For a long time, the definition of a competent lawyer was relatively stable.
You knew the law. You understood the procedure. You prepared your case. You showed up. You asked the right questions. You made your arguments. You learned from experience.
Technology sat on the periphery. It made things faster. It made things easier. It rarely changed the core of what it meant to practice well.
That is no longer true.
Litigation is beginning to move in real time. And when that happens, competence starts to shift.
During a recent conversation with Dean Whalen, chief legal officer of Readback, we explored what this shift looks like inside one of the most consequential moments in litigation: the deposition.
You can watch the full discussion here:
The takeaway is not that technology replaces lawyers. It does not. The takeaway is more subtle and more important.
When the tools available to lawyers change the speed, precision, and visibility of decision-making, the baseline for competent practice shifts with them.
The Old Rhythm Of Litigation
For decades, depositions followed a familiar pattern.
Lawyers prepared their outlines. They walked into the room. They asked questions. A stenographer recorded the exchange. And then everyone waited.
Days or weeks later, the transcript arrived.
Only then could lawyers confirm what had actually been said, whether key testimony landed as intended, and how the record might affect summary judgment or settlement strategy.
Dean described that experience with a mix of familiarity and frustration.
“I would hear attorneys say, ‘I think we did really well, but let’s see how the transcript reads.’”
That sentence captures an older rhythm of litigation. Act first. Analyze later.
It was acceptable because there was no alternative.
When Litigation Becomes Immediate
That rhythm is starting to break.
Real-time transcription, live annotation tools, and AI-assisted analysis are changing how depositions unfold. Lawyers can now see testimony as it happens. They can confirm whether an answer is precise. They can adjust their questions immediately.
In some cases, experts are observing the deposition remotely, reviewing testimony in real time, and feeding suggestions back to the examining attorney.
The deposition becomes less of a static event and more of a dynamic system.
Imagine a key witness gives a vague answer on causation.
In the old model, that ambiguity might not be discovered until days later, after the deposition is over.
In a real-time environment, it’s caught immediately, clarified on the spot, and locked into the record.
Dean put it plainly.
“In today’s information age, we shouldn’t have to walk out of there not knowing that we’ve precisely nailed the testimony.”
That expectation would have sounded unrealistic not long ago. Today, it is increasingly achievable.
And once something becomes achievable, it starts to influence what clients expect.
Competence Is No Longer Static
The legal profession has always tied competence to knowledge and judgment. That remains true. Technology does not replace either.
But competence has also always had a practical dimension. It reflects what a reasonable lawyer should know and do under current conditions.
Dean pointed to this directly when discussing ethical obligations.
“We as attorneys need to stay up and competent on technologies,” he said, referencing the professional expectation that lawyers understand tools that can benefit their clients.
There was a time when it was reasonable to ignore certain tools. They were too expensive. Too immature. Too unreliable.
That argument is becoming harder to sustain.
When real-time tools improve the accuracy of testimony, reduce ambiguity, and allow lawyers to correct gaps before they become embedded in the record, they are not simply conveniences. They are inputs into the quality of representation.
That does not mean every tool must be adopted. It does mean every tool worth considering must be evaluated.
The In-House Perspective
This shift is particularly important for in-house counsel.
Legal departments are not only consumers of legal services. They are managers of risk, cost, and outcomes. They rely on outside counsel to execute a litigation strategy, but they remain accountable for the results.
When depositions become more dynamic and data-rich, in-house leaders gain new leverage and face new responsibilities.
They can ask better questions.
How quickly do we know what happened in a deposition?
How confident are we in the accuracy of the transcript?
Are we adjusting strategy in real time or reacting weeks later?
These are not technical questions. They are management questions.
Dean framed it in practical terms.
“If you’re speaking to outside counsel, you want to make sure you’re using all the tools at your disposal to maximize your ability to win the case.”
That does not require in-house lawyers to become technologists. It requires them to understand where technology changes outcomes.
The Resistance Is Real
Not every lawyer is eager to embrace this shift.
Some argue that real-time tools are distracting. They prefer to maintain eye contact with the witness, focus on the flow of questioning, and avoid splitting attention between the person in front of them and the transcript on the screen.
That concern is legitimate.
Litigation is still a human process. Rapport, pressure, and presence matter. A deposition is not simply a data exercise.
Dean acknowledged this tension.
“Some lawyers want to be eye to eye with the witness,” he said. “They don’t want to be looking to the right to see how the transcript is being created.”
But he also described a middle ground.
