IS SMALLER SAFER? – PART 1

This is part one of a two part blog aimed at assessing the future of the small law firm. Part one will outline questions and comments that I hope to answer in part two after conducting future research and listening to the opinions that people may have in the comments section of this post.

Although it has been an eye-opening experience to see the future of the profession and the factors at play that will affect it going forward, it seems so far the focus has been more on large, corporate structured firms. However, for myself, this left me pondering how this all could relate to a smaller firm in a smaller city (for example, rural cities in British Columbia). I am curious to know whether these smaller firms in smaller cities will be more or less affected by the innovations anticipated in the coming years. Some say that only the largest, most-established firms will be the firms that survive. However, it seems like these small firms in smaller cities charge lower rates than larger firms. Although this may be a personal intuition, I also have an understanding that some clients in cities like Vancouver outsource some of their work to these smaller firms to reduce costs, especially with the advancement of technology (for example, email, video conferencing, etc.).

With technology advancing and allowing these smaller firms access to information, services, and clients previously not available, will it make them more competitive in the future? Or, perhaps, will larger firms use technology to access these smaller markets themselves? I have read that some say the work smaller firms do will be replaced, to an extent, with software like LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer. However, these services seem to have been around for a while and yet clients are still forwarding the work to lawyers that could easily be done by these programs. Is it possible that people still prefer the human interaction that comes with dealing with an actual lawyer or are the programs still too new for a large consumer base to feel comfortable using them?

October 7, 2016October 14, 2016

The Trinity Western University Debacle

Though there is still a long way for us to go, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual (LGBT) rights in Canada are some of the most advanced in the world. However, this is a hot topic within the legal profession.

This is a contemporary issue for us in BC, and in Canada as a whole, as Trinity Western University has fought for accreditation as a new law school program. Earlier this year the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected TWU’s bid for recognition in the province. The Court of Appeal referred to TWU’s prohibition on sexual activity between same-sex couples as degrading and discriminatory. The school’s position is that it does not discriminate and all people are welcome to apply to enrol. However, TWU does require all members of the student body to sign a “community covenant” or code of conduct that forbids sex outside of heterosexual marriage as an admission requirement.

While it appears that religious freedom and equality are in the crosshairs and on a collision course. This is not the case. In actuality it strikes a balance between religious freedom and equality. As intervenors in the case, like the OUTlaws and Out on Bay Street, have stated, the covenant discriminates against LGBTQ persons since it barters their integrity and dignity for an education. This is unacceptable. Religious freedom is not a green light to discriminate and as the gatekeepers to the legal profession the Law Societies in BC and Ontario, who both denied TWU recognition, are upholding their ethical responsibility. As John Norris, a lawyer representing the Criminal Lawyers Association, which also intervened, said “The time has come to not accept at face value religious justifications for discriminatory conduct in the public sphere.”

This is an important issue for us since sexuality and who people choose to have sexual interactions with is irrelevant in terms of their ability to be proficient lawyers. Therefore, denying a person the opportunity to obtain an education either because they violate the covenant or simply refuse to sign it is a travesty to our justice and education systems.

Unlike other diversity categories, such as race or gender, employers are not required to collect statistics on the number of LGBTQ people they employ. While it may seem that sexuality is not part of the work experience as it is a private experience, the reality is that there is a link between sexuality and identity and we bring our sexuality to work every day without often realizing that we are doing so.

Sexuality pervades the workplaces in many ways that are often unseen. Sexuality is present in the pictures of our partners that we place on our desks, whether we choose to wear a wedding ring, and when co-workers chat about their families or what they did over the weekend with their partner. Further, sexuality is an engaged part of workplace policies. It is often seen, or unseen as the case may be, in policies regarding parental leave, partner benefits, and who is invited to social events.

For those that identify as members of the LGBTQ community, to disclose their sexuality at work can be daunting. The choice between either disclosing their sexuality (by refusal to sign the Community Covenant at TWU), or denying their dignity and integrity (by signing it) is one that members of the heterosexual community are not forced to engaged with, and therefore it is discriminatory.

Additionally, if TWU’s plans for a law school do go through it will impact the demographics of the Bar in British Columbia the most since it is likely that most graduates will choose to practice in Vancouver. This will impact the culture of the Bar in BC because if the standards for admission to a law school change in the way TWU is proposing with the mandatory signing of the covenant, then the standards within the Bar will change as well since many of their graduates will likely practice in BC. This means that the standards of professional conduct expected by lawyers and enforced by the Law Society of BC will be impacted, thereby affecting the public and the expectation of being served by competent, honorable legal professionals.

