{"id":442,"date":"2015-04-09T15:00:00","date_gmt":"2015-04-09T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hub.findingsimple.com\/au\/should-australia-introduce-technology-standards-for-law-firms\/"},"modified":"2022-08-03T16:04:34","modified_gmt":"2022-08-03T05:04:34","slug":"should-australia-introduce-technology-standards-for-law-firms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.au\/legal\/posts\/should-australia-introduce-technology-standards-for-law-firms","title":{"rendered":"Should Australia Introduce Technology Standards for Law Firms?"},"content":{"rendered":"

With innovative technology and cutting-edge tools popping up at breakneck speed in the Australian legal market, is it time to introduce technology standards for the legal profession?<\/p>\n

In October 2014, the Law Society of Upper Canada<\/a> significantly revised the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers, but there was one glaring omission \u2013 references to the use and the impact of technology in the practice of law.<\/p>\n

The absence of commentary on confidentiality, communication and data privacy in a technology context has prompted discussion about the need for technology standards and regulation for legal professionals globally.<\/p>\n

Monica Goyal<\/a> \u2013 a lawyer and technology entrepreneur \u2013 says the lack of concrete guidance for the LSUC has two drawbacks:<\/p>\n

\u201cFirst, the approach puts the onus on the lawyer to analyse and decide the suitability of technology \u2013 a task we don\u2019t have the training to do.<\/strong> It also places the developers of technology in the precarious position of having to create software and interpret rules in a satisfactory way in order to meet compliance obligations.\u201d<\/p>\n

One leader in this area is the American Bar Association, which has modified its Model Rules of Professional Conduct to reflect the reality of technology use in the practice of law. Lawyers are now required to keep abreast of technology developments, including the associated benefits and risks, and make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent unauthorised disclosure of, or unauthorised access to, information relating to the representation of a client.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s no such guidance in Australia. Viewing the technology ‘revolution’ as one driven by courts and clients, a senior partner at Gilbert + Tobin, Michael Williams<\/a>, has warned that lawyers may soon be forced to adopt technology in order to practise law. Williams has claimed that it’s possible that professional bodies could mandate the use of certain technologies in the near future.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re going to see a trend where technology is no longer an option\u2026 When you start having professional standards requiring technology to be a part of practice, and people can\u2019t just opt out of that, you\u2019re reaching a point where there will be automatic adoption,” Williams told Lawyers Weekly<\/a> last month.<\/p>\n

The new technology standards<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

So what form would these new standards take?<\/p>\n

\u201cIt might be a requirement of holding a practising certificate that you have a minimum ability within your firm or your practice to engage with the prevailing technology, and it\u2019s not just market-driven, it\u2019s standards-driven,\u201d said Williams.<\/a><\/p>\n

Rather than guessing about the application of technology to professional rules and standards, the system could provide a uniform set of Australian technology standards, providing guidance on:<\/p>\n