Bringing Innovation to Law: Think like Elon Musk

Introduction

The legal industry is in need of ideas for change and innovation, and I found just the person to look to.

Elon Musk is the founder of SpaceX, and the co-founder of Tesla Motors and SolarCity.

With SpaceX, his goal is to make humans a multi-planetary species. In Tesla, his vision, dubbed the ‘Master Plan,’ involves creating a fully electric car that is affordable and can be manufactured at high volumes. Using SolarCity, he plans to create low-cost sustainable energy by harnessing the power of the Sun.

iron-man — **“Doth mother know you weareth her drapes?”** *image credits: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/underwire/2010/04/im_large_660.jpg*

Before that, he was the founder of Zip2 and Paypal. The former was a software company that designed online city guides, and the latter is an electronic online payment platform.

He is the closest thing to a real life Tony Stark that lives in our time.

So how does a man who started his career in software engineering end up being at the forefront in aerospace, automotive, and solar energy? There are many things that lawyers and law students can learn from a man that is attempting to change the landscape of 3 gigantic industries.

Here I have offered 2:

First Principles Reasoning; and
Learning Transfer

First Principles Reasoning

Musk describes that one of his core philosophies that guides his method of thinking is called First Principles reasoning.

First Principles, Musk describes, is a physics way of looking at the world. You boil things down to its most fundamental principles, stripping away all the assumptions that we have accumulated about the topic, and then reason up from there.

He gives an example of a battery pack in an electric car. Historically, a battery pack costs $600 per kilowatt hour. The assumption is that battery packs are expensive. As a car manufacturer, you take that assumption as an unchangeable fact and figured you will just have to integrate that cost into the price of the car.

With first principles, a person would attack that assumption. You boil the battery pack down to its fundamental principles and look at what are the material constituents of the battery, how much those materials would cost, and how much it would cost to assemble them into a battery. If you realize that it will actually only cost you $80 per kilowatt hour, you have now changed what everyone else took for as a fact.

As law students and lawyers, our challenge is to identify the assumptions built into our legal industry that we had accepted as fact over time.

For example, take the cost of legal services. In a 2015 Canadian Lawyer legal fees survey, the average hourly rate of a 10-year call was $360 per hour, and the national average cost of a 5-day trial is $56,439. The assumption is that legal services are expensive, have always been expensive, and will always be expensive.

Let’s take a first principles approach. Attack that assumption. Boil down the cost to its fundamental parts, and take a look at what components are no longer needed or can be changed.

Take a look at what Axiom Legal did. It realized that a big law firm with a large beautiful office space that is located in a prime location garners prestige, but also attracts a massive overhead. Instead, Axiom has its employees working remotely or onsite with their clients, and the result was that Axiom was able to eliminate 30 percent of a traditional firm’s overhead.

Another example is the billable hour. Lawyers have been using the billable hour to charge their clients because it is simple, familiar, and is flexible enough to account for the varying times it can take to work on a file. The assumption is that the billable hour is the best way to charge clients because no better method exists. However, the billable hour is unpredictable for clients because they do not know how much they will be billed for, and this allocates the risk to them.

its-how-weve-always-done-it — *image credits: http://stevedigioia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/The-Same-Old-Thinking-e1450563823707.jpg*

Let’s look at how Hughes Amys LLP has attacked this assumption. Hughes Amys employs an alternative fee arrangement. They use a practice management software to gather data on personal injury files. They looked at the average costs for different claims, the average times it took for these claims to be resolved, and the average awards that were paid out. The firm then presents this data to the client to provide a transparent estimate of how much a flat fee for the month would cost.

What other assumptions should we tackle?

Learning transfer

Elon Musk has become a leader in many areas of industry such as space exploration, automotive and energy. He is also a leader in many areas of their technology including reusable rockets, self-driving cars, and residential solar roofs.

One of the reasons he is so competent in these different areas is because he is very proficient in Learning Transfer. Learning Transfer is a process where you transfer what you learned in one context and apply it to another.

