Tag: future

Posted on

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.

litigationstrat

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”

Posted on

Transitions

Let me give you an image of me as a starting-out lawyer.  I’m on the phone with a client – a terrifying proposition in itself.  Client is talking about something incomprehensible (some Wall Street acronym or something) and assuming I not only know what it is but have an informed and expert opinion about the thing as it relates to the client.  I am googling this thing while on the phone, hoping the client can’t hear me typing.

Transitioning to law school to practice was like that.

One of the reasons L21C exists is that I wanted to try to fill what I think is a gap in legal education in preparing students for this transition, from law student to professional.  Law school does not provide students with much understanding of or information about the practicalities of practice, or about what the ecosystem of the legal services world is like.  It’s a big chasm indeed from pondering the significance of peppercorns to billing, spreadsheets, attempting to tame clients, navigating the internal politics and ego-bruises of working in multiple teams, and googling financial jargon as quietly as possible.

I often hear that it’s not an appropriate goal for law school to prepare students to be “practice-ready,” that there is no substitute for real-world experience and hands-on training.   As far as it goes, I think this is true, even just obvious.  It doesn’t follow, though, that law school can’t do more to prepare students for the transition to practice.  We can, and we should.

That’s the aspiration of L21C: to make students, if not “practice-ready,” at least a bit more ready for the challenges, surprises and mysteries of the coming transition to practice.  To demystify the mysteries, make at least some of the surprises less surprising, and, I hope, stir up some excitement about the challenges.

L21C is also transitioning this year.  Last year it was a completely brand-new course, still a prototype really, and I really was not sure what to expect.  This year is … well, honestly not that different, but it’s no longer completely brand new and I have a little bit more idea what to expect.  Last year’s class was a fantastic group who did some truly inspirational work.  Therefore, my expectations are very high.  I’m looking forward to equally great things from this year’s group, possibly even greater.  Go on, challenge yourselves!

The design of the course is substantially the same as it was last year, but there are some modifications.  The first few weeks are more structured, with fewer guest speakers and more lectures and activities that I planned.  In the later weeks we have many really amazing guest speakers, a panel, a field trip to Kamloops Innovation Centre, and plenty of time built in for teams to work on their LawHacks projects.  The idea is that in the first part of the semester students will get a solid understanding, from the lectures, readings and class activities, of the themes we are covering, and in the later part of the semester the group will be very well equipped to engage with the wonderful leaders and thinkers who are joining us as guests.

Of course I can’t end a post about transitions without mentioning the central focus of this course, the Big Transition: what’s happening to the profession itself.

Richard and Daniel Susskind, the authors of one of our course books (The Future of the Professions), say that the legal world “will change more radically over the next two decades than over the last two centuries” and the legal profession is “on the brink of unprecedented upheaval” (pp. 66-67, internal citations omitted).

Jordan Furlong, writing in the Canadian Bar Association Legal Futures Initiative publication Do Law Differently: Futures for Young Lawyers – another of our course texts – says “[a]lmost everything about career choices and employment options for new lawyers is in flux,” and that the generation of lawyers entering practice now “has both an obligation and an opportunity that its predecessors never experienced.”

David Scott, the co-chair of Borden Ladner Gervais, has said that the lack of access to justice for ordinary people is the legal profession’s equivalent of global warming.

These are the big, systemic transitions that we are going to learn, think and share ideas about in the course.  I hope that the discussion will carry on outside class – and will engage the wider community.  That’s what the blog is for, and I’m really excited to read posts and comments by our new class of L21C partners, as well as everyone else who wants to join the conversation.

This time of year people often say that September, not January is the real new year.  It’s a time of transitions.  Here we go!

Posted on

Money Can’t Buy Me Happiness… But It Can Buy Me a Boat

If you were to play a game of phrase association with a group of lawyers (and law students for that matter) and give them the phrase “mental health”, I would posit that many of the answers would deal with clients. You would be likely to hear many things: not criminally responsible, fitness to stand trial, and other job related answers.

The troubling part of this thought experiment is that lawyers (and law students) have a strikingly high occurrence of mental health issues but would be very likely to point to the mental issues of others. As is pointed out in the New York Times article by Douglas Quenqua, lawyers are over three-and-a-half times more likely to suffer from depression. The reasons and causes for this are unknown but oft hypothesized. The fact that getting into law school (I would argue it starts even when trying to get into law school) results in an immediate spike in the likelihood of developing depression is a scary proposition. I’m sure that many students understand that they are getting into a difficult profession and one that involves a great deal of stress.

There is something to be said for the fact that lawyers are among the highest paid professions. There is an allure, a draw, and something to be said for the idea that lawyers get into the profession to make more money than they might in another field. This is possibly done at the expense of some personal relationships and free time. Most lawyers go into the job with open eyes and decide to do it despite the downsides.

