The Unhappy Client

Posted on December 2, 2014 08:03 by Steve Crislip

The ABA Journal recently reported that an unhappy person filled a pick-up with gas, bales of hay and propane and then drove it into a law office.  They surmise it was intended to be an explosive device that did not detonate and instead killed the driver who apparently was very unhappy with the law firm’s work for his girlfriend.  That was an extreme example of the unhappy legal relationship.  

Well we have all lost potential or existing clients, but hopefully far less dramatically.  I do submit we lawyers do not pay enough attention to the “why” when a typical client’s unhappiness leads to a departure.  A better understanding of the loss might just prevent others.  We need to provide reliable, prompt and efficient service for our clients, who provide most of our return business.  Don’t do that and guess what — former client.  Thank goodness it is rarely as bad as the truck example, but it still is not a good business event when a client leaves because they are dissatisfied.  When you look at the unhappy client, it is amazing how simple some of the reasons can be.  It does not have to be as stupid as sending a Fed Ex package to your client UPS either.

I believe much of the unhappiness results from the really simple human nature things that make you personally angry daily.  Yet, perhaps you and your staff may be doing some of the same things to your own client base.  These common sense good business manners causes can be fixed to prevent client unhappiness.  It just requires a version of quality control.  You may think this is so basic that I should not have to deal with that on a staff level.  That appears to be the problem — the professionals do not realize what is going on with clients before they get to you.

When training staff and young lawyers, I stressed to them the reaction they have to bad service in a fast food restaurant, with airline travel, or with waiting in a doctor’s office. They get angry, they leave, and they quickly lose their loyalty in response to the above.  The same is true with law offices that put clients on hold and then drop their call, treat them badly, keep them waiting, or even worse don’t promptly respond to their calls or e-mails.  Always think how you react and try, try, try to provide professional services as you would expect your grandmother to get if you had referred her to a colleague.  This grandmother approach will keep claims at bay because clients will be far more reluctant to make a claim over a simple, honest mistake when they have been treated courteously, fairly and promptly by you throughout.  But even more importantly, they are less likely to jump ship at a simple slight.

Take time to train your staff, not only the new ones, but periodically the existing staff.  Polite, prompt and professional should be the standard which is reinforced by all.  Stress to them the need for confidentiality and the heightened work environment for professionals in which they are employed.  They will not get sanctioned, but you could lose your ticket for some misrepresentation or bad act by them.  “Hire Slowly and Fire Quickly” is also the human resource mantra when you have staff issues relating to this quality issue. 

All this is pretty simple commentary.  You would think it doesn’t need to be said.  When you depose plaintiffs in a legal malpractice claim, you hear a lot of these very simple things come out, and they are preventable by good business sense and manners.

This blog was originally posted on Lawyering for Lawyers. Click here to read the original entry. 

Bookmark and Share


Those Pesky Clients- Part Deux

Posted on July 9, 2014 02:53 by Steve Crislip

You may have heard me say how much fun the practice of law would be without dealing with clients.  (See June 2013 Post).  They always seem to need something from you right now and, by the way, don’t always want to pay full price for on-demand services.  Well, perhaps clients as the consumers of legal services have a point. Currently there are plenty of good lawyers around, even more than there is of good legal work to do. Perhaps there are now more lawyers than there is demand and the clients have experienced a shift in this balance.

More companies use inside General Counsel who act as the new trusted advisors to the companies, but with a business budget line to control.  So, many trends and changes are afoot in the delivery of legal services and firms need to adapt.  Things that can be done cheaper than using lawyers are simply outsourced.  Young lawyers cannot be billed in some cases until they have some experience.  More and more technology is required by clients to meet their needs, and the costs of that are not recoverable by the law firms.  As they say, “it is what it is” and lawyers who want to be successful in the future must adapt and improve the delivery of their services to be competitive.

Routinely advocating change and the ability to adapt, I still push back at the commodity procurement driven approach of many companies — buying legal services like buying pipes. Cost cutting driven by the Finance and HR portions of companies sometimes result in “guidelines” that seem written by non-lawyers and have more restrictions than the professional rules.  Caution is urged at this point, regardless of the market.  

One speaker at the 40th ABA National Conference on Professional Responsibility referred to these company-imposed guidelines as a source of private regulation.  He pointed out two main areas of concern:  (1) client identity and (2) conflicts of interest.  Some corporate guidelines say you will represent all of our affiliates and a conflict would exist as to each. Often we lawyers do not know and cannot determine who these hundreds of related parties may be.  The guidelines views of what they say is a conflict may exceed both the case law and the professional rules.  

