Are drones a relevant technology for lawyers? In this episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, hosts Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell talk about drones, how they affect the legal market, and the opportunities they create for lawyers. They also discuss a lawyer’s ethical duty of competence and what it means to understand the technology involved in your cases. As always, stay tuned for the parting shots, that one tip, website, or observation that you can use the second the podcast ends.
This episode features an audience question about what technology enables lawyers to work from home. If you have your own technology questions, the new Dennis and Tom’s Tech Question Hotline is up and running! Call 720-441-6820 for the answers to all your tech inquiries.
Special thanks to our sponsor, ServeNow.
The Kennedy-Mighell Report
What Lawyers Should Know About Drones
Intro: Web 2.0, Innovation, Trend, Collaboration, Software, Metadata… 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 194 of The Kennedy Mighell Report. I am Dennis Kennedy in St. Louis.
Tom Mighell: And I am Tom Mighell in Dallas.
Dennis Kennedy: In our last episode we discussed Mary Meeker’s 2017 Internet trends presentation. We recommend both the episode and her presentation as a great way to learn about what’s actually happening out on the Internet and make some adjustments in your thinking and your approach to the Internet.
In this episode, we or Tom would say, I, decided to revisit and expand on a topic that we made a short flyover on in an earlier episode. Tom, did you notice what I did there?
Tom Mighell: I did notice that.
Dennis Kennedy: Tom, what’s on our agenda for this episode?
Tom Mighell: Well, Dennis, in this edition of The Kennedy Mighell Report, we will indeed be revisiting the topic of drones and what implications the growing use of these devices might have for law practice.
In our second segment, we’ve got another question from one of our listeners, and as usual, we’ll finish up with our parting shots that one tip website or observation that you can start to use the second that this podcast is over.
But first up, drones, the US FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, has estimated that 2.2 million drones have been sold as of 2016 and estimating over 7 million sold by 2020. They’re now requiring certain types of drones to be registered with the FAA for both commercial and non-commercial use and expecting that those are going to top over 4 million drones by 2021.
Now, Dennis, we covered this last year. I thought we had all we had to say about it. I’m not sure I have more to say about it. I’m going to be the curmudgeon I think on this episode of the podcast, so what made you want to revisit this topic?
Dennis Kennedy: So, I was on vacation visiting my family and I was talking to my dad and my brothers and we were up at the family farm where my brother lives, and they were talking about all the vehicles they had up there because they restore cars and they have all these great four-wheelers and bulldozers and stuff like that. And they were talking about how they had too many vehicles, I said, well, you guys should get a drone so that when I come back we can play with the drone, over fly at the farm and the woods and stuff, and that would be really cool.
And, I couldn’t talk them into it, but it got me thinking about drones and I sort of wondered like how many drones are out there, and she said, Tom, there are millions of them out there and they are expected to be even more. And so, I started to think about drones and revisiting the topic is just because I wondered if it was an example of a technology that grows at a fairly fast pace and steady, but not something that people really notice. And then suddenly it emerges and there are millions of drones out there and they’re delivering things and are taking pictures and they’re filming, they’re flying through the firework shows and giving you views of that and being used in halftime shows and all these other things. And most of them are there and we haven’t really thought about them.
And so, it’s possible that these drones will have a number of legal issues which we typically don’t like to focus on, but that the mere presence of these drones will create some opportunities and some issues for lawyers in the actual practice of law. Even though at first blush, it may seem that drones have nothing to do with that at all.
So I don’t know whether that’s convincing to you, Tom, but that sort of got me thinking about drones and making it a topic of this podcast.
Tom Mighell: Okay, so I’m not convinced. I will say, I agree with you that drones are one of those technologies that builds at a fast pace and suddenly there are millions of them, but I would say, I would challenge the notion that no one has paid attention to it, because it’s hardly anywhere that you don’t see drones out there somewhere that there are drones that hover over football games and take pictures; that there are drones that have been gotten people in trouble for buzzing airports or doing things like that, the fact that it’s in the news all the time now that Amazon or Wal-Mart want to start delivering packages by drone.
