article-time-estimate-icon

4 minute read

How Law Firms Can Avoid Ethic Violations When Using Legal Tech

Matt Pollins

Matt Pollins

Lawyers collaborating on a legal project
In this article

    We’ve said it before: Legal Tech disruption is “an inevitability.” Law firm and legal department adoption of legal technology, however, still remains slow. The resistance in part is due to ethics and the fear of violating the rules or codes of professional conduct. This fear is real––ethics has not yet quite caught up to the advances made by legal technology. While we wait for the latter, it’s time to move ahead with the former. To do that, we offer a few insights into the ethical obligations of legal professionals at the intersection of advancements in legal technology.

    Competent Representation & What It Means (or May Mean) in Light of Legal Tech

    Regardless of where you practice the law––whether in the United States, England, India, or elsewhere––one of the guiding rules of professional conduct is competent representation. Competent representation means lawyers, advocates, solicitors, and the like, must act in the client’s best interest. In other words, you must maintain a level of knowledge and skill so that you can competently represent and advocate for your client.

    But you already know all of the above. What you may not realize is this: there’s a relatively new trend where, more and more, competent representation is embracing the idea that its meaning and purpose should also include technology competence.

    If this trend continues, legal professionals will have to start keeping abreast of the latest in legal technology, if you aren’t already doing it. In the United States, for example, the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1, in its Comment, now provides that,

    [t]o maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.

    Most U.S. states have adopted this or similar language. This year, in fact, California became the 39th state to do so. We can anticipate that this trend will continue to grow.

    How does technology enable competent representation?

    Legal technology has its risks and benefits, and we are focusing on the benefits here. It can, inter alia, streamline workflow, make collaboration and communication easier, create more productive workspaces, and improve document management, scheduling, and budgeting processes. These benefits align with the duty to provide competent representation because it:

    1. allows you to optimize your legal knowledge and skills; and
    2. spend more focused time on client matters so that you can
    3. prepare client matters with the thoroughness required by your jurisdiction’s rules of professional conduct.


    Of course, much of the benefits depend on the legal tech you use and how you use it. The point is: be proactive and adopt legal tech. It can help you provide legal services in the best interest of your client. Also, be forward-thinking and future-proof your law firm or legal department. You’ll want to do so now because one day this trend may transform into an ethical obligation where legal professionals aren’t only required to stay current but are obliged to adopt legal tech.

    Client Confidential Information’s Safety in the Hands of Legal Tech

    Again, no matter where you practice law, you are typically required to keep documents and information related to the representation of a client confidential, unless an exception applies. Keeping it confidential means keeping it safe and secure.

    For example, Rule 6(2) of Singapore’s Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules states that (with certain exceptions)

    … a legal practitioner must not knowingly disclose any information which––

    • is confidential to his or her client; and
    • is acquired by the legal practitioner (whether from the client or from any other person) in the course of the legal practitioner’s engagement.

    The obligation to keep confidential client information secure is the source of much fear for many in the legal industry when it comes to legal tech. We hear about hacks and cyberattacks on a regular basis. Take what happened to Campbell Conroy & O’Neil, P.C. this year. It’s an international law firm whose clients include some of the world’s biggest companies (e.g., Ford, Toyota, British Airways, Pfizer, Boeing, Marriott, and Exxon), and it was the target of ransomware. Personal, medical, financial, and other client data were exposed.

    The thought of using legal tech and letting that information float out there, somewhere, in the nether world has the potential to cause migraines for many managing partners. The easier solution seems to be maintaining the status quo, i.e., steering clear of the cloud and all things legal tech. But that line of thinking is misguided.

    How does technology keep confidential client information secure?

    To be clear, not all legal tech is created equally. Some are better than others and that includes the handling and securing of confidential information. Most legal tech, however, use the most advanced technology to keep information secure, including encryption and other techniques.

    Some platforms, like Lupl––an open industry platform that lets you bring your own system––offer built-in security that helps ensure you, your law firm, or your legal department is in compliance.

    But legal tech is just one part of the security issue. You need to have policies in place (for lawyers and non-lawyers) that incorporate and/or complement the legal tech you use.

    Non-lawyer Staff Who Also Use Legal Tech

    Lawyers aren’t the only ones who use legal tech in any given law firm or legal department. They are, nonetheless, responsible for non-lawyers’ use of it, particularly non-lawyers hired or associated with the respective lawyer. Again, as true with the above two ethical obligations, codes of conduct for almost any jurisdiction cover this issue.

    For example, in the United Kingdom, Rules 3.5 and 3.6 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs states that

    3.5 Where you supervise or manage others providing legal services:

    • you remain accountable for the work carried out through them; and
    • you effectively supervise work being done for clients.