Watch also these corporate guidelines for other hefty duties such as:

          • Data security audits and other type random audits.

          • Different file destruction requirements.

          • Disaster recovery plans for firms.

          • Breach notifications procedures and damages.

          • Personnel background checks on all employees.

          •  Indemnity clauses that can cause coverage issues.

There is no cookie cutter response to these.  I very much advocate a measured discussion and written exceptions to the guidelines when needed and possible.  Some will throw their weight around and put the firm in a take-or-no take situation.  Generally however, reasonable discussions can produce workable exceptions.  Since the firm’s engagement letter is intended to meet its professional responsibility where it practices, a procedure that states the General Counsel and the firm’s designated lawyer agree to resolve any differences between the guidelines and the engagement letter seems fair.  Placing the various affiliates in the firm conflict base for information and discussion purposes, but only representing the defined client in this matter may be a good compromise on the one-equals-all problem with regard to conflicts.

Despite being an advocate of law firms changing to adapt, there have been times when the guidelines were just so bad or unreasonable that I have said:  “We do not deserve to be your lawyers.”  Most however are workable.  Just be very aware of what you are agreeing to by way of guidelines since a court may well conclude they were contract terms, despite being more than required in the law or rules.  

This blog was posted on July 7 on Lawyering for Lawyers blog. Click here to read the original entry. 

Bookmark and Share

Categories: Life/Work Balance

Actions: E-mail | Comments


After several decades of experience with women’s initiatives in a number of law firms, and DRI, the article below rings true to me. 

We recently reviewed DRI’s membership data and reached some interesting conclusions. DRI successfully recruits women at a rate equal to men in ages 26-30. Women become very engaged in DRI, participating significantly more than their male counterparts in seminars and the like. Then DRI loses them at a rate dramatically greater than men during ages 31-40. After that age, drop rates for men and those women who have remained members are roughly equivalent.

Of course, DRI’s membership demographics grossly track those of our member law firms. To the extent we can determine from limited data, DRI is losing women members disproportionately during ages 31-40 because women are leaving law firms disproportionately during those ages, which should come as no surprise to us in law firms.

This article suggests an approach to consider in reversing that trend, but it cannot succeed without senior leadership driving it. Nor can DRI reverse this trend in its membership ranks without leading its law firm members by example to do the same.

How One Law Firm Maintains Gender Balance

Harvard Business Review, Avivah Wittenberg-Cox

No area of the business world is more illogically gender imbalanced than law firms. Every year, top law firms recruit 60% female and 40% male law graduates into their practices. Within two years, their female majorities begin to leave. The percentage of female equity partners is now 17% in the top 100 US law firms.

The strangest part is that women lawyers aren’t leaving the profession. They are only leaving law firms, taking on corporate, government or regulatory roles instead.

Law firms who want to hold onto their female recruits can do so – but they need to behave differently. Gianmarco Monsellato, head of TAJ insists it’s only an issue of leadership.

His own firm is 50/ 50 gender balanced, at all levels – including equity partners and governance bodies. It’s fueled their success over the past decade, and TAJ is now the No. 5 law firm in France.

How did he do it? Dramatically differently than most law firms. Most of his competitors have spent years organizing women’s initiatives, networks, or mentoring programs that have done little to increase the percentage of women reaching the top. The National Association of Women Lawyers’ recent report is pretty clear: These “fix the women” approaches have not delivered.

Instead, Monsellato tackled the problem personally. He was involved in every promotion discussion. “For a long time,” he says, “I was the only one allocating cases.” He insisted on gender parity from the beginning. He personally ensured that the best assignments were evenly awarded between men and women. He tracked promotions and compensation to ensure parity. If there was a gap, he asked why. He put his best female lawyers on some of his toughest cases. When clients objected, he personally called them up and asked them to give the lawyer three months to prove herself. In every case, the client was quick to agree and managed to overcome the initial gender bias.

This kind of leadership on gender is rare, but spreading. A growing number of courageous male leaders are working very hard to balance their companies – because they ferociously believe it will enhance their businesses. I spend a lot of time with these kinds of leaders. The smartest among them know that gender balance is more about getting male leaders, and men in general, to push for balance than it is about getting women to change their own behavior.