“I call it the safety net use of it. Don’t look at it while you’re questioning. Use it during a break. Make sure you actually nailed the testimony.”
This framing matters.
The question is not whether technology should replace traditional skills. It should not. The question is whether technology can reinforce those skills by reducing avoidable error.
Guardrails Define The Future
As litigation becomes more dependent on technology, another issue becomes central: trust.
Not all tools are created equal. Not all systems protect data. Not all outputs are admissible.
Dean was clear about what matters.
“You want to make sure that your transcript is admissible. You want to make sure your data is protected. You want to make sure there’s human oversight.”
Those are not minor details. They are the difference between useful innovation and professional risk.
In many ways, this is where competence becomes most nuanced.
It is not enough to adopt new tools. Lawyers must understand how those tools work, what risks they introduce, and how to use them responsibly.
A Moving Baseline
The definition of competence does not change overnight.
It shifts gradually, almost imperceptibly, as new capabilities become standard and expectations adjust.
We are in the middle of one of those shifts.
Litigation is becoming more immediate. Information is becoming more accessible. Feedback loops are getting shorter.
In that environment, waiting weeks to understand what happened in a deposition starts to feel less like prudence and more like delay.
The profession does not need to abandon its foundations to adapt. Legal judgment, preparation, and advocacy remain central.
But the conditions under which those skills are applied are changing.
And when the conditions change, competence follows.
Lawyers who recognize this shift early won’t simply change how they practice. They’ll change the outcomes they deliver. Competence isn’t standing still. It’s keeping up.
Olga V. Mack is the CEO of TermScout, where she builds legal systems that make contracts faster to understand, easier to operate, and more trustworthy in real business conditions. Her work focuses on how legal rules allocate power, manage risk, and shape decisions under uncertainty. A serial CEO and former General Counsel, Olga previously led a legal technology company through acquisition by LexisNexis. She teaches at Berkeley Law and is a Fellow at CodeX, the Stanford Center for Legal Informatics. She has authored several books on legal innovation and technology, delivered six TEDx talks, and her insights regularly appear in Forbes, Bloomberg Law, VentureBeat, TechCrunch, and Above the Law. Her work treats law as essential infrastructure, designed for how organizations actually operate.
The post What Does Competence Mean When Litigation Happens In Real Time? appeared first on Above the Law.
For a long time, the definition of a competent lawyer was relatively stable.
You knew the law. You understood the procedure. You prepared your case. You showed up. You asked the right questions. You made your arguments. You learned from experience.
Technology sat on the periphery. It made things faster. It made things easier. It rarely changed the core of what it meant to practice well.
That is no longer true.
Litigation is beginning to move in real time. And when that happens, competence starts to shift.
During a recent conversation with Dean Whalen, chief legal officer of Readback, we explored what this shift looks like inside one of the most consequential moments in litigation: the deposition.
You can watch the full discussion here:
The takeaway is not that technology replaces lawyers. It does not. The takeaway is more subtle and more important.
When the tools available to lawyers change the speed, precision, and visibility of decision-making, the baseline for competent practice shifts with them.
The Old Rhythm Of Litigation
For decades, depositions followed a familiar pattern.
Lawyers prepared their outlines. They walked into the room. They asked questions. A stenographer recorded the exchange. And then everyone waited.
Days or weeks later, the transcript arrived.
Only then could lawyers confirm what had actually been said, whether key testimony landed as intended, and how the record might affect summary judgment or settlement strategy.
Dean described that experience with a mix of familiarity and frustration.
“I would hear attorneys say, ‘I think we did really well, but let’s see how the transcript reads.’”
That sentence captures an older rhythm of litigation. Act first. Analyze later.
It was acceptable because there was no alternative.
When Litigation Becomes Immediate
That rhythm is starting to break.
Real-time transcription, live annotation tools, and AI-assisted analysis are changing how depositions unfold. Lawyers can now see testimony as it happens. They can confirm whether an answer is precise. They can adjust their questions immediately.
In some cases, experts are observing the deposition remotely, reviewing testimony in real time, and feeding suggestions back to the examining attorney.
The deposition becomes less of a static event and more of a dynamic system.
Imagine a key witness gives a vague answer on causation.
In the old model, that ambiguity might not be discovered until days later, after the deposition is over.
In a real-time environment, it’s caught immediately, clarified on the spot, and locked into the record.
Dean put it plainly.
“In today’s information age, we shouldn’t have to walk out of there not knowing that we’ve precisely nailed the testimony.”
That expectation would have sounded unrealistic not long ago. Today, it is increasingly achievable.
