Ernie Svenson‘s comments on AI skeptics are right, as usual:
I’ve seen this movie before. The plot is always exactly the same: new tech emerges and gains some buzz. Then naysayers and nitpickers who haven’t used the tech emerge and, eventually when adoption is massive, they retreat back into the dark loam of smug ignorance to await the next innovation cycle.
“Crypto is like Vegas without the drinks or dinners or shows. And you’re playing an unlicensed, unregistered casino.”
Ben McKenzie, writing in Fast Company
Yep.
Generative AI for Dummies is not really for dummies.
Catherine Reach understands better than anyone the best way for most lawyers to become more efficient is learning to use the tools they already own. Investing some time to learn to use styles can turbo charge your productivity. Check out Catherine’s newest article.
I can’t think of anyone who has contributed more to the advancement of legal technology than Dennis Kennedy. I’ve known and respected Dennis a long time and was privileged to collaborate with with him for several years, so it’s great to see that the American Legal Technology Awards has given him their Lifetime Achievement Award.
Dennis did not merely look good his suit that day, but touched on some worthy ideas in his acceptance speech and blog post. My favorites?
DK: Amidst all this change, one thing has remained constant: the spirit of generosity and collaboration that defines our community.
Gee, sounds like I’m not the only person to be grateful for the generosity of others working in the legal tech field! I’ve received more generosity over the past quarter century than I could every fully acknowledge.
DK: Give Back: As you progress in your career, look for opportunities to mentor others and contribute to the community. This not only helps others but also reinforces your own learning and network.
The older I get, the more I appreciate the joy of giving, especially since on balance my generosity usually nets me much more benefits than I give away.
Too many presenters seem to feel an odd compulsion to apologize the the audience at the beginning of their talk. Not a good idea!
My latest article at LLRX explores the reasons for this strange behavior and suggests situation when apologies are appropriate and when they are not. Thanks to the ever-alert Sabrina I. Pacifici for picking this up.
2024 has three months yet to go, but based on the first nine months Transformative Negotiations has to be a top contender. It makes a large contribution to improving access to justice, with the bonus of providing tools that will improve negotiations skills in general.
Highly recommended. My full review is available at LLRX.com.
Presenters sometimes ask “Should I give the audience handouts? A simple question deserves a simple answer:
Yes, nearly always.
There are many reasons for this. The simplest is that at least a few audience members, perhaps many, will consider the failure to provide some written accompaniment to be evidence of apathy and/or laziness. Apathetic slacker is not the image most of us want to project.
However, handouts are not merely an appearance issue. Well-done handouts enhance audience understanding and increase the chance they will retain your message. They are also a basic courtesy for the audience, freeing them from the frantic scramble to write down every important thing you say. (You will be saying important things, right?).
Excuses for Lack of Handouts
Excuse 1: I want the audience to be paying attention to me while I’m speaking, not a handout.
I call this the narcissist excuse. Few presenters are capable of constructing such enthralling handouts, but even if you are one of this talented group, is it really so bad if people learn the material from your handout instead of your eloquent voice?
In any event, if you think your handouts are really that extraordinary, why not distribute them after your talk instead of at the beginning? If you take this approach, be sure to let the audience know at the beginning of your remarks so they won’t feel a need to take duplicative notes.
Excuse 2: Handouts will dilute the value of my jokes or other surprises.
This excuse has a silver lining of sorts: At least the presenter is trying to keep the audience engaged and believes their material is good enough to deserve protection.
However, in this situation, it is possible to have the best of both worlds:
Again, there’s no law against distributing your handouts at the end of your talk. Be sure to alert the audience when you begin speaking that you will have handouts so they don’t feel obligated to write down every word you say.
Another approach is to distribute an edited version of the material at the beginning. Good slideshow software facilitates preparing a redacted version of your remarks. You can create a separate version of your slide show that omits the surprise-killing slides. This still requires a little extra work, but it’s worth it if you have high-quality jokes or other surprises.
Excuse 3: Distributing handouts will make the audience remember the presentation better, so I can’t use the same material next year.
Wow! This is my absolute favorite excuse. There’s so much wrong with it that I don’t know where to start.
Isn’t helping the audience remember what you are saying the point? This excuse tacitly admits that handouts increase audience retention of the material. Isn’t that a good thing, instead of a bad thing?
Our audiences should not have to suffer the same canned presentation every year. This approach is no more attractive by delivering the material in a quasi-stealth manner, withholding handouts that might help the audiences remember the material.
Carolyn Elefant is tired of talking about whether AI will change the legal profession’s practice of time-based billing. She has a better list of questions. My answers, FWIW: