The history of legal technology projects, both in specific firms and generally, is too often a showcase of half-completed and failed projects. In a recent blog post called “The Human Barrier to LPM Technology: Will Lawyers Get to the Future?” Pam Woldow and Doug Richardson assess and analyze this history and the reasons for it. What are the barriers lawyers create around adopting higher levels of technology?
In this episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss why legal technology projects fail, the human element of legal technology, and why Woldow and Richardson’s blog post should launch some important conversations. When addressing the fundamental problems lawyers have with technology (a common subject) Kennedy believes lawyers seek an unachievable standard; they want something impossibly intuitive and easy to use that fills all management and accounting needs. He also mentions that efficiency technologies are counter-intuitive to the billable hour. Mighell believes that lawyers will only adopt technology through client or management pressure and encouragement. In the end, they both agree that technology can be used to streamline or automate busywork, leaving more time for quality legal analysis.
In the second half of this podcast, Kennedy and Mighell discuss strategies for conducting a survey. They mention the benefits of different tools like SurveyMonkey and Google Forms, and how law firms can benefit from asking for feedback. As always, stay tuned for Parting Shots, that one tip, website, or observation that you can use the second the podcast ends.
Special thanks to our sponsor, ServeNow.
Kennedy-Mighell Report: Adopting Legal Technology: A Human Problem? 4/16/2015
Advertiser: Got the world turning as fast as it can? Hear how technology can help – legally speaking. With two of the top legal technology experts, authors, and lawyers: Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell. Welcome to the Kennedy-Mighell report, here on the Legal Talk Network.
Dennis Kennedy: And welcome to episode 150 of the Kennedy-Mighell Report. I’m Dennis Kennedy in St. Louis.
Tom Mighell: And I’m Tom Mighell in Dallas.
Dennis Kennedy: In our last episode we tried to shine a light on something ominously referred to as Shadow IT. In this episode we turn to how the human element continues to play an important role in legal technology and gives many people concern whether lawyers in a legal profession will even make it to the future. Tom, what’s on our agenda for this episode?
Tom Mighell: Well, Dennis, in this edition of the Kennedy-Mighell Report, we’ll be talking about whether the human barriers to lawyers adopting legal technology are insurmountable or whether there’s something we can do about that. In our second segment, we’ll announce a survey for our podcast listeners, and as usual, we’ll finish up with our parting shots, that one tip, website or observation that you could start to use the second this podcast is over. But for our first segment, we’re asking an interesting question, which is are the human barriers to accepting and using legal technology something that can reasonably be overcome. In a recent post on their blog, At the Intersection, Pam Woldow and Doug Richardson – who, by the way, wrote a great, very accessible book for the ABA on legal project management for lawyers. They share their thoughts after attending a recent law firm management conference in Sydney, all the way on the other side of the world. The blog post I think raises some very important issues, issues that we cover from time to time on this podcast and we thought that the topic deserves a little bit of a wider discussion than it seems to be getting, although I did see some tweets about it today before we went on the air. As we recorded this podcast, though, there still aren’t any comments on the post. Dennis, what were you thinking and why did you want to focus on this topic for this episode of the podcast?
Dennis Kennedy: Well, I think it does wave some important questions in a very interesting way, and kind of highlights some key points and kind of collects those all in one place. So that’s obviously one aspect of it, but I think the other thing that’s very significant to me was I was thinking back to the early days of blogging and a post like this would have gotten all kinds of comments and people doing their own posts on their own blogs. And this one really didn’t seem to be getting a lot of traction and that to me raises the question of where does important discussion about legal technology actually occur today. And so I thought maybe, Tom, we should use the podcast as a way to draw attention to this post and some of the issues that they raise. And I thought the questions they raised are really important and they both look to the past and learnings that we can have from the past and they look to the future and as you say, are there some things about the way lawyers approach technology that make it exceptionally difficult for lawyers and are those barriers something that we can move past.