Elon Musk is an avid reader and eager learner. According to his brother Kimbal Musk, Elon would read 2 books a day. The books he reads spans multiple disciplines and interest areas, including philosophy, religion, programming, and science fiction. He would also read the biographies of influential figures such as Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, J.E. Gordon, and Howard Hughes.

Musk then uses what he learns in one industry and applies it to another. Combined with the first principles approach, Musk would deconstruct a field of study into its fundamental principles, compare and contrast these principles with a second field of study, then reconstruct the lessons learned from the first to the second. He has done this to quickly become proficient in the field of artificial intelligence, physics and engineering.

As lawyers and law students, how can we apply learning transfer in our practice?

In an essay written by Ben Heineman, William Lee, and David Wilkins titled “Lawyers as Professionals and as Citizens: Key Roles and Responsibilities in the 21^st Century,” the essay urges lawyers and students to develop complementary competencies in addition to our core competencies.

Our core competencies are things like our basic legal training on the main legal subjects such as contracts, torts and property. It also includes legal skills such as critical thinking, analysis, and issue-spotting.

However, with new technology such as the artificial intelligence lawyer ‘ROSS’ that can do legal research on an entire body of law faster than what a human can achieve, including legislation, case law and secondary sources, the contemporary lawyer must possess inter-disciplinary knowledge and skills in order to stay competitive in the market.

This is where learning transfer can be useful in developing our complementary competencies. Complementary competencies are things like cost-benefit analysis, creative and constructive thinking, risk management, negotiation, communication, and value-based decision-making.

For example, one of the core competencies we develop in law school is issue-spotting. During an exam we are given a fact pattern and, drawing from the topics we’ve learned in that class, we can determine what legal issues need to be analyzed in that question.

Now let’s use learning transfer to apply that skill set to another context: negotiations. The fundamental principle in issue-spotting is being able to identify the ‘triggers’ in the fact pattern that tell you what legal rules will be engaged. You can transfer that fundamental principle to negotiations by learning to identify the key information in each negotiating party to determine how much bargaining power each party possesses.

As a student trying to become a 21st century lawyer, who better to learn from than the 21st Century Industrialist? There we go, we got a little bit of learning transfer going on right there.

Conclusion

The legal industry is notorious for being very conservative. Clients want more value for their money, and new technological advances are threatening the old ways of doing things. Elon Musk is trying to break the status quo in 3 very large industries, and we can learn a lot from him.

As law students and future lawyers, we have the controls to choose the direction our profession takes in the coming years. It’s easy for us to be resistant to change and be protective. After all, it feels personal to us because it is our livelihood. However, this is an excellent opportunity for us to be at the forefont in changing how lawyers do their jobs.

Or … we could be like Comcast to Google Fiber and bury our heads in the sand. The choice is ours.

November 4, 2016

Law Graduate of 2017: Am I Ready?

6 months from now, I will be wrapping up my time in law school and preparing to bravely enter the legal profession. As I think about this, one question unduly crosses my mind: Am I ready? Has law school truly prepared me to be the best practicing lawyer that I can be? Perhaps it has, and I just haven’t realized it yet. Or, maybe it hasn’t, and this is due, in part, to the lack of hands-on experiential learning that exists in traditional law schools.

My answer to this question is: No, I do not feel as ready as I probably should feel after almost three years of legal education.

Why might that be the case? In my opinion, and based on the numerous discussions we have had in L21C, there seems to be a significant gap between what is taught in law school, and the actual practice of law as it exists today. There is more to the practice than simply knowing what the law is and applying it to a legal problem. Essentially, this is already taught in law school, and it is reflected in how our understanding of law is evaluated when we write 100% final examinations. But what about the skills required for interviewing an emotional and frustrated client? Or the skills required for building strong, lasting relationships with clients, and fellow lawyers? More importantly, what about the skills and competencies required to succeed in a world in which lawyering is rapidly changing with innovation, the utilization of technology and the provision of legal services in general. Should we really be learning all of these skills and competencies after graduation? No, we should not! Personally, I would definitely feel more prepared to enter the legal profession if law school offered more hands-on learning and practical experiences.