Further, there is the possibility of a stigma being associated with graduates of a law school that discriminates against the LGBTQ. Graduates of other law schools could potentially harbor negative feelings against law graduates of TWU for several reasons, including the fact that the TWU law graduates attended a law school that they simply could not attend if they wanted to stay true to themselves and maintain their integrity and dignity; moreover, they could face stigma due to the fact that the TWU law graduates attended a law school that discriminates. The TWU law graduates may even face further stigma from the public at large for this same reason.

Trinity Western University’s bid to have a law school and have its graduates recognized by the Law Societies around the country is a controversial issue that is very relevant to all professionals within the legal community. This is especially the case in BC since it will have a bigger impact on BC law students and the BC bar than most other provinces.

October 5, 2016October 5, 2016

India’s Public Interest Litigation – an opportunity for Canada

For many individuals and groups, the prohibitive costs and complexity of the justice system prevents them from bringing forward their case for human rights and social justice. Furthermore, issues of standing can prevent social activists and advocates from filing a lawsuit on behalf of a group facing injustice. One avenue that we can explore in Canada is the expansion of legal standing and who can file a case. In India, public interest litigation (PIL)/social action litigation has allowed third parties to bring forward cases involving constitutional and human rights issues. Furthermore, a case can be filed even on the basis of a letter sent to the court and barriers to filing such a lawsuit are low.

In Canada, pro bono legal services and not-for-profit legal advocacy organizations have played an important role in advocating for economic and environmental justice. Further easing the process for filing cases on matters of public importance could help address social issues. Journalists and concerned citizens could then have another powerful way of raising their voice on these matters.

Some concerns have also been raised. These include PIL cases being used for reasons motivated not by public interest, but for other improper purposes, which leads to a greater number of cases that the judicial system has to deal with. However, these issues can be overcome and solved by ensuring that only cases with merit and with valid issues of concern are allowed to proceed to the next stage.

Analyzing and learning from India’s experience with PIL and exploring its benefits and challenges can allow us to discover potential opportunities for ensuring greater access to justice in Canada. Such a model could help open the doors of the justice system for individuals and organizations on the front-lines of social justice advocacy. We should be exploring ways that we can implement such innovations in our system. This might begin with a pilot program, where we would assess the effectiveness of the system after a reasonable time period.

Justice RS Sodhi, the former Delhi High Court Judge stated the following: “PILs have been able to pick up the grievances of people as a whole, with the objective of en masse improvement of a system. When individuals could not come to court, the courts became obliged to look into a situation as was prevalent and bring improvement in the system.” He also stated that “there are always two sides to a coin. There will be people who will try and exploit [PILs], whether courts allow themselves to be misused…that is where the wisdom of the courts lie.”

The following is a link to a document that describes the issues that a petition for public interest litigation can address in India: http://bit.ly/2bzfGsk. The following link provides basic information about PIL on pages 199-200: http://bit.ly/2dvRsxz. Justice RS Sodhi quoted in: http://bit.ly/2dQ9dew

September 30, 2016

The End, and Future, of the Rural Lawyer.

The end of the rural lawyer is, thankfully, in sight.

I should start by saying that it is not from any personal prejudice against those who practice in rural areas that I use “thankfully”. Rather, it is an expression of the relief law students must feel as the idea of practicing in a rural area is, apparently, unappealing to the vast majority of law students. Indeed, it seems to have been for some time now. A quick search finds numerous articles lamenting the lack of enthusiasm amongst potential articling students from 2012, 2014 and even to this day in 2016. As an increasing number of rural lawyers reach the age of retirement, the lack of replacements for them spells a slow end to the rural lawyer.

Yet there is still a pressing need for rural law.

It is self evident that geographical location does not eliminate the legal issues that arise for an individual. So what replaces the future rural lawyer?

Imagine sitting in your office in Tofino, BC – a town of 1,900 – waiting for your client. They arrive promptly, and you greet them warmly. Offering them a seat, you walk them through your intake forms, deal with their questions, provide reassurance about their concerns and then see them to the door with a friendly smile and a handshake. As they leave, you take a moment to collect yourself before returning to your desk. A desk which is physically located in downtown Victoria.

A wistful dream, or a future closer than you might imagine?

Two recent trends provide good reason for hope for the provision of legal services to rural communities, and neither relies on reversing the trend of students preference for larger cities.