Tom Mighell: I agree that there hasn’t been a lot of response that I’ve seen to it. But then again, I will say that I’ve been noticing there has been an uptake lately on articles that discuss whether lawyers should have a certain amount of technology knowledge. I think we’ve seen in the past couple of weeks a decent increase in the number of articles and posts and tweets about whether or not there’s an ethical obligation to know about technology and I know that our friend Bob Ambrogi posted about the states that have adopted the ABA model rule. So there’s been that discussion about does it make sense that there’s an ethical obligation to understand technology and I sort of see that these topics go hand in hand. I see that they make sense that there are a lot of lawyers out there who I think still treat the law as a profession and not as a business. And for some reason, that travels along to technology as well. I’m really interested to know if there’s a generational issue here. I’m really interested to know if these are lawyers who have been practicing for a long period of time or these are younger lawyers who are mentioned in the post that refused or were uncomfortable with the technology that was given to them. No matter how advanced technology was, no matter how much information that it could give to the lawyer in the law firm, I guess I have to say I’m not totally surprised. I want to say that’s not really been anything for me anyway that’s been different since I really started getting interested in legal technology. I just think that lawyers in general have bigger fish to fry and would rather have somebody else take care of the technology for them. I know that’s a cynical approach but that’s what I would think would be the majority of lawyers, at least. And maybe, I don’t know if this is an unfair statement or not, but my guess is that Pam and Doug, when they talk about firms that are dealing with legal project management, they’re talking about larger firms. Larger firms would be more interested in looking at these dashboards that aggregate all sorts of information. They’re not talking about solo and small firms that probably are using more technology than some of the lawyers in the big firms are using anyway because they’re used to having IT provide everything for them or deal with that. So I’ve kind of been rambling on with this a little bit, I’m just not surprised to see something like this because it’s really nothing new to me.
Dennis Kennedy: On the one hand, time, I guess you’re right; this is something that we’ve talked about for a long time, a lot of people have. But I guess what’s interesting in this article to me is that it raises the more fundamental question is can lawyers move past this. Some of the things that we see are so fundamental and so problematic that lawyers just can’t get past them to implement new technology. So one of the premises of the article I think is that looking at these top of the line great technology implications that could do almost anything that a lawyer could imagine and then basically no adoption and not just negative attitudes towards them, but people just didn’t want to deal with them at all. So that to me is the interesting piece is this, is how fundamental is this, and does it really go across the boards. Are they just pockets of exceptions or is there a gap here between what the technology is, how lawyers see it, or what the technologists see what technology is being able to do and how it just doesn’t match what lawyers want. And so I think there’s a lot to discuss here. For me the sort of money quote from the post was talking about one of these elaborate systems that should have done everything that the lawyers asked for it to do and it just didn’t work. And so the question was asked of what is it going to take to get these people to use this tool. And the answer was I could say that what’s needed is a simple point and click interface, but even that’s probably too much tech speak. What our lawyers tell me is that the whole thing has to be really simple and really intuitive to use. One keystroke, maximum two. Anything more than that and you’ve lost them, and I think that attitude and that approach is really common, which always surprised me because it seems lawyers take on really sophisticated problems, sophisticated issues, multiple step things, but when it comes to technology, they just want something that’s just unbelievably simple that just doesn’t really exist.
