I had heard rumors of attorneys who were technology averse, but it was not until this week when a private practitioner informed me s/he checks email once a week and that s/he only has internet access gratis from a law school where s/he teaches one night a week.

Generally, when we talk about lack to access to information systems, we ignore the individuals who due to custom/practice/etc elect a work style contrary to the vast majority of their peers.  We tend to focus on low-income individuals and forget that some folks really want little to do with technology.  In an age where lawyers are expected to be continuously available and connected, some are not.

In my experience, I think this is one of the biggest challenges for technologists: how do we help move organizational customs or pathways to adopt best practices without the stigma of the change being driven by our own need to implement and have move blinky lights?

A more salient question on the self-enforced lack of access is what a practitioner as such would do if s/he were accused of not being competent because the ABA rules, at least for the issue such as redaction/meta data, come from a place of electing to use a technology requires competence in that technology.

I've always negotiated a, "I use email and that's the best way to reach me.  What's the best way to reach you?" discussion.  I know folks use other systems.  It's interesting, because folks need us techs, they will adjust to our models. . .how often do we adjust to theirs?  And if we do, are we being sympathetic or enabling?

I guess the small solo practitioner is really the lowest end of the spectrum in terms of having tech support and therefore, unless it's that super hip and connected 30 and under crowd, recalcitrant to the adoption and resistant to training in spite of potential benefits and near universality of practice.