Eye on the blogosphere: Legal technology evangelist Nicole Black has it right on iPad

By Taryn Hartman
Legal News

Apple’s recently made some news with tech blog Gizmodo’s scoop on the next generation iPhone, a prototype of which apparently was left in a California bar by an engineer who’s been working on it. Whether it was an intentional plant to drum up buzz for the product or a genuine accident is an open question, but the exclusive (which the blog paid $5,000 for, to the individual who originally discovered the phone) made the agendas of most networks’ broadcasts earlier last week. Catch up on full coverage of the saga on Gizmodo at http://bit.ly/bnmqIG. (New URL shortener this week: http://bit.ly/.)
But let’s not forget the other, more revolutionary Apple product that hit the market this month, the iPad. Who has one? Who wants one? Who’s jealous of their friend or co-worker who has one? And, most importantly, what are you using it for? Send your testimonies to me at thartman@legalnews.com; not because I can afford one or anything, more because I’m just nosy.
I’m a big fan of legal technology evangelist Nicole Black, who has multiple fingers on several different pulses around the Web including a Twitter feed, a Tumblr, YouTube and UStream channels, a Web site where she posts screencasts featuring new tech products, and no less than five blogs, the newest of which focuses on the iPad (http://legal-ipad.com/).
Black has been a believer from the beginning. (Check out her awesome LawTechTalkTV episodes at http://bit.ly/cCmzN2; sometimes I’ll listen to them at work because I like the sound of her voice. Don’t judge me.) in the iPad’s potential to create a need for the product rather than tapping into a need that’s already out there. This is most likely going to happen via improved apps that utilize the iPad’s larger screen. The idea of additional apps didn’t even exist three years ago when the iPhone debuted, and look at what a conventional part of our lives they are now!
If you have an iPad, get added to the blog’s running list of attorneys who have them (http://
bit.ly/bSnACG). Black writes that her primary use for it is as “a media consumption device rather than a content creation device,” in that she prefers to use it for reading newspapers, magazines, books and RSS feeds but that it “is not, and will not, replace my laptop or iPhone.” She predicts that in addition to changing the way we use apps, the iPad will also set off an explosion of tablet computers from other tech companies. More discussion ensues on the blog’s Facebook page (http://bit.ly/
awloq8), where one covert remarks, “As a consumer bankruptcy attorney, I no longer have to take my rolling briefcase holding 20 client files to court. All I take to court is my iPad!”
Legal iPad also offers lots of great links to other blog posts about the iPad and it’s usability, particularly how lawyers are using it as detailed on a number of other legal blogs. A recent post included links to the ACFLS Family Law Blog (http://bit.ly/bbbSCB), Criminal Defense Law With An Apple (http://bit.ly/cFveDj), and the Young Lawyer Blog (http:
//bit.ly/aRDMPr), among others, but there are a number of similar lists spread across the last month that the blog’s been live.
The Family Law Blog says “In Court, I am now able to take notes; access my calendar, email and address book; read any file documents I’ve downloaded to the iPad; do legal research; access the web; read anything on my Kindle or the iBooks app; read newspapers and magazines; play client ed videos or do online CLE, etc.” …Law With An Apple recommends locking the device down to protect sensitive emails and client documents and offers instructions how. All pretty useful if you’re thinking about taking the plunge and wondering exactly what and how you’d apply the gadget to your law practice. One thing worth noting: a lot of people’s iPads have NAMES.
And finally, just a small housekeeping item: as avid readers of this column will recall, a while ago Editor Brian Cox and I were in an editing fight about the use of the word “commenter” (which I threw my full support behind early on) versus “commentator,” as they applied to individuals who posted comments on legal and other blogs around the Web.
On April 11, the New York Times settled the debate with the article “News Sites Rethink Anonymous Online Comments” (http://nyti.ms/9T8t4k) with its use of the word commenTERS. Not that I’ve ever been one to gloat or anything.?