So I’d argue that it’s kind of caught up with us unawares but — and then I guess the other part that I would challenge here, is I think that in terms of the law, if you just go and do a Google search for drone law or drone lawyers, you’re going to find a lot of stuff out there.
I think that the opportunity here is a practice of law which I’ll be interested to see if it turns out a little bit like Y2K Lawyers back in the day. I think there’s more there for drone lawyers but that’s — in far as I’m concerned that’s the new hot thing is that there are lawyers out there who are willing and ready and able to help you understand what your legal obligations and what your rights are as an owner of a drone, and I think that like any regulated industry, which it’s becoming a regulated industry, I think there’s definitely a market for lawyers to represent people who own drones and/or companies who use drones as a business tool.
Where I struggle here is to go much farther beyond the bounds of where we went last time to talk about how it would help lawyers in the practice of law or in delivering services to their clients. And so, that’s where I’ll throw this back to you and challenge you and say, you know, I get the first part, that’s not our podcast, make this about our podcast.
Dennis Kennedy: So I think that — so here’s the pushback I’ll say, so you’re right that if I do a search on drone law, there’s going to be a bunch of stuff out there, but I think that if I do the use of drones in the practice of law and Google, there is not going to be much, and I would say within a few days after this podcast goes live, the number one result will be this podcast.
I think it’s an area that we haven’t given much thought about —
Tom Mighell: So we’re forging new territory, is what you’re saying.
Dennis Kennedy: Yeah, and I think it’s —
Tom Mighell: I understand, okay.
Dennis Kennedy: I think it’s a when we talked about 3D printing, it’s sort of a thing saying, hey, here’s this new technology, would it have an impact on the practice of law and maybe it wouldn’t.
So, here’s another perspective, and maybe this — you’ll find this more convincing. I think this gives us another area like 3D printing, where we can say, let’s apply a framework of the ethical duty of technology competence to this new technology, and say, well, if lawyers have a duty of keeping abreast of relevant technology and there’s millions of drones out there with cameras on them and it might be used in different ways, could it be possible that at least some lawyers would have an ethical duty of competence to keep abreast of drone technology.
Tom Mighell: I think that entirely depends on what the word “relevant” means. When I typically discuss the duty of technological competence, I don’t stop with those words. I don’t say it be associated with relevant technology. I go a little bit further and I say, relevant technology used in providing service to a client.
Now, maybe that’s my going farther, maybe that’s not an interpretation that I should be extending there, but my point would be, what does “relevant” mean in these circumstances? If you’re going to practice drone law, clearly, that’s definitely a thing, it’s clearly relevant that you need to understand how they work, why they do what they do, what the legal issues are around them? You need to understand the whole nine yards.
If I am a tax lawyer, I would argue that to prepare my individual client’s taxes, I don’t have to not understand what a drone is like, to me, that’s not relevant. I would think that in most areas of law, I would not automatically need to have a knowledge of what drones are like.
Now, if I am doing a personal injury case or if I’m doing, let’s say, I’m a real estate lawyer and I’m doing eminent domain law, then I probably should keep abreast of the technologies that will help me present my case best to the court, and I think you have an argument there.
But I really think it comes down to what relevant means; that’s going to mean something different for every lawyer out there.
Dennis Kennedy: Right, and I think that that’s how I’m starting to think of this ethical duty of competence as it applies to technology. And so, I go back to 3D printing where we said, for — like the work that I do, for example, which is technology contracting, licensing that sort of thing, I don’t really see any use at all for drones.