Monsellato laughs at the ideas of “leaning in” and diversity programs. “If partners aren’t convinced, you won’t get anywhere. And diversity programs headed by women reporting to all-male boards will never work.” He never referred to his gender push as a diversity initiative, and he has never run diversity programs. “What I have done is promote people on performance. If someone works 50% of the time, we adjust that performance to its full-time equivalence. When you adjust performance on an FTE basis, maternity issues stop being an indicator.”

He knows just how hard his female lawyers work, and he doesn’t want to lose out on the benefits of their productivity and ideas. “My biggest issue is trying to stop women from working all the time,” he says, “as technology allows them to work anywhere, anytime.” It’s the “tone from the top” that is key, he insists. Speaking to a roomful of female lawyers at a recent conference, he reminded them, “You are not a minority. It’s about balance, not about gender diversity.”

Interestingly, in my experience, most of the leaders who’ve pushed hardest for gender balance are themselves not fully members of their companies’ dominant majority. They are often a different nationality than most of their colleagues, or the first non-home- country CEO. So, for example, the Peruvian-born Carlos Ghosn at Nissan in Japan, the Dutch Marijn Dekkers at BAYER (disclosure: they are a client) in Germany, or the Italian Monsellato at TAJ in France.

There is nothing better than being a bit of an outsider to understand the particular stickiness of the in-group’s hold on power. These are some of the more enlightened leaders on gender balance. They build true meritocracies, they get the best of 100% of the global talent pool – and they will win a huge competitive edge in this century of globalization.


Bookmark and Share

Categories: Diversity | Life/Work Balance

Actions: E-mail | Comments


Lawyers tend to be a bit on the independent side and don’t like to be managed as a general proposition.  Despite all the rules we must follow, they sometimes rationalize:  “Those do not apply to me” or “I am not that person.” Most certainly do not like a peer talking to them about their own individual problems.

Take a high stress practice that is deadline driven, and overlay the usual problems of today’s society, and you have lawyers with problems.  It is a given.  Every office has this situation every week to some degree.  Do not ever ignore it, or back down from a big elephant lawyer saying “Leave me alone.”

A Lone Wolf, a lawyer with a substance abuse problem or with emotional issues, can bring down an entire firm by their sole actions or inactions.  So, you cannot afford to avoid the issue.  You must become your brother’s keeper.  Aside from losing a good lawyer with issues, you have a huge financial stake at risk and pretending it is not there will just not work.

Pay attention to your daily world (“situational awareness” is the tactical training term):

• Do you have a lawyer with exceptionally low hours (is there something going on other than a lack of work?);

• What about the lawyer who works extremely long hours and has overly large billables (is it more than workload driving this?);

• Have someone who comes in at odd hours and disappears at times (what have you done to check about that?);

• Do you have one who locks up work electronically or physically, and lets no one know what clients or work they are doing; or takes no vacations (not a firm approach and leaves clear indicia of issues you need to address);

• Are there individuals with big mood swings, flat expressions, lack of engagement, or volatile conduct (can indicate depression or mental health concerns which can impact the firm);

• Do you observe negligent internal practices such as not filling out time sheets, ignoring e-mails, not following firm policies (all can reflect a deeper issue leading to a claim against the firm.  Do not ignore the non-conforming conduct that can affect your firm).

In the older days, some lawyers were described as “bad to drink.” Bar groups formed support groups to aid those with drinking problems.  The ABA Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs says prescription drug issues (mostly pain medication) have now grown to be second, only to old time alcohol issue.  This new prescription drug issue accounted for as many state programs as cocaine, meth, and heroine combined.  

Fifty percent (50%) of the issues handled by State Bar programs related to substance abuse and addiction, but thirty-three percent (33%) more were mental health related.  Of these mental health issues, almost half were depression (41%) and a quarter of these mental health issues (23%) were anxiety disorders.  See ABA Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs.

To me, it is like leaving all the family assets in your house with everything unlocked.  Your firm is at risk when you fail to use common sense — basic situational awareness of what your lawyers are showing you.  Walk around and see what the signals are telling you in your very hallways.  Wouldn’t you want them to do the same for you?

This blog was originally posted on November 7 on the Lawyering for Law Firms blog. Click here to read the original entry. 

