New and events of the Philadelphia Bar Asso.
Issue link: https://thephiladelphialawyer.epubxp.com/i/574228
requisite skill or knowledge to handle a matter, the attorney should (1) associate with, or when professionally appropriate, consult another attorney who is believed to be competent, or (2) acquire sufficient learning and skill before undertaking the representation." These are not novel concepts. In fact, they are what attorneys have always done, i.e. if an attorney does not have sufficient knowledge about a particular type of case, the attorney should either bring in co-counsel or refer the matter to an attorney who handles those types of cases. But technology is different from a specialized practice area. As the opinion notes, "in today's technological world, almost every litigation matter potentially [involves technology]. The chances are significant that a party or a witness has used email or other electronic communication, stores information digitally, and/or has other forms of ESI related to the dispute." Thus, in the opinion's sample fact pattern, the "Attorney had a general obligation to make an e-discovery evaluation early" in the case, and certainly well before the initial case management conference and before his client's confidential information was handed over to its competition. Attorneys in Pennsylvania and throughout the country should heed the warning that California has given them. Rule 1.1 states that "Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." Attorneys would likely avoid going to a doctor who does not use MRIs because "they weren't around when the doctor went to med school." Why, one should ask, would a client hire an attorney who avoids technology because it was not around when the they were in law school? Although the answer to this question is obvious, many attorneys and firms still focus on the potential time and expense necessary to understand the issues related to ESI and technology in general. A future column will outline how to stay current with technology and remain ethically competent. Daniel J. Siegel, (dan@danieljsiegel.com), principal of the Law Offices of Daniel J. Siegel, is a member of the Editorial Board of The Philadelphia Lawyer, and the author of Changing Law Firms: Ethical Guidance for Pennsylvania Law Firms and Attorneys (PBI, 2nd Ed., 2015). the philadelphia lawyer Fall 2015 11 "In today's technological world, almost every litigation matter potentially [involves technology]."