In Progress – Law and Innovation 2

October 26, 2016

JD, Ryerson?

Ryerson University in Toronto is developing a proposal to create a new JD program “that focuses on innovation in legal education for the benefit of graduates, their communities, and the broader society.” That quotation comes from Ryerson’s Letter of Intent, available here. It makes fascinating reading. Compared to the traditional law curriculum, it is a profound re-think of what training lawyers is all about, with emphasis on producing “graduates who possess the initiative to respond to unmet legal needs, who exhibit a commitment to social engagement and community leadership, who are able to envision new applications of their education.” Obviously I like these ideas; in a smaller way, the same ones are reflected in L21C. (On the other hand, I’ve seen the LOI described as “buzzword bingo” – I don’t really agree but I still think it’s funny.)

We’ve had an interesting debate on our internal course site (Mattermost) about this. With the permission of those who contributed, I’ve moved it here so that it can be read more widely.

I hope others, in L21C and beyond, will add their thoughts.

Me: this is the letter of intent outlining Ryerson’s proposal to open a law school. I’d be very interested to know what you think of this. I expect that many of you will share the views of skeptics who have pointed out the shortage of articling positions in Ontario (and generally), and questioned whether Toronto needs another law school. Personally, I’m very persuaded by the argument that there is a need in society for a different kind of law school, one that uses innovative approaches to build skills and provide hands-on experience, focused on the needs of the users of legal services. I think it will be challenging to turn that aspiration into real results, but Ryerson has already shown real leadership in legal training, and they might just pull it off. Chris Bentley is one of our guest speakers, so you will have a chance to talk to him about it.

Lorna: The job market being what it is, they’d only be doing their students a disservice to start running a program and graduating people out into the employment void. If it is the case that they will provide the kind of training that’ll comes from articling, and where a good part of the curriculum is aimed toward alternative careers in law, then it could be quite promising.

Me: think they have thought very carefully about the argument that Ontario doesn’t need another law school and that they will be adding more people to a saturated job market. Those are serious concerns. In my opinion the proposal has serious, convincing answers to them. One of the answers – and I find this very compelling – is that there is clearly a huge need for more lawyers, if you look at it not from the point of view of law firm hiring stats but at social need. Ontario’s population has doubled in the last 30 years, but only one new law school has been added in that time. Most people who experience legal problems don’t get help from a lawyer because they can’t afford it. If something is too expensive for those who need it to access it, that suggests an undersupply, not an oversupply. Of course it does nothing to fix this problem if you create another law school like all the others that trains lawyers in a way that fails to bridge the gap. But I think Ryerson has genuinely considered how to do that and has come up with a well designed, well considered plan. A couple of other points mentioned in the report: there are high numbers of Canadian students training in law schools overseas (US, UK, Australia) who come back into the market here, and would train in this country if there were places for them, so to that extent opening a new school doesn’t increase the supply of law graduates. And, last point, as Omar Ha-Redeye says in this Slaw post, Ryerson aims to prepare law graduates who will create the jobs for graduates of other law schools.

Anita: I think it is a great idea but only if the program satisfies the articling requirement and if the tuition is not too high. I feel that one of the greatest barriers to new graduates who may want to practice differently from the traditional models is that there are very few articling positions with firms who don’t run with the traditional model and so if we do find an articling position, it will most likely be one with a traditional model. Articling with a firm steeped in the traditional mode of practice arguably instills that model in the articling student. Furthermore, a heavy debt load after graduation would prevent a recent graduate from taking riskier paths for fear of unpredictable financial returns. At least that is how I feel when looking for ways to practice law differently in my own career.

Legal Technology; Leaving Language Behind

Now that we are lawyering in the era of LegalZoom, YouTube how-to tutorials, and the all-encompassing answering power of Google, we can finally claim that we are in the age of infinite accessibility. Or can we?

Just over two years ago, when I received my invitation to come join the decorated field of law, several emotions washed over me; some being feelings of happiness, excitement, and nervousness– but the most interesting emotion I felt was that of utter fear of the unknown. I had no idea what I did not know.

As someone who was entering the legal sphere, should I have known more? Did people around me have more knowledge of the law? Was I an unenlightened anomaly? No, I wasn’t. Regardless of the tools of accessibility that are now only a few clicks away, understanding and applying the law and its many dimensions, without guidance, is very daunting, and often futile. There are many reasons for failure without expert help; however, often the answer is as simple (or as complicated) as a language barrier.

When thinking about bridging legal knowledge gaps in more accessible and efficient ways, one may turn to new technologies and contemporary regimes that are designed to be cash-saving in nature. But as we forge forward from the past into the future, is there enough discussion about the other facets of accessibility? Is the discussion surrounding “Lawyering in the 21^st Century” monopolized by ideas of fancy technological innovations without enough regard to social inclusion?

I think it is integral to the process of field-wide technological development to routinely keep an open dialogue regarding accessibility issues faced by diverse populations. Tools such as Dragon Dictate, OneNote, GoToMeeting.com, and, the ever-faithful, Adobe Acrobat Professional, have made the process of “law” drastically more efficient and much less painful; but, we must not lose focus on the end results. While we can continue to develop software applications that will rapidly increase our day-to-day productivity, we need to be aware of making legal knowledge more accessible to all.

What does this look like?

