“There is so much potential benefit and harm for provider driven content being delivered by formal academic institutions that it boggles the mind. I remember early debates at EDRM about these kinds of programs and frustration that we could not get the resources allocated. The more than $2.2 Billion (yes, I capitalize that B) in 2015 investment in the eD/IG market certainly is trickling down to the next generation of law students and technical colleges. California’s new requirements for eDiscovery technical competence and other compliance challenges (EU Data Protection) are raising the bar for counsel and giving marketer’s an audience. Let’s hope that the content is solid and peer reviewed to remove potential bias.”
Greg asks an interesting question here. On one hand, having eDiscovery technology available to law schools will help make sure that lawyers are graduating with at least some hands-on experience with technology before they have to go deal with it in the real world. On the other, how can schools avoid becoming a marketing place for that specific tool? It’s easy to say they should offer more than one tool, but let’s face it, budgets being what they are, they’ll take whatever free tool is offered to them, by companies who understand that lawyers will be reluctant to “try something” other than what they’re already familiar with.
Of course, the other thing in that equation is that, in many places, it’s not the lawyers who are really digging into the tools, so are they better positioned in paralegal programs, or should we just have legal technology programs in schools?
That last one is an idea I could get behind.
Did you learn a specific tool in college that was donated by the company? Did it impact the curriculum, or did it impact a later purchasing decision?