What It Means to Be Technology Competent in 2026
When the ethical duty of technology competence officially arrived in 2012, courtesy of new Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the expectations were relatively modest. Much has changed since then. Technology is now deeply embedded in the legal profession, bringing both new risks and new opportunities that demand the modern litigator’s attention.
Technology is now deeply embedded in the legal profession, bringing both new risks and new opportunities that demand the modern litigator’s attention.
Early Technology Competence
Of course, professional ethics policymakers anticipated that technology would advance, and so would the legal profession’s obligation to understand how technological change could responsibly be wielded in the client’s interest. Not so long ago, in 2017, the American Bar Association published an article in which the author ventured the following topics as a minimum tech competency portfolio:
- case management software
- document management software
- billing software
- a PDF system with redacting capabilities
- the Microsoft Office Suite, particularly Microsoft Word
Most lawyers would recognize the list above as incomplete, even in 2017. Additional topics of necessary technology competence should include:
- data security and protecting client confidential information when using cloud computing services
- electronic discovery and handling of electronically stored information
- social media, for evidence-gathering and professional development
Today, however, the list is even longer.
Growing Technology Demands
To succeed professionally and maintain technology competence in modern legal practice, a lawyer is likely required to have familiarity (better yet: expertise) in some or all of the following tech-related disciplines.
Deposition technology
A competent litigator in 2026 should understand remote deposition platforms — not just how to join a video call, but how to manage exhibits, coordinate with co-counsel in real time, and ensure the integrity of the recorded proceeding. Remote and hybrid depositions now account for the majority of deposition proceedings nationwide, and the platforms that support them offer capabilities that did not exist five years ago.
Beyond the deposition itself, AI-powered summarization and analysis tools can now process a full transcript within hours, extracting key admissions, flagging inconsistencies, and organizing testimony by theme. Lawyers who rely exclusively on manual transcript review risk missing critical testimony — and spending far more time than the matter justifies.
Video proficiency
The shift to video-based legal practice accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic and never reversed. Courts conduct hearings by video. Mediations and settlement conferences run on Zoom and Microsoft Teams. Client meetings happen on screen as often as in person. Competence now includes the ability to present credibly on camera — managing lighting, audio, screen sharing, and participant controls — across multiple platforms, sometimes on the same day.
For litigators, video competence extends into the courtroom. Modern jurors expect visual clarity and engaging, well-produced storytelling. Attorneys who cannot operate courtroom presentation technology, display digital exhibits effectively, or deliver a visually compelling opening statement risk losing the attention — and the confidence — of the jury.
Engaging technology partners
Most law firms depend on outside vendors for critical technology services — managed IT providers, cloud hosting, e-discovery platforms, court reporting, and increasingly, AI-powered tools. The ethical obligation of competence extends to how lawyers select and supervise these partners.
A competent lawyer evaluates a technology vendor’s security policies, data handling practices, confidentiality agreements, and breach notification procedures before signing a contract. ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (2024) makes clear that outsourcing a task to a vendor does not outsource the ethical obligation. Lawyers who cannot assess whether a vendor handles client data responsibly — or who simply accept default terms without reading them — fall short of their ethical obligations to clients.
Digital presentations
Whether presenting to a jury, a judge, a mediator, or a boardroom, lawyers must communicate visually. Competent use of presentation software — designing slides that clarify rather than clutter, structuring a persuasive visual narrative, and handling digital exhibits smoothly — has become a baseline expectation.
This extends to exhibit management during depositions and hearings. Lawyers must know how to share, annotate, and organize digital exhibits in real time. Fumbling with technology during a critical examination undermines credibility. Competence means rehearsing the technology, not just the substance.
AI-Assisted document drafting
Generative AI tools can now produce first drafts of pleadings, contracts, correspondence, and research memoranda in minutes. Many lawyers already use them. The competence question centers not on whether to use AI, but on how to use it responsibly. ABA Formal Opinion 512 identifies the core obligation: lawyers must understand the capabilities and limitations of the AI tools they use, verify every output before relying on it, and never submit AI-generated content to a court without independent confirmation of its accuracy.
For more recent guidance, on March 30, the New Jersey Courts published a “starter” artificial intelligence policy for lawyers to consider and customize for use in their practices.
Practice management software
Early case and document management software packages have been eclipsed by modern technologies that manage all aspects of modern law practice. Electronic court filing systems, digital calendaring platforms, and practice management software form the operational backbone of a modern law practice. A lawyer who cannot navigate e-filing requirements, manage deadlines through digital calendaring, or use a practice management system to track matters and documents operates at a disadvantage that directly affects client service.
Lawyers should understand how their systems integrate, where single points of failure exist, and what happens when technology breaks down. Disaster planning — maintaining backup access to critical files, knowing how to function during an outage — falls squarely within the competence obligation.
Deepfakes and evidence authentication
AI-generated deepfakes — manipulated images, video, and audio — now present serious challenges to the integrity of digital evidence. A competent litigator must understand that digital evidence cannot be accepted at face value simply because it looks or sounds authentic.
Competence requires a working knowledge of forensic authentication methods, the ability to identify when expert testimony on digital evidence integrity might be necessary, and familiarity with evolving evidentiary standards. The Judicial Conference’s proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707, released for public comment in August 2025, would create the first federal framework for machine-generated evidence.
2026: Tech Competence Covers a Lot of Ground
The duty of technology competence in 2026 spans remote depositions, video communication, vendor oversight, digital presentations, AI-assisted drafting, practice management systems, evidence authentication, and cybersecurity. No single lawyer can master every domain overnight. And no state court or bar association has yet published a definitive list of required technology competencies.
Fortunately, state bar leaders have stated that competence does not demand mastery — it merely demands informed engagement and independent professional judgment. Now is a good time for every member of the legal community to ask: When it comes to technology, where do I stand?