innovation

Indigenous Digital Equity: The barriers Indigenous communities face accessing internet

I spent most of my 2L year back on my home reserve in Southern Alberta. It’s about a 45-minute drive to Lethbridge. My internet connection was a challenge when trying to listen to lectures or have a strong connection for a zoom call. Internet connectivity for Indigenous Peoples in Canada has long been difficult to implement due to many environmental and socio-economic factors such as remoteness of communities, difficulty gaining first-mile access, unreliable networks, slow speeds, expensive equipment, and high data costs.

Compared to the other infrastructure problems faced by Indigenous communities, the internet might not seem like a big problem. But COVID-19 has shown that when people don’t have equal access, they lose the same opportunities. Remote learning is now crucial to getting a quality education, but poor internet connections or a lack of a connection in the first place are holding many Indigenous children behind their peers.

A lack of internet also affects those looking for work. COVID-19 has led to many layoffs, and the internet had become one of the only reliable sources to find emplpoyment. This lack of resources is one of the reasons why unemployment is already higher in Indigenous communities than in the population at large. Even the transition to working from home means a greater need for high-speed internet, but this poses another disadvantage for rural homes that cannot access a connection to telecommute. The province says 61 percent of B.C. Indigenous communities lack access that meets the standard, although the council notes that number may count communities with just one broadband access point, meaning there is one place in town with adequate Internet, but it’s not in every home, school, or office. [1]

The geography of remote and northern Canadian communities implies transportation access problems, long cable builds, and harsh climate. Building sustainable broadband infrastructure capable of telehealth delivery in northern and remote Indigenous communities is and will continue to be costly. [2] The economic situation combined with the high cost of connectivity suggests that that many remote and northern Indigenous communities and community members may be struggling to pay the high costs of using digital technologies. At the same time, Indigenous community members and Indigenous communities have demonstrated that they are eager users of digital technologies and they will adopt them when they are affordable, reliable, and meet their needs. [3]

The UN has declared access to the internet a human right. This declaration is formed on the basis that having access to the internet means being able to exercise other fundamental human rights and freedoms (e.g. right to freedom of speech). For Indigenous people, the internet is a tool for cultural survival, acting as a hub for Indigenous languages and traditional stories. Without leaving their community, Indigenous youth and adults are able to learn skills, meet Indigenous role models, obtain a degree/diploma, access healthcare, and share their stories with the world. [4]

The inclusion of Indigenous voices on important issues can’t be accomplished if Canada doesn’t work to close the connectivity gap. The plans must be done in coordination with Indigenous governments, letting them lead any project or policy that may affect their communities or land. Without access to broadband, Indigenous peoples will continue to be left behind.

[1] Katie Hyslop, “Closing BC’s Indigenous Internet Gap” The Tyee (12 December 2019) online: https://thetyee.ca/News/2019/12/12/Closing-BC-Indigenous-Internet-Gap/

[2] O’Donnell, Susan “Digital technology adoption in remote and northern Indigenous communities in Canada.” Canadian Sociological Association 2016 Annual Conference. University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. 2016.

[3] ibid 

[4] Emma Greenfield, “Digital Equity for Indigenous Communities” Social Connectedness (7 July 2020) online: https://www.socialconnectedness.org/digital-equity-for-indigenous-communities/

Virtual Viability: Are Virtual Firms Here to Stay?

by Nick Todd

Back in 2018, if I were a lawyer looking to venture into the realm of solo practice, I would have instinctively begun the search for an office. But in just three years, a worldwide pandemic has since proven that the collaboration and productivity of an office environment can be replicated–in some cases even enhanced–virtually.

Indeed, the early days of the pandemic taught many laws firms that the adoption of video conferencing and communications technologies such as Zoom and Slack were necessary for survival in an uncertain and ever-changing world.  It was a transition that was nothing short of remarkable, defying expectations of an industry that had been plagued by years of resistance to the online world.  But what was once implemented out of survival is now increasingly being implemented by choice–virtual workspaces can eliminate the high overhead costs that come with an office, give employees the freedom to work from anywhere in the world, and increase productivity [1].  And with the high cost of legal services also translating into an access to justice problem, it comes as no surprise that law firms are now beginning online.

