Let attorneys be attorneys and leave the admin work to those who get paid to get it done. It’s a battle as old as WordPerfect versus Word: Should lawyers type? Since lawyers have keyboarding skills, how many can be assigned to one admin assistant? Two? Three? Five? Imagine all the cost savings … right? Wrong. Instead, imagine all the headaches. All the extra stuff that you, the lawyer, get to do — or worse, pile up because you are too busy to handle it. Am I saying lawyers shouldn’t know how to do administrative work? No. I’m saying you shouldn’t have to do it. The Shrinking Admin Assistant: How Did We Get Here? Long ago, before lawyers began worrying that robots would replace them, tech companies with war chests flush with capital started pitching the many ways “technology” removes the need for assistants. Like assistants were the problem. Here’s the disconnect: Technology requires input — usually keyboarding, but also formatting, calculating, and searching. Whatever the input, it should not be done at the highest cost to the firm — lawyers’ time — or to the detriment of lawyers’ mental health and overall well-being. According to the “2021 State of U.S. Small Law Firms” report from Thomson Reuters, the proportion of lawyers’ time spent practicing law has dropped to a new low of only 56%, barely half of their time. The report, released this week, says that lawyers are increasingly concerned about how managing administrative tasks impacts their ability to practice law. They now rate it as their top concern. This is why, when I hear that a tech “replaces” the need for a human in the process of law firm operations, I call it what it is: BS sales tactics. Three Reasons Admin Staff Are Integral to Your Law Firm’s Operations Here

Let attorneys be attorneys and leave the admin work to those who get paid to get it done. It’s a battle as old as WordPerfect versus Word: Should lawyers type? Since lawyers have keyboarding skills, how many can be assigned to one admin assistant? Two? Three? Five? Imagine all the cost savings … right? Wrong. Instead, imagine all the headaches. All the extra stuff that you, the lawyer, get to do — or worse, pile up because you are too busy to handle it. Am I saying lawyers shouldn’t know how to do administrative work? No. I’m saying you shouldn’t have to do it. The Shrinking Admin Assistant: How Did We Get Here? Long ago, before lawyers began worrying that robots would replace them, tech companies with war chests flush with capital started pitching the many ways “technology” removes the need for assistants. Like assistants were the problem. Here’s the disconnect: Technology requires input — usually keyboarding, but also formatting, calculating, and searching. Whatever the input, it should not be done at the highest cost to the firm — lawyers’ time — or to the detriment of lawyers’ mental health and overall well-being. According to the “2021 State of U.S. Small Law Firms” report from Thomson Reuters, the proportion of lawyers’ time spent practicing law has dropped to a new low of only 56%, barely half of their time. The report, released this week, says that lawyers are increasingly concerned about how managing administrative tasks impacts their ability to practice law. They now rate it as their top concern. This is why, when I hear that a tech “replaces” the need for a human in the process of law firm operations, I call it what it is: BS sales tactics. Three Reasons Admin Staff Are Integral to Your Law Firm’s Operations Here

MyCase, a long-standing case management software provider, has established itself as an effective all-in-one solution for law firms, jam-packed with in-house features. Thus, MyCase has traditionally restricted the number of integration partners to only the most popular and ubiquitous technology platforms, like Microsoft Office and MailChimp, to name two. Now, in step with the growth of the legal tech space overall, the MyCase universe is beginning to expand. MyCase is still an effective standalone platform for law firms, but MyCase will integrate with other top-shelf technology partners when the opportunity presents itself. And so, opportunity has knocked: MyCase recently increased its slate of integration offerings by two, adding CalendarRules and Smith.ai to its stable. Let’s take a look at each, in turn. On the Docket: MyCase Adds CalendarRules Integration CalendarRules is a calendar add-on feature that pulls and calculates deadlines for specific courts around the United States. If there’s one thing lawyers worry about more than revenue, it’s malpractice claims; and, one consistent bogeyman invading those nightmares is missed court deadlines. CalendarRules makes it easier to manage court deadlines, including updates to rules, while largely removing human error from the equation. Now, MyCase users can add CalendarRules features to the MyCase calendar. Once the integration for CalendarRules has been installed through MyCase, users simply select the “Add Court Rule” option from the calendar or a case page to add CalendarRules functionality. From there, a handy wizard guides the user through the setup of the particular ruleset, through the selection of a case type, relevant jurisdiction, and rules triggers. Once that’s done, the user selects “Calculate,” and the relevant court deadlines are added to the MyCase calendar. (Note that available jurisdictions are based on the user’s underlying CalendarRules subscription.) MyCase users also have additional functionality available to them, in tweaking these

The Apex Court, while hearing an appeal, made an observation that any changes in the date of birth, specifically in the service records, could not be claimed as of right. The bench denied the existence of this right even in cases of compelling evidence placed before the court. In the instant case, the employee/respondent of the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited filed a plea requesting its employer to change his date of birth. Later, he also filed a suit for declaration regarding his date of birth, however, the same had been dismissed by Trial Court. Thereafter, on an appeal to High Court, the bench allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the order of High Court, the corporation approached the Supreme Court wherein it contended that the right claimed by employee could not be provided and the advantage of alteration could not be extended to a State-government servant. The counsel on behalf of corporation backed its argument by contending that the request could’ve been allowed, provided the employee had made an application within three years from which his birth date and age had been accepted and recorded in the service records, or within one year from the date of commencement of Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974, whichever appeared to be later. The counsel further submitted that in the instant case, the employee had filed the application for the first time after the lapse of 24 years. The apex court bench accepted the contentions of corporation and observed that such applications could be processed only in accordance with the relevant provisions. The same could not be entertained when filed after a long delay or when the employee had reached the age of superannuation. The bench further observed that the application for alteration in date of birth