law

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

Big Issues for Small Town Law

Bryce Gardner 

Discussions related to access to justice often discuss the unaffordability of lawyers to a regular person,  or the over-complexity of the law to the non-legal mind. These issues become irrelevant though when there simply are not any legal resources available in your area, a problem all too common in today’s small town Canada.

Nationally, only 8.7% of new lawyers (having less than five years of experience) practice in a rural setting. A survey of the Law Society of British Columbia found that most students would leave the province before considering practicing in a rural area. [1] Of those lawyers who do work in small towns, most are nearing the age of retirement. In B.C. the typical age of a lawyer is about 48, but that can skew to upwards of 52 in smaller communities. In Castlegar, B.C. it’s 65. [2] This makes sense. Most law students come from the city, and why would they ever want to leave the bars, malls and restaurants of the big city to live in a town that only has two traffic lights and the only night club is the 24/7 McDonald’s lobby?

On top the lifestyle issues, there are many obstacles that present themselves to a future small town lawyer. Small town law firms do not have nearly as many resources to recruit and hire potential successors compared to their bigger counterparts. Small town lawyers often have to provide much more general advice on a broad range of topics, something that is hard to do in a legal world where people are encouraged to specialize. The biggest obstacle is the financial aspect. Small town firms often have to start from the ground up and law schools do not teach much in terms of practical business operations. Small town lawyers often earn less than a Vancouver or Toronto lawyer but work fewer hours. As with any obstacle, however, all that is needed to overcome these issues is some creative thinking and innovation.

The Canadian Bar Association’s Rural Education and Access to Lawyers Program (REAL) has already tried to fulfill some of the demand for small town lawyers across BC. By helping find summer positions and providing funding, this program helps to give law students a taste of small town law with the hope that they will stay.  In 2010, the Law Society of Manitoba introduced a program to offer a limited number of law students the opportunity to have their student debt forgiven (up to $25,000 per year of tuition and living expenses) if they work in an underrepresented community. [3] These programs do not do enough though, as they often only entice law students who already came from small towns. Enticing those born and raised in the city is much harder.

If the Canadian Bar Association wants to get more lawyers in small towns, I recommend they should try the following:

1)  Use lessons learned from this pandemic about working remotely. So many people have been working from home and so many people will not want to return to their commute once things return to the (new) normal. Many of the small town lawyers I have met work out of home offices and never had a commute to begin with. Additionally, many lawyers have been forced to conduct research online rather than relying on a physical library. Let people know that if they like working from home it is all the more possible as a small town lawyer.

2) Establish a legal incubator within relevant communities that would provide legal and business training to articling students and new lawyers while at the same time providing affordable and accessible legal services to people in rural and remote communities. [4]

3) Better educate law students about the benefits of small town lawyer life, such as more affordable housing and lower living costs, fewer working hours (on average) and generally more meaningful work right out of law school (rural lawyers often have complete control over an entire case).

4) Provide law students with shorter programs (such as one week) to job shadow rural lawyers and see what life is like, without having to commit several months over a summer.

Perhaps I have now convinced you to give small town law a try (though statistically, probably not).  Like any access to justice problem all we can do is think about it and try to figure out solutions. If anyone wants to discuss further I’ll be at McDonald’s tonight having a drink.

Sources:

[1] Tonya Lambert, “Promoting the Practice of Law in Rural, Regional & Remote Communities” (January 7, 2020), online (blog): Law Now <https://www.lawnow.org/promoting-the-practice-of-law-in-rural-regional-remote-communities/>. 

[2] Jim Middlemiss, “Small communities struggle to pry lawyers from Canada’s big cities, despite promise of jobs”, National Post  (Oct 1, 2013) <https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/small-communities-struggle-to-pry-lawyers-from-canadas-big-cities-despite-promise-of-jobs>.

[3] Lambert, supra note 1.

[4] Ibid.

 

 

Changing the Foundation for Innovation, Collaboration and Creativity in Law

Innovation, collaboration, and creativity are characteristics that are becoming a focal point of the current demands of those hiring legal counsel. Gone are the times of hiring a lawyer for one specific task with one specific requirement, and ushered in are the times of multi-faceted approaches to solving problems. It seems that because the legal world is starting to recognize that the lawyers being pumped out of law schools with a cookie cutter education perhaps isn’t the best way to stimulate innovation in the field, programs are being designed to help lawyers with their “soft skills”. While these programs are well-intentioned and certainly useful to those who have left law school behind decades before current, it simply doesn’t address the problem at a foundational level. The level I’m referring to is the ground level of fresh candidates being accepted into law school as we speak. Canada’s  top-tier law schools are not known for their holistic hiring process, and in fact usually require simply two documents upon application: (1) undergraduate transcripts, and (2) LSAT score. To me, requiring only these two items is inviting your new class of soon-to-be lawyers to set innovative thinking and real-world acquired soft skills aside for a spotlight focus on the robotic functioning of a fundamentally flawed grading system. If we want to fix what will soon be a profession-wide problem of lawyers who are being asked to perform in ways they’ve never been asked to before, the way to do so isn’t to address the problem years into a lawyers professional career, but rather at ground zero before they’ve learned the outdated and entrenched ways to approach the practice of law.

