For
a
long
time,
the
definition
of
a
competent
lawyer
was
relatively
stable.
You
knew
the
law.
You
understood
the
procedure.
You
prepared
your
case.
You
showed
up.
You
asked
the
right
questions.
You
made
your
arguments.
You
learned
from
experience.
Technology
sat
on
the
periphery.
It
made
things
faster.
It
made
things
easier.
It
rarely
changed
the
core
of
what
it
meant
to
practice
well.
That
is
no
longer
true.
Litigation
is
beginning
to
move
in
real
time.
And
when
that
happens,
competence
starts
to
shift.
During
a
recent
conversation
with
Dean
Whalen,
chief
legal
officer
of
Readback,
we
explored
what
this
shift
looks
like
inside
one
of
the
most
consequential
moments
in
litigation:
the
deposition.
You
can
watch
the
full
discussion
here:
The
takeaway
is
not
that
technology
replaces
lawyers.
It
does
not.
The
takeaway
is
more
subtle
and
more
important.
When
the
tools
available
to
lawyers
change
the
speed,
precision,
and
visibility
of
decision-making,
the
baseline
for
competent
practice
shifts
with
them.
The
Old
Rhythm
Of
Litigation
For
decades,
depositions
followed
a
familiar
pattern.
Lawyers
prepared
their
outlines.
They
walked
into
the
room.
They
asked
questions.
A
stenographer
recorded
the
exchange.
And
then
everyone
waited.
Days
or
weeks
later,
the
transcript
arrived.
Only
then
could
lawyers
confirm
what
had
actually
been
said,
whether
key
testimony
landed
as
intended,
and
how
the
record
might
affect
summary
judgment
or
settlement
strategy.
Dean
described
that
experience
with
a
mix
of
familiarity
and
frustration.
“I
would
hear
attorneys
say,
‘I
think
we
did
really
well,
but
let’s
see
how
the
transcript
reads.’”
That
sentence
captures
an
older
rhythm
of
litigation.
Act
first.
Analyze
later.
It
was
acceptable
because
there
was
no
alternative.
When
Litigation
Becomes
Immediate
That
rhythm
is
starting
to
break.
Real-time
transcription,
live
annotation
tools,
and
AI-assisted
analysis
are
changing
how
depositions
unfold.
Lawyers
can
now
see
testimony
as
it
happens.
They
can
confirm
whether
an
answer
is
precise.
They
can
adjust
their
questions
immediately.
In
some
cases,
experts
are
observing
the
deposition
remotely,
reviewing
testimony
in
real
time,
and
feeding
suggestions
back
to
the
examining
attorney.
The
deposition
becomes
less
of
a
static
event
and
more
of
a
dynamic
system.
Imagine
a
key
witness
gives
a
vague
answer
on
causation.
In
the
old
model,
that
ambiguity
might
not
be
discovered
until
days
later,
after
the
deposition
is
over.
In
a
real-time
environment,
it’s
caught
immediately,
clarified
on
the
spot,
and
locked
into
the
record.
Dean
put
it
plainly.
“In
today’s
information
age,
we
shouldn’t
have
to
walk
out
of
there
not
knowing
that
we’ve
precisely
nailed
the
testimony.”
That
expectation
would
have
sounded
unrealistic
not
long
ago.
Today,
it
is
increasingly
achievable.
And
once
something
becomes
achievable,
it
starts
to
influence
what
clients
expect.
Competence
Is
No
Longer
Static
The
legal
profession
has
always
tied
competence
to
knowledge
and
judgment.
That
remains
true.
Technology
does
not
replace
either.
But
competence
has
also
always
had
a
practical
dimension.
It
reflects
what
a
reasonable
lawyer
should
know
and
do
under
current
conditions.
Dean
pointed
to
this
directly
when
discussing
ethical
obligations.
“We
as
attorneys
need
to
stay
up
and
competent
on
technologies,”
he
said,
referencing
the
professional
expectation
that
lawyers
understand
tools
that
can
benefit
their
clients.
There
was
a
time
when
it
was
reasonable
to
ignore
certain
tools.
They
were
too
expensive.
Too
immature.
Too
unreliable.
That
argument
is
becoming
harder
to
sustain.
When
real-time
tools
improve
the
accuracy
of
testimony,
reduce
ambiguity,
and
allow
lawyers
to
correct
gaps
before
they
become
embedded
in
the
record,
they
are
not
simply
conveniences.
They
are
inputs
into
the
quality
of
representation.
That
does
not
mean
every
tool
must
be
adopted.
It
does
mean
every
tool
worth
considering
must
be
evaluated.
The
In-House
Perspective
This
shift
is
particularly
important
for
in-house
counsel.
Legal
departments
are
not
only
consumers
of
legal
services.
They
are
managers
of
risk,
cost,
and
outcomes.
