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.