If I’m a real estate lawyer, maybe, if I’m a litigator in certain types of cases, maybe, if there’s going to be photography done by a drone, if there’s going to be mapping done by a drone, other things like that, maybe I need to understand what the technology is and how to use it. And so, I think that there is going to be something where you say, if the drone is somehow involved in the subject matter of the case or that it relates to demonstrative or other evidence or proof of evidence or it — like you said, it helps in mapping or figuring out boundaries, that sort of things where you say, if I can be creative, if I say if I have something that flies and it has a camera in it, what are the implications?
And then probably, secondarily, I think — because I don’t really see at this point that it’s meaningful, but if a drone is something that flies that can grab onto things or hold things, does that have some implications for what I’m doing, and I think that — I don’t really see drones in the courtroom. I do not see the thing where you say, here’s the exhibit, let’s have the drone, fly it over to jury to look at, I don’t see that.
So I don’t see drones in the courtroom, but I can see certain areas, like I said, real estate, maybe some other things where the drone could be part of investigation or evidence or proving up your case or attacking somebody else’s case, that’s where I see it could come into play.
Tom Mighell: So I’m going to head down a brief rabbit hole and then we’ll stop talking about the interpretation of comments to model rules. But, I sort of view it a little bit differently, and unfortunately, this rule hasn’t been interpreted yet, nobody has been brought upon on charges or complaints that they have violated this duty of technological competence, so we’re not going to notice. But I am going to make the argument here that the duty of technological competence doesn’t require you to be aware of every single technology that might help your client in a given situation or to be aware of every single technology that exists that might possibly apply to anything that you do for your client, because I think that that’s where we’re heading. It sounds like we have to be aware that, oh, by the way there are devices out there that have cameras, and because we might represent people who need those cameras, we need to be aware of that.
I view the duty of technological competences that if we become aware and if we use the technology, a specific type of technology in regard to representing our client, we better know how to use that technology. We better understand how it works. I don’t see any cases out there saying that lawyers have a duty to know about technology assisted review for e-discovery. They don’t have a duty to understand it or to know it. There is not any cases out there that I say, but, if they have to use it, if they wind up using it on behalf of their client and they use it poorly, then by gosh, everything is going to happen.
So, I am going to — again, I’ve headed off down a rabbit path and we can come back and talk about why drones are going to be great for lawyers, but, I just don’t think that that’s the way they intended to frame the duty of technology competence.
Dennis Kennedy: Yeah, and I would say in my own approach to the technology competence says there has to be an implied reasonable standard. So I think that the focus is on what’s relevant to you probably from the client’s perspective rather than your own, but I think let’s kind of jump over to — if a lawyer is interested in this, how might they use drones and I guess the other way I was going to push you on this topic, but I learned your answer before the podcast and which surprised me is like, isn’t this just another great way that we can find a rationale to explore some great new technology under the guise of trying to help our listeners?
Tom Mighell: And you might think that for me the answer would be, yes, because I always want to get a new gadget, but I have to say, and this is what I told you before, no interest in a drone here. Part of it is because I lack the motor skills to drive one, and I’m afraid I would lose it or crash it or destroy it or make a fool out of myself with it.
But, it’s one of those things that I’m not willing to sacrifice myself for our listeners and learn more about the drone. So I think, Dennis, it relies on you to go and buy a $35 drone from Amazon and see how well it works.
Dennis Kennedy: Okay. So I had more fun researching this topic than anything that we’ve done for a while, and talking about going down the rabbit hole, and this was we’re recording on Amazon Prime Day so it was — all I could do not to jump on, on Amazon and see if there were any great sales.
But I think that, Tom, it could be that we’re too early on this topic, but I think it’s a useful one to think about, but let’s assume that we are a lawyer and either we’ve figured out some way to make this a relevant technology from our understanding. We figured out some way to make it a business right off, or we just want to play with it, and let’s maybe talk about how somebody might get started into the world of drones.
So I was doing this research and I realized that when you said you don’t have an interest, what interests me is that I have access to a farm that has like a lot of free space that you could actually fly a drone around outside. And it would be cool and you say, if you have a camera and it streams video too, it would be fun. It’s sort of you can start with something that you can fly inside the house, but if I look and say, I am going to fly a drone in my backyard, I am just going to get caught in the trees all the time.
