Technology Forum Meeting - Transcript of Discussions - Page 8  <<   >>

Meeting continued after lunch at the Courtyard by Marriott, Ithaca, New York.)

MR. MIRANDA: The question was raised: What should we, as a bar association, be doing? And I think really what we -- what the Association needs to do is provide the infrastructure or, like Professor Martin said this morning, the architecture so we can draw upon the knowledge of our organization. When you think about what the Association is and what we have that differentiates us from either commercial organizations that provide content, or other organizations, it’s that we've got 70,000 of New York's finest lawyers, and that's what we have to draw upon. The collective knowledge of those 70,000 lawyers is one way we can build upon the knowledge of our community for the new web site.

If you look at our web site today it's basically a top-down web site. The information basically comes from the bar association. You know, we've got Gary Sawtelle, whatever he can manage to fix and pump out; that's what comes out on the web site, with some occasional isolated bursts of effort where others can jump through a number of hoops and get some information out there.

What we're in the process of doing now is redesigning the web site, redesigning the infrastructure. Instead of it being from top down, it's bottom-up approach, so each of the 70,000 members is going to have the ability to post and place the information that they feel is important to them, up online.

We need to be able to do that through our sections. The sections are basically where our members go for their legal information. And the design of the new site is going to be very reliant upon the sections with respect to the content that we're providing. In addition to providing case law and articles that are current in nature, we're going to have the ability for these sections to operate as online communities. When a case comes down and it is fed onto the section's web site, members can view the case, and they will be able to go into the section's discussion group, and comment upon the case or ask any questions of their colleagues.

I think that's one of the roles of our Association, especially for those members in smaller firms where they're not going to have the ability to go "down the hall" and ask a question to their colleague. The Association would in really become the "down the hall" for all sole practitioners and small law firms. I think that we need to provide the infrastructure so that these -- our individual members don't have to reinvent the wheel every time.

MR. SIENKO: David, could you describe what you mean by infrastructure when you say the word? Does it mean just the web site?

MR. MIRANDA: No.

MR. SIENKO: Or does it mean something else to you?

MR. MIRANDA: It does mean something else. That's Point 2. The web site is, I think, a good example of it, though I still wanted to talk about the web site, but I guess I can get to Point 2.

MR. SIENKO: I'm just asking you because you used the term two or three times, "the infrastructure," and I think, if you can, it will help us define the term what you mean by "infrastructure."

MR. MIRANDA: The infrastructure is resources to allow our members to communicate with each other and to exchange information with each other and with the association. We want to be able to access the content that this bar association has. We've got a tremendous amount of content that is underutilized. It goes out on a newsletter, and it goes to the various section members, and pretty much that's it. That type of content can be utilized again, and
a lot of it, obviously, when I talk about the infrastructure, is online.

The other way I think we can provide the infrastructure for the association is to use the technology to enable -- to bring members from geographic -- different geographic regions together so that they can communicate, they can meet, they can share documents. We need to be able to assist them in bridging the geographic separation that's present in our membership.

And, One of the items that I would like to propose is that we have a pilot teleconferencing program in place so that we connect the Bar Center in Albany to two or three other sites throughout the state -- one downstate, one in western New York -- so that individuals in all of those regions can more easily gather and participate in statewide conferences, statewide meetings, statewide CLE programs, and programs such as this.

MR. SIENKO: Let me interrupt for a second to ask you to describe your vision of that. Do you see that as being location-based where lawyers would come to a particular teleconferencing site, or do you see that as being web-based where lawyers would make use of streaming video capability on the web to do the teleconferencing?

MR. MIRANDA: I think my vision would really have elements of both. I think that obviously we -- I think we need to be moving forward with respect to the ability to stream video with respect to, for example, CLE programs. We have that capability actually already in place, and I think we need to add to that to make that more common and more accessible. But I do view it as also there being a physical location where you would have the ability to teleconference so that, let's say there's a meeting in New
York City that I can't make, but possibly myself and several colleagues from the capitol district could meet in the Bar Center so there would be some live current interaction, but there would also be the connection with the meeting that's elsewhere in New York City or western New York.

So, I think what I would look to have would be a hub, a video teleconferencing hub in some location, possibly in conjunction with one of the county or local bar associations. We would be able to have equipment there so that you could participate in meetings, where you could see the people in the room on the other end. You should also be able to share documents. That is not something that's going to be necessarily easily exchanged through a computer.

MR. SIENKO: Do you have a preference for the bar association making capital investment owning that, or the bar association outsourcing that or hiring those services on a per-use basis?

MR. MIRANDA: I don't have a preference, quite honestly. I think that ultimately the bar association is going to need to make the investment in that infrastructure. I don't -- I think it's clear that this is not something that's going to go away. It's not a fad. You know, as we mentioned -- I think Steve Krane mentioned this morning that this is something the courts are doing. This is something that's already out there and available, and it's just a matter of us putting the resources together to do it. I think that certainly the investment would be worthwhile because, by doing this, we're going to make our association and our association's meetings and conferences more accessible to a broader array of individuals. So I think the investment does have to be made.

