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 21st 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!)
Great insight Nabiha. I completely agree with the challenges you have presented in this post. Coming from an immigrant home, I have witnessed first-hand the struggles faced in my household as well as with my extended family who live in the midst of confusion when it comes to understanding the legal system. Not only can Canadian laws seem very foreign to individuals who come from a country with a very different legal system, but finding someone to explain the differences can be equally challenging.
I agree that not enough is being done to accommodate the language barriers that exist within the legal profession. However, I would like to suggest that the solution is not simply in more accessibility to language based legal information; I believe the issue also extends into the practice and representation of these clients. The need for culturally sensitive lawyering is greater now than ever before. In order to adequately represent clients, we should be able to relate and understand to their culturally sensitive issues.
I am reminded of a common example of differing cultural practices that can lead to legal misunderstandings. Many cultures believe that eye contact to a superior is a sign of disrespect, hence in the court room these individuals tend to avoid looking directly at the lawyers or the judge, as a sign of respect. Our legal system will often skew this to mean dishonesty and shame. We know the legal implications such an impression can leave on the adjudicator or the defendant lawyer trying to discredit the plaintiff or witness.
The solution means more accessible information as well as modifying the role of the modern lawyer and the legal system as a whole, to be aware of these sensitivities and address them adequately.
Thank you for your comment, Pavan! You are absolutely right, cultural practices and different frames of reference should be considered (and understood) for effective legal representation. I believe there should be formal training for cultural sensitivity in law schools – and that should be carried forth into our careers.
With that being said, building a curriculum for cultural sensitivity will have many obstacles, and may exclude many cultural practices (sheer logistical issue – simply can’t cover all the varying cultural nuances of every nationality/ethnicity in any form of training). This is why I believe that creating solutions to language barriers will help lawyers to communicate with their clients and continue expanding their knowledge of the differing needs of diverse clients.
Hopefully, we will continue to see an increase in diversity in lawyers, but sometimes a client will just not find someone who has a personal understanding of their cultural background. I am hoping in those cases, the tools for language barriers will be the first step in providing effective legal services!