From access to justice to efficiency in practice, tech holds endless possibilities for helping legal matters run more smoothly. With so much potential to be tapped, law schools are developing programs aimed at exploring creative ways to bring tech and law together. Dennis and Tom discuss the varying approaches seen throughout the legal education sphere and their potential impacts on the future of the profession.
Next, the guys remember Wendy Werner, admiring her conservative, but purposeful approach to technology and her ability to use it wisely.
As always, stay tuned for the parting shots, that one tip, website, or observation you can use the second the podcast ends.
Have a technology question for Dennis and Tom? Call their Tech Question Hotline at 720-441-6820 for answers to your most burning tech questions.
Special thanks to our sponsors, Colonial Surety Company, and ServeNow.
Mentioned in This Episode
A Segment: Law School Labs
B Segment: Remembering Wendy Werner
Male: Before we get started, we’d like to thank Colonial Surety Company Bonds and Insurance for bringing you this podcast. Whatever court bonds you need, get a quote and purchase online at colonialsurety.com/podcast.
Male: And of course, we’d like to thank ServeNow, a nationwide network of trusted pre-screen process servers. Work with the most professional process servers who have experience with high-volume serves, embrace technology and understand the litigation process. Visit servenow.com to learn more.
Intro: Web 2.0, innovation, trend, collaboration, software. 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 305 of the Kennedy-Mighell Report. I’m Dennis Kennedy in Ann Arbor.
Tom Mighell: And I’m Tom Mighell in Dallas.
Dennis Kennedy: In our last episode, we continued our annual tradition of sharing our New Year’s tech resolutions. Have you made your 2022 tech resolutions? If not, give that episode a listen. In this episode, we wanted to discuss the relatively new phenomenon of legal tech and innovation labs and programs in law schools, a topic of special interest to me. Where are we and where we might be going? 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 talking about law school labs and what they might mean for legal education, legal profession and access to justice. In our second segment, we’ll talk about our good friend, Wendy Warner, and what she taught us about personalizing your approach to technology among many other things. We will miss her very much. 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, law school labs, we talk every now and again on the podcast about innovation and Dennis of course is doing a lot of work in that area, but we don’t spend a lot of time talking about where so much of that innovation is occurring. You hope that lawyers having the benefit of being out in the world and getting experience would be leading the way in innovation and it’s true that many law firms, mostly large law firms, have innovation centers. I think it’s really happening and where it’s really interesting is in the law schools. A lot of forward-thinking law schools have created laboratories or maybe not just called laboratories, but they’ve created areas where they’re working on real-world problems, developing interesting technology, interesting solutions to access to justice and other legal issues. With Dennis being someone who leads one of these labs, we thought we would devote some time to explaining what these Labs do. How they’re impacting the practice of law, maybe some other stuff. Dennis, you know that I’m going to ask you to set the stage and give us some definition. So do you want to get us started?
Dennis Kennedy: Yep. So this phenomenon you know started happening a while back and you could see it — I think coming out of Chicago-Kent Law School with Ryan Stout, Suffolk with Mark Lauridsen and other people, we’re sort of nibbling at the edges of this and then sort of grew into more of a structured approach in a number of law schools. So you can look at CodeX at Stanford, you can look at, where I’m at, Center for Law Technology and Innovation at Michigan State which you know had other names before, Suffolk Law School Northwestern with Dan Lynn, Chicago-Kent, a number of these programs that are out there and usually what defines them I think is there is an academic structure around it. So something like the center or a lab notion and a group of students, professors, sometimes might be multidisciplinary and usually some involvement with the legal community with an idea of either a research or an experimental type of focus.
We’re seeing more of that and more attention to it I’d say probably in the last year when the most interesting things is somebody who I really admire, April Dawson, who’s at North Carolina Central which is one of the historic black universities. The law school there got a $5 million grant from Intel to create a lab. So there’s a lot of things going on and typically they’re going to have a focus of one kind or another, so it could be on data analytics.
Stanford does some great stuff on user experience. There’s access to justice. You see some other things out there. University of Richmond I would say is — and Duke are other examples. So you could find a good number. I would say there’s probably – my senses maybe 25 or 30 of let’s call it — the I guess there’s about 200 law schools in the U.S. give or take and then there are some interesting things happening around the world in Europe and in Asia. So that’s sort of a broad overview time. It probably makes sense for use to kind of ask some clarifying questions from your point of view to kind of pin me down on a few details.
