LexConference : LexConference : Legal & Law Conferences : Brought To You By LexBlog

Lisa Kennelly: Overall, what were your expectations for the conference, and how did you feel it went?

Dominic Jaar: Year after year, our objective is to educate jurists about the benefits and risk of technologies. We want lawyers, judges, notaries, IT support staff, etc. to know how they could be more effective and improve access to justice by using different technologies and tips. In terms of attendance, given the current economic crisis and the fact that many law firms and organizations have cut CLE budgets, our expectation for this third edition was to get as many people as last year, i.e. 300 attendees. I must admit we failed by less than 20 people. However, we had a greater reach outside of Quebec. More than 45% of the people were from out of Quebec, which clearly shows the international recognition that Legal IT has achieved. We also proud ourselves of bringing world renowned speakers in Montreal for what is now Canada’s premier legal technology conference.

Lisa Kennelly: How did it compare to the two previous years?

Dominic Jaar: As I mentioned, I think that content-wise this edition substantially surpassed previous years in terms of speakers and topics. It was the first year that Legal IT lasted for 2 days and we have had many positive comments regarding the fact that people had time to network and meet with the speakers and sponsors over the two days as opposed to previous years where people did not have as much time to mingle around.

Lisa Kennelly: What sort of feedback have you received from presenters and attendees?

Dominic Jaar: We are now compiling the answers to our annual survey but we have already received many comments, via email and viva voce, from attendees who were thrilled at the content and organization. One must understand that everyone that work on the organizing committee do it for free on top of their demanding full-time job. This partially explains the low price of attending Legal IT. We were told numerous time by attendees and speakers that this is THE conference where you get the most bang for your buck.

From what I have heard and read, speakers have thoroughly enjoyed their trip to Montreal. They felt that the attendees were engaging, organizers were friendly and the food was fantastic! I know you already read about that...

Lisa Kennelly: Did you perceive anything at the conference regarding advances in or attitudes toward legal technology that particularly struck you?

Dominic Jaar: I am always shocked at the questions speakers are getting. As a speaker, I am always surprised to hear people ask about metadata, e-discovery 101, OCR, blogs, etc. I feel this topics are so 1999! However, it must be the time that I spend with many experts across the world that makes me a tough crowd!

On the other hand, I am always glad to see attendees leave the conference after learning new tricks. We had a judges panel over lunch about technologies in the courtroom and must say that I have been pleased to hear that judges are waiting for and expecting lawyers to use technologies in a more sophisticated and savvy fashion. I think this is amongst the most powerful statement we have heard at LegalIT this year. Let’s hope the judges will be heard!

Lisa Kennelly: What were your overall impressions of the conference?

Connie Crosby: It was my first time attending, and I was only there for part of day one, but I found it extremely informative. I took lots of notes at the sessions I did attend. In some ways it was a wake-up call for me and others that it is time to really practice what we preach and really start using the electronic tools at our disposal.

Lisa Kennelly: What session or panel did you find most interesting or compelling?

Connie Crosby: During the first day lunch, conference organizer Dominic Jaar spoke along with Hon. Jean-Pierre Bonin of the Court of Quebec and Hon. John D. Murphy of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on information technologies and the Judiciary. I found this talk particularly compelling because the judges were all but pleading with Canadian lawyers to stop using paper and to submit materials electronically. Essentially the courts want to be more technologically efficient, but they can't improve until lawyers become drivers of technology.

In particular, Dominic pointed out that 95% of documents in the law firm are created electronically, while 95% of documents submitted to courts across Canada are in paper. That means that the paper received by the courts has to be scanned back into electronic versions, and metadata reapplied. I was shocked as to what a huge disconnect there is! And it is the clients who pay for this inefficiency. I see a huge opportunity here for making things so much better in our legal system.

Lisa Kennelly: What response, if any, did you get from attendees to your Online Marketing panel with Kevin and Steve Matthews?

Connie Crosby: I had some very positive feedback. Essentially we had Kevin and Steve talk about how to build a web presence online using a number of tools, and I "drove" the Internet on the screen behind them, giving everyone a visual of what they were discussing. No PowerPoint. Those who approached me afterward said it was a very effective presentation method, and they wished other sessions had been done in this way. I hope, though, that they heard some of what we were saying, too.

Lisa Kennelly: Do you see any difference between Canada and the US in terms of their respective legal communities' openness or willingness to embrace technology and social media?

Connie Crosby: From where I sit, we all appear to be in the same boat. There is a small percentage who are exploring what is being used in the business world today, seeing how we can leverage the tools to advance ourselves and what we do for our clients. The rest either are averse to it or just have not yet heard that things like blogs, LinkedIn and Twitter can raise their profiles immensely.

Adoption is slow in both countries, but there are some jumping in with both feet and getting the full benefit of tools for networking and self-publishing. It does take time for these things to reach a wide adoption rate, especially in a conservative profession such as the law. Those who try it out this early will have a huge advantage over others who don't; this can really allow smaller firms to raise themselves up to compete with larger firms.

Lisa Kennelly: What are your overall impressions of the conference?