Tom Mighell: I talk about how I think that this is not something that’s new and unusual and now I’m going to expand on this and I’m going to say that I don’t think that this is unique to lawyers. I think that to a certain extent, and we always talk about how lawyers lag behind other industries in adopting things and I think that may be true. But I will say that I deal with a lot of people who need technology to be easy for them to do their job. People are busy, they have a lot of stuff to do. I work with a lot of companies who, for them, their major records and information problem is email. It’s probably most of the people listening out there’s major problem, is email. Because let’s face it – email has become your filing cabinet. It’s what you use to go and keep all of your information; it really shouldn’t be that way. And so we come into a company and we say okay, we’re going to try to move stuff out of email so that you’re not using it there, you’re using it in better places where it could be retained for the right amount of time or it could be managed so that legal holes could be applied to it. And we want you to start dealing with email in a more responsible way. And what they tell us is that if it takes us longer than 2 to 3 seconds to make a decision about what to do with the email, we’re not going to do it. We’re not going to make that decision because it has to be simple. We want an easy button for dealing with this. And I think that you’re right. I think that this post, for me, this comes up to say why? What’s the reason for this? I think that in the sense of my clients and the people I deal with who are dealing with email is that they’re so busy anyway, they don’t have time to let technology come in and make them less productive. Technology’s supposed to make them more productive and if it doesn’t, then something’s failing. And I wonder how much part of that is what we’re seeing the lawyers say. Lawyers are busy and they want to be able to see things but if it’s not that one or two clicks, then they’re wasting their time doing something like that.
Dennis Kennedy: And that whole business thing is a big thing and people who aren’t lawyers really hate the way lawyers are always talking about how busy they are, as if no one else is. So I think that to me, I don’t even buy that excuse anymore. A lot of times I used to work with litigators who spent so much time telling me how busy they were, I wasn’t sure if they had enough time to do any work because all they did was talk about how much work they had to do. So you always have time to do this stuff, and I think when you say I just need one button that needs to be intuitive, and the fact that there is no one size fits all. You’ve got to think through what it is that you want, and if you don’t participate in the process, I think that you could say this is great, I want these things, and I need to have like one keystroke, one button, and if that’s not exactly the button you wanted, as I say, some of these big projects just end up as a pile of magnificent junk after time. So I think that part of this, what they get to in the article, is how lawyers don’t get involved in designing what they want – partially because they can’t really surface and articulate what it is that they really want at the beginning. So they’re presented with something at the end that all they could say is it’s not easy enough, when it’s probably not the easiness, it’s just that they don’t want to put the effort into it.
Tom Mighell: Well I agree, but I think we’d probably have to agree to disagree on the whole business thing because one thing that I recommend and something that we do frequently is part of adopting new technologies or even using something new in your group that deals with technology often depends on good change management. Good changing behaviour through communications of support from both the top down and the bottom up that say that this is a good tool, this is going to help you out. And part of good change management is going to the end user and showing them examples and saying tell us what’s easier, tell us what you like about this user interface, tell us what you like about this one. And I will say that there have been many times where well-meaning IT or other litigation technology or legal technology departments and firms or companies have decided to roll things out with very little user input, and I think that’s another reason. I think you’re right that that’s a reason why things fail is that if you don’t get input from the user – whether you’re a lawyer or you’re just a regular employee – then you run a real risk that people don’t want to use the tools that you have because it just doesn’t make sense to them because you didn’t take their concerns into consideration when you were rolling it out.
Dennis Kennedy: Right, and I think, Tom, you and I see a bunch of new legal software all the time, every year. And there are times within a few minutes where you can see just a couple of things and go this is not going to work, lawyers are not going to like this. It could be naming conventions, it could be placement of things, it sort of comes down to usability and a focus on the user experience and what people want. But you sometimes see that, so there is an aspect of that that comes into things. But there are user experience experts that have ways to get involved in these things where changes can be made. So lawyers step too far back and then there’s a couple of things that they talk about in the article too that I thought were interesting along those lines, because they did mention that the gripes of lawyers focus on utility, so what good does it do, and suitability, as in how easy it is to use. So whether people say it has too many bells and whistles, it takes too long to learn, which means it takes more than ten seconds, it’s too hard to use because I have to do something different than what I’m used to. All those things come into play, and then also I think that there’s that fundamental tension that we’ve seen since the beginning of technology for lawyers is that the systems that are sold on increasing productivity and efficiency don’t go over well when your job is to maximize billable hours.
