Technology
in the Practice of Law
Todd
H. Flaming
Summer
2004
Syllabus—DRAFT
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS A DRAFT SYLLABUS, SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
This
course will examine the role of technology in the practice of law. My thesis for the course is that from a
technical standpoint, law is an information processing business. We will look at the use of information
technology in the practice of law, examining how courts and lawyers have
applied it to improve the delivery of their services, evaluating how
effectively they have used it, and predicting the direction technology is
taking.
This
course is not a training course, although we will look at particular
applications. No particular technical
background is necessary, although a general familiarity with computers and the
Internet will help.
The class
meets over the space of two weekends, July 17-18, 24-25, approximately 9:00 –
5:00 with a few breaks and a lunch break.
We can discuss what schedule you want.
Note that because of the efficiency of holding class 8 hours at a time,
we save some time ordinarily devoted to recaps from the previous class. This may affect our schedule somewhat—it
depends on class views. It is a
two-credit course.
Required
reading is assigned in this syllabus.
All are hyperlinked from the syllabus and can be seen with the use of a
web browser. One requires a Flash
plug-in. Another requires a PDF
reader. See me if you do not have
these.
Grading is
based 25% on class participation and 75% on a paper.
Effective
class participation requires reading prior to class. Reading and contributing based on reading will enhance your
grade. Failure to read and contribute
based on materials assigned will not enhance your grade. In other words, the goal of class
participation is meaningful
participation, not merely expressing uninformed opinions and ideas.
The paper
you write will examine a particular technology application used by lawyers or
courts, describing how it is used, its advantages and disadvantages. The paper
should also predict the future based on weaknesses in the present system. Original ideas for solving problems are
better than mere recitations of other peoples’ ideas. You will choose your own topics.
Papers are due three weeks after the final class period. Papers should be substantial works, ten
pages single-spaced, and reflect research appropriate for the topic.
Work
should be your own, based on the materials discussed in class and your own
research. Do not recycle work from another
class or plagiarize someone else’s work.
Computers
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers)
Computer Networks (http://www.techsoup.org/howto/articles.cfm?topicid=3&topic=Networks)
Read selected articles:
* Networks 101: What is a Network?
* Networks 101: Client/Server Networks
* Networks 101: An Introduction to Server Applications
Supnick, Lawyers Using Computers
(http://www.supnik.com/lawusng.htm)
Skalbeck, Two Bytes Forward and One Byte Back (http://www.llrx.com/features/techforward.htm)
Technology and the Practice of Law (http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/0/990abe7dc501e57e85256cc6005bca9d?OpenDocument)
Eisenberg, The Homesteader and the Gunslinger (http://www.llrx.com/features/homestead.htm)
In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation (1995) (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldiscovery/library/cost/brandname.html)
Zubulake v. U.B.S. Warburg (May 2003)
(http://www.dri.org/dri/about/pdf/Ediscovery_ZubulakeIII.pdf)
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg (October 2003)
(http://www.dri.org/dri/about/pdf/Ediscovery_UBS.pdf)
Westlaw research service
(http://westlaw.com)
Lexis research service
(http://lexis.com)
Ebbinghouse, West Loses Copyright Claim over Page Numbers (1999)
(http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb0621-4.htm)
Gary Wolf, Who Owns the Law? Wired (May 1994) (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.05/the.law_pr.html)
Google search: “trade secrets”
Blawg
(http://www.blawg.com)
AmLaw Survey (www.dataflight.com/pub/AmLawSurvey.pdf)
Dataflight’s Concordance demonstration (http://www.dataflight.com/concordance_live.demo.html) and White Paper (http://www.dataflight.com/white.papers.html)
Summation’s Top Ten Reasons (http://info.summation.com/products/top_ten_upgrade.htm)
Iconect’s NeXT Generation of Litigation Software (http://www.iconect.com/products/default.htm) and Tutorial (http://www.iconect.com/help/v4/client/tutorial.html)
Ian Campbell, Protecting Your Firm’s Litigation Documents
(http://ltn-archive.hotresponse.com/september00/interet_options_p50.html)
Singh, Making Knowledge Management Work on your Intranet (2004)
(http://www.boxesandarrows.com/archives/making_knowledge_management_work_on_your_intranet.php)
Kenyon, Understanding Styles in Microsoft Word (http://www.addbalance.com/usersguide/styles.htm)
Charles Kenyon, Complex Documents in Microsoft Word (http://www.addbalance.com/usersguide/complex_documents.htm)
Payne, What You Don’t See Can Hurt You (2000)
(http://ltn-archive.hotresponse.com/december00/document_management_p146.html)
Shankland & Ard, Metadata reveals SCO switched legal target (2004)
(http://software.silicon.com/os/0,39024651,39118916,00.htm)
PACER Overview
(http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/pacerdesc.html)
PACER FAQ – Privacy
(http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/faq.html#PR)
Report on Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Case Files, Judicial
Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (2001)
(http://www.privacy.uscourts.gov/Policy.htm)
CM/ECF FAQ
(http://www.uscourts.gov/cmecf/cmecf_userinfo.html#rules)
CM/ECF User Information (http://www.uscourts.gov/cmecf/cmecf_userinfo.html#rules)
Goldfarb, XML in an Instant: A Non-geeky Introduction (http://www.xmlhandbook.com/press/nongeeky.htm)
Ken Pittman, XML in Electronic Court Filing (http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/11/14/e-filing.html)
inData Corp. Trial Software—TrialDirector
(http://www.indatacorp.com/software/trialdirector.asp)
Timeline Express Flash demo
(http://www.indatacorp.com/software/timeliner/timeliner.asp?PageID=6)