In this blog, I identify two ways the legal profession can help bridge the digital divide.
With the onset of the information economy and its many benefits, there has also grown an increasing impediment, that of the digital divide (Paliwala, 2004). Whilst generally defined by reference to differing access to information technology such as computers, phones and other Internet-related technology by nations, there are really three different dimensions to this divide (Paliwala, 2004). The first (and most popoular) is the “global divide”; the difference between the access that industrialised and developing societies have to the Internet (Paliwala, 2004; Flew, 2008). As the video below shows however, this divide can also be intra-national as well as international.
The second is the “social divide”; the gap between information rich and poor nations thus affecting their social engagement (Paliwala, 2004; Flew, 2008). The final aspect of the digital divide is the “democratic divide”; the gap arising within the online community between those who use digital resources to participate and those who do not (Paliwala, 2004; Flew, 2008).
This digital divide can not only be observed from an international perspective, but also within certain industries such as the legal profession. In particular, with the recent technological advancements in legal tools in courtrooms such as interactive multimedia presentations and electronic case files, one would not be blamed for thinking that this would create a chasm between large well resourced firms and smaller ones (Heintz, 2002). However, whilst larger firms may in fact possess more resources and of arguably a better quality, this does not necessarily translate to instant legal success (Heintz, 2002). As Heintz (2002) put it, “Using technology in a courtroom does not depend on resources as much as it depends on intelligence” (p.582).
In fact, smaller legal firms are more likely to be better equipped to deal with technology as they cannot rely on tech departments to do it for them but must learn themselves (Heintz, 2002). Courts are also helping bridge this divide. First, they are beginning to cap the cost of equipment that lawyers may use in courts and secondly, they are making equipment accessible to all lawyers (Heintz, 2002). All these efforts have resulted in (and will continue to) ‘level the playing field’ for lawyers of all financial situations and bridge the digital gap (Heintz, 2002).
Another way the law is bridging the digital divide is in regard to the “democratic divide” defined earlier. With traditional copyright laws, user generated content and ‘prod-user’ participation has been limited or hindered (Seshadri, 2007; Flew, 2008). However, in recent years the law is beginning to adapt to the surge in user generated content and creative industries are beginning to harness this for their own benefit (Seshadri, 2007). In particular, the courts are increasingly favouring implied licenses to reproduce content such as in the case of Field v Google (2006) where verbal consent need not be granted (Seshadri, 2007). The recent birth of the Creative Commons and its easy-to-read pre-written licenses is also bridging the gap between audiences and intellectual property (Seshadri, 2007). What this means is that for the growing number of active audiences and prod-users who are outnumbering their professional counterparts, content sharing and participation is being broadened in its accessibility, bridging the digital gap and paving the way for more collaborative Internet architecture (Seshadri, 2007).
Though lawyers, the courts and the law are implementing measures to bridge the digital divide between large and small legal firms and the “democratic divide”, there still remains a significant “social divide” amongst most law firms; not between rich and poor however, but between technophobes and technophiles (O’Keefe, 2009). Lawyers, who have long had reputations for being “laggards” when it comes to technological innovations, are still largely reluctant to use digital technology to socially engage their publics (O’Keefe, 2009). What this has meant is that there has developed a gap between more web-literate law firms and those still stuck in the past (O’Keefe, 2009). As O’Keefe (2009) said in his blog:
References
Flew, T. (2008). New Media: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press: UK.
Heintz, M.E. (2002). The Digital Divide and Courtroom Technology: Can David Keep Up With Goliath? Federal Communications Law Journal, 54(3), pp.567-590.
O’Keefe, K. (2009, November 23). Divide grows between lawyers with and without digital influence. Retrieved 5 April, 2010, from: http://kevin.lexblog.com/2009/11/articles/social-networking-1/divide-grows-between-lawyers-with-and-without-digital-influence/
Paliwala, A. (2004). Digital Divide Globalisation and Legal Regulation. University of Technology, Sydney Law Review, 2.
Seshadri, R. (Fall 2007). Bridging the Digital Divide: How the Implied License Doctrine Could Narrow the Copynorm-Copyright Gap. UCLA Journal of Law & Technology, 11(2), pp.1-36.