But the transition to online work has also been met with challenges, and as much as we would like to believe that remote work will greatly improve our lifestyles, so too have many in the legal profession experienced the burnout that can result from constant virtual interaction [2]. Others insist that in-person interaction is essential for their well-being and mental health–that virtual interaction is simply “not the same” [3]. With benefits and drawbacks to online work environments, this begs the question: are virtual firms here to stay?

If we look at current trends, legal professionals are increasingly finding less value in their physical offices.  In a 2020 study conducted by Clio, both lawyers and consumers indicated that access to commercial office space was not a priority when it came to a law firm’s success [4].  Some might view this as a sign of the impending end of the retail office, but with covid mandates gradually lifting and lawyers returning to their offices, it appears unlikely that law firms will abandon physical office space altogether.  And this makes sense–for the moment, work essentials such as social events, physical interaction, and team management remain difficult to implement in a virtual environment.  Research is already underway as to why, with early explanations highlighting the finding that the regions of our brain which process behaviour, thoughts and emotions are more engaged when face to face as opposed to virtual [5].

Another challenge that virtual law firms must overcome to achieve longterm success is that of isolation.  According to the findings of a study conducted by the University of Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, managers throughout the pandemic adopted a “narrower, more controlling view of their work, with a greater focus on analytical and task-based activities at the expense of people development and relationship management” [6].  In other words, virtual worlds can cause us to become more insular and disassociate from our peers, and that can present significant ramifications for the working world.  Failure to provide a physical space for clients to meet with lawyers may even constitue a barrier to access to justice, as technological access continues to remain a problem in Canada and elsewhere.

As it stands, increased profitability and freedom at the expense of interpersonal connection and fulfilment may make virtual firms a tough sell for some.  It does seem, however, that virtual firms–at least in some capacity–are here to stay.  But for these firms to rise to any sort of prominence in the legal field, significant efforts to confront the social and access to justice challenges associated with virtual spaces must be made.  The legal industry may rise to the occasion to meet these challenges as it did during the pandemic–and I hope it does.  Remote work has the potential to create a real difference in people’s lives, but so too can it also take away from them.  Either way, it is clear that the pandemic has, at the very least, forever unsettled our relationship with the office.

COVID has indeed proven that online work environments are viable alternatives to the traditional brick-and-mortar office.  But as with any bet on the future, we must ask ourselves: is viable enough?

Sources:

[1] Wolters Skluwer, “The Rise of the Virtual Lawyer” (2019), online: <https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en-gb/expert-insights/the-rise-of-the-virtual-lawyer-traditional-vs-virtual-law-firms> at paras 1-9.

[2] Hannah Roberts, “Zoom and Gloom:  Lawyers Are Growing Tired of Endless Video Calls”, online: Law.Com International <https://www.law.com/international-edition/2020/07/22/zoom-and-gloom-lawyers-are-growing-tired-of-endless-video-calls/?slreturn=20211015033403> at paras 1-12.

[3] Ibid at para 15.

[4] Clio, “2020 Legal Trends Report”, online: Clio <https://www.clio.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Legal-Trends-Report.pdf> at 45.

[5] Alejandro Albedrop, Diana R. Sanchez, and Tamara Skootsky, “Navigating the Expansion of Virtual Communication at Work.” (2021) 59:1 TIP: The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 1 at 3.

[6] Julian Birkinshaw, Maya Gudka, and Vittorio D’Amato, “The Blinkered Boss: How Has Managerial Behavior Changed with the Shift to Virtual Working?” (2021) 63:4 California MGMT Rev 5 at 21-22.

Technology as a Barrier to Justice: Cautioning Legal Tech Designers

Harjote Sumbal

Technology alone is not the complete solution to Canada’s access to justice problems. Usage of technology can encounter resistance, the measures may ultimately be unsuccessful, and the approach can actually result in the creation of new barriers to access. Professors Roger Smith and Alan Paterson identify “digital exclusion” with its three “digital divides” as a good place to start in assessing challenges of technological reform: (1) physical access to the relevant technology, (2) the technical ability to use the relevant technology, and (3) the cultural inclination to use the relevant technology.[1] Designers of legal tech would do well to anticipate the barriers to justice their applications may create so that they can address them before they manifest. Addressing the second divide – technology itself as a barrier – should drive legal app design to ensure implementation of technology does not widen the access to justice gap further.