    3.6 You ensure that the individuals you manage are competent to carry out their role, and keep their professional knowledge and skills, as well as understanding of their legal, ethical and regulatory obligations, up to date.

    This obligation can––as it does in the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Comment to Rule 4-5.3––extend to third parties, e.g., document management companies and investigative agencies. More so than not, however, it applies to administrative assistants, legal assistants, paralegals, and law student interns. It’s another source of worry when using or adopting new technology.

    Non-lawyers mostly design legal tech, and that fact compounds these concerns. These non-lawyers don’t necessarily know what to anticipate and, therefore, how to put into place mechanisms to prevent ethics violations. Finding legal tech informed by, designed by, and created only for legal professionals may be a smart option for your law firm or legal department because of the inherent appreciation of ethical obligations.

    How does technology help you monitor non-lawyers and their interaction with legal matters?

    There are legal platforms available where law firms, legal departments, and lawyers can create workspaces where they control who has access to what. Some of these legal platforms, like Lupl, allow you to track who is doing what and to view it in real-time. A platform like Lupl grants greater control over client matters, including non-lawyer access in and to those matters.

    A Sigh of Relief: Legal Tech that Truly Puts Everything Together

    Yes, we can hear your sigh of relief. Believe us, we’ve heard these fears time and time again by the very same lawyers who informed our design processes and who allowed us to capture the needs of law firms and legal departments into one technologically advanced collaboration platform for legal. In other words, with Lupl, it’s more about how our legal technology helps you avoid ethics violations rather than how you can avoid ethics violations while using (other) legal tech.

    In this article

      More legal tech insights we think you'll love

      The cost of over-dependence on AI

      AI saves us time, boosts productivity, and lets us do...

