The 2022 Bellwether report shows that keeping up to date with changes in the law is one of the biggest post-lockdown challenges faced by small law firms.
Bellwether followed up with 345 small law and solo legal professionals, of which 78% listed 'keeping up with changes to the law' as one of the most significant threats to post-pandemic change management for small law firms.
The report revealed that 69% of respondents use legal research tools. Almost 66% said they have already invested in legal research tools.
At the same time, 19% listed legal research tools as the most sought-after tech tools their firms plan to invest in over the next 24 months.
When asked what stops the 47% who said they had no plans to implement any tech, 35% mentioned insufficient budget.
Although legal research tools were listed as the second most widely adopted tech tool used by small law firms (with almost 66% saying they've already invested in legal research tools), a shocking number of respondents at small law firms still use free legal sources instead of paid platforms.
The survey revealed a concerning 74% still use Google as their source for research and guidance information.
"I suspect it might be a generational thing – there are so many people who have grown up just googling everything now." (Bellwether, 2022)
Although many use free platforms, the survey highlighted a growing awareness of the downsides and risks associated with free legal sources. Compared to the 2021 survey, more respondents agree that it is riskier and takes longer to complete a research task using free versus paid sources.
"We use the paid-for services. That's because of risk. There's a lot of effort put into these platforms to make sure the information is correct and up-to-date. Some areas change constantly and the lawyers need to have that information at their fingertips." (Bellwether 2022)
However, although lawyers at small firms might prefer using paid platforms for legal research, they may not always have access to the content they need. Firms often buy practice-area-specific packages, with lawyers turning to free alternatives when they need content outside the specific package area.
With budget constraints and accelerated professional indemnity insurance costs, small firms might be tempted to rely on free online sources for legal research. However, is it worth the risk?
Although Google (as an example of a free source) is an impressive search engine and research site, it might not be prudent to base legal advice given to your client on Google or any other free source. As we know, not all information on the internet is correct and reliable.
In fact, Google warns users that it is not intended to replace bona fide legal advice. See the disclaimer on Google Scholar, for example:
"Disclaimer: Legal opinions in Google Scholar are provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied on as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed lawyer. Google does not warrant that the information is complete or accurate".
Can lawyers risk giving advice that is not complete or accurate?
Lawyers have a legal duty to provide legal services at a certain standard. When giving advice, lawyers are expected to act reasonably, carefully, and up to the standard of care that the client can expect from a reasonable lawyer doing similar work in similar circumstances.
Clients are entitled to expect proper legal advice free from mistakes or accidental oversights. At a minimum, the advice must be complete and correct.
If the courts are satisfied that it was foreseeable that a breach of duty could lead to damages, the client might be entitled to claim compensation for damages caused by a breach of duty.
Besides facing civil lawsuits, lawyers guilty of giving incorrect advice can also face other penalties.
The SDT recently fined a solicitor, David Carter Hughes, who wrongly advised 115 clients about the timing of their rent reviews.
An internal investigation found that from 2008 to 2015, the solicitor used a precedent report on title concerning the developer, Taylor Wimpey's conveyancing matters.
Previously, Taylor Wimpey operated a 25-year rent review, but it changed the review to 10 years for this development.
The precedent report was not adjusted at that stage to reflect the change. As a result, clients received incorrect advice over six years.
The tribunal found that Mr Hughes knew or ought to have known that inattention to detail could result in a breach of his professional obligations and duties.
Mr Hughes admitted that the clients should have received correct advice but said that he did not act deliberately to compromise the client's best interests. Failure of systems and controls led to the mistakes.
Nevertheless, the tribunal fined Mr Hughes £15,000, and he must pay £13,350 in costs.
Although this matter did not involve incorrect internet information, it illustrates what could happen if a lawyer fails to comply with their duty of providing correct and complete advice.
To conclude, no law firm can afford to be complacent about providing accurate and complete advice. Attention to detail, keeping up to date, and having fast access to reliable information is no longer negotiable in the highly competitive post-pandemic legal market.
Relying on "free" information is risky and can be costly. Investing in paid-for legal research platforms reduces risk and brings a multitude of benefits to both the firm and the clients.
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234