A successful application is driven by user demand, which in turn requires trust. Technology can indirectly risk undercutting the administration of justice and compromise user trust. Mistrust of the legal system is a noted barrier to access,[2] so the security of technological processes is essential to make user adoption a possibility. For example, Abedi, Zeleznikow, and Brien have identified three core “facets of security” Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) systems must ensure: (1) information security and confidentiality, (2) privacy of the parties involved, and (3) authentication of parties in transactions and communications.[3] If technological reforms are implemented without due consideration of security issues, legal tech may serve as an additional barrier for wary users rather than increasing access to justice.

Digital divides in accessing technology can serve as significant barriers to access. While cultural resistance speaks to the acceptance of technology by the existing legal industry structures, physical access and technical ability are both barriers for potential users that may actually want to engage with legal technology. While these digital divides can affect any given individual, their impact is likely to most strongly affect vulnerable groups like lower socioeconomic communities, elderly people, Indigenous peoples, and those with language barriers, whether they are refugees, immigrants, or citizens.[4]

In some cases, it is possible to address these barriers within the technological tool’s infrastructure. For example, the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) attempts to address potential language barriers by providing information on the CRT, its process, limitation periods, and available help resources in multiple languages.[5] It also provides additional resources for Indigenous users and directs those without computers to ServiceBC locations or paper forms.[6] The CRT’s recognition of potential technological barriers is an important start. However, not all technology platforms are constructed in the same manner, nor are they as comprehensive as ODR platforms tend to be. Justice apps are more individualized in their scope and user design. For example, the MyLawBC website is designed, amongst other capabilities, to allow users to construct their wills, but offer none of the language, Indigenous, or general helper resources of the CRT described above.

The need for accessibility tailored to vulnerable populations is apparent. A 2008 Law Foundation of Ontario report stated those in vulnerable populations “need to receive direct services rather than rely on self-help”, as legal trouble often piles on to the barriers they already face.[7] As self-service is one of the key features of user-targeted legal technology to save paying legal fees, tools that are too daunting to use are essentially useless. Without specific consideration of vulnerable populations and their userability, technological reforms risk creating a further divide between users and access to justice.

Technological tools like ODR and justice applications have great potential. However, the design and conception of technological tools must consider the specific needs of vulnerable populations or they risk exacerbating the access to justice problem. In order to successfully facilitate greater access to justice, legal tech designers must exercise empathy with target populations when conceptualizing solutions.

[1] Smith, Roger & Paterson, Alan, “Face to Face Legal Services and their Alternatives: Global Lessons from the Digital Revolution” (2014), online (pdf): Strathprints <https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/56496/1/Smith_Paterson_CPLS_Face_to_face_legal_services_and_their_alternatives.pdf> at 19.

[2] Tania Sourdin, et al, Digital Technology and Justice: Justice Apps, (Milton: Routledge, 2020) at 23.

[3] Fahimeh Abedi, John Zeleznikow & Chris Brien, “Developing Regulatory Standards for the Concept of Security in Online Dispute Resolution Systems” (2019) 35 Computer Law & Security Review 1.

[4] Sourdin, supra note 2 at 66.

[5] Civil Resolution Tribunal, “Resources” (2021), online: < https://civilresolutionbc.ca/resources/>.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Sourdin, supra note 2 at 68; See Karen Cohl & George Thomson, “Connecting Across Language and Distance: Linguistic and Rural Access to Legal Information and Services” (December 2008), online: The Law Foundation of Ontario <https://lawfoundation.on.ca/download/connecting-across-language-and-distance-2008/>.

Legal Tech and AI as tools to improve client service and lawyer wellbeing.

Time is the most valuable commodity for lawyers, evidenced by the widespread reliance on the billable hour as a metric for valuing services provided, and even for defining success. This reliance on the billable hour sometimes leads to lawyers spending more time than necessary on certain tasks, and rather than looking for ways to increase efficiency, this time is logged in six-minute increments in its fullness, as a happy addition towards a billable hour target.

Huge workloads and high billable hour targets lead to high stress in the workplace, mental health issues, and inevitably lead to poor client service when the length of time spent on a task is valued more than how efficiently the task was completed.

I spent the summer of 2L at a national firm, and quickly learned that lawyers spend too much time on tasks that could be automated with the help of AI or existing technology solutions. The COVID-19 pandemic introduced some basic technology-driven efficiencies, out of necessity.