Tom Mighell: Yeah, and as we talk about this, I am reminded of conversations that we’ve had in really recent podcasts about something that’s more basic to a firm or to a business than these dashboards are. I think what’s interesting is the blog posters really talk about something as simple as a dashboard. A dashboard is really just a layout of information about how the firm is doing in a particular area or metrics of performance from lawyers or billables and collection of the company and hearing that that’s not simple enough is really interesting to me. Let’s just boil it down to something more basic and that’s Microsoft Word. We hear time and time again that people don’t like to use Word, even the ones who have to use it, they don’t like it. The most common complaints are that it has too many bells and whistles and that it’s too hard to use. The same exact complaint that we’re seeing about the dashboards in the blog post. But you and I both have friends that regularly teach lawyers to use Word that they say that given the right amount of training and given the correct training, lawyers will find that those features are not that overwhelming, they’re not that confusing, they can learn to be productive when they create documents and actually use the tools in the way that it’s supposed to be kept. And so does this mean that this is a training issue? Is that as simple as that? I know that it’s not, but it seems like when we talk about tools that lawyers complain about not being easy, we’ve seen that training can help address that issue.
Dennis Kennedy: Right, I think that’s one side of it, but I think the more interesting thing to me in what this article touches on are business and practice tools where you say I would like to be able to find out this information; a law has changed, I’m going to be required to make changes in a bunch of contracts, I would like to be able to punch that up. It’s the same thing that business people would like to get from their lawyers. So analytical tools, things that tell me what the current value of the case I’m working on, if a settle on my offer has come in, is it realistic about what I know about the case and the hours in, those sorts of tools I think are the things that really puzzles me that lawyers aren’t attracted to. So I think you’re right, Tom, there’s a training thing, but you’ve got to be able to step back and say what is it that I actually want and is that possible. And today, often that really is possible, you’ve just got to ask for it.
Tom Mighell: I think that to a certain extent, there’s also an issue of the kind of support and or pressure you may get within the company for a tool like this. And I think that that support and or pressure can come from both directions; it could come from the top, it could come from the bottom. And frankly, I think it’s important to come from both directions. The user of that technology needs to understand one, why that technology’s important, two, how it’s going to help them do their job better, and three, probably most important, it’s not going to be so hard to use that it measurably reduces their ability to do the work that they think is more important than the stuff that they feel like they need to get done anyway. And I think that part of that support has a couple of different elements, and one of them is pilot testers from the user group. People who can come in and make sure the features make sense to the mind of the person who’s using it. Lawyers who are going to look at that dashboard need to look at the tool ahead of time. But frankly, as I’m saying this, I’m realizing that the blog post is saying that there are even people who tested it and they still didn’t like it, so I’m not even sure if that’s the answer. Having champions along the way, finding people within the group who have tested it, or they’ve tried it, or they’re the super users, the people who know how to use it. So they can help the others and say look, if you just give it a chance, it’s really something good. But I usually find in a company – especially the companies we work with – if there’s not top down support from the executives saying this is important to us, we really expect that you would do this, we think it’s important and you need to do this because we think that it’s important. I think that’s a really critical part. Now if we’re talking about just a dashboard, then maybe the top is not so high up. But having some support from people who work for the people who refused to use something or manage the people who are supposed to use it might make a difference. I’m kind of grasping at straws here because it really is a mystery to me why even with some of these things lawyers still refuse to use the technology. So maybe I sometimes find ourselves back at the beginning of this discussion without a real good answer.