      # Lupl Workstream Design Principles: A Practical Guide to Legal Project Management for Lawyers Legal project management works when your setup is simple, ownership is clear, and statuses are unambiguous. This guide shows how to turn existing processes and checklists into a lean, reliable Workstream. Lupl is the legal project management platform for law firms, making it easy and intuitive to apply these principles. It also supports moving your work from Excel, Word tables, or if you are transitioning from Microsoft Planner, Smartsheet, or Monday. You will learn what belongs in a Workstream, a Task, or a Step, and which columns to use. If you want practical project management for lawyers, start here. **Excerpt:** Legal project management works when ownership, dates, and statuses are clear. This guide shows lawyers how to turn checklists into Lupl Workstreams with the right columns, Tasks, and Steps. Use it to standardize project management for lawyers, reduce follow ups, and move matters to done. --- ## How to organize your work with Workstreams, Tasks, and Steps Workstreams, Tasks, and Steps are three different types of objects in Lupl. They form a simple hierarchy. Workstreams contain Tasks. Tasks may contain optional Steps. This hierarchy aligns with standard project management. In project management, you break work into projects, deliverables, and subtasks. Lupl adapts this for lawyers by using Workstreams, Tasks, and Steps. This makes it easier to map legal processes to a structure that teams can track and manage. * **Workstream.** Use when you have many similar or related items to track over time. Think of the Workstream as the table. * Examples: closing checklist, court deadlines, pretrial preparation, regulatory obligations, due diligence, local counsel management. * **Task.** A high level unit of legal work. A key deliverable with an owner and a due date. Tasks are the rows. * Examples: File motion. Prepare Shareholder Agreement. Submit Q3 report. * **Step.** An optional short checklist inside a single Task. Steps roll up to the parent Task. * Examples: Draft. QC. Partner review. E file. Serve. ### Quick test * If it can be overdue by itself, make it a Task. * If it only helps complete a Task, make it a Step. * If you need different columns or owners, create a separate Workstream. --- ## Do you need to track everything in Lupl Not every detail needs to be tracked in a project management system. The principle is to capture what drives accountability and progress. In Lupl, that means focusing on deliverables, not every micro action. * Use the level of detail you would bring to a weekly team meeting agenda. * Position Tasks as key deliverables. Treat Steps as optional micro tasks to show progress. * Example: You need client instructions. Do not add a Task for "Email client to request a call." Just make the call. If the client approves a key deliverable on the call, mark that item Approved in Lupl so the team has visibility. --- ## Start with the Core 5 columns Columns are the backbone of a Workstream. They define what information is tracked for each Task. In project management terms, these are your core metadata fields. They keep everyone aligned without overcomplicating the table. Keep the table narrow. You can add later. These five work across most legal project management use cases. 1. **Title.** Start with a verb. Example: File answer to complaint. 2. **Status.** Five to seven clear choices. Example: Not started, In progress, For review, For approval, Done. 3. **Assignee.** One named owner per row. If you add multiple assignees for collaboration, still name a primary owner. 4. **Due date.** One date per row. 5. **Type or Category.** Show different kinds of work in one table. Example: Filing, Discovery, Signature, Approval. **Priority.** Add only if you actively triage by priority each week. If added, keep it simple: High, Medium, Low. --- ## Add up to three Helper columns Lupl includes a set of pre made columns you can use out of the box. These allow you to customize Workstreams around different phases or stages of a matter. They also let you map how you already track transactional work, litigation, or other processes. Helper columns are optional fields that add context. In task management, these are similar to tags or attributes you use to sort and filter work. The key is to only add what you will update and use. Pick only what you will use. Stop when you reach three. * Party or Counterparty * Jurisdiction or Court * Phase * Approver * Approval, status or yes or no * Signature status * Risk, RAG * Amount or Number * External ID or Client ID * Document or Link * Docket number * Client entity **Guidance** * For Task Workstreams, prefer Approver, Approval, Risk. The rest are more common in Custom Workstreams. * Aim for eight columns or fewer in your main table. Put detail in the Task description, attachments, or Steps. --- ## Simple rules that keep your table clean Consistency is critical in project management. A cluttered or inconsistent table slows teams down. These rules ensure your Workstream remains usable and clear. * Only add a column people will update during the matter. If it never changes, set a default at the Workstream level or set a default value in the column. * Only add a column you will sort or filter on. If you will not use it to find or group work, leave it out. * If a value changes inside one Task, use Steps. Steps show progress without widening the table. * Keep columns short and structured. Use Description for brief context or instructions. Use Task comments for discussion and decisions. Link to work product in your DMS as the source of truth. * One accountable owner per Task and one due date. You can add collaborators, but always name a primary owner who moves the Task. If different people or dates apply to different parts, split into separate Tasks or capture the handoff as Steps. * Add automations after you lock the design. Finalize columns and status definitions first. Then add simple reminders and escalations that read those fields. --- ## Status hygiene that everyone understands Status is the single most important column in project management. It tells the team where the work stands. Too many options cause confusion. Too few cause misalignment. In Lupl, keep it simple and consistent. * Five to seven statuses are enough. * Use one review gate, For review or For approval. Use both only if your process needs two gates. * One terminal status, Done. This is the end state of the Task. Use Archived only if you report on it or need it for retention workflows. --- ## When to split into multiple Workstreams In project management, it is best practice to separate workstreams when workflows, owners, or audiences diverge. Lupl makes this easy by letting you create multiple Workstreams for one matter. Create a new Workstream if any of the following are true. * You need a different set of columns for a chunk of work. * Ownership or cadence is different, for example daily docketing vs monthly reporting. * The audience or confidentiality needs are different. **Signal** * If half your rows leave several columns blank, you are mixing processes. Split the table. --- ## Decision tree, three quick questions Use this quick framework to decide where an item belongs. This is the same principle used in task management software, adapted for legal workflows. 1. Is this a list of similar items over time, or a discrete phase of the matter * Yes. Create a Workstream. 2. Can it be overdue by itself, and does it need an owner * Yes. Create a Task. 3. Is it a step to finish a Task and not tracked on its own * Yes. Create a Step. --- ## Common mistakes to avoid Many project management failures come from overdesigning or misusing the structure. Avoid these mistakes to keep your Workstreams lean and effective. * Wide tables with many optional columns. Keep it to eight or fewer. * Two columns for the same idea, for example Status and Phase that overlap. Merge or define clearly. * More than one approval gate when one would do. It slows work and confuses owners. * Mixing unrelated processes in one table, for example signatures and invoice approvals. --- ## Build your first Workstream Building a Workstream is like setting up a project board. Keep it light, pilot it, then refine. Lupl is designed to let you do this quickly without heavy admin work. 1. Write the Workstream purpose in one sentence. 2. Add the Core 5 columns. 3. Add at most three Helpers you will use. 4. Define clear Status meanings in plain words. 5. Set defaults for any value that repeats on most rows, for example Jurisdiction. 6. Add two light automations, a due soon reminder and an overdue nudge. 7. Pilot for one week and adjust. --- ## Where this fits in legal project management Use these principles to standardize project management for lawyers across matters. Keep structures consistent. Reuse column sets and status definitions. Your team will find work faster, reduce follow ups, and close loops on time. --- ### On page SEO helpers * Suggested title tag. Lupl Workstream Design Principles, Practical Legal Project Management for Lawyers * Suggested meta description. Learn how to design lean Lupl Workstreams for legal project management. Get clear rules for Tasks, Steps, statuses, and columns to run matters with confidence. * Suggested URL slug. legal-project-management-for-lawyers-workstream-design

      Lupl Workstream Design Principles: A Practical Guide to Legal Project Management for Lawyers

      Learn why large‑firm lawyers are ditching Excel checklists for dynamic,...

      Do AI Agents Have An Identity? Notes from InfoSec Discussions

      Agentic AI is in its early phases but advancing fast....