Recent legal discussion has focused on the transformational changes that are occurring in the legal profession, and how changes to the content of legal education may address this gap between what is taught in law school and how lawyers actually practice. Not only that, if lawyers are going to meet the needs of the 21^st century, there is no better way than to start from transforming legal education, and how we train our future lawyers. I strongly believe that incorporating a practical component to legal curriculums and programs across Canada may be a viable solution. With that being said, I believe that Ryerson University’s proposal to open a “different law school” is a great idea for the following reasons.

1. It would provide more opportunities for hands-on learning.

The idea of having a mandatory placement or practicum component added to the legal program seems promising. This would definitely give law students an excellent opportunity to work in the legal profession under the supervision of a practicing lawyer. Having this exposure before graduation would prove useful to those students who may have no idea what it means to actually practice in the field. Moreover, it would help law students network, build relationships with other professionals (not just legal professionals), and develop their practical skills.

2. It would produce practice-ready legal professionals.

Having practical experience would produce law graduates that feel confident in their skills and abilities as new entrants in the legal profession. Law graduates need to be prepared to enter into a workforce that is progressively changing with new advances in technology. They should be informed of how these new innovations can benefit (or hinder) their practice as they prepare to provide legal services. For this reason, Ryerson’s strong emphasis on the use of technology, both as a tool for education and as a tool for future success, will be an asset to law graduates.

3. New competencies would be taught.

Traditional law schools already teach us how to be analytical thinkers, problem solvers, legal researchers, and good communicators. Ryerson’s proposed legal curriculum would also teach students competencies required for the future. Some competencies listed in the school’s Letter of Intent include: emotional intelligence, entrepreneurial spirit, network building and technological proficiency. These highly transferable competencies would ensure that future law graduates are career-ready and capable of adapting to changing societal expectations. Students may even feel encouraged to explore unconventional career options, practice in a legal area that is novel or respond to unmet legal needs by promoting access to justice.

I know Ryerson’s proposal to open a new law school in Canada has been the subject matter of an interesting and heated debate. However, after reading Ryerson’s Letter of Intent, I appreciate that what the school is trying to do is prepare students to become “practice-ready professionals with knowledge and transferable skills required to compete in a rapidly changing profession.” In my opinion, transforming the way we teach and train future lawyers is exactly the kind of change we need if we are going to keep up with the shifting legal profession, and the 21^st century.

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.

December 9, 2015September 3, 2016

Showcasing Student Writing: BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal

L21C has been an unconventional course in many ways, but the students (partners) did do one pretty traditional assignment: a good old legal memo. There were a couple of twists, though: the memos were written collaboratively by the student groups, and they were also set up as work product for a client on which all the time had to be tracked and billed using Clio.

All the L21C partners reviewed and commented on one another’s memos, and finally voted on which memo was the best on each of the two assigned topics.

Here is one of the winners: a memo outlining how BC’s new Civil Resolution Tribunal works, from the point of view of a poverty law clinic looking at how this new initiative can enhance access to justice. For the purpose of this assignment, the (fictional) clinic was the firm’s client, seeking advice on its options for setting up a new consumer law clinic using the Civil Resolution Tribunal – an artificial set-up, but not completely outlandish, as it is not hard to imagine a law firm helping out a clinic on a pro bono basis with this kind of analysis. As we learned from guest speaker Lawrence Alexander, consumer problems are among the most common legal difficulties people need help with. And the CRT is supposed to make it easier, faster and cheaper to deal with these small-claims disputes, compared with going to court.

The memo follows. (Please note that this isn’t legal advice!)