Bookmark and Share

Categories: Life/Work Balance

Actions: E-mail | Comments


Let It Rain - Women in the Law 2013

Posted on February 13, 2013 07:20 by Sarah E. Lovequist

As revealed by the National Association of Women Lawyers’ 2012 Survey, women are not credited as rainmakers at the same rates as men: “Almost half (46%) of all large firms report no women rainmakers among their top 10 business generators . . . women partners are less likely than men to receive credit for even a relatively modest book of business . . .” While business development can be a relatively straight-forward process, it is also arguably one of the trickiest areas for women to navigate. 

So how does one join this traditionally male-dominated conversation and hold one’s own? Fortunately, the first step is as easy as attending DRI’s Women in the Law Seminar, March 13-15, 2013 in Miami Beach, Florida. Marianne Trost is kicking off the seminar by leading a hands-on workshop that promises to help any female attorney hone her rainmaking skills so that she may stand toe-to-toe with male rainmakers. Additionally, DRI’s seminar offers sessions on practical skills from time management to selecting a favorable jury to delivering a killer cross-exam. And, of course, there will be plenty of time to network with and learn from fellow seminar attendees’ real life experiences. March is right around the corner, register today!

Bookmark and Share


Anyone who has viewed the viral video, “So You Want to Go to Law School” on YouTube may recall an older male attorney describing one of the more mundane aspects of the practice of law (e.g., responding to Requests for Admissions created solely to confuse you) to an earnest young woman considering going to law school. Despite the male attorney's ominous warnings, the female protagonist in the video, Carrie-Ann Fox, nonetheless decides to go to a fictitious law school and even spawns a sequel YouTube video. Unfortunately, many women are making a different decision—to not go to law school. As a result, this could be a critical time for law firms to make the practice of law more "friendly" to women.

The data provided in a recent Catalyst study illustrates this fact. (Catalyst’s “Women in Law in the U.S.” (2011).) Catalyst is not alone in reporting this trend—according to the ABA, in the 2009 to 2010 class, women made up 47.2 percent of J.D. Students. (American Bar Association, “Enrollment and Degrees Awarded 1963-2010.") This is a noticeable change from 1993, when women comprised 50.4 percent of J.D. students. (American Bar Association, “First Year and Total J.D. Enrollment by Gender 1947 – 2010.”)

Several factors are likely to blame for the erosion of female law school applicants—the economy, related concerns about student loan debt, and perhaps most importantly, the lack of women in the upper echelons of law firms and corporate law departments. This stalled advancement coupled with the perception that law school may not be a good investment in these trying economic times could contribute to a long-term setback for women in the profession. These troubling statistics have certainly been noted by the media—the New York Times, for example, published a piece last year documenting the progress of women in the law in light of the 30th anniversary of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor hearing her first case on the United States Supreme Court. (Editorial. "The Glass Ceiling." New York Times on the Web, 8 Oct. 2011. 5 April 2012.) The editorial noted that women with children are having the hardest time staying in the profession, and are half as likely to be hired as women without children.

In 2010, women made up 31.5 percent of all lawyers. (Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Table 11: Employed Persons by Detailed Occupation, S*x, Race, and Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity,” Annual Averages 2010 (2011).) However, 11 percent of the largest law firms in the United States have no women on their governing committees. (National Association of Women Lawyers and The NAWL Foundation, Report of the Sixth Annual National Survey on Retention and Promotion of Women in Law Firms (October 2011). At many firms, female partners do not play a major role in business development. Indeed, women partners account for only 16 percent of those partners receiving credit for having $500,000 or more business at law firms. (Id.)

After assessing the amount of time, effort, and money required to complete law school and make partner at a law firm, some women may determine that it is not worth the sacrifice, if being partner does not give them actual power relative to firm business decisions. In a survey of the 50 best law firms for women, only a fraction of the decision makers were women: 10 percent of firm chairpersons were women; 2 percent of the firms had women managing partners; 19 percent of the equity partners were women; and 28 percent of the non-equity partners were women. (NAFE and Flex-Time Lawyers, “Executive Summary,” Best Law Firms for Women 2011 (2011).)

