Learning Legal Technology—What Needs to Change?

Episode Notes

Transcript

[Music]

Intro: 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 347 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 interviewed Nick Rishwain of experts.com as part of our Fresh Voices on legal tech interview series. Nick was a fantastic guest and provided us with a ton of great insights. You’ll definitely want to listen to the episode if you haven’t already listened to it, and check out the other interviews in our Fresh Voices series. In this episode, we have noticed that we, and by we, I definitely mean me, are being deluged with invitations to and reports from legal tech conferences, CLE sessions and more every single day. And most of them seem to have gone back to being in person. That got us thinking about how we actually learn about legal tech and whether the approaches we see now are the best ways to actually learn about tech in law. 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 wondering out loud if the current approach to conferences and CLE is helping or hurting those who want to learn about legal technology and new tech in law. In our second segment, we will play another instance, another round of our new thumbs up, thumbs down game and as usual, we’ll finish up with our parting shots. That one tip website or observation you can start using the second this podcast is over. And I may surprise you about generative AI in our parting shots. But first up, we wanted to think together with you about how best to learn about legal tech, whether the current conference CLE model still works because as our or maybe Dennis more than me, but as our email, LinkedIn and social media show us every day, there seems to be, I don’t know, about thousands. Thousands, really, but lots and lots of events at the moment. Dennis, what made you think about this topic at this time, other than the deluge?

Dennis Kennedy: There were three things. One is I just feel bombarded everyday with announcements of very similar sounding. These 50 minutes — all you can eat in 150-minute session about some legal tech topic generally AI. There’s the sheer number of announcements. Then, as I was planning my own cybersecurity and data protection class for this fall semester, I was doing a lot of thinking about how I was going to teach my students about cybersecurity and data protection and if there were really good ways to do it. I sort of realized that I had 14 weeks of 100-minute classes and I could really teach them a lot so they could be really savvy about this topic and that’s a lot different than 150 minutes, as I say, all you can eat session. And then the third thing is I keep seeing photos of these panel presentations in hotel rooms with terrible lighting and people sitting down and their projector there. I just go back to those uncomfortable chairs and people talking quickly and generally and leaving without knowing that much more than they knew when they came in as a practical matter, with stuff they could take away. I don’t know, Tom, do you have a similar sense or is this once again, just me?

Tom Mighell: We have the same sense about the volume that’s returning. Things are getting back to I’ll put quotes around normal, but things are getting back to normal from how they used to be. We’re getting more in-person conferences. We are seeing them. I would argue this is no different from the conferences that we used to see before. Everything you described sounds like conferences that we saw before. I think where we may differ here with your and my senses, while they’re basically the same, you’re putting a negative spin on it and I’m putting a positive connotation on it because I think that in general, it’s a good thing to get together. I think it’s a good thing to socialize with people. I’m going to go into that in a little more detail later. I think that there are benefits to the conferences and the CLEs. I don’t necessarily think illegal tech education is one of them, which is where I think we’ll agree on this topic.

(00:05:00)

Dennis Kennedy: Yeah, I have that back to the past feel. People are talking about other standing room only sessions. There’re these panels with interesting people and they’re telling funny stories, and not that many people are getting COVID, so that’s a plus, too. But I sort of go back to what you were saying is I’m not sure what people actually learn in these things and I don’t know whether it’s because I have certain things that I want to learn that I don’t see how I can learn them with that type of approach. Or better said, what can you learn in 50 minutes from a panel presentation? Believe it or not, Tom, I was actually at a couple of conferences this summer and spoke at one of them, and I think that I’m going to echo what you say. It was great talking to people. I learned stuff from asking questions and talking to people after the sessions, but that was because I put the effort into that, and I’m not sure in the panel approach how much I actually learned that I would have been happy to have said I paid for that, to learn something.