Dennis Kennedy: I think that people don’t always appreciate how even a few lawyers who decide not to participate in a system can utterly destroy the utility of that system and a lot of times there’s no consequence for that. People don’t feel you can force people into systems, but you have to look at those things. Tom, there’s two quotes from this article I want to highlight before we exit this segment. The one I like says the one sense between the gulf between a firm’s lawyers and its IT people are ironic. In some ways, lawyers and IT experts are similar animals and one might expect more mutual respect for people whose roles are predicated on mastery of various types of subject matter expertise, who all are supposedly concerned with optimizing the performance of the firm. And so I think there’s this sort of tension and maybe competition between sort of high priests who have one type of specialized knowledge and high priests who have another type of specialized knowledge and there’s a jealousy and not a good way to go between them. I think the role that you and I and others play is that ability to go back and forth between the two camps which I think can be incredibly helpful. And then the other quote I like says that many lawyers tell us that efforts to superimpose indeed to pressfit work process software upon their professional wisdom and legal judgement is kind of insulting. Those people don’t really understand what we do, they say. They want to digitize and commoditize and quantify everything. And so that’s the notion of profession versus business and what I’ve called lawyer exceptionalism where lawyers tend to think that everything we do is different somehow and not focus on what really is different. So there’s a lot of things we do from running meetings to making copies, doing various processes that really are commoditized and there’s nothing that unique about what we do and there are other things that can be digitized that free us up to do what we do that’s creative. And to free up time for us to think and do those things and not always fall back on that we’re so busy excuse. So I think that both of those quotes are really worth discussing by people and that’s part of the reason why I found this article so interesting.
Tom Mighell: Well I think that it all boils down to the fact that many lawyers still view the law as a profession and not as a business and I think that to move forward on this argument, I think that there needs to be a recognition that it can be both at the same time. They need to be able to hold both ideas in their minds because if they don’t, I think that we talk about the future of law and the commoditization of the law, it’s already happening. So it’s not a matter of whether or not these people who don’t understand our business are trying to make us do something, it’s already happening. And I think that’s one of the things that it’s going to take to do this. I think there’s going to be pressure from both sides to address lawyers who won’t use technology the way that they probably should. One is lawyers who are starting to understand, who are starting to use technology in better ways as they become more successful – at least I hope they become more successful. Lawyers who aren’t using technology begin to learn by example and then I think you and I, you talk about this all the time, is the client side of the business will do as it’s always done, will force lawyers to change the way they do business. Lawyers were forced to use email and they didn’t want to use email until their clients demanded it. Lawyers use Word Perfect until all their clients moved over to Microsoft Word and forced all their lawyers to use Microsoft Word. Those are easy and kind of basic examples, but I really think that that has something to do with it. And as clients move to better ways to deal with things and talk about being more efficient, then we start seeing terms like Lean and Six Sigma and all these other tools being used in law firms nowadays, I think it’s just a matter of time before it starts to takes on. But then again, that’s a $64,000 question for me. I’m just not convinced that it’s going to be a fast evolution or that it’s going to happen for everybody at all.
Tom Mighell: Yeah, I think you’re right about that but when I think about the way I look at technology these days, I do want to digitize and commoditize and get away from the stuff that’s repetitive and boring and doesn’t allow me to be creative and bring the highest value that I can bring to problem solving and the other things that I can do. So I’m all in favor of technology that improves that, and that’s why I’m always baffled when lawyers want to protect everything that they do as being unique, when really, all I want is to eliminate the boring stuff. Let the computers do what the computers do best and let me as a human do what I do best as a human and bring the most value. And I think that’s an easy task for me to want to make, and that influences a lot of my thinking about technologies these days.
Dennis Kennedy: Before we move onto our next segment, let’s take a quick break for a message from our sponsor.
Advertiser: Looking for a process server you can trust? Serve-Now.com is a nationwide network of local, prescreened process servers. Serve-Now works with the most professional process servers in the industry. Connecting your firm with process servers who embrace technology, have experience with high-volume serves and understand the litigation process and rules of properly effectuating service. Find a prescreened process server today. visit www.Serve-Now.com. We’re glad you’re listening to Legal Talk Network. Check us out on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn too.
Tom Mighell: And now let’s get back to the Kennedy-Mighell Report. I’m Tom Mighell.