Tom Mighell: Well see what’s funny is that is your statement that your sense is there are 25 labs out there because that sounds like there’s not a great deal of certainty. I’ll get back to that in a second about that. But here’s what I want to do first is what do you define as a lab and the reason why I asked that is in doing my research, I found probably 25 different things out there, and they all are grouped under a loose category of labs, but they don’t call themselves labs at all. Some of them will say that they’re clinics. Some of them are LLM programs, which I’m not sure an LLM program is really a lab. A lab sounds more time constrained or time limited than an LLM program is. Some call it a lab when they partner with vendors just to try a legal technology. There’s an innovation lost center. There are institutes. Are these all Labs or how would you distinguish if we’re distinguishing?
Dennis Kennedy: Well, I think that gets into the old definitional debate that I always like to avoid, but I think there is a notion of centers or institutes which I say. This is sort of academic structure around it that may involve fundraising, may involve interdisciplinary efforts and it would probably have aids. This is called the center in my example because that’s the one I’m most familiar with where you, you could say. Well, there could be the center which has its own director or somebody running it and then one or more professors associated with it who kind of set direction and then what happens there will reflect the interests of the law school either in innovation, data analytics as in Chicago-Kent and other kind of focus areas out there and you’ll see that. And then, I think some engagement with typically the local community and you see that like at University of Richmond and you also see that at Suffolk. I also think you see some of those at Penn State. So there are some examples of that.
So that’s the most structured, then I think you’re right. There are some things where you say we could do something that’s a focus area and it may have a number of things associated with it that we’re looking at technology that’s could be training, could be practical skills, could be a cluster of classes and then I think there also is – although this is the most difficult thing I think as a practical matter to pull off and sustain is something that is like a lab where we say in partnership typically with courts, vendors, other people. We’re actually really digging in and doing some research. That’s some of the things you see with data analytics, maybe a little bit with AI and definitely some things in access to justice. So it’s like what can we do together in that area and then also partnering across the university is typically what you see in the lab.
With the labs, you do get a sense of given projects that you’re working on. So the difference between a lab and what I would see as a clinic is clinic to me are doing actual representation and work for clients of one type or another, whereas the lab is doing what I would say is would be considered more a general or academic type of research.
Tom Mighell: So no labs out there who are trying experiments out on clients in real time.
Dennis Kennedy: Well, I think that, Tom that’s an interesting to how you think of it as you asked that question.
I would say I look at what they’re doing at Suffolk where they’ve created these access to justice applications and roll them out really quickly, you know in connection with the pandemic and evictions and other things like that. And I would say they’re productizing, but I don’t think they’re actually representing —
Tom Mighell: But they’re not representing people when they do —
Dennis Kennedy: Clients, yeah. And I would take that the lab could do something in connection with the clinic. So, say you had a clinic that was say doing expungements or a certain focus and then the lab could take some of the data that was generated through the clinical representation and work with it and suggest improvements, look a process, those sorts of things. So that’s a way. I would kind of separate the two, but I think there are a lot of different approaches. So, I think it is a little bit hard to say of this fits the definition and this one doesn’t because I think we’re still early on in the defining stage and I don’t think it makes sense to say, you know it sort of reminds me of the time back in the early days of blogging where people say, like well even though you have this thing that looks like a blog because it does have this factor, it’s not really a blog if you’re not blogger. You go like yeah, fine who cares. We are getting something done.
Tom Mighell: So let’s clarify it further. Let me see if I can narrow it down further. In your mind, our “labs” are they all about or have a technology component? Because I know that I saw several that don’t. They call themselves labs, but they are working on civil rights issues and it’s about finding innovative ways to deal with legal matters not necessarily involving technology. So everything you’ve just talked about seems to have a technological component to it, that there’s technology and people are finding ways to use technology, but it seems like that the use of the term lab seems to be more freely used to mean anything to indicate an experiment to improve the practice of law.