Examples of technology solutions now being used to increase efficiency (some because of COVID-19 and working from home):

  • Zoom court hearings
  • DocuSign to execute agreements
  • Due diligence via virtual data rooms
  • Digital closing books folders

Having been exposed to all the above examples of tech solutions this past summer, I can’t imagine how things were done before, when physical documents required a signature, when real paper was relied upon to conduct due diligence and when lawyers walked into the court chambers to argue and seek orders in front a judge, literally, rather than from their home office (or kitchen table). The time savings generated by these simple tech solutions make it hard, or impossible to go back, once experienced.

At the firm that I worked at, AI based software like Kira, for example, was utilized to analyze contracts and documents to aid with tasks including due diligence for a corporate transaction. AI software can drastically reduce the time that lawyers spend reading contracts, word by word, which creates time to focus on client relationships, and creating time to conduct more specialized legal analysis related to risk, adding value to the service provided to clients.

AI has the power to change one of the least efficient systems, being the reliance on precedents for contract drafting. When helping a client on either side of a corporate transaction, lawyers use similar deals previously worked on as “precedent” for the next deal. Countless hours are spent reading through previous contracts and documents to try to find the right “fit” for the next deal. Lawyers then spend their time plugging in the variables from the deal they are working on, into the precedent document. This leads to contracts that are more “cookie-cutter” than “bespoke”. AI has the potential to help lawyers draft bespoke contracts for their client’s transaction using the power of machine learning.

Moving away from the precedent system and using the power of machine learning to draft contracts could significantly cut down the time spent reviewing precedents and essentially copy and pasting variables into cookie-cutter contracts. Creating time, machine learning tools, could allow lawyers to leave the office on time and head home for dinner with their families, and could also mean more time is spent understanding their client’s needs and focusing their legal expertise on more complex aspects of a transaction where risk may go unnoticed.

As a 3rd year law student who has briefly experienced working in a national law firm, I believe it is crucial to begin developing knowledge about, and skills working with, legal technology and expert systems early on in our careers. While some worry that AI and technology solutions will take away jobs from lawyers, I would argue instead that technology and AI should be embraced and leveraged to improve client service and increase lawyer wellbeing, by creating more of the most important commodity in the legal profession, time.

David Blackstock

Zooming in on Legal Tech in 2020

It happened: I got old.  I don’t know exactly when it happened. Maybe it happened this semester. Maybe it happened over the summer. I suppose it could have happened last year and I just didn’t notice.

I’m not even thirty yet, and still, somehow, I have found myself at the optometrist getting fitted for bifocals so I can read the tiny print in the textbooks without giving myself a massive headache. I got a super ugly pair of orthopedic slippers. I also had set up my work station in a way that didn’t hurt my back and I had to stop using my phone so much, because oh my god, my thumbs were cramping so badly.

I have no idea how to talk to my teenage siblings anymore. They want to do all these phone-based things with me, but I spend so much time staring at a screen, that I find myself asking if we can just go play outside like we did back in the olden days.

A year and a half ago, I was working in a support role at a law firm and was running around the office helping with computer setup, database issues, software problems, whatever. But something changed.

Now, my girlfriend (who is a whopping 6 months younger) cannot understand why I don’t know how to use all the new Instagram features.

I used to be baffled by the baby boomers in my workplace who didn’t know how to edit a word document or conduct a basic document search on the firm database.

But now, I must say, I get it.

Sometimes, the font is just too small. Sometimes, the program set-up, or day to day functionality, is just so complex or so filled with bugs, that it can feel impossible to use. Sometimes, the program just isn’t intuitive, and the setup or navigation process is more complicated than the task you need the program to complete. Sometimes, the help line is closed and you’ve got a thousand other things on your plate that needed to be done yesterday.

I never thought I’d say this, but boomers, I get you.

I get you and I’m sorry for shaming you for your technological deficiencies. I now understand that in order for the field of law to step into the 21st century, we have to make legal tech more user-friendly. No senior partner is going to want to relearn their entire work system at a point in their career when they are experiencing peak success.  If I ever find myself in a web design role, I promise to make the font adjustable and organize the contents logically so that you can easily find whatever it is you need and get back to your shuffleboard game.

To my young gen z friends: you can laugh at me and my reading glasses and my misuse of snapchat filters all you like, but remember, you’re next.