The educational seminars at LegalTech, intended to illuminate uses of the technology, were dull sideshows, packed with nonlawyer drones from the show's main sponsor, PriceWaterhouseCoopers. These consultants' speaking skills generally were lackluster, except when they launched into prepared sales pitches for their services. LegalTech is held in several cities around the country each year, and the weather and caliber of hotels varies a great deal more than the program.

By contrast, the American Bar Association Techshow, convened every March in Chicago, the ABA's home town, boasted a lineup of superb speakers. Most were practicing lawyers with no vested interest in the technology or in hawking services to colleagues. The nonprofit, educational focus of the Techshow shined the spotlight not on the equipment, but on ABA members and potential members, letting them showcase their high-tech skills and engage their colleagues in spirited discussions about ethical, business and cultural issues raised by the technology. Techshow's emphasis on education served both as a needed balance to the commercial atmosphere of its larger rival, and as an instrument to further the ABA's educational mission. Indeed, in years past, some of the vendors at the ABA show complained that the seminars and workshops were so interesting that people weren't spending much time on the exhibition floor.

A few months earlier and 1000 miles away, by contrast, no fewer than six coffee vendors had set up their equipment at New York LegalTech. This prompted the Wall Street Journal, in its report on the show, to focus predominantly on the amount of caffeine needed to navigate the enormous exhibit halls, which had come to resemble a Middle Eastern bazaar of software, hardware, Websites and mock-courtroom displays -- not to mention the java vendors.

Those tainted with the idealistic streak that still runs in the profession dreamed about a LegalTech that focused as much on good, educational speakers as on the technology, or about an ABA Techshow that supplemented its strong lectures with tours of a profitable exhibition hall. There were some smaller tech shows, most notably those organized by Glasser LegalWorks, but the giants had the potential to do so much, if only they would learn from each other.

Now Allied & Ossified
About two years ago, LegalTech, which is owned by American Lawyer Media Co., was hired to manage the ABA Techshow. [Disclosure: I am a former employee of AmLawMedia, but as ALM continues to acquire legal publications around the country, soon every legal journalist will be either a current or former ALM employee]. So, did this joining of forces achieve the idealistic goal of improving a strong, nonprofit ABA Techshow?

Oh, ye of lots of faith, how cruelly you can be hurt! On the contrary, the ABA seems to have adopted the profit-making perspective of its erstwhile competitor, weakening its educational offerings and focusing on the equipment over lawyers' use of the technology in their practices. Perhaps it is a sign of the times, but it seemed that more speakers were promoting themselves or their companies from the podium -- which is (formally, at least) taboo.

This year's Techshow, called "T2K: Future Technology Today!", was disappointing in two respects: the quality of the speakers, and the continuing chasm between the speakers and the exhibit hall. During the three-day show, many of the same speakers gave the same presentations as in years past. By now, however, the speeches were tired, and too many of the speakers were not practicing lawyers -- in effect, they were not practicing what they preached. "The show has become ossified," said one Minnesota attorney.

The perception among some regular attendees is that a closed group of Techshow board members gathers in a smoke-filled room to choose its friends and colleagues as speakers. With the exception of the smoke these days, that perception probably is not far from the truth. Because the ABA reimburses speakers for hotel expenses only for the days they are scheduled to lecture, moreover, many speakers appeared on several days and on several panels, exacerbating that "same old, same old" feeling.

In response to such suggestions, an ABA Techshow board member said that anyone is welcome to join the board, or to e-mail the Techshow faculty members from the show's Web site (http://www.techshow.com/). The board member added that the board made special effort this year to include women and minorities among the speakers.

Had anyone actually heard them speak, or were they chosen solely because they met stringent sex and racial criteria? Is there a process of recommending people as speakers to board members? Are tapes submitted? How are the white men chosen?

Get it in Writing
Apparently, to make room for new speakers, people who had not provided materials in time for publication were removed from the speakers' list. No matter how well they presented, no matter how fine their expertise, no matter what people wrote on the ubiquitous evaluation forms, if the speakers didn't supply handouts to the ABA board by the Jan. 10 deadline for the late-March conference, they were not invited back to speak. Given that few people claim to attend the Techshow for the wealth of printed material, the sensibility of this policy surely can be called into question.