Upon discovering that perhaps law school was something I would like to pursue, I began the arduous process of looking into the requirements each individual school listed for their applicants. Not only did I leave the process disheartened as a student (I am the first to admit that working during my undergraduate degree did not fare ostentatiously well for my grades), I left it disheartened as a human being (dramatic yes, but also true). So many of the institutions I looked into did not have any kind of holistic framework in place to make sure that the applicants they were admitting were well-rounded in both academic pursuits and real-world experience. To me this screamed: “We want you! BUT with the caveat of it being the “you” only in relation to your grades and LSAT score.” Creating an environment comprised of academic superstars that were only admitted on the premise that their grades were high, and their LSAT score higher has created this strange utopian environment of legalese using human-like robots who read textbooks for sustenance and oil their joints with their regurgitated and unhelpful word-for-word caselaw.

That being said, there are always exceptions to the rule. There are certainly those who have been able to work, live lives, and achieve outstanding grades. In consequence, these people will have some of those soft skills that innovation, creativity and collaboration in a professional setting require. However, I do not think it wrong to say that most of those being accepted to the top tier law schools whom only weigh grades and LSAT scores are those students privileged enough to have been able to focus on school and only school in their undergraduate degrees. For some reason, this seems to be a fundamental flaw in our legal education system that is rarely discussed.

To tie this together, it is my extremely humble and overly simple second-year opinion that if we indeed want to encourage innovation, collaboration, and creativity in our legal profession, then why not try to fix the foundation that it was built on.  True innovation, collaboration and creativity blossoms from experience and practice in the real world with a variety of personal interactions. Why not include holistic evaluations country-wide in our law school applications to ensure that students coming in have a solid understanding of what personable communication is like and how to do it? Why are we encouraging, as institutions, students to only value grades and numbers that do not accurately translate to the legal skills required in the actual practice of law?

I am not trying to discount the importance of reading the material and being able to apply the knowledge. Reading comprehension and application is important and shouldn’t be taken for granted, especially in a profession where reading is a heavy component of the work. Showing your future law school that you are able to retain information at the undergraduate level is also an important indicator of being able to retain information at the law school level. However, this can be shown just as sufficiently through grades that live in the 80 percent range in tandem with outside-of-school work and experience, as it would be shown through grades in the upper 90 percentages with only an academic life focus. At the end of the day, the law profession is a service industry, and it’s no wonder clients are asking for more innovative and creative lawyers than the professionals they’re currently receiving. Many of the lawyers we’ve seen in this practice before us lack major service industry skills because of their purely academic focus, and I too as a client would want more soft skills present in my counsel.

In summation, I believe the key to truly endorsing innovation, creativity, and collaboration is changing the things that we as students are taught to value (i.e., grades). Institutions need to foster and appreciate adaptable thinking, people skills and real world experience. Adopting this mindset early would eliminate the need for lawyers to later on take courses to essentially learn how to talk to human beings on a human being level. This is arguably a skill we should all value as residents of this planet, instead of treating it like an abnormal characteristic that isn’t found abundantly in the regular functioning of society. I would argue even, that offering these courses as learning tools is simply affirming to lawyers and students that all the skills they need to know come from a classroom. These skills are easily achievable through interactions in the world by simply stepping outside of your front door and into an assortment of diverse social situations. I agree that the three aforementioned characteristics of collaboration, creativity, and innovation are necessities for those working in this current legal world, and are not consistently present at this time. My agreement on this issue also concludes that I acknowledge there is a problem that has not been properly addressed, managed, or cared about. Hopefully as I continue my journey through law school and then (hopefully, COVID-19 willing) into the practice of law itself I will see the institutional focus on grades and LSAT scores diminish in lieu of a focus on holistic application requirements. It is a hopeful outlook, but one I think is certainly achievable. The law itself is known to be an incredibly complex grey area for interpretation, so why are we making our recruiting requirements and expectations so black and white?