Tom Mighell: You know, I think this is one — I won’t call it a change because there is to a certain extent, everything old is new again. But I don’t hate that the sessions are like that. If you go into sessions like that at conferences with the right mindset about it, back when you and I planned conferences, back when we were planning ABA Tech Show, one of the things that we like to try to do was try to make the sessions educational. We tried to do that. I’m not sure how or whether we were — how successful or whether we were successful at all, but I would argue now there’s so much to cover. There are so many things to talk about that I would argue there’s no way to teach in a session, there’s no way to learn in a session at a conference. I would make the argument that a technology conference shouldn’t be about learning at all in that deeper sense. It should be about awareness. It should be about making you aware of the latest topics, give you enough information to start thinking about it, get you interested, give you some initial tools on what to do about it. But then it’s up to you and I think we’re going to talk about later about what you can do to do more on it, but I think that conferences are catalysts. They’re not necessarily training places in and of themselves, which is where I think you and I may differ on. I just don’t think that whether people intend it to be or not, I just don’t think they should be considered educational.

Dennis Kennedy: Yeah and it’s partially, I think, the job to be done notion that in part, the job to be done I want from a conference is different than I think that others might want. But I do notice there is — when I hear people talk about conferences, especially the big legal tech conferences, what they’re saying to me sounds like Yelp reviews. They talk about parties. They talk about the cocktails they had, the swag they got, the hallway conversations, how far they had to walk and why there couldn’t be more golf carts. And to me, what are kind of superficialities rather than to say, like, here are the cool things we learned at this conference, which is what I’m most interested in at this point, not these other things. And then I feel this time from our days at ABA Tech Show, but I think it’s a lot worse now. Of course, every single legal tech conference is either the best or one of the best. You don’t even know what people are describing anymore.

Tom Mighell: What’s most interesting to me about what you’ve just said, Dennis, is I really want to go to the Legal Talk Network folks, and I want to dig into the archives, and I want to find back in 2017 and 2018 our usual recap of ABA Tech Show. I want them to splice in the tape where I’m going to say it almost word for word, because I talk about the sessions that were most important to me and Dennis Kennedy word for word, says, “you know, I really don’t go to the sessions. I mean, everything valuable to me happens out in the hallway. I get more out of the conference from the conversations I have, and I actually don’t make it to any of the sessions.” What we’re witnessing, folks, is a 180 is what it feels like. This is a change for him and I don’t know if your time in academia has changed that perception and if it’s the reason for that, but I was always the person more interested in the content than the hallway conversations.

(00:10:00)

But I have come around frankly on my end to the idea that the overall experience of that conference is not just about understanding what’s going on in the sessions, but it’s a combination. Yeah, I don’t want to know how long it is from one room and I don’t really care about the parties and stuff like that, but I think it’s more than just being in the classrooms. And I’m interested that you have come and made such what appears to be a switch from your past revelations and opinions about Tech Show and other conferences.

Dennis Kennedy: It’s consequences of our COVID times. I’m like, “okay, if I’m going to be at a place, what is the job to be done?” And I would go to Tech Show for any number of reasons. Now, I’m kind of like, well, if I want to go to a conference and put myself at risk, then I have to be able to learn more or to see more benefit than I can get from what I can get from webinars. That’s one thing. And then also, we’ve talked about this before but either there’s 100 million experts out there or there’s none. I don’t know what the answer is but there’s so many people who are experts on this all of a sudden. So many AI experts but maybe I zero in Tom on this panel thing because that’s the one thing that bothers me because it’s hard to see even when I’m a person on the panel, I have to work really hard to say, what can I give people that they can take away? But here’s my least favorite thing, and maybe you’ll agree with me on this. I’m not. But you see a panel and they start out by saying, somebody saying, “I’m not really an expert, so I’m not sure why I’m even on this panel”. And I’m going like, “I’m in the audience. I wish you weren’t on the panel either”. What is the point here? I don’t know. Maybe this is a get off my lawn episode for me.

Tom Mighell: Feels a little bit like that, but you’re not wrong about panels. I mean, there are so many panels that either have wrong people on them, people who don’t belong on them, or maybe just the wrong combination. Or frankly, I’ve been on panels before where the people haven’t worked with each other. And when you don’t work with each other, it makes for a bad experience because ideally, the people who are planning the conference work hard to put the right people on there. Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes we made mistakes on that. But I think that the goal is to put people with different experiences and it should be that panel’s job to figure out what they bring to the table that’s different from everybody else. How they are differentiated and they should call that stuff out during the panel. I think there are ways to improve them. But I think you’re generally right. I think, again, I come back and say, yes, the way that these are put together is a model that leaves a lot to be desired but I would argue that it is not something that should be considered to be educational in the first place.