So I think as I was doing the research on this, I realized that it is not easy to fly these things, especially the cheap ones, and we were talking about how — in some ways like video games and stuff where you go like, oh, I love the — like I – early on there was some video game like that was a Winter Olympics game and I just wonder like do the skiing things and the luge and the bobsled and I could never — I never enjoyed the game because I never got good enough to actually do the skill in the sport.
And so, I think there can be a concern on the drone, it’s difficult to learn to fly them, and that they can wreck easily. And that’s what the friends who have drones have told me, but I think they have improved over the years and then I think there is this notion that there are really good beginner drones with features that make it easier for you to fly that have a more limited range, that are more durable, and that you can kind of start to practice on those, and then determining whether you have an interest and whether you like it, and then jump up to a level of a drone that you may use more outside, that you may experience with photography, that you actually have some use for them.
And so, I think there is a notion of getting what you pay for, but there’s some great resources saying that there are basically — I don’t know I would do the $35 drone based on the research I’ve done, but I would say like the $90 or $100 starter drone might be an interesting way to go.
Tom Mighell: Well, I’m sorry to say this, but still not convinced, and here is why is that if — if I’m going to be convinced that drones have a use in the law, getting a drone myself and going and testing it out is not going to be what does it for me. It’s going to be a fun weekend activity and I am going to have a great time doing it, but for the current uses that a drone has right now, I am certainly not going to do it myself. I am going to hire somebody to do it for me.
I mean, if I look at what the current uses — the FAA and their forecast, they list the top commercial uses of drones. I am going to kind of wander off here for a second and say that the top commercial uses of drone are for insurance purposes. I think that’s very interesting to go and view damage or other things, emergency management, totally makes sense when there’s disasters or things going on, agriculture, again monitoring farms and that sort of stuff, the crops. A construction, industrial and utility inspection is number three on the list. Real estate, we’ve talked about that, it’s number two, and then aerial photography, far and away the number one reason.
There are a couple of really interesting uses of drones that I am finding that I kind of — in my research found out about. There are some drones that are actually going to start carrying people. I think that’s fun.
Mark Zuckerberg is developing a series of drones that are going to provide Internet coverage in places that don’t have good coverage. I think drones for Internet coverage would be a brilliant idea for things like disaster areas or in war zones or places where Internet coverage like Mark Zuckerberg is doing is hard to get to. I think that’s a brilliant use to have it up there. Lots of wedding videos are using drone these days, checking inventory in warehouses are great.
When it comes to, but none of those things am I going to use a drone myself to do this, I am going to hire somebody if I need to have any of that stuff done. And similarly, if I want to demonstrate the meets and bounds of my client’s land for an eminent domain case I am going to ask somebody with a professional drone, with a good camera to go and do that. I am not going to buy it myself and invest in it; at least not right now.
So to that extent I think we are too early in terms of owning our own equipment that will be capable of doing these things. I personally think we’re too early on this topic. Now, does that mean that every good lawyer who is going to — who needs that in a real estate practice or some sort of litigation practice is going to get one 10 years from now? I don’t know. But it’s good that we’re having the conversation.
Dennis Kennedy: Yeah. I mean, I guess you’re kind of convincing me. I mean, not that I needed much convincing on this. It is a little early for this. It’s kind of hard to see that lawyers are going to use it in the actual practice. I mean, I think that if it fits a hobby — interests of yours photography, lawyers are competitive so drone racing of course, or just something that you want to do socially. I think that this could be a great technology outlet, so it is.
And maybe we help you come up with some business justification that you can tell your spouse or the IRS as to why you needed to buy that, that drone. So I think we’re there. I think there are great resources like I said. I think that there is some really — I have got some great reviews and articles, you’re really running through like what you get in each price range and what eVideo is outdoors, what have the best cameras. I mean the resolution on, the cameras on some of these drones is amazing.