Dennis Kennedy: Yes. So the Michigan State Center for Law Technology and Innovation sort of structurally set up is there’s something called Legal R&D Lab, something called the Innovation Hub and something called the Emerging Technology Research Node and still in the process of building out and that’s sort of like a more aspirational structure than an existing structure right now, but I think those are sort of the things where there’s something that’s kind of hands-on actual experimentation type of lab. The Innovation Hub which would be collaborations and look at different ways that we can innovate in the area of law. So I see it more as a collaboration hub and then the Emerging Technology Research Node as it’s called would be say there’s an academic focus on the impact of new technologies on law in various ways.
In those cases you’d say somebody could do a focus. I would call it on — say you’re interested in virtual reality and other things like that and that could become part of like a lab that is devoted to new approaches to try out presentation and things like that. So I think typically you’re looking for the flexibility that it’s going to have, it is going to vary with both the interests of the faculty and the students and probably, you know as time goes on, once you get funding, that will have an influence on the direction as well.
Tom Mighell: So that kind of leads me to my next question which is stability of the labs. When I was kind of doing my research and I was looking out there for the different programs that are available, a lot of programs, maybe I should not say a lot, but several programs that were listed as going even as late as two years ago when I try to find them, they’re nowhere to be seen or there were a couple of them were their websites showed the last activity was four years ago. It seems like that not everything is destined to survive when you start at a law school. What are the things that that you need to take into account for the success of a lab program?
Dennis Kennedy: Well, there is the COVID factor of course on some of the stuff, but I think that there’s funding, there’s commitment and there’s definitely having the individuals there or the groups there that carry it through and then the support and the vision that come from the school itself where they say, this is something we want to do to distinguish our ourselves. That’s why I like to use, April Dawson in North Carolina Central is that if you have a $5 million grant, that’s a sort of thing where you can say we have a lot of — they’re going to do some cool things. I think as a result of that is likely to have longevity. I think where you have some professors doing stuff on a part-time basis, you know where they find some time that reflects their interests and they have a group of students who do that. It’s a little harder to sustain.
And then you know as the students roll through, you might have a group that’s very interested in what the original focus of the lab was and the next groups have less interest in that and you’re trying to gauge that. So right now, as I look to what’s, you know even in designing classes for the future, I know there’s some things that students are going to be interested in because I’m surveying them, I’m talking to them. And you know, some of them aren’t going to be surprises, you know like Web 3 of this, everything involving sports, gaming and there’s tons of stuff out there that are going to attract the interest of students whether that becomes and then you’re trying to take that interest and align it with the overall mission of the law school and the university which I think and you get all that stuff lined up in the right people, the longevity will happen I think as it’s a part-time thing and there’s turnover and other things like that. It is hard to sustain.
Tom Mighell: Okay. So maybe this is a super broad question, but let’s us expand beyond. You’ve talked a little bit about Michigan State, you talked a little about Suffolk, what are the kinds of things that these labs work on? I mean just probably a broad range, but in general, what are they working on? Is it all access to justice? Is it more than that? What are the things that we’re seeing mostly?
Dennis Kennedy: Well, I think you’re seeing a broad range. I think there’s a lot of cool stuff having access to justice and it kind of runs a range. So you can say, you know Dan Katz says Chicago-Kent has really been involved in data analytics, artificial intelligence, those sorts of things. So, real strong focus there. Dan Lynn At Northwestern, you know is doing this really cool program that works with what I would call the Computer Science Department and the law school is kind of like hard, hard technology skills. So you see that on one side. At University of Richmond, they’re doing some stuff where they’re actually, reaching out to law firms and helping them with management process improvement. Nicole Morris at Emory is doing this great thing with technology transfer, you know where the center which I call Tiger that actually helps get the technologies have just that have been developed at the university out. That’s a cool approach.
Arizona State is doing some stuff in the access to justice. Stanford’s doing a lot of both hard tech and then Margaret Hagen is doing this really cool human-centered design stuff. Vanderbilt, another place where they’re looking at access to justice design and improving the delivery of legal services among other things. So there is a lot happening out there. At BYU, definitely some productization in the access to justice space. So there are a lot of different approaches and what I like about it is it’s just like a really creative area within the law school world. So, you know you see that and then as I mentioned a little bit some of the stuff going on in the rest of the world as also very cool as well.
Tom Mighell: You know what’s interesting to me is I think having law school labs is a great idea. I think that innovation needs to be happening in two areas.