Craig Ball: I found it a well run conference built on engaging topics and capable speakers. If any legal tech conference deserves to be called "classy," it's this one. Really nice, bright volunteer staff.

You will only derive maximum value from this conference if you are bilingual in English and French. Some speakers—including [yesterday] morning's keynote—delivered their presentations exclusively in French, without translation.

Lisa Kennelly: What session or panel have you found most interesting or compelling?

Craig Ball: I really can't single out any program over another. I go to so many of these events, that there isn't much I haven't heard before. Consequently, I'm a poor arbiter. All I saw were well prepared, but no barn burners.

Lisa Kennelly: Do you see any difference between Canada and the US in terms of their respective legal communities' openness or willingness to embrace technology and social media?

Craig Ball: My impression is that Canadian lawyers' embrace of technology resembles the status of forensic technology among lawyers in the States as it was perhaps ten years ago. It's a bit of a time tunnel, but not necessarily backward. No one seems particularly unhappy with the state of affairs; and if it ain't broke, no hurry to grab the tiger's tail that is e-discovery.

There is very little execution on electronic discovery, although the discipline is finding recognition in the Rules. The Sedona Conference has a lot of stroke here—perhaps more than in the States. Judges are receptive to EDD, but lawyers are not driving EDD issues into court here. My sense is that some judges are almost longing to grapple with some of the e-ddiscovery issues like those seen in the U.S. The paucity of juries and small size and collegiality of the bar may account for the lack of issues making it to court. I think I've worked in buildings with more lawyers in them than in all of Nova Scotia.

Lisa Kennelly: What are your overall impressions of the conference?

Ross Kodner: This is my first time at Legal IT as both a speaker and attendee. I’m very impressed with the degree of organization – very efficiently run. I was on both the TECHSHOW and LegalTech boards for five years and have started several conferences so I’m pretty good at noticing the little behind-the-scenes details that can be indicative of disorganization or a lack of attention to detail. I saw no such thing here – all very professional – Dominic Jaar and his volunteer team have refined their approach in a very short three-year period and are to be commended.

For an American, primarily English-speaking presenter, the bilingual element of the conference adds a fascinating twist – as a Canadaphile/Francophile with a long-ago French minor as an undergrad, I got to try a little of my rusty French on the audiences – who actually seemed to appreciate it. So a delightfully different experience from the presenter’s perspective v. my typical American presentations.

In terms of programming, I was impressed with the variation in sessions – a strong e-discovery slate, Web 2.0/social media as well as mainstream Microsoft Office, paper management, tips and similar “see it, then go use it” topics. One notable omission – not a single session addressing practice management systems EXCEPT for a program about the SaaS angle on these products.

In my opinion, this program offers enough depth of content and a faculty impressive enough to warrant traveling to from literally anywhere in the world. Certainly part of the attraction would be an opportunity to spend time in Montreal (and perhaps a side-trip to Quebec City) – one of the world’s great metropolises.

Lisa Kennelly: What session or panel have you found most interesting or compelling?

Ross Kodner: At the risk of sounding self-serving, I think the version of my Paper LESS Office program co-presented with Sam Coppola was the best version of that particular program I’ve experienced. After my usual exposition of the Paper LESS Office process, Sam then talked about how he’s become Paper LESS inside of a Paper MORE very large Canadian law firm. The counterpoint of the “in practice” version that I do with his “here’s what I actually do in my own office, even though the rest of the firm doesn’t” seemed to really strike a chord with the audience.

And of course, Craig Ball’s “Power Persuasion for PowerPoint” was as always, highly entertaining while being incredibly practical and insightful. I feel inspired every time I’ve seen this program (and I think I’ve seen it at least a dozen times) – there’s NO CLE presenter anywhere who can hold an audience’s attention the way Craig can – it shows how devastatingly effective he must have been in front of juries in his trial practice days.

Lisa Kennelly: What kind of response have you received, if any, from attendees at your presentations yesterday?

Ross Kodner: I’ve been stopped by several attendees who said they came specifically to see my programs live – I can’t imagine have been any more flattered – it was amazingly kind of them to say. Several attendees also complimented me on my attempts to speak French (I know they were just being polite parce que mon francais est vraiment terrible!) The audience seemed to enjoy the fact that I so thoroughly enjoy their city – I had wonderful conversations with several people here about my love and exaltation of Schwartz’s Deli and St. Viateur Bagels!

Lisa Kennelly: What do you like about twittering from conferences? What value do you feel it provides to your followers?

Ross Kodner: I think that Twittering from or about a conference brings the experience to those who can’t attend in a way that gives them the flavor of attendance with a time and attention commitment. Frankly, I can’t imagine a better way to attract future attendees than to “Twitter Tease” them with the experience they could have had. So I see it as a strong marketing vehicle for future attendance and current conference brand extension. For me personally, I hate it – it takes my attention away from the live experience – I SHOULD be participating in “the moment” instead of projecting it so OTHERS can experience their own “moment.” So I’m torn about Twittering at conferences – I see both sides – positive value for the Twitterees, loss of some of the experience for the Twitterer.