Dennis Kennedy: Yeah. And I would say I’m looking at Legal Week New York, which I think is what they call it now. But I saw that they’re going to have an actor who apparently and, Tom, my expertise on pop culture is probably not what it should be. But they’re going to have an actor who apparently plays a lawyer in a popular TV show. They actually do the keynote. And so, I’m kind of like if I’m the boss and it’s my firm’s money or my company’s money, why would I go to that, or why would I want to send somebody to that where they’re essentially seeing somebody who’s being paid a lot of money do like a piece of entertainment theater?

Tom Mighell: Because the keynote is not about learning anything to be honest. I mean, the keynote is about bringing people in. It’s about what is a name that would bring people in and although I wouldn’t learn anything about being a lawyer or legal technology from that person, it would still be interesting to see that person. Finding a keynote speaker who is both engaging and on a topic that means something is an interesting dilemma. And I have seen a lot of legal tech conferences move to celebrities because the goal is who’s going to draw the most butts in the seats? I mean, who’s going to bring that in? And a lot of times that celebrity is going to do it because people would rather be entertained than taught or have that kind of experience. And that’s what’s more likely to get them spend the money. I don’t know that I agree with that necessarily, but I will say also we’ve had a lot. I’ve seen a lot of keynote speakers with zero name recognition who were terrible because, one, their name recognition was bad and they just turn out to be really bad speakers. I don’t know. All right. We got a lot more to talk about here. We’ve got some ideas for maybe some ideas for creating some learning opportunities about legal technology. Maybe our thoughts about what we want to do. But we need to take a break. Let’s take a quick break for a message from our sponsors.

(00:15:11)

[Music]

Dave Scriven-Young: You like legal podcasts because you’re curious and want to be the best attorney you can be. I’m Dave Scriven-Young, host of Litigation Radio produced by ABA’s Litigation Section with Legal Talk Network. Search in your favorite podcast player for Litigation Radio to join me and my guests as we examine hot topics in litigation and topics that will help you to develop your litigation skills and build your practice. I hope you’ll check out Litigation Radio and join the ABA Litigation Section for access to all of the resources, relationships and referrals you need to thrive as a litigator.

Dennis Kennedy: And we are back. Tom, I think it would be good as a starting point to have you talk a bit about what you did a while back when you headed a task force on new approaches for ABA Tech Show and how you and the group you were part of thought about legal tech conferences.

Tom Mighell: When I saw that you put that in the script, I thought that you were maybe ambushing me in a little bit because ultimately this task force failed. It’s something that — even though I’m going to talk about, is something that never really happened. And I will say that the reason why we decided to do this for ABA Tech Show is that we were concerned with the kind of like we’ve been talking about, the stagnant way that content is presented at conferences. We wanted to liven things up. We wanted to make the conference more than it usually is, than it could be. You know, it’s still presented that way. And so many conferences are people on a riser, either at a table, white chairs now, lots of white chairs, very standard fare, speakers speak, attendees listen, and none of that changed.

Now what we were interested in doing was changing the model to get better engagement with the attendees. Have them spend more time with the people who are the experts. And unfortunately, there wasn’t a lot of interest in changing that model for various reasons that I’m not going to get into, but there just wasn’t a lot of interests, so it never really went anywhere. And to be honest, most conferences still follow pretty much the same model. I would say that Clio probably has been the most successful at breaking out of that model and doing different new and interesting things. ILTACON, kind of has the let’s throw everything at the wall and see what sticks for people to go to. I would imagine that there are a lot of successful things out there. But what I would love to see is something that we wanted to do with Tech Show which I think is actually a smart way to change the paradigm of technology conferences. And I won’t take the credit for this. I’m going to give the credit to our friend Matt Homann at Filament, because he was really the one that had this idea which is that trying to change a paradigm of a conference, trying to make it better, trying to bring about great change is something that has to be done. This is going to sound like a bad word but insidiously. It needs to come about slowly and gradually. People are not going to accept a change just automatically. What we’ve seen from conferences, it’s just not going to happen.