It needs to happen on law firms, which unfortunately means the really big firms because they’re the only ones who can afford to do it and in the law schools because we need to be training our future lawyers to be more than just lawyers. They need to be working on solutions for the future because they are the future. That’s corny, but I’ll say it that way. So I like that. But what I don’t get a sense of is and what I’m wondering if there’s a benefit here is it seems like when you say I have a sense that there’s 25 programs out there. It doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of collaboration between the organization’s and maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m missing it. Maybe there’s something you haven’t mentioned yet, but it feels like, you know why isn’t there a law school labs conference every year where everybody gets together and talks about it. And I know that there are some conferences that get together and talk about those things, but I don’t get the sense that it is, you know everybody helping to pool their Collective knowledge or helping each other to be better. Am I wrong about that or is that something that’s actually going on?
Dennis Kennedy: Well, you’re sort of right and you’re sort of wrong, and so what I would say is like last summer, I believe it was, there was a great webinar with a lot of discussions with the people who are doing the legal labs which actually was the reason this became a topic for the podcast that I put on the list. And there was a feeling at the end of that webinars that we were all going to get together and maybe we should have a conference and we should have regular meetings and all of that and defined like who all fit the category and invite more people into it and see what we could do. That to this point hasn’t happened because there’s this little thing called COVID and other things that really do have an impact on moving those things forward. I have one of my RAs working on coming up with the list of all the programs. There’s a good list that’s needs to be updated that I’ve seen. So I think they were just sort of baby step phase, but I think that collaboration is going to happen. It needs to be coordinated and you know like we did whole podcasts on how do you start legal tech communities, you know some of the same issues on there, but I’m generally optimistic over time and I think through the American Association of Law Schools, that’s where we’re likely to see that happen.
Tom Mighell: Well, you know as someone who has co-authored a book with someone else on collaboration, I would say there’s no better time to collaborate on things than when you’re all stuck at home and doing stuff together, but that’s just me. So let’s look at the future. Where are we headed? What are the things that we need to be looking for and how can people learn more about law school labs?
Dennis Kennedy: Well, I think the first place to go is to go to your alma mater and say like, hey what’s actually happening at my old law school and are there some interesting things there that I didn’t know about. And then I think you’re starting to look at the usual suspects i would say, just kind of get an idea of what’s out there. And you know, I’ve mentioned a bunch of schools and at no time you looked through and you found about 25 places, their websites, other ways to find things. It’s going to be self-education and then everybody who’s working in one of these loves to talk about it and people wants to share what they’re doing. We are also seeing alumni come out of these programs as well and so we’re still at a point where you have to go out and kind of find it but you know, I would say within, I don’t know, a year or two you could see more structure to be able to find that and the collaboration there. So, I think you’re right. There’s no better time to collaborate. There’s also a volunteer group. As we all know that if you make suggestions in a volunteer group, people usually think that you’re volunteering which causes some hesitation on the part of people, so that can be an issue as well.
Tom Mighell: And so I assume and this is loaded maybe so softball this question for you that you are bullish on law school labs moving forward.
Dennis Kennedy: Yeah, I’m bullish. I think that COVID actually makes me bullish on this because I think we have to try different things. I think that the lab phenomenon is a great way for the law schools to reach out into and connect with the community. It could be local, it could be alumni, but sort of where the community their university lives and that’s what’s really interesting to me. I think they become a potential like R&D Department for state and federal courts, you know for law departments, other things like that. So I think that community piece is what I’m really bullish on to the extent that I have hesitation. I think that it is different. I think that people are looking at the traditional legal education approach and so that will be the friction that needs to be overcome and that’s difficult to predict how that’s going to play out. And it could be that it may turn out, as you said, that it could be in large law firms, other organizations that you see that this type of center or lab might work better than in the university structure, but we’ll see how it plays out. But I think it’s a way for the whole legal ecosystem to start to work together to achieve some positive results.
Tom Mighell: Well, let’s make sure to revisit this in an upcoming episode. See how things have gone a few months or years down the road. Alright. Before we move on to our next segment, let’s take a quick break for a message from our sponsors.
