In three years, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the legal system. From filing eDocuments to virtual court appearances, lawyers have had to adapt their ways to facilitate the move to online services. For some, these long-awaited changes are being celebrated as a significant step towards addressing access to justice issues in Canada. Others, however, have approached the move to the “online world” with more reluctance, especially in legal tech. I experienced first-hand this hesitancy from a surprising place during my class project for TRU’s Designing Legal Expert Systems class (DLES).
In DLES, the major class project involves students designing a legal expert system that provides users with tailored legal information. One component of the project involves students reaching out to legal professionals in their project’s field of law. To ensure anonymity for the parties involved, I will say that I reached out to an organization that provides free legal services. I asked Organization X whether they would be interested in testing our app and providing some feedback. Organization X responded with something along the lines of “we don’t support the use of legal advice apps .”As an organization that provides free legal services, I had assumed the organization would happily welcome a legal expert system designed to provide individuals with access to free legal information. The rebuff was unexpected and left me “freaking pissed,” to say the least.
As a millennial who experienced the transition from dial-up internet to Wi-Fi, I am a strong proponent of technological innovation in every field. So after Organization X’s response, I had to ask myself, “Why? Why would you not support the use of legal tech?” Throughout DLES, this question lurked in the background of our class discussions. Greed, the liability for shoddy legal information taken as legal advice, or the belief that a computer can’t do a lawyer’s job were just a few explanations discussed. So when I ask myself the question, I come up with two different answers, one I call the “Pessimist view of lawyers,” and the other the “Optimist view of lawyers.”
In my “Pessimist” answer, I think that the real reason why lawyers are reluctant to use legal tech is that lawyers think they are a lot more important than they actually are. Lawyers have a shockingly huge superiority complex for a three-year undergraduate degree (Yes, a JD is, in fact, an undergraduate degree, despite what some lawyers might try to tell themselves [1] ). This is especially true when it comes to the typical lawyer’s opinion of self-represented litigants, who supposedly lack the proper legal education or training to understand the intricacies of the law. While I agree that the average person will not immediately understand the complexities of the law, that doesn’t mean they can’t learn. If provided with the proper information, any person should be able to represent themselves in court, a significant problem for lawyers whose income relies on the provision of legal services. Legal tech that makes legal information more accessible poses a risk to the average lawyer’s livelihood, which explains the general hesitancy of the profession. In my pessimistic view of lawyers, I fear that lawyers are no longer acting as champions of law. Instead, lawyers are increasingly becoming gatekeepers who limit access to justice by refusing to share legal knowledge while charging exorbitant prices for legal services.
I am not so naïve to think that the world would be better without lawyers. But the requirement to have a lawyer to navigate the legal system is a major red flag. Legal tech, like expert systems, is not a replacement for bona fide legal advice. On the contrary, legal tech can benefit lawyers, bringing me to my “Optimist” answer.
In my “Optimist” answer, I attribute lawyers’ reluctance to use legal tech to a misunderstanding of how it can be used, especially when it comes to legal expert systems. You will never get a straight answer for a legal issue in law. The answer will always be “it depends” because it depends entirely on a client’s circumstances. An expert system’s predetermined answers can be difficult for lawyers to support; however, this is such a limited understanding of what expert systems can do and how beneficial they can be. Expert systems can be designed to make a lawyer’s life easier and, more importantly, efficient. Asking standard questions for legal issues, determining the required documentation clients will need or providing clients with standard legal information are just a few ways expert systems can make lawyers more efficient. What lawyers need to realize is that the application of legal tech is genuinely endless. You can create a program to do as little or as much as you want. That’s the beauty of legal tech.
As I near the end of my law degree and begin looking to the future, I hope the camp of naysayers in the legal community realize the many benefits of legal tech. It’s a shame that we are nearing the end of 2022, and the use of legal tech is still an issue. But with every new batch of articling students, support for legal tech is growing and with it, the boundaries of what legal tech can do.
[1] University of Toronto: Faculty of Law, “So, You Want to Become a Lawyer,” Online: <https://www.law.utoronto.ca/getstarted>
This was very interesting, and I agree with most of your points. My guess would be the reality lands somewhere in between your “pessimistic” and “optimistic” views, as most things do. I also wonder how the average age of lawyers plays a role in the reluctance of many firms to use legal tech. For example, I know my parents (who are both lawyers) would not be comfortable using legal tech, mainly because they are not comfortable with ANY tech. And unfortunately, I think most of the decision-makers (at least at big firms) tend to be a bit older. If I’m right about that, perhaps as the older generation is phased out, more and more tech will be used!
Thank you for sharing your experience with the legal organization! Lawyers are put in a challenging position concerning legal advice applications. Becoming a lawyer takes a very long time, costs a lot of money, and there are a ton of hoops to jump through to get there. I can see how boiling that experience down to a simple, easy to use application would make lawyers feel undermined. My knee-jerk reaction before taking this course may have been similar to how the organization you spoke to felt. I thought legal apps came down to lawyers advocating against their own interests, making themselves less valuable in some capacity. DLES changed my perspective on this topic. Lawyer swill always be a part of the equation as our industry is highly personal at the end of the day. People want to know they have a human being who understands their issues and tailors advice. However, as this course has demonstrated, there is definitely space for technology to supplement legal services. As legal advice applications become more prominent, lawyers who are stuck in their ways will see that the old model of legal service and technology can co-exist to enhance the client experience.
Thank you for sharing your experience with the legal organization! Lawyers are put in a challenging position concerning legal advice applications. Becoming a lawyer takes a very long time, costs a lot of money, and there are a ton of hoops to jump through to get there. I could see how boiling that experience down to a simple, easy-to-use application would make lawyers feel undermined. My knee-jerk reaction before taking this course may have been similar to how the organization you spoke to felt. I thought legal apps came down to lawyers advocating against their own interests, making themselves less valuable in some capacity. DLES changed my perspective on this topic. Lawyers will always be a part of the equation as our industry is highly personal at the end of the day. People want to know they have a human who understands their issues and tailors advice. However, as this course has demonstrated, there is definitely space for technology to supplement legal services. As legal advice applications become more prominent, lawyers who are stuck in their ways will see that the old model of legal service and technology can co-exist.