With the onset of the information economy and its many benefits, there has also grown an increasing impediment, that of the digital divide (Paliwala, 2004). Whilst generally defined by reference to differing access to information technology such as computers, phones and other Internet-related technology by nations, there are really three different dimensions to this divide (Paliwala, 2004). The first (and most popoular) is the “global divide”; the difference between the access that industrialised and developing societies have to the Internet (Paliwala, 2004; Flew, 2008). As the video below shows however, this divide can also be intra-national as well as international.
The second is the “social divide”; the gap between information rich and poor nations thus affecting their social engagement (Paliwala, 2004; Flew, 2008). The final aspect of the digital divide is the “democratic divide”; the gap arising within the online community between those who use digital resources to participate and those who do not (Paliwala, 2004; Flew, 2008).
This digital divide can not only be observed from an international perspective, but also within certain industries such as the legal profession. In particular, with the recent technological advancements in legal tools in courtrooms such as interactive multimedia presentations and electronic case files, one would not be blamed for thinking that this would create a chasm between large well resourced firms and smaller ones (Heintz, 2002). However, whilst larger firms may in fact possess more resources and of arguably a better quality, this does not necessarily translate to instant legal success (Heintz, 2002). As Heintz (2002) put it, “Using technology in a courtroom does not depend on resources as much as it depends on intelligence” (p.582).
In fact, smaller legal firms are more likely to be better equipped to deal with technology as they cannot rely on tech departments to do it for them but must learn themselves (Heintz, 2002). Courts are also helping bridge this divide. First, they are beginning to cap the cost of equipment that lawyers may use in courts and secondly, they are making equipment accessible to all lawyers (Heintz, 2002). All these efforts have resulted in (and will continue to) ‘level the playing field’ for lawyers of all financial situations and bridge the digital gap (Heintz, 2002).
Another way the law is bridging the digital divide is in regard to the “democratic divide” defined earlier. With traditional copyright laws, user generated content and ‘prod-user’ participation has been limited or hindered (Seshadri, 2007; Flew, 2008). However, in recent years the law is beginning to adapt to the surge in user generated content and creative industries are beginning to harness this for their own benefit (Seshadri, 2007). In particular, the courts are increasingly favouring implied licenses to reproduce content such as in the case of Field v Google (2006) where verbal consent need not be granted (Seshadri, 2007). The recent birth of the Creative Commons and its easy-to-read pre-written licenses is also bridging the gap between audiences and intellectual property (Seshadri, 2007). What this means is that for the growing number of active audiences and prod-users who are outnumbering their professional counterparts, content sharing and participation is being broadened in its accessibility, bridging the digital gap and paving the way for more collaborative Internet architecture (Seshadri, 2007).
Though lawyers, the courts and the law are implementing measures to bridge the digital divide between large and small legal firms and the “democratic divide”, there still remains a significant “social divide” amongst most law firms; not between rich and poor however, but between technophobes and technophiles (O’Keefe, 2009). Lawyers, who have long had reputations for being “laggards” when it comes to technological innovations, are still largely reluctant to use digital technology to socially engage their publics (O’Keefe, 2009). What this has meant is that there has developed a gap between more web-literate law firms and those still stuck in the past (O’Keefe, 2009). As O’Keefe (2009) said in his blog:
Web-savvy communication professionals don’t want to work with handcuffs on and with people who don’t understand social media. The 45% of law firms blocking the use of social media and social networking mediums like Twitter and Facebook are going to attract no one who knows anything here.This divide is becoming detrimental to these more traditional law firms being left behind (O’Keefe, 2009). And if they don’t update their communication techniques soon and use the digital technology available to them to engage their clients socially, the “social divide” between them and their competitors will only continue to grow (O’Keefe, 2009).
References
Flew, T. (2008). New Media: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press: UK.
Heintz, M.E. (2002). The Digital Divide and Courtroom Technology: Can David Keep Up With Goliath? Federal Communications Law Journal, 54(3), pp.567-590.
O’Keefe, K. (2009, November 23). Divide grows between lawyers with and without digital influence. Retrieved 5 April, 2010, from: http://kevin.lexblog.com/2009/11/articles/social-networking-1/divide-grows-between-lawyers-with-and-without-digital-influence/
Paliwala, A. (2004). Digital Divide Globalisation and Legal Regulation. University of Technology, Sydney Law Review, 2.
Seshadri, R. (Fall 2007). Bridging the Digital Divide: How the Implied License Doctrine Could Narrow the Copynorm-Copyright Gap. UCLA Journal of Law & Technology, 11(2), pp.1-36.
Posts