Male: Wish you could get a quote and purchase an appeal, trustee, estate or any other court or fiduciary bond quickly online, Colonial Surety Company has every bond you need and is a direct insurer that’s U.S. Treasury listed, licensed in all 50 states and territories and rated A, excellent, by AM Best, so you can be confident it’s a trusted resource. Get started at colonialsurety.com/podcast.
Male: Looking for a process server you can trust servenow.com is a nationwide network of local pre-screened 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 pre-screen process server today. Visit www.servenow.com.
Tom Mighell: And now let’s get back to the Kennedy-Mighell Report. I’m Tom Mighell.
Dennis Kennedy: And I’m Dennis Kennedy. Tom, as you mentioned, we lost a very close friend, Wendy Werner, recently and it’s been difficult for me because I knew Wendy for a very long time. We want to remember Wendy and pay a little tribute to her and I thought it might be good to talk about her as an example of a person who never really felt she was a tech person at all. Sometimes was aggressively non-tech and she even might even that phrase. She took certain pride in saying that she was the last person using a flip phone, but her own approach to technology adoption was actually really thoughtful and I think we could all learn from it. I know that she talked to people she thought for years before she went and bought an iPad and then she loved it once she got one. I think in her own way, she illustrated what I think of when I talked about jobs to be done and knowing what you were hiring your technologies to do for you. So Tom, I’ll let you lead this segment off.
Tom Mighell: So you knew Wendy longer than I did. So I think you’re going to have a better or a different approach to it than I did to her and technology, but I want to do a very quick background on Wendy for those listeners who didn’t know her. Wendy wasn’t a lawyer. She worked a lot with lawyers and the law. She was a career coach for lawyers. She was the founding board member of Arch City Defenders which was a Saint Louis Criminal Justice Reform and Relief Agency. I got to know her through her many years of service in the ABA’s law practice division. She was I think responsible in a big way for us riding this latest version of our collaboration tools book. She was a great photographer. She was a great lover of Aussie shepherd rescue dogs. She loved the Oregon coast and in turn made me love it as well.
But this is a technology podcast, so we want to remember Wendy’s relationship with technology. Wendy is of a generation where you wouldn’t be surprised to see her ignorant and uncaring about technology. I think in today’s language, she was definitely a digital immigrant when we talk about technology, but she didn’t hate technology. She didn’t love it, but she didn’t hate it. After being with her for a while, I coined the term technology ambivalent to describe her and she loved that term. She mentioned it several times to me, but she really could take it or leave it and I think what is interesting is that when she decided to take it, she was very intentional about doing that. As Dennis mentioned, it took her a while to commit to just getting an iPad. She learned how to use that device and she used it for the purposes for which she needed and rarely more and she was completely comfortable with that as Dennis said. I think this is a refreshing approach to technology to get what you need out of it and be completely satisfied with what you get. We could all I think do with little tech ambivalence from time to time. Wendy, we will miss you so very much. Dennis, do you want to take it from here?
Dennis Kennedy: Yeah. So I mean you sum things up. I mean I got to know Wendy, started when she was headed up the career services office at Saint Louis U and you know, I work with her on St. Louis Minority Clerkship Program and knew her for many years and considered a very close friend. It just struck me, you know as we were thinking about her is that she just really interrogated technology in a way that I liked. You know, she was more conservative about it, but she was like the opposite. And I was thinking before we did the show, I sometimes think of people who will say, oh I have these 10 new gadgets I got and I’m trying this and I’m trying that and I want to say to them, like what about the last shiny new thing that you were saying was the best thing ever. You know, Wendy was kind of the opposite of that and I think you could learn from this. So in her photography, she’s totally understood like what equipment she needed and why, but we’re just saying oh and to have tech fo tech’s sake especially computers, that was different. That was a different story.
