Future Fridays: Should Lawyers Cut the Cord on Late-Adopters…Like Apple?

Last week, Apple’s long-expected announcement of the iPhone 7 was accompanied by an unexpected development: the elimination of headphone jacks , now replaced by wireless Air Pods to the tune of $159 per set.

Not surprisingly, Apple’s move produced polarized reactions. On the one side, are critics such as the Verge’s Nilay Patel, who termed Apple’s move as user-hostile and stupid, or Venture Beat’s Jordan Novet, who listed a bunch of reasons why it stinks that the iPhone 7 has no headset jack (notably added cost to replace existing headphones and buy a new jack or AirPods if the ones that came with the pone are lost)/

On the other hand, Forbes’ Chuck Jones (admittedly, an Apple stockholder, as am I)  says that the criticisms over the new jack-less phone are much ado about nothing since users who prefer a headset can default to the jack. Carolina Milanesi at Recode. realizes that Apple’s new headset is a boon to early adopters whom she praises for their willingness to “buy into the future without knowing what the immediate benefits will be.”

Milanesi’s view is one that I — and probably most first-generation law bloggers — can relate to. When I took up blogging at MyShingle at the end of 2002, I never imagined that it would produce any benefits at all, especially when I attracted about 30 readers a week. But the concept of self-publishing and interacting with readers through comments was so compelling and even more, such a radical departure from the old system of peer-reviewed law reviews and bar journal articles published six-months after the fact and destined to a life of obscurity that I couldn’t resist blogging’s siren song.

On the other hand, what we lawyers gain from tech on a personal level may differ from what our clients may want – just as Apple’s desire to be perceived as constantly innovating isn’t always compatible with its customers’ wishes. The question is: when our use of tech diverges from what our clients need, should we lawyers react like Apple and cut the cord? Or should we continue to serve them in a business-as-usual fashion.

As recently as five years ago, my response would have been clear: the clients’ demands prevail. So if a client preferred that bills be sent by mail, or wanted to transmit document by fax or meet me in-person, I’d have agreed, no questions asked, even though I greatly favored all-electronic and online, all the time.  These days, however, I’m not so sure. So much of my work takes place in courts and before agencies where e-filing is standard practice that it’s rare for me to put a check in the mail or pick up a piece of paper (though I still favor print to read complicated regulations or lengthy briefs).

For this reason, my firm really isn’t set up to handle paper-preferring clients efficiently.  Waiting to receive papers from the client and then printing copies out and sending them to the client for review slows down my workflow and may disrupt other parts of my practice. As a result, unless a case is truly compelling or involves a high risk matter where email isn’t sufficiently secure (not typical for my practice), I’m unlikely to accept any more matters from clients who won’t agree to communicate electronically.

Of course, this isn’t a particularly tough decision for me since the demographic that I serve tends to be computer savvy. The same isn’t true for lawyers serving lower-income, elderly or rural clients who are more likely to rely on paper or lack regular access to a computer (I realize that I’m over-generalizing here). These clients continue to need lawyers – but will capable lawyers be available to serve them? Many older lawyers who rely on paper are retiring, may suffer from peridementia  or simply lack the stamina to zealously represent clients, while the next generation of lawyers, trained on laptops and accustomed to paperless, online exams may lack the patience or the money to operate a heavily paper-based practice and all the accoutrements its entails such as office space, physical storage and possibly staff.

Our profession is fast approaching a critical juncture when we face a wide gap between digital haves and have nots.  Companies like Apple can cut the cord, and thumb its nose at old school customers who won’t get with the program. But much as we want to make the practice of law like Apple or Uber , we owe an obligation to ensure access to law, especially to the most vulnerable clients. Maybe that’s what sometimes holds lawyers back from innovation but it’s also what sets us apart from today’s fast-moving companies – which isn’t always a bad thing.