What he proposed and what we wanted to do were what we would call small experiments. That’s why we called it the labs. We were going to be in the lab. Small experiments. Nothing big enough to change the overall experience but big enough to get an idea of whether it makes sense to use it the following year, maybe expand it. A new or innovative way of engaging the audience. Just a few small experiments a year and in five years your conference might look very different. That was kind of the idea that we had. Again, didn’t go anywhere but if I were going to change the model of conferences these days especially with conferences that tend to embrace or at least don’t get away from that kind of standard, very uninteresting model, that might be a way to approach it.

Dennis Kennedy: Yeah. And you’ve sort of restated the classic innovation dilemma which you have a successful existing business and you feel there’s a need to innovate and do new things, and then the question becomes, can it be done within the existing business framework or does it have to be done separately? And the jury is out on that. I generally feel that it’s extraordinarily difficult to do it from within a larger successful institution. And that’s why you often see the new types of things come in with new approaches. And that’s the way to do it, where you say, even if we try to do it within the existing framework, we do a completely separate conference that has the new approach. But I agree with you, Tom, that there is a sort of classic dilemma there that you deal with.

(00:20:06)

I have some observations from my own classes and from teaching over the last few years. And so when I look at the conferences and CLEs, I say, if I compare them to law school classes, which I teach now, what are the differences and what are the expectations that we have of students to learn things? And I noticed this, the CLEs have no pre-reads. There’s nothing that keeps attendees. They don’t really feel the need to stay in their seat. There’s no follow up, there’s no quizzes, there’s no testing. Typically, if you send somebody to a conference, they don’t report back.

And so, it’s actually not designed in a way to help you, even if you want to learn to retain that and to work with what you’ve learned. And so I sort of feel that we know a lot now about adult learning and what works and different approaches to learning, different models, how people learn in some different ways and how we might work with that. And I’d like to see some of that incorporated into what we’re doing if we feel that we have this sort of mandatory continuing legal education need that these types of programs are supposed to meet the requirements. Because I’m not sure. As you say, Tom, either it’s an entertainment or it’s education, and we’re really veering toward the entertainment side of things, but the state of purpose is learning. But Tom, I kind of come back to the core question, which I’ll now ask of you is how do we really learn tech these days in our real lives?

Tom Mighell:  Well, I think you first start to learn by finding your own resources. I think you understand that a conference is not going to provide you with enough information. I think the conference is where you get the spark. It’s where you learn about something for the first time. You’ll become aware of it. Learn is a strong word. You become aware of it for the first time, and you decide whether this is something you need to know more about, at which point you go and find everything out. And I had a list of things I wanted to talk about, but the way that you described you putting together your cybersecurity class really convinced me that I think probably the best way is really some type of classroom setting, some sort of training class. If it’s a topic like cybersecurity or a topic like artificial intelligence or something like that, taking an online course. There are online virtual courses that colleges offer all the time. They’re not necessarily for lawyers, but who cares? They’re on those technology topics, and I think they’re valuable to take.

If instead of learning about AI or something, your needs are more practical. You need to learn how to use Excel or how to use Word. Tons of classes online on how to do that, and it’s easy to go find them. They’re not college courses, they’re online models. There are a lot of people who will sell you, for very reasonable prices, a couple of courses on how to become an expert in Word and Excel and in any other tool that you want to become on, just Google it and figure it out. Obviously, if you want to take the different road out, you’ve got YouTube. There are probably lots of channels on YouTube that will give you educational content on how to do it. I’d argue that some of it’s more promotional than others, but there’s a lot of good content out there.

A lot of legal tech podcasts are good at learning, although I would argue that these are just recorded versions of what you’re going to see at a legal tech conference. So there may not be a ton of difference in those. But I really like the idea of the online programmer class or a master class or a residency or something in a particular technology is, to me, an interesting and appealing method of learning. Dennis, what about you?

Dennis Kennedy:  Well, I sort of lament a little bit the days when we had more hybrid in online approaches and I sometimes wonder, why didn’t we learn from the hybrid models? Because I think there was a lot of good things that were happening there.  Some of which I’m still able to have the benefit of. So if I compare in terms of learning and I say, here’s this conference that I could go to, then I say my first thing is, can I just watch it on a web version? That way I don’t have to travel and do all these other things. Is there a recording of it that I can get on demand? Is there an audio of it that I can speed up to one and a half or double speed, which is I’m much more comfortable with.