Dennis Kennedy: And I’m Dennis Kennedy. I noticed recently that a number of podcasts and blogs I frequent were either doing or planning to do surveys. Well, we wanted to have another Q&A podcast episode on the Kennedy-Mighell Report and haven’t really found a great way to make it easy for our listeners to send us questions. And we also wanted to start getting ideas for upcoming podcast topics on a regular basis. So I suggested, Tom, that this was a perfect time for this podcast to conduct its own survey and sort of go along with the flow of everybody else and do that and that we should get started on that right away. So in the case of my ideas like this one, when I say we should do this, that usually means Tom, is what I mean by “we.” So, Tom, what do “we” have in mind for our survey and do you have something to announce yet?
Tom Mighell: Generally what I like about this “we,” is that you kind of have to go along with what I say because if you don’t go along with it then we never really get anywhere. I think that the obvious first choice for communicating with listeners is social media; we’ve tried that. I think we both have to confess that our success at communicating with listeners on Twitter or other social media outlets have not been that successful as we would like it to be. Maybe we’re just not using the tools the way that we should, or maybe none of our listeners follow us on Twitter. I don’t think that’s true, but I think our public request for information have rarely yielded anything useful or interesting. And so I think there’s probably a lesson in there on about how we could better be using social media, but that sounds like a good idea for a future episode topic. So I guess instead, let’s talk briefly about survey tools. There are a number of different survey tools out there, but for me, the most important requirement of a survey tool is that it be free. And the reason is is that we just don’t do surveys enough to make it worthwhile to pay for it on a regular basis. My company does have an account with Survey Monkey. We do quite a lot of surveys with our clients, so that makes sense to have something that you’re paying for on a regular basis. But frankly, for my and Dennis’s purpose, free to me is the key feature is it needs to be something that we don’t need to pay for but still has a reasonable amount of power. The problem there is that the freemium tools have very basic free services. So I can send out a ten question survey for free on Survey Monkey, and I think that I can get back 100 responses. And frankly, as far as I’m concerned, Dennis, 100 responses would be great if we got that. But it is limited in what we could get, if we instead want to pay I think something like $26 a month, we get unlimited numbers of questions, unlimited responses. So it’s limited in what you could do for free, and it really doesn’t give you any way to export your information. Most of those freemium tools don’t really allow for that to happen. I actually had more luck in the past with Google. Google Forms provides a very simple way to create your survey there for free. I’ve done a number of them there, they export your information directly into a Google Spreadsheet. So it’s easy to get the information, it’s easy to analyze it, and it’s good enough. It’s a good enough solution; it doesn’t have all the bells and whistles, it’s pretty basic. Survey Monkey lets you customize your questions so you could have logic where if you answer a question a certain way, it takes you to a certain question. The Google is just a much dumber, just linear survey that goes from question to question to question. But that said, that may be all you need in a particular survey. I planned to mention some free tools in the show notes, but just a quick search for a free survey tool showed that they’re all over the place. So take a look at some of the ones that we mentioned in the show notes and see if that happens to work for you. Dennis, I don’t know if you did any research or if you’ve got anything on survey tools, but what do you think after hearing the results of my research?
Dennis Kennedy: It won’t surprise you to learn that my research was done by asking you the question. But as you were talking, I was struck by the idea that we’re always talking about client surveys and the things that lawyers and firms should do to find out what’s on their client’s mind. So these tools are actually a pretty common problem, so the solutions out there become interesting in a number of ways. So the simple survey tools, I know you’ve done the Google approach and I think that works well and this really does seem like a place where good enough is the way to go. So I say you could probably experiment with some different tools. If you try something and you get more than 100 responses, then maybe it’s worth the $26 or if you find something that’s a little bit higher. If you try something for free and you only get 50 responses, then obviously it was enough for what you needed. So I think the tools are out there and then you get to the hardest part of it which is figuring out what questions you really want to ask and how to do those, but you can always experiment with that. And then the other thing which seems like a bit of a difficulty is to say how do I get word of the survey out, and maybe that’s where social media blogs or podcasts actually become more useful than using social media to say hey, do you have a question for the podcast, or if we say here’s a link to our survey, help us out. Maybe that’s a much more effective use of social media than to say hey, email us with your questions. So just some thoughts, but I think that the survey tools could be something, especially smaller firms or anybody who wants to get just a little bit of opinion from people they work with to use and try. Now it’s time for our parting shots, that one tip, website, or observation you could use the second this podcast ends. Tom, take it away.
