 |
| Heidi J. T. Exner |
The cognitive crisis hits home
In a recent New York Times op-ed, There’s a Good Reason You Can’t Concentrate, contributor Cal Newport equates today’s digital technology overexposure to consuming “ultraprocessed snacks like Doritos and Oreos, which are Frankenfoods made by reconstituting stock ingredients.” He makes a good point: all these digital Doritos we are consuming are indeed eroding our ability to think deeply. For lawyers bound by the duty of competence under the Federation of Law Societies’ Model Code and corresponding provincial codes, this cognitive decay poses an existential threat. I propose it’s time for a “slow lawyering revolution” to strike a balance in our practices and reclaim our analytical edge.
Wutthinan Yosmadee: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Tech’s double-edged sword
Consider the legal workplace: Microsoft reports office workers are interrupted every two minutes by email and Slack, mirroring Newport’s notions of the “hyperactive hive mind.” A Thomson Reuters study also flags the mixed blessing of AI: 89 per cent of Canadian legal pros are racing toward it for efficiency, yet 74 per cent still worry about risks like skill atrophy and ethical pitfalls such as hallucinated precedents in briefs. Meanwhile, generative AI promises to sift documents or draft memorandums, but offloading core tasks induces “brain fry,” which is mental exhaustion that results from context-switching, per Boston Consulting Group research. For lawyers dissecting complex proceedings or legal issues, all of this ultimately translates to shallower analyses, risking overlooked nuances in claims or critical jurisprudence that can impact their clients’ lives or livelihoods.
Canadian lawyers also undeniably benefit from modern tech.
AI-enriched platforms, which can generate summaries and classifications for cases across Canada and beyond, slash research hours while flagging jurisdiction-specific precedents, freeing counsel to focus on novel applications rather than exhaustive manual searches. Far from weakening minds, many argue these tools can even provide strategic insight by surfacing patterns in vast case law databases.
Cloud-based systems that are tailored for Canadian privacy compliance and law society standards also automate billing, client intake and document versioning, recovering a significant amount of time on routine billable tasks. These tools also enable instant conflict checks and audit-ready records, thereby reducing administrative drag and burnout. With these tools, lawyers can provide responsive service without sacrificing family time or mental bandwidth.
By cutting travel via secure remote collaboration, automating some routine tasks and slashing research hours with the assistance of AI, legal tech fosters work-life balance amid Canada’s demanding dockets. It mitigates the “brain fry” Newport describes, not by avoidance, but by channelling effort into high-value work like deep output review or creative analysis.
However, I wonder if this is also leading to lawyers taking on more, and faster. Few lawyers are inclined to pass up opportunities to add to their billable hours, after all.
Igniting the slow lawyering revolution
Rule 3.1-1 of the Model Code requires “competence reasonably required,” including tech savvy. But what of preserving the deep focus underpinning it? As Newport notes, 40 per cent of U.S. GDP hinges on knowledge work; in Canada, legal services contribute billions to the economy, alchemizing thought into justice.
Lawyers today face constant tech temptations that can both increase efficiency and hinder them by fragmenting attention and dulling critical thinking. By “slow lawyering revolution,” what I mean is we can intentionally curb superfluous tools like endless apps and notifications, so we can reclaim mental clarity and sharpen cognitive edges that are essential for legal mastery.
The good news is that revolutions happen all the time, and they don’t need to be boisterous. For example, post-Eisenhower, aerobics went from fringe to norm, birthing 55,000 U.S. gyms. Newport proposes “digital nutrition,” which requires shunning ultra-processed content like Instagram scrolls, akin to ditching Doritos. For lawyers, let’s extend this to our professional habits.
We can begin by evaluating devices and software, eliminating redundant apps that overlap functions, such as multiple note-taking tools or excessive communication platforms. Opting for paper notebooks or single-purpose devices for drafting can also reduce context-switching that also wastes a significant amount of work time. Routine digital tasks can also be delegated, preserving focus for high-stakes analysis. Embracing digital boundaries can even be as simple as reading physical law books or walking while brainstorming arguments. These are also excellent ways to foster presence and creativity, as our judgment remains solely our own in these activities. Ample rest, nature breaks, gym time (or whatever your bend might be for physical fitness) should also be non-negotiables to maintain our decision-making prowess.
We track everything else in our worlds, so in the very least, we could be tracking our screen time weekly, with the view to halve non-essential use. I believe we’ll find this will boost attention spans that are otherwise eroded by multitasking.
Why it matters
Don’t get me wrong. I am probably one of tech’s biggest advocates; I stand firmly in the camp that embracing it is not only wise, but also inevitable. However, when we use tech as a crutch rather than to fortify our skill set, we may be establishing new mentally sedentary norms. As lawyers, we are stewards of justice, and we must not cede our most valuable assets and tools in our craft (namely, our brains) to Silicon Valley. We’ve already tamed tobacco and trans fats; now is the time to resist digital Frankenfoods.
At the end of the day, achieving the right balance between putting technology to its best use and overreliance equates to sharper advocacy, fewer errors and resilient wellness. In the courtroom, where high stakes can crush lives, cognitive fitness upholds duty to clients and public. Join the revolution: log off, read deeply and think fiercely. Our profession — and justice — depend on it.
Heidi J. T. Exner is an award-winning white-collar crime fighter, and she is passionate about making the world a better place. She is the founding partner of Ethical Edge Advisors, the founder and chair of the Exner Foundation, a student-at-law in the province of Alberta, and a bar candidate in New York state. She welcomes you to find her on LinkedIn or check out her biography page on Ethical Edge’s website.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.