As if to spite their own criteria, this was the first year that the ABA did not distribute the precious printed materials -- large, heavy books that frequently were left behind -- free of charge. [A free CD-ROM of the show's materials, however, was included in the registration price]. It always had been difficult to locate a particular lecture in the materials - the books had no tabs - and it is even harder to do so on the CD if you can't remember the name of the speaker or the title of the specific lecture. Welcome to the Information Age.

It may have been inevitable that speaker selection would fall prey to the internal politics and unique decision-making process for which the ABA is known and loved. Nevertheless, despite all efforts, a complaint was raised yet again about the dearth of women on the panels. Perhaps you can't win on this issue.

The ideological biases of some speakers - gratuitous Microsoft-bashing, for example -- also grated after a few days. When most of the attendees use Microsoft products, this does little but insult the audience.

On With the Show
Techshow is divided into separate tracks, appropriately segregating the technologically inclined in the "advanced" track from the other attendees, who speak English rather than technese. The tracks this year were dubbed "General, Solo and Small Firm"; "Corporate/Large Firm"; "Advanced/IT"; "Nets"; "Litigation/Judicial"; and "Decision Makers." There is some talk about eliminating the "Nets" track, given that the Internet, intranets, extranets and futurenets now permeate all aspects of an attorney's work life.

In at least one previous year, Techshow included a "Tech 101" track. Alas, this track no longer exists, evidencing the widening gap between those designing the show and those attending it. Certainly, many lawyers still need basic education about equipping a solo office or outfitting a home office, and the discussion of technology's effect on basic legal principles -- such as preservation of attorney-client privilege and client relationships in the age of electronic communication -- never goes out of style. There should be a way to present basic high-tech information in a way that isn't condescending. Hey, it could replace the "Nets" track.

MDP Monsters & Self-Help Specters
In years past, a specific issue often lent a unifying theme to the show: "Should You Switch From WordPerfect to Word?"; "Should You Have a Web Site and What Do You Do With One if You Do?"; "What's an Extranet (or Intranet) and What Do You Do With It?"; "How Do You Get a Handle on the E-mail Avalanche and Other Technology Overload Nightmares?" These questions persist, for many practitioners, at some level.

This year, however, there is a much larger and more interesting challenge: the threat of multidisciplinary practices (MDPs), largely in the form of accounting firms starting to infringe on traditional legal monopolies by offering high-end legal services, accompanied by top-notch technology ("let Arthur Andersen handle your next lawsuit"). At the opposite end of the client spectrum, Websites offering flat-rate consultations with lawyers, or materials to help consumers handle matters pro se, are proliferating, building on the presence of Nolo.com ("you don't need a lawyer -- do it yourself!").

Among the most intriguing of these newer technologies is a British venture called Desktop Lawyer (www.desktoplawyer.co.uk). Like Nolo Press, Desktop Lawyer helps people learn about or handle divorce, landlord-tenant matters, and simple trusts and estates planning. A U.S. edition may be rolled out soon, says Grahame Cohen, chief executive officer of London's Epoch Software, which established Desktop Lawyer. Britain is unencumbered by ethical rules, such as those governing unauthorized practice of law. A user, therefore, can call a phone number provided on the Website from anywhere in Britain -- presumably, the world, for that matter -- and ask for legal advice. "As long as one doesn't identify oneself as a solicitor, one can take the call," explains Richard Cohen, Grahame's brother and partner.

Only two of the 30 ABA Techshow sessions touched on this new way of providing legal services, both of them in a fearful tone: "The British are coming!" This is a shame. Every technology provides opportunity. On his Website, Richard Granat, who directs the Center for Law Practice Technology in Owings Mills, Md. (www.digital-lawyer.com), has written about the "latent market" for legal services -- those who can afford to pay, but who are worried about the uncertainty of legal fees. These people are concerned that retaining lawyers might make matters worse, are eager to educate themselves. Lawyers can become a part of this process, or stand like deer caught in the headlights. At this conference, the deer were in abundance.