Lawyers are often of a certain personality type, and I would argue that this personality type is also the reason why lawyers have a higher risk of depression. They are less likely to admit there may be a problem, less likely to seek treatment because of it, and more likely to continue trigger behaviours that exacerbate depression symptoms (read: stress out and drink). Too often depression is seen as a weakness instead of the chemical imbalance that it truly is. The chemical receptors in the brain that allow you to feel happiness do not connect as frequently in a person that suffers from depression.

Quenqua’s main thesis of his article was that lower paid lawyers reported being happier than the more well paid legal professionals. He states that lawyers in the public sector (public defenders and legal aid lawyers) were more likely to report being happy. The most likely rationale for this disparity between public and private is that private sector lawyers are far more likely to be working longer stressful hours. One aspect of public sector and in-house counsel legal work that is often touted as a recruitment tool is that of work-life balance. While not conclusive I believe this is because the expectations of both hours and “billable” work is reduced. As a corollary, the public service lawyers drank less than their higher income counterparts; as noted earlier, alcohol is a depressant. The alcohol may be a “chicken or the egg” argument; the higher-paid lawyers drink more, thus resulting in more unhappiness, or the unhappiness triggers more drinking.

I also take issue with the program at George Washington university, when attending law school many students are unsure of what sort of practice they will be in when they graduate. This is true of most students and speaks to the variety of legal work out there; however, the other major factor at work is the uncertainty of the job market. Many lawyers report finding a firm that they liked following graduation and the firm having an opening or a need in one field or another and “ended up doing x”. I would suggest that while giving students a taste for all the different opportunities is noble, it may also result in a student getting their heart set on one potential stream (abandoning a more broad course load), come out of school seeking only one type of opportunity, only exacerbating the problem of finding a job after law school.

Posted on

Technology and the Aging Client

Much of the conversation has been on the impact of technology on the delivery of legal services and the changes that the profession will undergo in the coming years. Extremely relevant points have been made and discussed in both the partner meetings and blogs, demonstrating that the firm is live to the evolution that the profession is undergoing. One aspect that has been somewhat more on the periphery has been the societal changes behind the push for transformation.

I had the opportunity to attend and speak at the Canadian Elder Law Conference this past week and gain a better understanding of the practical realities that are facing the profession in light of a shifting demographic. For the first time in Canadian history, the percentage of the population over 65 is greater than the population under 15. While we have been focusing largely on the increase in technology that the profession has at its fingertips, there are a growing number of potential clients that will inevitably need our services but may not understand the technology we will be employing. This requires those of us that will be working with elders to appreciate the impact of technology on this growing demographic.

I do not dispute that a willingness to innovate is going to be essential, nor do I suggest that those 65+ are incapable of using or appreciating technology. I do think, however, that as we seek to integrate new methods and technologies that we take into consideration the impact that may have on our clients. Creating more affordable services will greatly benefit our senior clients and, as the baby boomers get set for retirement, this portion of the population will be facing a society that is increasingly more tech savvy.

We must be sure to balance our reliance on technology with the very personal service that our aging clientele has become accustomed to. It cannot be our approach to either assume our client understands technology or require them to familiarize themselves with it in order to benefit from an affordable service. Nor should we assume that technology will be able to replace the personal aspect of our profession, such as the interview in which a lawyer conducts an assessment for testamentary capacity. It is this personal interaction that sets us apart from machines such as IBM’s Watson. And it is this interaction that clients appreciate, along with getting the job done for a fair price.

How can we balance our growing use of technology with an aging population?

Posted on

“More money, more problems?”

As future lawyers, about to embark on a legal career, there is concern that we may be focusing on the wrong rewards…

 

The New York Times article, Lawyers with the Lowest Pay Report more Happiness, written by Douglas Quenqua, suggests that individuals entering the profession are concerned with wealth, status and stimulating work. However, recent research has found that high income and partnership track positions have no correlation with a lawyer’s happiness and well-being. In fact, lawyers in public service positions reported greater happiness. This research study was based on a psychological model of human happiness called “self-determination theory”. The model is based on competence, autonomy and connection to others.

Young Associates in Trouble, a research paper by David Zaring and William Henderson, concludes that most new lawyers are attracted to working for large, prestigious law firms despite their reputation as difficult places to work. The research conducted by Zaring and Henderson suggests that compensation, partnership and resume value are among the reasons these leading firms remain a fixture for new graduates. The authors accept that some young lawyers may see their experience working at an elite firm and the prestige associated with these institutions as a jumping off point into a more enjoyable career path. However, the author’s data indicates that individuals who remain with large firms over the long term do not show higher satisfaction in partnership than they do as junior associates. This is due to a work-life balance that does not necessarily change as the employee moves up the hierarchy.