Tom Mighell: So Dennis, as you know I’ve been using the Surface Pro 3 from Microsoft since January. I love it, it has replaced my laptop and I really enjoy working with it. It goes with me whenever I go to work. This past week, Microsoft unveiled its Surface 3. Not sure I like the way that they made a Surface Pro 3 and a Surface 3 and the Surface 3 came out after the Surface Pro 3, but I’m not going to argue about that. It is lighter, smaller, thinner, a little bit less powerful, not quite the same resolution of the screen, but it runs full Windows. It is the closest thing that you will get to having – I don’t like to use the word iPad killer – but if you’re looking for a laptop replacement in a Tablet, I think it comes a lot closer these days to what the iPad’s doing. I know people will shriek in horror that Tom is recommending a Windows device over an iPad. I still love my iPad and I think it has its place, but I think those of us who are living in the Windows world and who need to work on office tools and who need to work in other areas I think will be very, very, pleasantly surprised by the Surface 3. It’s also iPad prices, so it starts at $499 and goes up to I think 6 or $799, which is very comparable to what we’re getting on the iPad; and did I mentioned that it runs full Windows? It’s I think a great option. If you’re looking for something a little bit smaller, give it a look. It’s the Windows or Microsoft Surface 3 Tablet.
Dennis Kennedy: So, Tom, I fainted when you talked about the Windows Tablets in comparison to the iPad, but I’ve regained my composure. And so I have two things. One is probably something that I admit that people probably won’t use the second this podcast ends, but recently I took a trip to Graz, Austria, which I loved, and I stayed at a place called the Schlossberg Hotel there, which is this great hotel. It’s sort of an older, classic style, lots of artwork, fabulous breakfast, terraces that you can walk out on on a hill above the hotel, and just the nicest staff in the world. So if you’re in Graz, which I thoroughly recommend, and you want to find a hotel that certainly was one of the top hotel experiences that I had, the Schlossberg Hotel in Graz, Austria. Like I said, not something that you would use the second this podcast ends, but keep it in mind. The one thing I’m going to suggest, though, also as a parting shot, is the ABA Techshow. It’s coming up here in about a week or so from when we record this; there’s an app that goes with it. I was playing with it and what I liked was that it had everything in one place. I could pre-select sessions I want to go to, kind of favorite them, and then I have a nice list of everything that I think I might attend. So when I’m talking probably to one of our listeners and going past the time the session starts, I’ll know exactly the session I plan to go to I’m missing so that I can spend more time talking to people.
Tom Mighell: Well, that’s a real endorsement for that. So that wraps it up for this edition of the Kennedy-Mighell Report. Thanks for joining us on the podcast; information on how to get in touch with us, as well as links to all the topics we discussed today, is available on our show notes blog at TKMReport.com. If you like what you hear, please subscribe to our podcast in iTunes or on the Legal Talk Network site where you can find archives to all of our previous podcasts. If you’d like to get in touch with us, please email us at [email protected] or send us a tweet. I’m @TomMighell and Dennis is @DennisKennedy. So until the next podcast, I am Tom Mighell.
Dennis Kennedy: And I’m Dennis Kennedy and you’ve been listening to the Kennedy-Mighell Report, a podcast on legal technology with an internet focus. Help us out by telling a couple of your friends and colleagues about this podcast.
Advertiser: Thanks for listening to the Kennedy-Mighell Report. Check out Dennis and Tom’s book, The Lawyer’s Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies: Smart Ways to Work Together. From ABA Books or Amazon. And join us every other week for another edition of the Kennedy-Mighell Report, only on the Legal Talk Network.