Peak Presentations
Techshow did have its high points. Predictably, some of the strongest presentations were made by litigators, who shine in front of any audience (we all are potential jurors to them). Houston's Sam Guiberson, Phoenix's assistant U.S. attorney Mike Arkfeld, and Dave Bilinsky, of the Law Society of British Columbia, led a practical discussion of technology planning -- what to buy, how much it should cost and how long it will last. "Ten Bonehead Ways Not To Examine a Witness in a High-Tech Courtroom" was an entertaining look at the shortcomings of technology, led by JusticeLink's Jim Keane and Karen Hirschman of Vinson & Elkins.

Other skillful presentations were made by those who use the technology every day. Dennis Kennedy, of Thompson Coburn in St. Louis, and Alan Steinberg, of that city's Steinberg & Steinberg -- self-described "Palm Pilot fanatics" -- showed how they integrated the tool into their practice.

One of the most surprisingly effective seminars featured voice recognition (VR) -- a product that, in previous tech shows, served mainly as comic relief ("let's watch it mess up!"). It's still a delight to frustrate the equipment on the exhibit floor, where the software can be confused by background noise. Three attorneys who actually use VR in their practices, however, were able to emphasize the importance of a good microphone, and of completing the seemingly inane exercises needed to train the machine to the user's voice. Apparently, VR is like a dog ? It must be housebroken if you're going to live together. A panel comprising Bruce L. Dorner, of Dorner Law Offices in Londonderry, N.H., Wells Anderson, of Wells Anderson Legal Tech Services in Minneapolis, and Richard Georges, a sole practitioner in St. Petersburg, Fla., excited the crowd about VR's potential time-saving and efficiency benefits. Just don't try to dictate in your car (again, all that background noise).

A focus on connecting and communicating with clients -- in short, marketing -- was a welcome development for a profession that has long given lip service to client service and regarded technology only as a way to save money. "It's not a technology conference; it's a marketing conference," said a Chicago attorney. "I'm not sure if that's good or bad."

The discussion of using technology to market a small firm in a dignified, ethical way was in keeping with the ABA's highest standards. Nancy Roberts Linder, of Nancy Roberts Linder Consulting, and Jim Calloway, of the Oklahoma Bar Association, spoke of basic marketing techniques that can be less expensive and more effective when combined with technology. Targeted newsletters on specific topics, such as "How To Protect Children During a Divorce," and "Ten Things Not to Do During Bankruptcy," now can be produced and circulated from a desktop. Mr. Calloway, refreshingly, had statistics showing that he saved money publishing on his own, rather than paying an outside printer, after factoring in the cost of his own time. He discouraged direct advertising, a lure for smaller firms, in favor of subtle techniques, such as demonstrating technical prowess, that seemed to resonate well with professionals in the audience.

A keynote address by -- gasp! -- a client, Robert Young, chairman and CEO of Durham, N.C.'s RedHat, Inc., provided a strong dose of high-tech reality. He was young. He wore a red baseball hat. He demanded responsiveness from his attorneys, but didn't care what technology they used. Meet the future client.

Tried and true ABA showpieces also did not disappoint. "Sixty Sites in Sixty Minutes," "Fifty Gadgets in Fifty Minutes," and their progeny, such as "Sixty Sites for Fun and Families," were as entertaining as ever.

Time to visit the exhibit floor was inked into the schedule, making for a more relaxed day, but there still was a frustrating lack of guidance to vendors or to services for the newcomer. There was, however, a nifty cybercafe (alert the Wall Street Journal!).

As technology increasingly is integrated into the legal world, the ABA's educational role grows more critical. Techshow has the potential to lead the profession. Maybe this year was a low-water mark; perhaps, in 2001, accountants, clients and other fine speakers will crowd a program that, both in seminars and on the exhibit floor, will educate attendees with regard to the opportunities afforded by technology, even while acknowledging its shortcomings. Admirably, the ABA opens itself to feedback; Techshow's board next meets at the Sheraton Harborside in Portsmouth, N.H., on May 4-7.