Ted Banks, former chief counsel for global compliance at Kraft Foods, vented his spleen in a recent Law.com article, What Steams Me About Technology. I like to hear what lawyers think about legal IT. I don’t know Mr. Banks, but I hear echoes of his pet peeves in comments by other lawyers in my environment.
Below I’ll review his list, and as a trainer, grade them.
- “First, why do so many IT folks focus on the software itself, instead of the task it should accomplish?”
Mr. Banks starts with a good one. IT sometimes forgets that what they do needs to be useful outside of our cubes. We support a community that is using technology to perform non-technical tasks. Even trainers, who are supposed to be advocates for users, can get lost in the features of the software. We want to show them everything, and every way to use everything, instead of focusing on what they need and how they can best do it.
Grade: B. The reason this doesn’t get an A is that sometimes lawyers don’t know what they truly “need,” or make decisions based upon bad habits. IT folks may have insights into helping them accomplish tasks more effectively or efficiently, but many lawyers are not interested in exploring those avenues. It’s not enough to focus on the task that needs to be done today. Some time has to be spent on how can the task be done better the next time.
- “Anything that takes power away from individual users and moves it elsewhere is horrible.”
Mr. Banks is ranting against cloud computing. He doesn’t like the lack of local control in an Enterprise 2.0 world. He then dismisses “debates about reliability and security” as if those subjects are inconsequential.
Grade: C (and I’m probably being kind here). Unreliable and insecure are risky, costly business behaviors. They can ruin careers and bankrupt firms. IT folks harp on these subjects because they are, in fact, important. I once heard from a lawyer (in a weaker moment, apparently) that his profession likes to talk about security, but isn’t interested in doing anything about it until it hurts them. It’s why the message of E-discovery is so difficult to convey to law firms prior to a damaging suit against them.
In the same way that we should focus support on the lawyer’s tasks, lawyers should attempt to align themselves with the core “tasks” of IT.
- “Successful technology works when it mimics how people think and behave”
This was probably part of the previous pet peeve, but I think it stands on its own. I love when technology is intuitive, seamless, magical. Users should not have to be programmers to do their jobs.
Grade: A. But bear in mind that magical does not mean effortless. IT can’t remove all the burden of performing tasks.
- “I also hate that legal technology tends to move in fads.”
IT does seem to suffer from ADD, but it’s not always their fault. Lots if IT initiatives take place because lawyers see a shiny new toy (iPhones) and assume that it has an immediate use in the office. Mr. Banks rightly encourages appropriate due diligence before jumping into a fad, but I’m not sure who he thinks should perform it.
Grade: Incomplete. I think there’s enough blame to share by lawyers and IT on this one.
When Mr. Banks is finished with his pet peeves, he highlights the root problem:
- “When we get bad products or services, often it is because we cannot communicate what we need.”
Lawyers can’t ignore technology. Legal IT folks don’t have jobs without lawyers. It only makes sense that we communicate with each other on what defines success for the firm.
Overall Grade: B.
Tony Hartsfield General, technology law.com, legal IT, Ted Banks