This lack of power translates into cold hard dollars, as women lawyers made approximately 77 percent of male lawyers' salaries in 2010. (Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Table 39: Median Weekly Earnings of Full-time Wage and Salary Workers by Detailed Occupation and S*x,” Annual Averages 2010 (2011).) This lesser income, combined with the demands facing women at home, may not make the practice of law as appealing to females who may feel that they are choosing between a family life and a successful law practice. One study found that nearly half as many male lawyers as women lawyers (44 percent vs. 84 percent) have a spouse that is employed full-time. (Catalyst, Women in Law: Making the Case (2001).) So while top male lawyers may have spouses who do not work full-time, if at all, many female lawyers' spouses work full-time, and the demands of both spouses working is particularly hard on these families.

What do these declining enrollment figures mean for the future practice of law? A decreasing number of females entering law school will undoubtedly result in fewer female attorneys in the coming years. And, that could result in even fewer women in leadership positions within firms, which may further perpetuate the enrollment trend.

What can law firms do to encourage women to enroll in and complete law school? Law firms should consider instituting female-friendly work practices, such as generous maternity leave, flex-time, and telecommuting ability. These business decisions may lead to increased productivity and lower turnover rates. What goes without saying is the impact of technology on the modern lawyer's life. Gone are the days of being “off-the-clock.” The BlackBerry, iPhone, and other PDAs have contributed to a whole new level of accessibility for most attorneys, particularly those who communicate with clients. Although there are some drawbacks to the norm of around-the-clock communication, it has ushered in a new age of flexibility for attorneys who do not have to be in their office to review e-mails, work documents, and participate in telephone conferences. These advancements have benefited female practitioners to the extent that they allow for some of the same work to be done from home, which is particularly helpful for those with family obligations.

Notwithstanding the percentage reduction in law school enrollment, there are still a number of organizations focused on advancing women in the profession. Groups like DRI's Women in the Law Committee (WITL), the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL), and the National Association of Women and Minority Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF) have undertaken noteworthy work aimed at ensuring the success of women both in law school and in private practice. The WITL, for instance, holds an annual Sharing Success Seminar, n/k/a Women in the Law Seminar, which provides an opportunity for female attorneys to discuss tried and true methods aimed at achieving success in and outside of the courtroom. NAWL has similar initiatives like the continuing series, “Taking Charge of Your Career,” designed to provide the skills and information that women lawyers need to reach leadership levels in their practice settings. These efforts will hopefully cause law firms to pay closer attention to these important issues moving forward in order to counteract the enrollment decline and ensure diversity in future generations of attorneys to come.

Michele Hale DeShazo is senior counsel with the New Orleans office of Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson LLC, in which four of the firm's five founding partners are women. Her practice is entirely devoted to litigation, including environmental, toxic tort, product liability and general civil defense litigation.

Bookmark and Share


Media strategy and the tips and tactics of developing female organizational power were the big topics of the morning at this year's DRI Sharing Success seminar in sunny Scottsdale at the Westin Kierland Resort.  The morning started off with TV and radio personality, Mary Katherine Ham.  She regularly defends her political opinions on her morning radio program, The Morning Majority, and against Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor.  Her presentation focused on finding our voice and crafting our message and defense in the media - be it in the press, on tv, or on the Internet at large through social media.  Enlightening and refreshing and a great start to the morning. 

Linda Bray Chanow from the Center for Women in the Law spoke next and offered a very interactive discussion on the perceptions of female power in business and law. Simply by starting with a classic scenario we've all seen in our professional careers,  attendees peppered Ms. Chanow with questions and comments. Overall an incredibly collaborative and insightful presentation that will surely lead to continued discussions amongst all the attendees during the rest of the seminar.  Definitely excited to see what the rest of day has to offer.  

Bookmark and Share


DRI Thanks Our Bloggers and Readers

Posted on December 19, 2011 01:46 by Admin

During this holiday season, DRI would like to take the opportunity to thank all of our bloggers and readers for 2011.

Postings on the DRI Blog were provided by DRI members representing nearly every substantive law committee and practice area! Your efforts have provided quality content and food for thought for your fellow DRI members and the legal community.  

We would also like to thank our officers, board of directors and committee leaders, as well as their companies and firms. The time and effort you sacrifice on behalf of DRI are greatly appreciated.  We look forward to working with all of you in the coming year!

Look for new content on the DRI Blog beginning on January 3, 2012.

Thanks again to all of you and we wish you a safe and happy holiday season and a prosperous New Year!


Bookmark and Share


I got an e-mail the other day telling me that I should read an article published by the ABA.  Normally I ignore such messages, but this one caught my eye.  The title of the article was “Not One Legal Secretary Preferred Working with Women Lawyers.”  Hummm.  I thought.  So I read it.