An explanation for the unhappiness exhibited by young lawyers may begin at law school. Here, students are pushed towards mainstream, elite firms. Large firm marketing, “OCI’s”, and competition among colleagues may be to blame for this.

The articles above suggest that law students do not appreciate what they are signing up for when entering a new firm. Better information from school career centers, depicting “firm life” in large and small firms and urban to rural centers could solve this problem. My view is that there is a general lack of alternatives to big name firms. Schools do not provide students with the necessary explanation of alternatives to firm employment and students lack the knowledge of replacement options.

We have all been told that the profession is changing rapidly and how this may affect our employment opportunities in the near future. It is time for graduates to turn their mind to careers that fall outside of the institutionalized model. Pursuing innovative legal careers may be a solution to the happiness and work life balance young lawyers seek, without sacrificing both lucrative and stimulating work. By taking the approach that change means opportunity, the transformation of the legal landscape should be viewed with excitement rather than fear.

Posted on

The Practice-Ready Lawyer

Harry W. Arthurs, renowned Canadian labour lawyer and law professor, spoke to the University of Alberta Faculty of Law about the future of law schools and legal education in Canada in his address titled “The Future of Legal Education: Three Visions and a Prediction.”

Arthurs begins by outlining differing views of the core function of law school, namely the production of “practice-ready lawyers”, of “tomorrow’s lawyers”, and of being a leader in the “creation and transformation of legal knowledge, legal practice, and the legal system.”

From this address there are several points I would like to comment on. First, Arthurs strongly critiques the view that law schools should be producing “practice-ready” lawyers, assuming that “practice-ready” equates to omni-competent. As the legal field is highly specialized and stratified, Arthurs suggests that no law student will ever be “practice-ready” upon graduation from law school. While I agree with the assessment that no law student (or lawyer for that matter) will ever possess all of the substantive knowledge to be competent in every legal field, I disagree that is what is necessary to be ready for practice. While an understanding of general legal principles and substantive law are required competencies  in one’s practice, they are attainable when one possesses the appropriate skills listed in Chapter 3 of the Code of Professional Conduct for BC (i.e. legal research, analysis, application of the law to the relevant facts, writing and drafting, problem solving, etc.). It is my opinion that the possession of these skills and competencies is what makes one “ready” for practice. In addition, I believe that law school is exactly the place where we should be taught these skills.

Arthurs goes on to argue that skills-based training is not enough to prepare students for legal practice, and a “preparation for practice” based curriculum is far inferior to one that emphasizes “thinking skills, theory and inter-disciplinarity”. While intellectual ability is certainly a coveted attribute, it must be applied practically to accomplish anything. Even Arthurs agrees that lawyers must “think like human beings” to avoid harming “themselves, their clients, the reputation of the bar and the effectiveness of the legal system.” Lawyers need to be relevant, relatable, and able to apply their intellectual training practically. It is my opinion that including some form of skills-based training in law schools helps accomplish that.

Finally, I would like to address Arthurs’ proposals regarding changes to the structure of law school. He proposes a model in which general practitioners can obtain a “stripped-down two-year ‘basic’ degree”, and “higher level lawyers” would take a four year enhanced degree. Arthurs’ argues that this would save time and money for general practitioners while fitting the diverse needs of students wishing to practice in more specialized fields. While this restructuring surely has its benefits, I suggest that it might have adverse affects on “access to justice”, an increasing problem. Creating a hierarchy of lawyers may decrease costs to individuals with basic legal problems, but may simultaneously increase the divide between litigants who can afford high-level lawyers. In other words, this hierarchy has potential to further the gap between those who can afford specialized legal services and those that cannot.

In addition, I wonder as to how these changes might impact the servicing of small, rural communities. These communities are already underserved, and those that do set up practice in these areas are typically general practitioners. Why would we make it harder on them to serve their communities by limiting their scope of practice? Canadians are already abandoning legal problems that they cannot afford to address; wouldn’t these changes only exacerbate this problem for rural individuals that would typically only engage with general practitioners?

Arthurs is certainly correct to say there are many changes in store for Canada’s legal paradigm. Subsequent changes to the way we educate future lawyers will certainly be more necessary than ever if lawyers are to remain relevant in society. More than anything, I believe Arthurs is correct to suggest law schools must prepare their students “to think like lawyers, to contextualize and critically evaluate their legal experiences, to adapt to change and, especially, to learn how to learn”. A law student with that education must certainly be “practice-ready”.

Proudly powered by WordPress