
are
slow
to
be
made and
require
consensus
by
partners
who again don’t
understand
or
don’t
use
the
technology.
There’s
typically an IT department that evaluates
potential tech
and
what’s
needed.
It
reports
to
a
tech
committee
with
lawyers
on
it.
That committee reports to
an
executive
committee
with
more senior
lawyers
typically
on
it.
The
EC
then
reports
to
the firm
as
a
whole.
All
along
the
way,
lawyers who
don’t
understand
or
use
the
tech
and
who
are
busy
billing
hours
to
service
clients
are
in
the decision-making loop. Is
it
any
wonder
that
associates
are
stuck
with
antiquated
tech
year
after
year?
And
by
the
time
the
firm finally gets
around
to making
a
decision,
the
tech
they
buy
is itself
often already
outdated.
Moreover,
when
it
comes
to
training,
the
billable
hour
sits
squarely
in
the
way.
Time
spent
in
training
is
time
spent
not
billing
and
making
the
firm
money. It’s no
wonder
training
suffers.
All too
often,
the
training
is given by
IT personnel. It’s often
boring
and
in
computer
speak.
And of
course, it’s truncated
so
that
the
trainees
can
get
back
to billing.
Associates
sit
through
this
and
worry
about
meeting
their
billable
hour
quotas
that
training
takes
away
from.
They
are
stressed
and
distracted.
And
again,
when
partners who
run
the
firm
don’t
understand
and
use
the
technology
the
firm
has,
they
fail
to
see
the
need
for
demanding
adequate
training.
A
Failure
to
Communicate
As
noted
by
some
in
the
survey,
it’s
a
sad state
of
affairs when
firms
are
making
millions
in
profits
and
partners
are
taking
home
so
much
money,
that
they
can’t
spring
for
better
technology
for
associates
to
get
their
work
done.
When
partners
don’t
get
the
technology
needs
and
why its important,
there
is
indeed
a
failure
to
communicate:
you can’t communicate
what
you
don’t
understand.
Associates
are more
and
more voting
with
their
feet.
Yet
one
more
reason
to
be
technologically
competent
and
create
a
culture
of
tech
use
and
training. It’s not
just about being ethical
by
understanding
the
risks
and
benefits
of technology,
it’s good
business. Partners simply need
to
spend
the
time
to understand
and
use
the
technology and be
more
involved
in
decision
making
before
this
sad
state
of
affairs
changes.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.