And once something becomes achievable, it starts to influence what clients expect.
Competence Is No Longer Static
The legal profession has always tied competence to knowledge and judgment. That remains true. Technology does not replace either.
But competence has also always had a practical dimension. It reflects what a reasonable lawyer should know and do under current conditions.
Dean pointed to this directly when discussing ethical obligations.
“We as attorneys need to stay up and competent on technologies,” he said, referencing the professional expectation that lawyers understand tools that can benefit their clients.
There was a time when it was reasonable to ignore certain tools. They were too expensive. Too immature. Too unreliable.
That argument is becoming harder to sustain.
When real-time tools improve the accuracy of testimony, reduce ambiguity, and allow lawyers to correct gaps before they become embedded in the record, they are not simply conveniences. They are inputs into the quality of representation.
That does not mean every tool must be adopted. It does mean every tool worth considering must be evaluated.
The In-House Perspective
This shift is particularly important for in-house counsel.
Legal departments are not only consumers of legal services. They are managers of risk, cost, and outcomes. They rely on outside counsel to execute a litigation strategy, but they remain accountable for the results.
When depositions become more dynamic and data-rich, in-house leaders gain new leverage and face new responsibilities.
They can ask better questions.
How quickly do we know what happened in a deposition?
How confident are we in the accuracy of the transcript?
Are we adjusting strategy in real time or reacting weeks later?
These are not technical questions. They are management questions.
Dean framed it in practical terms.
“If you’re speaking to outside counsel, you want to make sure you’re using all the tools at your disposal to maximize your ability to win the case.”
That does not require in-house lawyers to become technologists. It requires them to understand where technology changes outcomes.
The Resistance Is Real
Not every lawyer is eager to embrace this shift.
Some argue that real-time tools are distracting. They prefer to maintain eye contact with the witness, focus on the flow of questioning, and avoid splitting attention between the person in front of them and the transcript on the screen.
That concern is legitimate.
Litigation is still a human process. Rapport, pressure, and presence matter. A deposition is not simply a data exercise.
Dean acknowledged this tension.
“Some lawyers want to be eye to eye with the witness,” he said. “They don’t want to be looking to the right to see how the transcript is being created.”
But he also described a middle ground.
“I call it the safety net use of it. Don’t look at it while you’re questioning. Use it during a break. Make sure you actually nailed the testimony.”
This framing matters.
The question is not whether technology should replace traditional skills. It should not. The question is whether technology can reinforce those skills by reducing avoidable error.
Guardrails Define The Future
As litigation becomes more dependent on technology, another issue becomes central: trust.
Not all tools are created equal. Not all systems protect data. Not all outputs are admissible.
Dean was clear about what matters.
“You want to make sure that your transcript is admissible. You want to make sure your data is protected. You want to make sure there’s human oversight.”
Those are not minor details. They are the difference between useful innovation and professional risk.
In many ways, this is where competence becomes most nuanced.
It is not enough to adopt new tools. Lawyers must understand how those tools work, what risks they introduce, and how to use them responsibly.
A Moving Baseline
The definition of competence does not change overnight.
It shifts gradually, almost imperceptibly, as new capabilities become standard and expectations adjust.
We are in the middle of one of those shifts.
Litigation is becoming more immediate. Information is becoming more accessible. Feedback loops are getting shorter.
In that environment, waiting weeks to understand what happened in a deposition starts to feel less like prudence and more like delay.
The profession does not need to abandon its foundations to adapt. Legal judgment, preparation, and advocacy remain central.
But the conditions under which those skills are applied are changing.
And when the conditions change, competence follows.
Lawyers who recognize this shift early won’t simply change how they practice. They’ll change the outcomes they deliver. Competence isn’t standing still. It’s keeping up.
Olga V. Mack is the CEO of TermScout, where she builds legal systems that make contracts faster to understand, easier to operate, and more trustworthy in real business conditions. Her work focuses on how legal rules allocate power, manage risk, and shape decisions under uncertainty. A serial CEO and former General Counsel, Olga previously led a legal technology company through acquisition by LexisNexis. She teaches at Berkeley Law and is a Fellow at CodeX, the Stanford Center for Legal Informatics. She has authored several books on legal innovation and technology, delivered six TEDx talks, and her insights regularly appear in Forbes, Bloomberg Law, VentureBeat, TechCrunch, and Above the Law. Her work treats law as essential infrastructure, designed for how organizations actually operate.
The post What Does Competence Mean When Litigation Happens In Real Time? appeared first on Above the Law.
