Police constables are equipped with cutting-edge tools such as GPS systems and BlackBerry devices, so why, asks Steve Guest, are some lawyers reluctant even to use email and the Internet?

Working in the field of computer forensics, I have a great deal of contact with members of the legal profession. I have had many fascinating chats with lawyers, but I have learned that the most effective way to kill a conversation is to bring up the subject of their own use of new technologies.


I am not suggesting that lawyers are all technophobes or digital Luddites. But, in comparison with other professionals, there has been a tendency to be slow on the uptake.


My background is in law enforcement. In the mid-1970s, I was one of a group of newly appointed probationary constables. Our class instructor told us of the communication technologies that were available to assist us in our anticipated daily battle with the criminal underworld.


These technologies consisted of a pocket notebook complemented by an indelible pencil, a somewhat erratic personal radio and, in the event of the failure of the latter, a shiny, silver police whistle. We listened in awe as we were told of how the newly commissioned Police National Computer would soon allow us to establish whether a motorcar was listed as stolen in 'less than a minute'.


Some months later, I entered the office of a solicitor for the first time. I saw a vast array of books, bundles of important-looking papers, and was highly impressed by the presence of two telephones on the desk of the great man. Although I had a radio, he had an intercom, as well as the telephones. I considered, therefore, that we were probably technological equals.


After the passage of 30-odd years, this balance between the executive and procedural arms of the legal system seems to have been markedly disturbed.


Law enforcement has consistently adopted new technologies with great enthusiasm and generally to good effect. It cannot be denied, though, that there have been problems. These problems have generally, however, had far more to do with politics than with technology.


Today's patrol constable has more information available - literally at his or her fingertips - than could ever have been envisaged on the day I was issued with my indelible pencil, just a generation ago.


Leading-edge radios, mobile telephones, GPS systems and in-car computer terminals are now everyday working tools. North Wales Police now issues operational officers with RIM BlackBerry mobile devices, enabling them to perform roadside checks in an instant.


Many lawyers, however, appear to have been excruciatingly slow in their uptake of available technologies. In a calling where knowledge is power, and detailed research a prerequisite for success, it seems many practitioners are depriving themselves of invaluable tools.


The effective use of communication technologies is not about gadgets. I firmly believe, for example, that the best tool for taking notes is a pen (or, even better, a secretary with good shorthand skills). If a Filofax is considered preferable to a personal digital assistant, than that is a matter of personal choice.


The crucial question is how can the use of appropriate technology make your practice more efficient and therefore more cost effective?


Earlier this year, I was instructed in a civil case by a major City firm. From the outset, it was apparent that this firm had embraced the use of communication technologies in an appropriate and effective manner.


The first step was a conference call with an attorney in the US, followed by confirmatory emails that made clear the circumstances forming the basis of the lawsuit. As is so often the case, timing was vital and time was short.


Over a just a few days, staff at the firm had retained me, issued formal instructions, provided me with copies of depositions by expert witnesses in relevant US cases, and received my draft report. We were in contact day and night and even over a Bank Holiday weekend by email, telephone and mobile telephone. Internet research yielded results that would have proved impossible, or at least hugely costly and time consuming, by conventional means.


The result, needless to say, was highly satisfactory to the client.



In contrast, I often come into contact with solicitors who cannot even provide a personal email address or mobile telephone number. I am unwilling to send a confidential report to an address such as enquiries@asolicitor.afreeserviceprovider.co.uk. I have even encountered law firms using free webmail services, a practice which can be described as unsatisfactory at best.



It is not unreasonable to suggest that a password-protected document sent by email ensures confidentiality to a greater extent than does a fax but, once again, there seems to be a marked reluctance to move along that route.


Perhaps the most surprisingly under-used piece of 21st century technology is the Internet as a research tool. I know a few solicitors who proudly proclaim that they have never accessed the Internet, do not know how to do so, and have no intention of learning. This approach could be termed short-sighted, given the volume of information that is freely available from respected and verifiable sources.


The use of modern communication technologies is not difficult, nor need it involve a significant financial investment. Indeed, there is a real potential to save money in office running costs. The biggest benefit, though, must be in the speed and efficiency with which previously onerous tasks may now be performed.


It is a practical scenario for a lawyer to be in court when an issue arises, have an office-based colleague research the issue, and forward copies of documents to the originator's PDA, smartphone or laptop within minutes. This process would become easier still if all court premises were to install encrypted wireless networks for the use of appropriate individuals. The cost of such a project would be remarkably low, and the benefits in efficiency enormous.


Steve Guest headed North Yorkshire Police's hi-tech crime unit, and now runs the computer forensic company Hitecc Forensics (steve@hitecc.co.uk)