MR. SIENKO: So I've got proposals from David for the new web site and keeping that generating content from the bottom-up, and for teleconferencing hubs, both physical location and on the 'Net.

MR. MIRANDA: The web site, it's happening, so we don't have to waste one on that. The web site is -- that's going to -- it's in progress. We've had the support of the association to move forward with that. We've had a clamoring from the membership. Obviously it's going to be a work-in-progress, but it's happening. It is moving forward.

MR. SIENKO: Thank you, David. Who else has proposals?

MR. SIENKO: David made the proposals. We're going to have other proposals, and I don't think we necessarily have to dialogue on each of the particular proposals. Let's get some proposals out that people want as positives as opposed to simply saying, "You can't do this," "You can't do that." All right? At least for the first hour or so to keep us rolling along. Who else has a proposal?

MS. THARP: As the dinosaur in this group, I think we need to have the appropriate level of education in a very cost-efficient, user-friendly manner.

MR. SIENKO: You see as the function of the bar association to educate members?

MS. THARP: Absolutely. Not just education on how you use the 'Net to do legal research, but how do you purchase equipment? What is the equipment that -- the hardware that should be purchased? Also the software; what is going to be best for a particular practitioner's needs? We thought about bulk sales, bulk purchases, offering that as aids. Those two components are very important to me.

MR. SIENKO: Now, over the years, there's been a great deal informally of what we call evangelizing about technology where there have been various sections and committees that have had programs on technology. I'm assuming you want those to continue?

MS. THARP: Yes, and I'm not sure they've been as user-friendly as they could be.

MR. SIENKO: How would you change that?

MS. THARP: I don't know how to change them, but I think somebody should take a look at them, I guess, is what I'm saying. Availability, the cost, I think all of those things, I think, at least in the beginning, before people are more adept, I think they should be available throughout the state, that sort of thing.

MR. SIENKO: Does this all have to be in the medium of face to face like we are here?

MS. THARP: Again, I'm open to whatever works.

MR. SIENKO: Could you put it on CDs? Could you put a computer doc. where a new member gets a CD?

MS. THARP: Are we losing a group of people that don't know what that means?

MR. SIENKO: Stick it in the machine.

MS. THARP: Stick it in the machine might be, but do they have the machine? I don't know. Maybe there aren't that basic --

MR. SIENKO: I'm clarifying as to what you mean. It sounded like you were saying doing more of what we've been doing, but do it better.

MS. THARP: Do it better and maybe even at a more basic level and with the technology assistance as to what do I need to buy.

MR. SIENKO: Steve, you got something?

MR. KRANE: I just wanted to add, to build on what Lorraine said, which I agree with entirely, I think we have to start at a very basic level. Most of the people in this room are light years ahead of the rank-and-file lawyer. We have a large segment of the bar, the 130,000 lawyers in New York State, tens of thousands of them, I am sure, who do not own a computer and do not use a computer in their day-to-day practice.

One of the things that I think we should do is adopt as a policy, as a goal for the bar of New York State that, within X years, X being no greater than five, every lawyer in the state should have a computer that's connected to the Internet in their office. And then we build upon that, teaching what software they need, making recommendations as to what they should buy, what kinds of hardware, using our powers and organization to make more deals like we just made with Corel last year for tremendous discounts on WordPerfect software.

So there's the education and information function, which we are serving in part, but perhaps not as aggressively as we should be, and the facilitation function: How can we help the lawyers -- once we decided what the lawyers need, how can we help them get it and use it effectively? In no more than four years, every lawyer will have a computer attached to the Internet.

MR. SIENKO: That's a possibility. John?

MR. SZEKERES: I think Steve brings up a very valuable point. I think we need to focus on -- maybe we're jumping ahead of ourselves by saying what kinds of programs to make available. Rather we should be asking the question: What do we think the attorneys need to practice effectively? What are the -- and then decide what kinds of bar association programs can help them do that.

Education is very important. But before you can educate them, you need to know what you want to teach them. And stating a goal like every lawyer in the state should have a computer, should have e-mail, should have access to whatever and state -- and figure out what the "whatever" is, and then you can decide what kinds of programs you can develop to make that effective.

MR. SIENKO: Will it be the same for our membership? Will it be uniform?

MR. SZEKERES: No, I don't think so.

MR. SIENKO: Will it have to be customized?

MR. SZEKERES: I think when you're talking sole practitioner, it's very different than a medium-sized firm. Clearly the large firms have their own IT structure to help them reach that point.

MR. KRANE: For example, is there a way that the association technologically could become an Internet service provider (ISP)? And, for a nominal fee or perhaps as part of membership, could you have free access to the Internet maybe with an NYSBA e-mail address? I'd like to get people to look to the state bar as an essential part of their daily practice. Lawyers can come to the Internet through the NYSBA web site. Providing that would be a very visible benefit of membership.