And, it really seems like you get a lot for under a thousand dollars, but for a few hundred dollars it looks like you can have something that we re-grade, it seems like there’s a little bit a lot of improvement in the controllers. There’s a great feature that some of them have where the drone will come back to home, so that when you lose control of it, at least it will come back to you, so you don’t have to go chase it down.
So I think you do a little research. Like I said, I just sort of see it’s a two-step process, buy it a cheap durable one that you learn to fly on, and if that appeals to you then bump up a level.
Tom, it doesn’t sound like you’ll be buying one in the immediate future, so I’ll probably have one before you do unless my great scheme of getting my dad my brothers to buy one for me that I can go use comes through, but…
Tom Mighell: I look forward to pictures of you, standing in a field from your farm, pictures from your drone, so send those to me and maybe that will be enough to get me going, but let me say, while you’re kind of giving some good practical tips on the equipment itself, let me be the responsible one here and say that if you’re going to do that, before you do that, go and check out the regulations on the FAA, go and read the laws of drones and see what you need to understand and where you can fly a drone, where you can’t fly it, what are the rules around it and whether you need to be regulated before you buy, go out and plunk down all the money for a big fancy large drone, make sure you understand what your responsibilities are.
There’s a drone law journal, I have no idea whether it’s any good or not, but I think that there’s clearly going to be a body of law on drones coming up soon. So it’s good to know about that. And then there’s a website out there that looks like it’s in conjunction with the FAA along with some hobbyist groups and groups that are interested in drones, it’s called, HYPERLINK “http://www.knowbeforeyoufly.org” knowbeforeyoufly.org, which I think is probably more practical explanations and more practical information than just the regulation. So take the time again, if indeed the beauty of technology competence extends to understanding drones, don’t just go by the tool, learn how to use it and make sure you know what your responsibilities are under it.
Dennis Kennedy: Yeah, I would say that I also think that at least going to a drone event if not going to some drone club meeting would be great, because I think you do need to consider some of these things can be extremely noisy and your fantasy of just flying it out in your backyard while you sip a drink in the evening on your patio, may not be what your neighbors think is as cool as you do. So noise, other issues, and then you’re — just the sheer ability to control and then — these things do crash. So understanding what you need for replacement parts and how not to spend money on a drone and then crash it and be crying because you can’t fly it anymore or so it’s you — you spending enough that you’ll be crying rather than your kids. The other thing is that if you do have kids you can use them as the testbed for this.
Tom Mighell: All right, before we drone on anymore on this subject, let’s move on to our next segment, but before we do that let’s take a quick break for a message from our sponsor.
Advertiser: Looking for a process server you can trust, HYPERLINK “http://www.ServeNow.com/”ServeNow.com is a nationwide network of local prescreened process servers. ServeNow 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 HYPERLINK “http://www.serve-now.com/”www.serve-now.com.
Tom Mighell: And now let’s get back to The Kennedy-Mighell Report. I’m Tom Mighell.
Dennis Kennedy: And I am Dennis Kennedy. We’ve got another audience question via LinkedIn this time from a listener who would like to stay anonymous, and it’s not Tom and it’s not me, once you hear the questions you’ll probably understand why this listener is a little wary about revealing personal details, but they have some great questions. So let’s go to the questions and here they are.
What technologies make working from home easier?
Why are law firms generally resistant to staff working from home and sometimes the lawyers as well?
Do you think firms may lose out on talent especially for IT positions because they don’t embrace working from home?
Tom, you get to answer first.
Tom Mighell: So I’m going to kind of answer those in reverse order, the last one that you answered. I’m not going to actually answer it, I’m going to be — and maybe I don’t know enough about the person asking the question, but I would be surprised that there are a lot of IT positions that are available to work from home in the first place. I think that IT to a certain extent is a hands-on job that requires some level of in-person presence. Now granted if we’re moving all to the cloud, if we’re working with tools that are not even on the premises of the law firm, I think clearly then that argues for that, but maybe I’m behind on all that and I just don’t understand kind of how that would work.