On Friday, October 28, 2011 the ABA Journal posted this article in their online content. 

This article is based on a study called “If you become his second wife, you are a fool: Shifting paradigms of the roles, perceptions, and working conditions of legal secretaries in large law firms.”  The full study is available at this link. The problem is that the ABA’s article, in my opinion, is a complete mischaracterization of the study.

On October 31, 2011, a group of women attorneys including the President of California Women Lawyers, Georgia Black Women Lawyers, and others had a phone conference with ABA Editor, Allen Pusey.  Those on the call ultimately demanded an apology and a retraction.  At the time of this writing, neither has happened.

On Wednesday, November 2, 2011, Forbes published a piece about women demanding an apology from the ABA.  

Two days later, on Friday, November 4, 2011, the ABA ran another article, basically saying the original article did women lawyers a favor by pointing to the fact we are discriminated against, and we don’t like to talk about it, so we got angry.  That is my summary. Read it and decide for yourself.

I am not a member of the ABA.  I dropped my membership and I am glad I did.  I think both articles should be retracted immediately.  The title of the initial article is inaccurate.  The study actually states that 47 percent of those surveyed had no opinion as to whether they preferred to work for male or female partners or associates.  With almost half of survey respondents expressing no opinion, it is a distortion of the results to say that “not one” legal secretary preferred working with women partners.

Additionally, the article gives the impression that the survey heavily emphasized the issue of legal secretaries working with women partners.  Such a survey on its face is insulting and feeds into gender stereotypes.  We do not (and should not) read about surveys regarding working with partners of particular religious affiliations, ethnicities, or sexual orientations.  While the study surveyed legal secretaries on a wide range of issues, two thirds of the ABA article focused on only one issue, secretaries working with women partners.  By strongly focusing on the survey results dealing with legal secretaries working with women lawyers, the article misrepresents the substance of the underlying study.  It gives disproportionate attention to but one of many issues addressed and in so doing continues to perpetuate negative stereotypes of women lawyers.  

Legal secretaries play an important role in law firms, and surveying how that role has evolved during the past 50 years is a worthwhile endeavor.  The ABA Journal’s emphasis on one aspect of that study does a disservice to legal secretaries as well as the women lawyers with whom they work.  I hope you will join me in writing to that organization asking for a retraction and apology. If you are interested in more background information or the steps certain women lawyers groups are taking, please let me know.  I am proud to be a DRI woman and I am proud to be on its Women in the Law Committee.

Laurie K Miller with the Charleston, West Virginia firm of Jackson Kelly PLLC    Teresa M. Beck is with Lincoln Gustafson & Cercos LLP in their San Diego, California.
Bookmark and Share


E-Books v Paper Books in the Legal Community

Posted on October 3, 2011 02:28 by Chad Godwin

The legal community is beginning to take notice of the trend of moving away from paper and toward eBooks. Attorney Jean P. O'Grady recently blogged on the topic.  Ms. O’Grady concluded that the eBook model is a poor fit for the legal community.  

I am not sure that any type of legal publication needs to converted to an eBook format.  It is rare that I look to a hard copy of any legal authority.  Most law firms provide their attorneys with access to Westlaw or Lexis.  There are also a number of competitors that appear to be gaining a foothold, such as Loislaw, The National Law Library, Quicklaw America, and Versus Law. Westlaw and Lexis, along with similar on-line models, provide subscription-based services that allow users to include access to the materials that they view most frequently, with pay-per-incident access to the materials that are needed on occasion. These services provide access to virtually all mainstream legal authorities, including treatises and law review articles.  Moreover, they provide powerful search engines to access content in a quick and efficient manner.  Therefore, the majority of the legal community already has access to electronic information.  To the extent that lawyers are seeking portable access to that information, Westlaw created an application called Westlaw Next, which is available on the iPad.  Similarly, Lexis created iPad and iPhone applications that allow its users to access mobile content. It makes more sense to let internet and/or cloud-based services compile and update legal resources than to purchase separate copies that have to be stored locally. I agree with Ms. O’Grady and don’t see a big future for traditional eBooks in the legal industry.
Bookmark and Share


Submit Blog

If you wish to submit a blog posting for DRI Today, send an email to with "Blog Post" in the subject line. Please include article title and any tags you would like to use for the post.

Search Blog

Recent Posts




Staff Login