MR. SIENKO: There was some other positive comments over here.

MS. CIOFFI: I wanted to make some small-firm observations, and I'm not intending to be negative, but I'm not sure.

MR. SIENKO: Put it in the form of what you would like to see. What are those bullet items that you want that we're going to have -- as a result, we're going to be able to pull out here? So what do you suggest?

MS. CIOFFI: I don't know what to suggest, but I want to identify a problem, a hurdle. I don't know enough technology to know what to suggest to you. I was the novice. I want a way to make credible and understandable to the older practitioner and to the perhaps less-well-connected small community, small-firm practitioner, the value and importance of what we're doing.

I've got a 62-year-old partner who has learned how to play Solitaire, and I love him and want to stay partners with him, but this is a real issue.

I've been a president of 300-person bar in Schenectady, and 60 percent of them are over the age of 55 --

MR. SIENKO: I'm glad she got that cutoff just right.

MS. CIOFFI: -- and I will just say disconnected from the concept. And there are reasons. They were educated and grew up in a legal profession that was light years different from what we're looking at now where there was a lot of mentoring and John Szekeres used that concept earlier. And there was a lot of value placed on passing down traditions, ethics, and the actual way things are done. And they don't see any of that in the world of the computer practice. I can't just say to him, "Come on, George, you've got to get with it." He's got to believe it's important. And I don't know how to --

MR. SIENKO: What would it take to get your friend to think it's important? Tom?

MR. GLEASON: I have a central message regarding communication with members. I think that if the bar association gets solidly behind the concept of using the Internet as a standard access point (so you never have to touch a CD ROM disk again), then real value can be delivered in many different and convenient ways. All that members would need to do is learn one thing: How to get to the Internet. This familiarity also would be useful in the coming electronic filing systems, through which most if not all litigation in the future will be conducted by filing over the Internet. And although that seems like a technically geeky solution, it's my belief that if the bar association gets behind that type of access, and provides assistance to support lawyers who want to do it, most of the basic functioning that lawyers presently do with paper they will be able to accomplish over the Internet.

Internet e-filing of court papers offers huge incentives in efficiency, and new access to information product that will give real benefits not only to the big firms, but actually even more to the people who are most pressured right now: The small practitioners.

MR. SIENKO: When do you think the county clerks and the court system will be ready for that? Are we talking short- or long-term?

MR. GLEASON: I think it's short-term. The demonstration project is up and running in Monroe and New York Counties. If we could get every lawyer on-line, which should occur within the next year or so, the benefits of a widely used system would be clear. We've got three counties now. The main impediments to use of electronic filing now are related to resistance on the part of the bar. Because of some technical issues, many are afraid. There also are some privacy issues that soon will be addressed. I think that the bar’s discomfort with electronic filing is going to diminish significantly very soon. And the day the technical concerns will go away is when you can go to your scanner just like your photocopier, and you can't tell the difference between the two. Such copier/scanners allow the emailing of documents in a more convenient procedure than currently exists for faxes. We are very close to that level of technology now.

If you could take a scanner and throw pages into it just like a photocopier, and then collate “papers” on your computer and make them look on the screen just like they do on your paper copies on the your desk, with nice exhibit tabs and other features; and if you could file those over the Internet and get confirmation that they're instantaneously at the court house or served; and if you could then, forever, from any place in the world, very easily access every single document filed in the cases you're working on, by easily searchable databases, by reference to the index number or other useable means; and if you could do all these things easily without significant training, and if all you needed to know is how to get on the Internet, then I think your 65-year-old lawyers would say, "Wow, this really is better”, and they will use it.

MR. SIENKO: Well, the court system already has a series of HP digital comparing devices they've given to various courts for judges to put up decisions and decisions are going up on an e-court thing. There's e-courts they put into effect in OCA last week. It has all the electronic functions of the office of court administration, and one of the things they're doing is taking all judgments, decisions, county by county, they're scanning them in, and they're putting them up on line, available, searchable, and these are the decisions not necessarily unpublished.

MR. GLEASON: It's not necessarily the research part of it that I think is critical, although I think that aspect is very useful and important. What I think is really critical for your small practitioner, is the physical functioning of the day-to-day practice. How do you make that easier? Look at what happened with the Southern District bankruptcy experience. Down there, Federal Courts have different rules: They can tell people what to do and people will do it. In the state courts it is harder. You can't make the system involuntary in New York State, and probably you shouldn't. But when they did do that in Federal Court, they found the people who really thought it was going to be a big boon were from the larger firms. In fact, the people who were most happy with electronic filing were the small practitioners, the people way out in Riverhead or the people in, you know, the areas of New York where you have to drive, 50 miles to get to the clerk's office. The same should be true in State court. When there's a snowstorm and you live in Lake Placid, it's not an easy thing to get documents to the courthouse. If you could do those kinds of things-- easy, practical functional things—and if all you needed to know is that you could turn that machine on and hit the Internet, then that's value.