Document Type


Publication Date



This article presents a theoretical model by which a judge could impose civil sanctions on an attorney - relying in part on Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - for that attorney’s failure to utilize time- and expense-saving technology.

Rule 1 now charges all participants in the legal system to ensure the “just, speedy and inexpensive” resolution of disputes. In today’s litigation environment, a lawyer managing a case in discovery needs robust technological competence to meet that charge. However, the legal industry is slow to adopt technology, favoring “tried and true” methods over efficiency. This conflict is evident in data showing clients’ and judges’ frustration with the lack of technological competency among the Bar, especially as it pertains to electronic discovery. Such frustration has led judges to publicly scold luddite attorneys, and has led state bar associations to pass anti-luddite ethical rules. Sanctions for “luddite” attorneys are an extreme, but theoretically possible, amplification of that normative movement. Sanctions leveraging Rule 1 require a close reading of the revised rule, and challenge the notion of Rule 1 as a “guide” to the Rules, but a case can be made for such sanctions based on the Rule’s affirmative charge.

The article briefly explores two examples of conduct warranting such sanctions in rare scenarios such as: (1) the failure of an attorney to utilize machine intelligence and concept analytics in the review of information for production and (2) the failure of an attorney to produce documents in accessible electronic format.

The article concludes by suggesting that well-publicized sanctions for “luddite” attorneys may break through the traditional barriers that limit innovation in the legal industry.


Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, FRCP, Rule 1, legal practice, litigation, electronic discovery, e-discovery, information systems, technological competence, professional responsibility, bar discipline, electronically stored information, ESI

Publication Title

George Mason Law Review

Publication Citation

25 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 36 (2017)