And so I think the iPhone or the iPad thing for her was to see her take to that because there were a number of us who told her for a long time, she would say, here’s what I don’t like and here’s what I don’t need and this would help me and that would help me. And I think I remember, I know I said a lot and I know you said Tom a lot and Dick Callaway and others would say like, you’re talking iPad Wendy, you’re just talking iPad. And then once she tried to understand it first and then worked with it and she was really, really good at using the iPad. I learned two things from that. So I think that sometimes when you — it’s good to be conservative in your approach. You don’t have to go to the newest thing and you know try to say I’m going to be first at this, but if you can understand why you’re going to use it, what the job to be done is and she just Illustrated that whole jobs to be done notion of just — you know, one of my best friends the whole time at Saint Louis, I miss her greatly, but just so a life well lived in so many ways. Now, it’s time for parting shots that one-tip website observation. You can use the second to (00:34:11). Tom take it away
Tom Mighell: So mine is website. This is called 12ft.io. It’s just 12ft.io. I’ll put the link in the show notes. The tagline there is show me a 10-foot paywall and I’ll show you a 12-foot ladder. And this operates from the theory that any website that has a paywall to it, they’re still going to let Google index it because they want those articles. They want that content to show up in the search results and so that version of a document still exists somewhere in a Google cache. And so what 12ft does is you put in a URL of a paywalled article and it will go and find the cached un-paywalled version of the page. Now, it’s not perfect. I can’t get it to work on Wall Street Journal articles.
It’s hard to get it to work on New York Times articles, but there are a lot of websites that I was able to find the un-paywalled version of it. So if you’re looking for something that has a paywall, if some site that you have no intention of subscribing to that just to get to that one article, then put the URL into 12ft.io and you might get the un-paywall version for free.
Dennis Kennedy: I’m sure publishers will be happy with that one. But I think you’re right Tom. This paywall stuff has made the internet really difficult to use in the past year. So I’m in favor of anybody who’s helping us open up access to information. So my parting shots, I have two of them Tom. So quick one is the 2022 ABA Legal Technology Resource Center’s women of legal tech honoree nominations are now open and I will ask Tom to put the URL into the show notes, so you can you can find the place to submit your nominees for consideration. It’s a great list, a great project and there are great people on the list and if you know women of legal tech that deserve to be on the list, then by all means nominate them.
The second thing is very new for me that I’m experimenting with. So I did my personal quarterly off-site and one of my things was I’m calling the smalls list. And so what I found is I have like could be technology annoyances, it could be other things that just kind of small projects, the kind of get your ways. So sometimes you have low energy, I used to have like a little bit of time and you’re thinking like, oh I need to set something up or I need to do something and it’s going to take a short period of time. I’m just creating a list of those smalls. So when I find myself in that situation, I go oh I can do these things and I can start to knock those things off and I think there’s these little improvements I can make to my life like I just did something today that have been sitting around for a long time that I knocked out in about 15 minutes and I feel great about it. And so you get the sense of a accomplishing things and getting stuff off of your to-do list and out of your head and done and I just call it the smalls. And so if you look around and say here are some little things that I like to do and start to put them on a list and just knock them off, I think it’s going to make you feel a lot better.
Tom Mighell: There’s actually an article somewhere that I saw today that I saw today that talked about the whole notion of productivity around any task that you can get done with in two minutes or less, go ahead and do it and she was writing about how much more productive it made her feel. So a very good tip.
Dennis Kennedy: Well, I would say, the two-minute rule is like a great David Allen thing and when I was (00:38:14), the problem came up when you thought something was a two-minute task and it really ended up being like a two-jour job.
Tom Mighell: Well, you need to have good judgment about it and hopefully as you practice on it, you get better at estimating.
Dennis Kennedy: It will take two minutes to put this IKEA piece of furniture together and then next thing you know, it’s four hours.
Tom Mighell: That’s clearly not a two-minute task. And that wraps it up this edition of the Kennedy-Mighell Report. Thanks for joining us on the podcast. You can find show notes for the show on the Legal Talk Network’s page for this podcast. If you like what you hear, please subscribe to the show on iTunes or on the Legal Talk Network site where you can find archives of all of our previous episodes along with transcripts. If you would like to get in touch with us, reach out to us on LinkedIn or Twitter or remember you can always leave us a voicemail at (720) 441-6820. So until the next podcast, I’m Tom Mighell.
Dennis Kennedy: And I’m Dennis Kennedy and you have been listening to the Kennedy-Mighell Report, a podcast on legal technology with an internet focus. If you like what you heard today, please rate us in Apple podcast and we’ll see you next time for another episode of the Kennedy-Mighell Report on the Legal Talk Network.
Male: Thanks for listening to the Kennedy-Mighell Report. Check out Dennis and Tom’s book, The Lawyers 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 the Legal Talk Network
Podcast transcription by Tech-Synergy.com