Often times, even native speakers of English and French will have difficulties sifting through dense legal jargon to understand the bare bones of a document– so what about for the individuals to whom English is a second, third, or even fourth language? As immigration continues to grow in Canada, the need for language-diverse access to legal services will only grow; therefore, we need to create technologies that directly focus on overcoming such barriers. Not only do we need help in efficiently translating documents, we need to find better ways of allowing diverse individuals to know where to look when looking for specific legal services. First response platforms, such as websites and telephone resources that advertise the services of firms, the government, legal aid etc. must be easier to understand and more user-friendly in languages beyond English and French.

In large culturally-diverse cities, like Toronto and Vancouver, you will find offices of immigration law sprouting like weeds. For example, just a visit down Gerrard street, one of the many “Little India’s” of the GTA, will prove that there is no shortage of access to immigration law for Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi or Urdu speaking clients. But what happens to Zura, a recent Bruneian immigrant living in Sudbury, Ontario who speaks a broken mixture of Malay and English, when she needs access to a copyright lawyer who can answer questions about her rights regarding a recent creation of a song that she would like to upload to YouTube? She tried to Google it and is unable to find the answers she is looking for. Where does she turn?

Of course, there are translation websites and other tools (that are often hard to use, inaccurate, or carry an extra cost on top of the pending legal fees), but most “legal language service” websites, such as transperfectlegal.com, are directed at “international” issues. While that is a great start for others, Zura, and many other immigrants in Canada, are looking for answers solely regarding Canadian laws. With that being said, legaltranslationsolutions.com states that they provide “high-priority language translation services for all aspects of litigation”; while this is a potentially valid solution for others, it does not work in our case as they solely work with litigation cases. And once again, at a fee.

I am by no means disregarding the current legal language tools in existence; however, we need to keep the dialogue and desire to help individuals in unique legal situations who cannot speak English or French going. We need technological tools that will be accurate with low costs for both legal practitioners and clients. The existing language tools need to be partnered with newer and more innovative solutions that provide for a more inclusive, and frankly more useful, Canadian legal landscape. There are just too many diverse individuals who are looking for legal information and assistance to not focus our lens and realize many issues are left unattended because of language. Just think about the money that is left to be made if the doors to legal services were opened just a hair wider… (kidding!)

September 15, 2016September 15, 2016

Ravel, access to justice, and judge manipulation.

Let’s talk about gaming the legal system.

There is a product called Ravel that got me thinking about this issue, and I have been sitting on it for a little while.

These guys specifically work at (they claim) making law more accessible to everyone, by streamlining case decisions, and making it clear what comes out of cases amongst other things. In addition, they seem to have a pretty solid grasp on the ideas of mapping out data in a fairly accessible format – for example, their chart for determining at what levels of court a specific issue has come into dispute is really interesting, as you can see here.

raveldata — Ravel’s system for showing data referenced at different levels of court!

So I think that, at a very basic level, Ravel might be working to improve access to justice for the average person. They have a free version of their subscription plan that you can sign up for, and it includes a 7 day trial for their more premium levels, which have greater case analytics, and more powerful tools. I think that as a free tool, Ravel is pretty cool.

Now let’s talk about their monetisation a little bit, and the problems that I have with their model.

Specifically I take issue with one feature in their program, called judge analytics. The idea with this tool, as you might guess, is to analyze the judge that will be passing judgement on your case. It covers everything from the past judgements they have made, their reasons, what they have cited in the past, the specific language they use, the list goes on and on. Frankly, the only thing I think isn’t on there is probably what the judge will eat for breakfast that morning. But don’t worry, I’m sure that’s coming in 2.0.

My issue with this kind of analysis is that the matter of law before the judge is quickly diluted, and becomes substantially more about playing the judge, than arguing the law. Take a game of poker. In a game of poker, you can play the cards (the “law”) and make decisions based on the hand you’re dealt (the client that hires you and the facts you have). Or, you can choose to play the other player. The analogy falls apart a bit here because the other player should really be the other lawyer, but let’s ignore that for a moment and pretend the other ‘player’ is the judge. When you know everything about the ‘other player’ then that means that you don’t really care much what your cards are. If you say the right word at the right time and cite their favorite authority, maybe your facts don’t matter. The same way that playing a hand of poker perfectly can involve never taking in your cards.

I think that when we get to the point where the judge’s every move can be foreseen and predicted by technology like this it threatens the rule of law. The idea is that judge’s are intended to be these arbiters of justice, above the rest of society, yet influenced by it; removed from it to make their decisions in an unbiased manner, but conscious of the biases that they have inherently. When you lay out these biases plain to see, it removes a chunk of what makes judges and the law special. It becomes more about knowledge, and less about what the law really is. It doesn’t matter how good a lawyer you are. It doesn’t matter how innocent your client is of the accusation. If the other lawyer knows how to charm the judge just right, the guilt or innocence of your client doesn’t matter.

That being said, clearly there are avenues of recourse for losing a case that should justly have been won. You can appeal, you can go for judicial review, you can rail and scream at the top of your lungs and cause a ruckus in the press. But at the end of the day, this kind of response merely bogs down the process of justice. Your client goes away unhappy. Your case goes unresolved.

Justice falls by the wayside.

As an aside, this is obviously an excellent tool for litigators, and has the potential to really transform the way that litigators act in the courtroom. In fact, Ravel even states something very similar on their marketing page.

Overall, I think that Ravel is likely a good thing. This kind of increased and simplified access to case law is a huge boon to society. I think that the drawbacks come from their monetization model, which I think will make them a lot of money, but in a way that I think has the potential to take away from real justice.

“Ars, Lex Iuvenesque Inventores: hinc Futurum”