First, the ever increasing rise of rural internet connectivity. More and more small towns are opting to become their own Internet Service Providers. These towns install fibre-optic connections for their entire population. For $57 a month, they can receive speeds of 1,000 megabits. By comparison, Kamloops currently tops out at 150 megabits for $80 a month. The capacity of these networks to allow for increasingly large videos and images to be transferred is just barely beginning to be utilized. Even those that don’t are benefiting from Government initiatives aimed at providing high speed internet to rural communities.

Second, with the launch of Virtual Reality (“VR”) hardware. The recent launch of the consumer models of the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive have brought a high quality experience to the early adopter market. Currently, video games make the most use of these VR devices but the exploitation of VR is just beginning. At Virginia Tech they have created a virtual reality room [worth the watch!], which can be shared between several individuals. Each sees the exact same thing, and can see each other. Within the room, there is virtually no limit to what they may experience together.

The rural lawyer of the future? Well, they need not be rural at all.

With the right amount of bandwidth, this room could be shared with any other room (and any other participant) at any range. So not only can that office in Tofino be used by a lawyer in Victoria, but also one from Vancouver, Calgary or Toronto. Indeed, multiple lawyers could share (at different times) the same office in a small town, bringing a diverse range of experience and knowledge to small towns throughout Canada. Furthermore, the VR room is able to replicate any setting. So your client meetings could happen in a professional office, a farmhouse kitchen or on the beaches of Bali! You could tailor the office to each client, and locale, without any additional cost. Even if cost prevents the implementation of a VR room in every single small town in Canada to begin with, the VR rooms could easily become enough in local hub communities so as to improve access to professionals (such as lawyers, doctors or engineers) for hundreds of thousands of rural clients.

So in short, rejoice – the demise of the rural lawyer is nigh and the as for the future? Well it has never been brighter for rural law.

September 29, 2016

Career Metamorphosis

A handful of us in law school are here because we’ve hit the pause button on a career that’ll be enhanced by legal training, which has the potential to open up some interesting career paths beyond the traditional degree-article-firm job trajectory. In my case, a suspended academic career with an accompanying consulting practice tied to law means putting myself back on the other side of the classroom so that I might morph my work into something that can only come from the training that comes with a legal education. It’ll be worth it, right?

A survey of colleagues over the years show some of the interesting hybrid careers that can fall out of putting a layer of law on top of what one has already had some success doing.

One friend has a doctorate in language acquisition and second language learning, and, bolstered by that training, she went into criminal law and now works to address the legal issues that arise owing to weaknesses in legal translation in the courtroom.

Two others came out of high tech and transitioned nicely into intellectual property, bringing their specialized and current knowledge of their fields to guide patent applications and mount pretty formidable infringement cases.

One went from psychology to law, and now does mental health advocacy, including helping agencies seek funding.

The value of these lawyers comes from spending years honing a craft that then informs their legal work with a depth that cannot otherwise be acquired.

Law, we now know as law students, touches on literally every aspect of life and legal issues will always spring up. So whatever it is you did in a past professional life, you can probably parlay that into a career that aims to solve the problems that are endemic in that area. I used to teach and I’d get students in my office with all kinds of career anxiety, so I got pretty good at spitballing ideas. Here’s a few:

Were you a teacher? Teachers’ unions need your help, especially in provinces that keep defunding education. More on-the-ground work might see you representing individual teachers or schools in disputes.
Were you in health sciences? This one would be full of opportunity. Health tech, recalls, epidemics, policy, no doubt in my mind that another Imperial Tobacco is right around the corner, what with all the vapers in the doorways.
Maybe you come from social work? What can you and your expertise bring to some of the issues we need to be confronting in BC right now? Not a day goes by that we aren’t troubled by headlines regarding the homeless, the addicted, the mentally ill, housing crises and there are tons of legal issues arising all the time.
Environmental sciences or activism? You won’t be out of work in this province because, pipelines. Environmental agencies and First Nations are going to need your expertise to help make their case.

(You’ve probably noticed that I’m rather social justice minded, so perhaps the business minded can weigh in with their own ideas down in the comments.)

While it seems like jumping ship and going into law is a surefire way to do a mid-life career change, I suspect the hybrid route is one that could have some obstacles. You’re not immune to the thinning articling market, for example. And while no one likes to think it the case, age discrimination is a thing, and might work against you if you’re out there looking for something entry.

But a nice byproduct of the metamorphosed career is being hooked into a field that already knows your name, and that can’t be bad for business.