That said, to the extent law firms are resistant to letting staff work from home I’d speculate going beyond I guess IT positions, I’d speculate for the other positions in the firm that one reason, at least, is that law firms are slower to embrace all innovation and working from home isn’t innovation in terms of working environment, whether it’s technology or it’s a more productive workplace.
I also think that because the law is inherently a collaborative profession, I’ve always thought that it makes more sense and it seems to be more productive and fruitful to have people working together than apart. Of course, I think that depends on the type of law that you practice. So if you’re a document reviewer, you don’t have to be around a lot of people to successfully review documents. So I get that there are some areas of the law where working at home might make sense, but I sort of would argue that having a more collegial atmosphere tends for a more successful firm than having people working at home all the time.
But, let’s talk real quick about technology, technologies that make working from home easier, and I’m just going to really talk about four things that are to me the basics and the most obvious. Clearly, the cloud is the first thing whether it’s public cloud or private cloud, there’s got to be a way to access your documents in a place where everybody’s got access as well. So there’s got — you can’t just have a silo of your own, you’ve got to be able to get to everything that the people who are at the office are also accessing. That means you’ve got to have good Internet, now whether you provide that or your office helps provide that, that’s another question, but I think good Internet is definitely a requirement.
I think a good chat or instant message or video conferencing program because even though you’re working at home, I personally think it’s hard to be cut off like that. I’d want to have easy quick access to my colleagues, and I think instant message for me is generally fine, I can ask a quick question rather than will stop by next door and ask that question, but it may depend on how you prefer to communicate with folks at work.
I think then also other collaboration tools that enable sharing of activities because that’s the one thing that you don’t get by working at home is you don’t get to collaborate or work with others as often. And so, whether it’s a task manager that you all keep a shared task or project planning list on, Slack for communications or some similar tool to manage communications, just something that enables you to still get work done with the people that you’re working with, so that being at home allows you to have the flexibility that you may need or that you may prefer, but it also keeps you a productive member of the firm, that’s kind of what I’m thinking, Dennis.
Dennis Kennedy: Yeah, I mean, I agree with all that. I sort of see this — the resistance in law firms to working from home as one of the negative aspects of the billable hour culture. So I think when you divide time into these, six minute, or tenth of an hour segments you’re really back in an older industrial model where you need to see people working and then lawyers tend to be control freaks, they tend to be suspicious of other people not working as hard as they think they do. And so, I think all those things combine in a really negative way so that the emphasis is more on time rather than results, and then there’s certain aspects of time like the commute that doesn’t get valued because it’s not billable.
And so, you may have people who can be extraordinarily productive from home create great work, but somebody is going to say, I’m not because I don’t see them I don’t know that they’re working, or if they’re home, they’re probably doing or they’re watching TV or they’re doing something terrible. So I think that it’s when you focus on time rather than output I think that creates some of the resistance.
So I do think you’re losing talent and I was just talking to somebody the other day in a legal tech company who was delighted to have somebody who said they wanted to come in to the office only two days a week, and they were like, they could have worked from home every day, we just needed that talent, and that seemed a totally acceptable trade-off. I think you see a lot less of that in law firms, but maybe some loosening of that coming up especially as law firms are paying high real estate prices for office space, there are some incentives to allow people to work from home, but I think you nailed the technologies.
And I would also add just the impact of tablets and mobile devices also play a role, and then the movement away to laptops from desktops has definitely made a change to that, but I think you hit the big software and services.
So I think it’s an interesting question, one, that kind of people go back and forth on, but I think that many law firms are exceptionally conservative in their approach.
Now, it’s time for our parting shots that one tip website or observation you can use the second this podcast ends. Tom, take it away.