(00:25:02)

Are there podcasts? Are there hands on things I can do? Are there courses? Because in the sense of courses and on demand work, I can actually learn and get presentations from some of the leading experts in the world just from sitting at my desk. And I think that’s become really important in the way that I learn. And so the in-person approach doesn’t make as much sense for me if I really want to roll up my sleeves and learn.

And then also, I know you don’t like me to talk about AI, Tom, but I just do tons of experiments, so what I’m doing is roll up my sleeves, commit to doing the work, and just get really hands on to learn. And I go back to the jobs to be done thing. If I’m at a conference or if I’m presenting at a conference or even if I’m doing a class, I really want the people who are in the audience to think about what they actually learned from my sessions, because I’m putting in the work to give them things that I think are important for them to learn. So I think it’s — given this great variety of resources we have to learn, I think you can kind of select to see what works with you and then to just keep asking the question of how do I learn? What am I learning? Is there actual kind of learning that matches my investment into something that I’m taking part of, whether it’s a CLE or as a full-blown seminar? And so I guess, Tom, maybe to wrap things up, I’ll just ask the question, are CLEs and conferences in 2023 now more just a business model than they are a learning model?

Tom Mighell:  I would argue that they were never a learning model and that they were always a business model, but obviously reasonable minds could disagree on that. I think that conferences have always been about giving the attendee just enough information to understand the concept and perhaps interest them to learn more. Let’s compare it to a CLE on legal topics. Here in Texas anyway, and I’m sure it’s everywhere else, they have criminal law courses that are four days long or family law courses that are four days long. And no one considers themselves an expert on family law after they attend that multi day conference, you have to put in the work afterwards to do it. You’re getting the basics, but then you have to go and you have to do more work. And I would say it’s the same with a legal tech conference, and you got to put in the work.

Dennis Kennedy:  And do your homework afterwards.

Tom Mighell:  Absolutely. All right, we have more to talk about before we move on to our next segment. Let’s take a quick break fora message from our sponsor. And now let’s get back to the Kennedy-Mighell Report. I’m Tom Mighell.

Dennis Kennedy:  And I’m Dennis Kennedy. We have a new game we’re calling Thumbs Up or Thumbs down. I will throw out a new idea I’ve had recently. Tom can ask any follow up questions he might have and then give the idea a thumbs up to indicate that Dennis should move this idea forward, or a thumbs down that the idea should be swiftly thrown into the trash can. I’ll get a short rebuttal time. And so here’s what I’m thinking about for this episode.

We are now past the 10-year mark. Actually, I think it’s 11. After the ABA adopted the ethical duty of technology competence. It’s fair to say that nobody really knows what this means yet. We discussed the rule in my law school class this week, and that gave me the idea that it’s actually time for someone to create standards, definitions, and requirements for that duty of technology competence. What does it mean to be technologically competent as a lawyer? And that maybe Tom and I could do that, or maybe even better, Tom and I could lead or be part of a small task force that does that. So there actually are some standards. Tom, your reaction.

Tom Mighell:  So my initial reaction is, hell no, I’m not doing that. I’m not a fan of self-declaring that you’re in charge of something, especially on something that would set national standards. However, and you may be surprised that I will take this position, I do agree with you that there needs to be some movement on this. There hasn’t been any movement. No states — very few states, if any, have issued any meaningful opinions or consequences for lawyers on violating this standard. State bars aren’t going to do anything on their own. ABA does not seem inclined to do anything either. They may, like they do for everything, ultimately appoint a task force. But I bet they don’t, because AI is the more important thing to appoint a task force for right now.

(00:30:01)

So, I’d rather get together a group of those in legal tech community who could all self-declare together, a desire to create change. And it would need to be a group of people who either have connections or other types of power to influence those who would enforce such standards. It can’t just be a bunch of guys that said, “Hey, let’s put on a show in the barn,” and expect everybody is going to come to it. It’s got to be people who have at least some modicum of connection. It would mean nothing to have a small taskforce yell out into the void with no one listening about what’s going on. Because I think ultimately for these standards to have any effect, they have to be recognized and that’s not going to happen unless there’s a great deal of thought, a great deal of organization put into who is going to be doing this and so that’s all I’m going to say. I think it’s a bad idea for you and me or maybe just me to lead this but I think it’s a good idea for something to happen.