September 29, 2016

Artificial Intelligence and the Law

Who is “ROSS” and why is he going to take my job?

As you may have heard mentioned in class (maybe once or twice) the legal profession is changing due to a number of influences, one of which is the pervasive development within the information technology sector, particularly in the area of artificial intelligence (SURPRISE!).

Maybe you’ve heard of “Watson” or “ROSS”, maybe not. But let’s just clarify a few things regarding who these troublemakers are, what they are about, and why your job is definitely threatened by both of them—but arguably not for another 10 years at least (whew!)

Who? What?

Watson: Watson is a technology platform developed by IBM, named after the company’s founder Thomas J. Watson. Watson uses language processing, machine learning and cognitive computing to reveal insights and answer questions from inputted information. He has been successful at analyzing data and providing solutions based on supporting evidence in a variety of areas including the medical field and the law.

Fun Fact:

In 2011,Watson competed against two of Jeopardy’s greatest human champions in a match. Watson won earning $77,147 –Rutter brought in only $21,000 and Jennings $24,000.

ROSS:

Initially ROSS was a submission in an international tech competition where IBM challenged universities to come up with commercial uses for their Watson platform. ROSS is an artificially intelligent “lawyer” developed by U of T students as a legal research tool. ROSS allegedly eliminates the monotonous task of legal research so that lawyers can spend their time focusing on what is important—clients. Because legal research is patterned and repetitive, that is the best recipe for computer automation and hence, the development of ROSS. Intended to be a platform for lawyer use, you can ask it any form of legal question in natural language and ROSS has access to a vast legal databank and sifts through the information to find relevant and accurate legal answers.

Will … or rather when will Ross replace lawyers?

How quick and easy is it to employ ROSS? Besides ROSS platform itself, all you need is an Internet connection and, voila! According to rossintelligence.com he arguably eliminates time “wasted” on training sessions. “Let Ross help you accomplish more than you ever thought humanly possible.”

Now this is a claim I take issue with. Training sessions are important and ROSS is not about to eliminate the need to complete CLEs (they are inherently important in and of themselves, but that is a discussion for another blog). There is value in keeping your industry and case knowledge updated. No matter how wonderful and useful ROSS may be there are some barriers to overcome…

a) It’s going to take time to learn how to work with ROSS

b) What happens when the Internet cuts out? What happens if there’s a glitch? (Technology is great and useful, when it works)

But most importantly…

c) What about the articling students?

That brings me to my next question: so when will he take your job?

Arguably he already has. ROSS has been bringing in a number of subscription fees and the system is already being used by several law firms including sole practitioners and big law names like Dentons, Latham & Watkins as well as BakerHostetler. The fact that ROSS doesn’t need breaks or sleep (like most articling students) and has the ability to research and work around the clock gives firms a competitive edge —catch: ROSS doesn’t burn out!

But “old law” as we know it places importance on legal research skills and that is primarily what most articling students spend their time doing. Hypothetically, let’s say as time passes, technology further advances, and ROSS becomes more affordable to the point where he is employed by almost every firm in Canada. How are articling students going to learn the ropes? Will there be a need for articling students at all?

None of these questions can be answered for certain but ROSS and other AI that promotes industry efficiency is certainly not going away. The articling process and the value of articling jobs (insofar as the scope remains to complete legal research) are going to diminish and it is very likely that if there are any articling jobs left that whole program is going to experience a radical shift from the way things were done in the “good old days”, involving copious amounts of memo writing and legal research. ROSS is learning how to do that too!

But let’s face the facts here. The legal profession is comparatively one of the most conservative professions there are and the partnership pyramid scheme (dare I say) is still in full force today – and no senior partner in a bigwig firm is going to give up their passive income from all the hours their junior associates are billing overnight. No, this isn’t going to happen the day after tomorrow either. But the market forces are creating tension, clients are becoming better informed, globalization is alive and well, and the call for change in the profession has been happening for some time. Though it will not happen overnight, change is already happening and law students need to prepare themselves for the changing profession appropriately. Flexibility and adaptability are paramount. Within our career span, tools like ROSS and other AI platforms will be integrated into our everyday practice and will become the norm– that is for certain.