They
rely
on
outside
counsel
to
execute
a
litigation
strategy,
but
they
remain
accountable
for
the
results.
When
depositions
become
more
dynamic
and
data-rich,
in-house
leaders
gain
new
leverage
and
face
new
responsibilities.
They
can
ask
better
questions.
How
quickly
do
we
know
what
happened
in
a
deposition?
How
confident
are
we
in
the
accuracy
of
the
transcript?
Are
we
adjusting
strategy
in
real
time
or
reacting
weeks
later?
These
are
not
technical
questions.
They
are
management
questions.
Dean
framed
it
in
practical
terms.
“If
you’re
speaking
to
outside
counsel,
you
want
to
make
sure
you’re
using
all
the
tools
at
your
disposal
to
maximize
your
ability
to
win
the
case.”
That
does
not
require
in-house
lawyers
to
become
technologists.
It
requires
them
to
understand
where
technology
changes
outcomes.
The
Resistance
Is
Real
Not
every
lawyer
is
eager
to
embrace
this
shift.
Some
argue
that
real-time
tools
are
distracting.
They
prefer
to
maintain
eye
contact
with
the
witness,
focus
on
the
flow
of
questioning,
and
avoid
splitting
attention
between
the
person
in
front
of
them
and
the
transcript
on
the
screen.
That
concern
is
legitimate.
Litigation
is
still
a
human
process.
Rapport,
pressure,
and
presence
matter.
A
deposition
is
not
simply
a
data
exercise.
Dean
acknowledged
this
tension.
“Some
lawyers
want
to
be
eye
to
eye
with
the
witness,”
he
said.
“They
don’t
want
to
be
looking
to
the
right
to
see
how
the
transcript
is
being
created.”
But
he
also
described
a
middle
ground.
“I
call
it
the
safety
net
use
of
it.
Don’t
look
at
it
while
you’re
questioning.
Use
it
during
a
break.
Make
sure
you
actually
nailed
the
testimony.”
This
framing
matters.
The
question
is
not
whether
technology
should
replace
traditional
skills.
It
should
not.
The
question
is
whether
technology
can
reinforce
those
skills
by
reducing
avoidable
error.
Guardrails
Define
The
Future
As
litigation
becomes
more
dependent
on
technology,
another
issue
becomes
central:
trust.
Not
all
tools
are
created
equal.
Not
all
systems
protect
data.
Not
all
outputs
are
admissible.
Dean
was
clear
about
what
matters.
“You
want
to
make
sure
that
your
transcript
is
admissible.
You
want
to
make
sure
your
data
is
protected.
You
want
to
make
sure
there’s
human
oversight.”
Those
are
not
minor
details.
They
are
the
difference
between
useful
innovation
and
professional
risk.
In
many
ways,
this
is
where
competence
becomes
most
nuanced.
It
is
not
enough
to
adopt
new
tools.
Lawyers
must
understand
how
those
tools
work,
what
risks
they
introduce,
and
how
to
use
them
responsibly.
A
Moving
Baseline
The
definition
of
competence
does
not
change
overnight.
It
shifts
gradually,
almost
imperceptibly,
as
new
capabilities
become
standard
and
expectations
adjust.
We
are
in
the
middle
of
one
of
those
shifts.
Litigation
is
becoming
more
immediate.
Information
is
becoming
more
accessible.
Feedback
loops
are
getting
shorter.
In
that
environment,
waiting
weeks
to
understand
what
happened
in
a
deposition
starts
to
feel
less
like
prudence
and
more
like
delay.
The
profession
does
not
need
to
abandon
its
foundations
to
adapt.
Legal
judgment,
preparation,
and
advocacy
remain
central.
But
the
conditions
under
which
those
skills
are
applied
are
changing.
And
when
the
conditions
change,
competence
follows.
Lawyers
who
recognize
this
shift
early
won’t
simply
change
how
they
practice.
They’ll
change
the
outcomes
they
deliver.
Competence
isn’t
standing
still.
It’s
keeping
up.
Olga
V.
Mack
is
the
CEO
of
TermScout,
where
she
builds
legal
systems
that
make
contracts
faster
to
understand,
easier
to
operate,
and
more
trustworthy
in
real
business
conditions.
Her
work
focuses
on
how
legal
rules
allocate
power,
manage
risk,
and
shape
decisions
under
uncertainty.
A
serial
CEO
and
former
General
Counsel,
Olga
previously
led
a
legal
technology
company
through
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
She
teaches
at
Berkeley
Law
and
is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
the
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics.
She
has
authored
several
books
on
legal
innovation
and
technology,
delivered
six
TEDx
talks,
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
VentureBeat,
TechCrunch,
and
Above
the
Law.
Her
work
treats
law
as
essential
infrastructure,
designed
for
how
organizations
actually
operate.