Bar by Blog (WK8)

In this blog, I discuss in what ways the growth of participatory culture and interactivity has changed legal practice in recent years.

The onset of the Internet has had a vast effect on legal practice, amongst other things affecting the way lawyers communicate with their clients and the world in general (Blades & Vermylen, 2004). What this has meant for the legal profession (and many other professions for that matter) is that lawyers are able to interact with a global audience with newfound speed and interactivity (Blades & Vermylen, 2004). Thus, "technolawyers" have been set free and enabled to practice law in new and exciting ways (Kellogg, 2005). So what does this interactivity entail and how is it different to other means of communication?



Well, as the above video shows, interactivity pervades the range of media we have access to. As Flew (2008) summarises, interactivity is about “not just sitting there passively in front of a display screen” (p.29); interactive media does not just engage the user, but does so in such a powerful way that the user is independent and their usage is individualised, enabling them greater choice and communicative feedback. One of the prime differences between turning a page of a book and clicking with a mouse is this greater amount of choice and participation due largely to the rise of hypertext and the hyperlink (Katsh, 1994). In other words, rather than being merely a receiver, a user is engaged as a participant in two-way digital media-mediated communication; interactive media demands multi-directional models of communication (Kenney et al, 2000).

One of the increasingly prevalent ways that lawyers are using this digital communication to interact with audiences is through legal web logs, or "blawgs" as they are colloquially called (Kellogg, 2005). This what McMillan (2005) describes as user-to-user interactivity; one of three ways media can be interactive. This media not only allows lawyers to communicate legal opinions and advertise their services in personable and personal ways, but also facilitates the laity to participate in legal discussions by correcting, rebuking or adding to them, involving the lay person in the defining and articulating of what the “law” is exactly (Kellogg, 2005). Far from computers simply automating the process of legal information, through media such as blogs they have “informated” legal information so that simultaneous to the processing of information, new information is generated (Katsh, 1994). But, is there a dark side to this seemingly empowering tool?

There have arisen some rather serious ethical concerns as a result of this new interactive and participatory media (Blades & Vermylen, 2004). Whereas before the rise of the Internet (and particular Web 2.0), lawyers were the gatekeepers of their profession, nowadays anyone can engage and participate in legal discussions, and ultimately, give advice (Blades & Vermylen, 2004). Anyone can be a “lawyer” so to speak. Thus, the ethical concerns are obvious; how do you regulate the growing array of legal opinions available on the ‘Net? How do you know the legal advice you are receiving on the Internet is correct or relevant (Blades & Vermylen, 2004)? As Blades and Vermylen explain:

One of the dangers of online legal communications is that the
[lawyer]-client relationship may be formed...in different jurisdictions, with or
without the knowledge of the [lawyer], resulting in the breach of the ethical
rule prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. One common way that legal
advice is provided over the Internet is through Internet chat rooms [and
increasingly blogs] offering online forums for...conversations that are
interactive and open to the public (p.640).

That said, perhaps the solution to this interactivity problem is in the increase of the interactivity itself. As participation and collaboration increases, one would assume that the level of critical moderation and peer review would also increase which would regulate and moderate false or confusing information on the Internet. This brings us to the numerous other benefits of interactive online legal discussions such as increased confidence to discuss due to anonymity, protecting laypeople from being oppressed or taken advantage of, and increasing the level of engagement and accessibility to legal information by those geographically or economically isolated (Blades & Vermylen, 2004).

Another interesting way lawyers and those in the legal profession are using interactive media is in the court room. Whereas traditionally, linear modes of communicating evidence and case information were favoured, in recent years there has been a rising tendency for lawyers to utilise more interactive modes of communication (Carney & Feigenson, 2004). Lawyers are abandoning conventional means of communicating like mere oral, PowerPoint and display software presentations in favour of more interactive programmes; programmes which can be customised, individualised and provide an optimum amount of choice at the click of a mouse (Carney & Feigenson, 2004).

In an American case, Connecticut v Skakel (1992), the prosecution developed and used such a programme (Carney & Feigenson, 2004). This programme enabled evidence to interact with each other; geographical maps interacted with charts and photos, and images interacted with audio; it was all an example of converging interactivity (Carney & Feigenson, 2004). The benefits to this new interactive multimedia approach, as Carney and Feigenson (2004) argue, was that it clarified, captivated and convinced the jury due to its ability to speak in terms the audience can understand. I can easily foresee the next step in the development of this recent approach being to move from restricting interactivity solely to the lawyers and allowing the jurors and lay people to also interact with the evidence at their will. And what an effect that would have on court cases!

Whether you are a technophobe who thinks that the possible harm caused by interactive legal media like blogs outweighs any positives, or you are a technophile who feels excited by the empowerment that this new media has given the individual and its breakdown of communication barriers in recent years, you have to agree that this growing use of blogs is not merely a fad that is going away anytime soon. Hornsby Jr. (2005) suggests perhaps this is due to the ability to express oneself that media like blogs give to the individual; the source of identity it provides; because when given the chance, people by nature love to participate, pontificate and express their individuality. And as Hornsby Jr. (2005) reminds us, lawyers are people too.

References

Blades, M. & Vermylen, S. (2004). Virtual Ethics for a New Age: The Internet and the Ethical Lawyer. 17 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, pp.637-658.

Carney, B. & Feigenson, N. (Spring 2004). Visual Persuasion in the Michael Skakel Trial: Enhancing Advocacy through Interactive Media Presentations. 19 Criminal Justice, pp.22-36.

Flew, T. (2008). New Media: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press: UK.

Hornsby Jr., W.E. (July/August 2005). Ethics and Lawyer Blogs. 31 Law Practice, pp.38-39.

Katsh, E. (1994). Digital Lawyers: Orienting the Legal Profession to Cyberspace. 55 University of Pittsburgh Law Review, pp.1141-1174.

Kellogg, S. (July/August 2005). It’s Not Your Father’s Web Site: Lawyers in the Blogosphere. 31 Law Practice, pp.32-37.

Kenney, K., Gorelik, A. & Mwangi, S. (2000). Interactive Features of Online Newspapers. First Monday 5(1). Retrieved 9 March, 2010, from: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_1/kenney/index.html

McMillan, S. (2005). ‘Exploring Models of Interactivity from Multiple Research Traditions; Users, Documents and Systems’, in Lievrouw, L. & Livingstone, S. (eds), Handbook of New Media (2nd ed). Sage: London, pp.205-229.