September 28, 2016September 29, 2016

“Axess” to justice – a new way of delivering legal services

Last Friday, our L21C class was talking a lot about the billing practices and business models of law firms. A lot of problems with the traditional billable hour model were highlighted and we had many discussions on how we can do things differently. We need to do things differently because existing clients are demanding it and potential clients are being left out. In my opinion, the billable hour and the lack of transparency and predictability in the pricing of legal services are major barriers to access to legal services for many individuals. We need to make changes in how we provide our services before others step in and do it for us.

A new way of delivering legal services

In comes Axess Law. They are a radically different law firm. They are located in Walmart. They write wills for $99. These two things alone are a drastic departure from the traditional notion of a law firm. They utilize technology and their experience to make legal services affordable and accessible to the everyday “Walmart shopper.” They are tapping into a market that no other law firm has yet. What makes them so great in my opinion is that they offer affordability and transparency, and therefore accessibility to the “average individual.”

Affordability and predictability

Axess Law will write simple wills for $99 when the average going rate for a basic will is $300. Axess Law started off with a focus on writing wills and other areas of law with defined workflows. Using what they call “Best Retail Practice,” they are able to determine the duration and price of a given client meeting in advance of an appointment. This in turn allows them to develop their back-end technology to support and deliver legal services at prices that you and I could afford.

Transparency

They offer flat fees for a majority of the work that they do and those fees are all clearly indicated on their website and in their storefronts. They provide quotes upfront for more specialized services. I think that this is all really enticing for the average person. Being able to gauge whether if they can afford a particular service before they even begin to engage removes the hesitancy associated with uncertainty.

Accessibility

Axess Law targets that segment of people who are currently not using lawyers. They do so primarily by providing upfront, transparent and affordable prices. They are also conveniently located in high foot traffic areas such as inside a Walmart. They are open seven days a week and into the evenings on weekdays. This enables individuals to consider addressing their legal needs as a part of their day-to-day errands. This level of accessibility diminishes the idea that legal services are only for the rich and elite or large corporations. Basic legal services can be seen as every-day necessities. Legal services delivered in this way decreases the potential for future conflict that often arises with improperly drafted wills, contracts, and various other DIY legal documents.

In a nutshell, Axess Law is providing legal services to those individuals who would otherwise not use any legal services. They are increasing access to justice.

A story of success

Axess Law opened their first location in June 2013. Now, just three years later, they have expanded all across the Greater Toronto Area, and have 12 locations in operation. They have reported a 634% increase in sales over the past two years and are talking about expanding across Canada. Axess Law has been featured in various publications such as the Financial Post, the Financial Times, and the Canadian Lawyer Magazine. Lena Koke, one of the co-founders of Axess Law, was recently named a Rising Star to Watch in the PROFIT/Chatelaine W100 ranking of Canada’s top female entrepreneurs. These are all strong indicators of success for Axess Law’s business model.

A model to adopt in other areas of legal practice?

I have a lot enthusiasm for the advent of a law firm like Axess Law. I think it brings legal services to that large gap of individuals who cannot afford “bespoke legal services” and who make just enough to not qualify for legal aid. Everyone needs legal services and those who have been left out for too long are finally being addressed.

Of course, many questions arise with this mode of practicing law. This truly is commoditizing legal services and questions of quality and ethics, amongst other concerns, come along with it. However, is it really a bad thing to have a basic will prepared and reviewed by a lawyer, when the alternative would be to have no will at all or a DIY will? I think Axess Law strikes a good balance in this regard by referring more complex work on to other firms.

Do you think there is any room with this model of business in other areas of legal practice? Could this “Best Retail Practice” thinking be applied to litigation and more complex legal transactions?

(Note that Axess Law has recently expanded their service offerings to handle small claims litigation – if anybody can shed some light on how they work out the pricing for these services to make it affordable and predictable for their clients, please share.)

September 23, 2016

Immigration, anecdotes and project management!

All credit to Joe Gardner from Unsplash (https://unsplash.com/?photo=4xv3lqnanYc)

Let’s talk about immigration law!

So to start, and anecdotally, I have a friend in law school who recently immigrated to Canada. They had a very frustrating time doing so, mostly because of the incredible amounts of bureaucracy and delay involved. Most specifically, he missed a single signature on a single page, sent in the forms, and waited 6 months for a response. The response he finally got was “here’s all your stuff back, sign that 1 missing signature and then send it back in” which is frustrating, but reasonable. So he did that.

You would think the 6-month delay would have to do with postage on both ends, but no! He had to wait another 2 months before finally getting confirmation that they had the forms and had processed them.