God Save the Legal System

Dave Barroqueiro
Constructor of Legal Apps and Lover of the Digital Age
https://twitter.com/rawklawbster

In June 1977, to coincide with Queen Elizabeth II’s Silver Jubilee, The Sex Pistols released “God Save the Queen”, their second of only two singles. It was a raucous, rebellious condemnation of the rigid, class-based politics of what was at the time a seemingly immovable British culture, confined by tradition and an overblown sense of propriety. Whether intended or not, it was taken on as the anthem of the disillusioned; Johnny Rotten became their poster boy.

To call the release of “God Save the Queen” a disruptive event does not do it adequate service. The Pistols faced (actual) assaults and insults from disgusted and indignant passers-by on the street. The song was banned by the BBC. The Pistols were dropped by two record labels for being simply “too much trouble”. The machinery of government, culture and business conspired against them at every turn. Charts wouldn’t even mention the name of the song or the band by name.

And yet, the single sold by the boatload.
(Despite outselling Rod Stewart by a yard, conspicuously, the single charted at #2)

This wasn’t an accident. The song was representative of the long-bubbling frustrations of a subculture ignored and actively repressed by the hegemonic powers of the day. Love it or hate it, this song, and the punk movement as a whole, changed the game. Undeniably, rock n’ roll would never be the same again. British culture, in a many ways, would never be the same again. The cat was out of the bag, and those who gripped tightly to the “old ways” found themselves becoming increasingly irrelevant in the new environment.

The digital age is the disruption. The legal system is the confining culture, primed for its own revolution.

It is no secret that the legal profession is careful, quiet, and risk-averse. It is no secret that the legal profession in Canada is bound up in the rigid, proper culture – the pomp and circumstance – inherited from the 19th century upper-middle-class British tradition. It is no secret that the gatekeepers of the legal profession resist technological innovation because those gatekeepers themselves profit immensely from their own inefficiencies under the billable hours paradigm. They do not wish for the legal profession to change because it is to their personal benefit that it does not.

Other industries — banking, transportation, healthcare, and myriad others — have all undergone their own quiet revolutions in the face of the changes brought on by the digital age. They have embraced the tremendous decision-making power and efficiency that the information revolution has brought along with it. The legal industry, however, resists it. Why?

“If it ain’t broke…”

Legal technology bloggers frequently bring up the notion that the legal profession is averse to technological innovation because of the structure of the profession and the law business itself.

Law firms themselves are not “open” to external investment in the way that businesses in other industries are. In law firms, because lawyers do the legal work, and profits are not shared with non-lawyers, this closes them to investment (and alternative ideas) from the outside. The firm model, in itself, is a “bubble”. There are many who seek to keep this bubble from popping for any number of reasons: investment in tech costs money; the “billable hours” paradigm makes (and keeps) them wealthy; the “exclusivity” of legal help keeps it expensive and elusive; it’s the way things have always been done; lawyering is too “personal” of a business; etc., etc.

This is the death grip of the “old ways”. Decentralization has already begun, and new tools emerge on a daily basis that are re-forming the legal landscape. The grip is loosening. Independent, creative, and agile lawyers will do well. More people will be able to access justice than ever before. Big firms will continue to exist, surely, but their relevance will undoubtedly diminish. Good riddance.

Those with the mind to serving clients as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible will reach more people. As clients are becoming more tech-savvy, their expectations are changing. Consumers want agility; they want speed; they want the experience of seeking legal help to be as painless and affordable as possible.

That “BIG” disruptive event…

Disruption by way of innovation happens everywhere you look: in culture, in business, in human relations… everywhere. It is inevitable. As it relates to the legal profession, this is a good thing – it opens the doors to innovators, rewards incumbents who look ahead, and ruthlessly punishes those who don’t (the scythe is swift and without remorse).

It’s difficult to say if the legal profession will face the kind of “shockwave” the music industry did with the introduction of iTunes (RIP HMV), or rock n’ roll did with the introduction of punk rock into the public consciousness. Rest assured, however, that the technological revolution in the legal profession has begun with companies like RocketLawyer, or via online tribunals, such as the Civil Resolutions Tribunal in British Columbia, or by way of cloud-based practice management like Clio. No one innovation, on its own, has blown up the legal profession, but, in aggregate, they are democratizing access to the law and enabling practitioners to do and be more of what their clients need. Power is being wrested away from the gatekeepers. This must — and will — continue. The machinery is large, their pockets are deep, their influence is wide-reaching, and the culture is rigid.

And yet, the wave will swallow them all.

But for now… God Save the Legal System. We mean it, man…