Tom Mighell: So I’d like to point you to an article from The Verge, which is one of my favorite technology sites it’s called Two-Factor authentication is a mess and it takes as its premise the fact that all these websites and services have rushed out in response to the cry that, oh my gosh, you’ve got to enable two-factor authentication. Your site isn’t secure without two-factor authentication.
And now, so many have done it, but they’ve done it all in different and inconsistent ways and hackers are finding ways around it. And it is not the be-all and the end-all that we thought would be. It’s still in many ways the best that we have, but we’ve got to make sure that we’re doing it right. I think it’s a great article to understand some of the weaknesses around it. It gives you options on what they think are the best two-factor authentication is the physical token, the YubiKey, USB drive is a great two-factor authentication drive.
The next best is to have the app on your phone; the Google Authenticator or Authy like we’ve talked about before. The absolute worst method of two-factor authentication is using SMS tools because it’s been demonstrated that hackers can get into your carrier and it can actually get to your text messages fairly simply because the carriers are not doing a lot to lock those types of things down.
It’s a great read. It’s very enlightening and interesting, and I’m really interested to see where two-factor authentication goes from here.
Dennis Kennedy: And it is a timely article because when I saw that you had it listed I immediately thought of the uncanny knack Gmail has of asking me for the authentication, the multi-factor authentication when I’ve left my phone with the Authenticator app in the other room. So multi-factor is a little bit of a pain, but it definitely has its benefits.
So my parting shot is my favorite aspect of LinkedIn these days, which is the People You May Know feature in LinkedIn. So if you haven’t used it, I totally recommend that you start to play with it, and I’ve done all kinds of science experiments with this. But LinkedIn will do this thing where based on the connections you already have, it’s going to use these algorithms developed over the last 14 years to suggest people that maybe you know and should connect to.
And it’s a long list and it’s fascinating in many ways because it suggests people that maybe you already know, people you should know, people who have a lot of connections in common. And it’s really interesting to see how you can build out a network using that and to pull people in that you hadn’t thought about and if you want to grow your network in LinkedIn, it’s a great way to do it.
It’s also an interesting way to test what LinkedIn thinks of your network. So I was working with a colleague of mine who want to grow his LinkedIn connections to a thousand, and I said, you need to use People You May Know, and I was struck by the number of internal connections that LinkedIn recommended. And he wanted to get more external connections, and so, as we waded through all the internal ones to get to external ones, he came up with a lot of high quality connections and added 47 great connections in one day, just by using this feature.
And then I think the other thing is that it’s interesting to see who it suggests might be connected to you so if it’s not lawyers and other people, it can give you some feedback on the LinkedIn network that you built. So People You May Know definitely worth taking a look at and experimenting with.
Tom Mighell: So that wraps it up for this edition of The Kennedy-Mighell Report. Thanks for joining us on the podcast. You can find show notes for this episode at HYPERLINK “http://www.tkmreport.com” 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 of all of our previous podcasts.
If you would like to get in touch with us, ask us questions, provide contact for our B segment, we would love it if you reached out to us on LinkedIn. Just do a search for either one of us there, and we now have Dennis and Tom’s Tech Questions Hotline through the Legal Talk Network. If you just dial (720) 441-6820, ask your question, we will play it live – no, I mean, not live, we’ll play it during our podcast and we’ll answer the question in our B segment. So until the next podcast I’m Tom Mighell.
Dennis Kennedy: And I am Dennis Kennedy, and you have 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 the podcast.
Outro: 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.
Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell talk the latest technology to improve services, client interactions, and workflow.
Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell dig into the potential uses lawyers may find in low-code/no-code applications.
Gina Bianchini discusses opportunities for reinventing the legal profession through the creation of online communities.
Dennis and Tom share the content capture tools currently under consideration for their Second Brain project.
Kelly Palmer shares tactics for developing a culture of continuous learning in your law firm.
Dr. Heidi Gardner shares insights from her research on collaboration.
Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss their steps toward organizing the “capture” element of their Second Brain project.