He had to wait 8 months for a set of forms to be accepted and recognized! This kind of delay seems insane, and ridiculous. Maybe you can blame it on the bureaucracy. Maybe you can blame it on my friend missing the one signature. Wherever you place the blame, wouldn’t it be nice if you had someone to work through this material with you? Or more likely than not, a program that could keep the immigration process in check and let you know what’s going on with updates?

Enter BridgeUS. This is a startup based in the USA (though I think would likely be very successful in Canada), out of San Francisco, and which seeks to simplify the immigration process, either through an attorney, or on your own.

A screenshot of BridgeUS program at work!

BridgeUS has created an application that will walk you through the immigration process, start to finish, with the required forms, checklists, and all of the information you need to ensure that you complete your immigration as quickly as possible, and as easily as possible. The client-facing side is a Do-It-Yourself system, where you simply follow the guide. The application has surveys and methods to gather your information that aren’t simply you filling in blank spots on forms, which is a nice touch as well.

The lawyer facing side is also interesting, because it focuses on project management and tracking of the process. It works on a checklist process, focusing the lawyer on what needs to be done next, and (I assume) through your own input, directs you through the checklists and keeps you up to date on the file, so that even if you walk away from the file and come back to it later, then you can quickly see what you had on the go, and what needs your attention.

I really like BridgeUS. I think this is the kind of tool that governments should necessarily provide, to make the immigration process more transparent, rather than wrapped up in so much bureaucratic red tape that you don’t even know what to do.

Further, I think BridgeUS takes Susskind’s advice, and focuses on incorporating project management into the legal profession, which Susskind thinks will be a career specialty unto itself in the future. Good future-proofing, adaptation of a new skill set to force the lawyer to adapt, and both client and lawyer facing.

Good job BridgeUS! Keep up the work! I can’t wait to see your Canadian equivalent eventually pop up!

“Ars, Lex Iuvenesque Inventores: hinc Futurum”

September 18, 2016September 18, 2016

Riding the Technology Wave

The Technology Wave and the Solo Practitioner

Friday’s meeting introduced us to the brave new world of technology changing law firms as we know them. It was both fascinating and a little fear inducing. There certainly seems to be a wave of technological advances pushing out the “old law”. Corporate law is changing. Big law is changing. While it was interesting, the focus on corporate law left me wondering about solo practitioners and small law firms. Much of the software discussed at the meeting was not affordable nor tailored towards solo practitioners. How is technology affecting them? What technology is available to help to them?

I decided to do make a list of a few different programs available out there that might help solo practitioners or smaller firms. They are not all legal based, but then running a law firm is a business as much as it is a law practice.

Accounting software

It’s important to stay on top of your accounting as a small business. You don’t want to be that person making a frantic run to your accountant with a shoe box full of receipts at the year end. Using Cloud-based software such as Toronto’s Wave, or Mint (now owned by intuit), it’s easy to update your records from your laptop, tablet or even your phone when you have some free time. Wave is geared towards companies with 9 or less employees, and it’s free to use. Mint supports all Canadian banks and is user-friendly.

SEO (search engine optimization) software

You’ve made a sleek, modern, professional website for your firm! It cost a pretty penny (okay, a few hundred thousand now obsolete pennies) but it was worth it. Proudly you type your company name into Google. Nothing. You search frantically, page after page, but nope, Google doesn’t seem to know your beautiful website exists. That’s where SEO software comes in.

SEO is a massive industry. So don’t be afraid to hire someone to do this for you (which will also cost many obsolete pennies). However, if you are feeling brave (or cheap), here are some Cloud-based SEO products that may help: Moz.com can give you a simple action plan with steps to help you rank, position, and building your search rating on Google. SEMRush takes a different approach. They let you see what your competitors are spending adwords to help you stay in the top advertising spots.

Clio

Yes, Clio has its own category. This product isn’t just for larger firms. They have packages as cheap as $39/month. Time tracking, billing, and lots of other goodies make Clio a useful product for almost any firm.

Other niche software

There are lots of programs out there for specific legal areas. DivorceMate is a software product aimed at family law. It streamlines child support guidelines and spousal support guidelines, among other things. They have a Cloud-based version as well as a desktop version. You can choose to pay for a $500/subscription or $55 per file option. Do Process Software has several different specialized software for real estate, wills, estates, and others. The costs vary on the product you choose.

Hopefully this list helps you think of the different ways technology can help solo practitioners and small firms. The technology wave is coming for everyone, not just big law. We should all learn to ride and embrace the wave.

September 15, 2016September 15, 2016

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.

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”