Dennis Kennedy: Well, you had me at “hell no,” which is kind of where I had evolved to. But then, when you said “Hey, let’s put on a show in the barn,” it got me thinking. I’m like, “Why don’t we put on a show and we just find a barn and we have ChatGPT help us do a first draft of the standards and we throw it out there and we say these are the standards and how people react to it.” And then, as I’m saying that I’m like “No, it’s a hell no I think now.”

Tom Mighell: We could do that over the weekend, right?

Dennis Kennedy: We could do it overnight. So, now it’s time for our parting chats. That one chip website or observation you can use the second this podcast ends. Tom, take it away.

Tom Mighell: All right. In a shock to everyone, my parting shot is on AI because it comes into contact with what Dennis believes to be my obsession which is Google. Google has introduced NotebookLM recently. You have to get on the list but I wasn’t on the list for very long before I was granted entry and what NotebookLM does at least right now is, it is designed to be your research notebook is how it positions itself. You can create a notebook and then it will take information right now currently only from documents in your Google Drive. So, anything that you have in Google Drive, you can — basically, you create a project in your notebook, you add documents from your Google Drive to the project and then you can start querying those documents within the notebook that you have. The most interesting thing is that for everything that it quotes, it provides you with footnotes. It tells you what is the source that we found this from. Where do we get this answer? Where do we get all of that? You’re not limited to your own information, you could go and download articles from the internet and put them in there and have them be sources that you add to this tool that you are working on.

The reviews that I’ve seen of it, I have made not very much use of it so far but the reviews that I’ve seen of it say, currently, it’s a little bit of a mess but the goal is worthy and that in time, this could be something very interesting and to me, this seemed to be one of the more approachable ways to make use of generative AI in a way that doesn’t require you to create an engine to put a lot of information behind. You can upload information and just work on it on your own in that area and get maybe valuable feedback from it.

The only issue there is it is Google. You are sharing information from it. My take on it is I’m already sharing everything anyway so what could that hurt? You may feel differently about it, but if you’re interested NotebookLM is — I think there’s a waiting list on there but it shouldn’t take you too long to get in.

Dennis Kennedy: Yeah. I took a look at the promo for it, and I signed up for the list but it does seem like thinly disguise way for Google to get you to train its AIs in its large language models for free with your own documents that might otherwise be private so there’s a number of issues there.

Tom Mighell: And ChatGPT is doing nothing like that. Nobody is uploading lots of stuff into ChatGPT. Heck no!

Dennis Kennedy: It’s an ongoing issue and if you would allow me to talk about AI, we would talk about Open Source LLMs.

Tom Mighell: Not this episode.

Dennis Kennedy: So, anyway my parting chats, plural, are I realized I hadn’t really promoted this article that I wrote earlier this year and it’s about an issue we’re seeing more of as lawyers. This article is called “Displaying and Evidencing Contract Terms in a Post-Visual Era.” And as we use more devices that don’t have screens, we use more audio, we interact with things through AI and other things like that.

(00:35:00)

There becomes a question of like “How do we actually show and evidence contract terms and agreement to those terms in this era?” And so, this article is sort of a historical and a future looking approach at some of those issues which we’re starting to run into almost every day. And then, the second thing I had is the Legal Technology Resource Center on technology today has a multi-roundtable discussion and the one for August was on phishing and email scams. And there are about seven or eight people talking about different perspectives on phishing and email scams. This is still the biggest area of danger in cybersecurity for lawyers. So, it’s a great plain language, easy to understand kind of anecdotal approach to some of these issues with a lot of helpful advice so I recommend that.

Tom Mighell: And so that wraps it up to this edition of the Kennedy-Mighell Report. Thanks for joining us on the podcast. You can find share notes for this episode on the Legal Talk Network’s page for our show. If you like what you hear, please subscribe to our podcast in iTunes, on the Legal Talk Network site or in your favorite podcast app. If you like to get in touch with us, you can most likely find us on LinkedIn or you can leave us a voicemail. We still want to get some questions from you for our B-segment. That number is (720) 441-6820. So, until the next podcast, I’m 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. As always, a big thank you to the Legal Talk Network team for producing and distributing this podcast and we’ll see you next time for another episode of the Kennedy-Mighell Report on the Legal Talk Network.

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.

[Music]