November 4, 2015

To: Street Legal Services

Re: Creation of a New Consumer Protection Clinic

The purpose of this memo is to advise Street Legal on the creation of a new consumer claims clinic through the Civil Resolution Tribunal. Following a summary this memo will look at (a) key relevant legal provisions, (b) a proposed structure and (c) ways to maximize access to justice.

Summary

The new clinic cannot advise clients on constitutional questions or human rights violations as the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to deal with these matters. Further, before agreeing to represent the client the clinic must ensure that the client is not engaged in litigation on the same matter. Unless a client has impaired capacity or is a minor the client is expected to represent themselves before the tribunal. Where the client is a minor or impaired a lawyer (not a law student) may represent the client before the tribunal. Further, a lawyer must be available to supervise the activities of non-lawyers, the degree of which to be determined by the clinics staff.

The structure of the clinic will be divided into two tiers: case management phase and tribunal-hearing phase. A minimum of two lawyers will oversee operations of each tier. Under the first phase, a student and lawyer will assess the client’s case and based on complexity determine how the file will be handled. If the client’s file progresses to the second tier the client will be prepared for the hearing.

To promote access to justice, it is recommended that the clinic be open twice per week (one weekday and one day each weekend) for appointments and drop-ins. For flexibility purposes, clients may have the option of scheduling an appointment outside of the regular hours. Visible minorities will be given priority. To encourage education on the issues associated with consumer protection it is recommended that the clinic provide free seminars to educate students and lawyers.

A. Legal Provisions

In starting the new clinical program Street Legal must refer to the Civil Resolution Tribunals Act[1] and the Law Society of British Columbia’s Code of Professional Conduct.[2]

The Civil Resolution Tribunal has specific rules on the types of cases it will hear. The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear constitutional questions (including Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms[3] questions) or questions on conflict between the Human Rights Code[4] and another enactment.[5] It is imperative that the clinic takes cases that conform to these rules. Additionally, a party cannot request a tribunal resolution if they are party to a court proceeding on the same matter.[6] The clinic must ensure that no clients are engaged in litigation before agreeing to advise them for a tribunal hearing.

It is expected that the party will represent themselves before the tribunal. However a lawyer may represent a party before the tribunal where the party is a child or is of impaired capacity.[7] For this reason, a lawyer from the clinic must be available. Only lawyers are permitted to represent clients that require representation, a law student cannot represent anyone at the tribunal.[8] As stated above, the clinic will need to have a lawyer available in these instances.

The involvement of a lawyer is also required under the Code of Professional Conduct, which stipulates that a lawyer must supervise the activities of a non-lawyer.[9] The amount of supervision required depends on the complexity of the case, and should be determined by the clinic’s legal staff. It is possible for lawyers to delegate tasks to non-lawyers working at a legal clinic, but this should be monitored closely as the clinic is new and will require direct input from lawyers at its inception.

B. Advice on Structure

It is recommended that the clinics lawyers be directly involved in its creation by supervising the work of the clinic staff (as is required by the Code of Professional Conduct[10]). This will increase the likelihood of its long-term success.

As the tribunal is a new venue for resolving disputes the specifics of how it will operate are still unknown. Experienced lawyers are in a better position to address any initial issues of the new tribunal and clinic. When appropriate the supervising lawyers may be able to delegate responsibility to other staff members.

We propose that the structure of the designated consumer claims clinic be divided into two tiers: (1) case management phase[11] and (2) tribunal-hearing phase.[12] We recommend that a minimum of two lawyers be assigned to each tier to oversee its operation. Ideal candidates for these positions would be lawyers with direct experience in dispute resolution and tribunal work to provide big picture knowledge of the tribunal’s operation.

Under this recommendation, when a client enters the clinic he or she would undergo an initial assessment with a student(s) and lawyer from the clinic’s first tier to discuss their case/issue. After the initial assessment the lawyer and student(s) would collaboratively decide whether the student(s) is capable of representing the client on the matter alone, or if the matter is sufficiently complicated so as to require the lawyer to oversee the file directly. This decision would require a discussion of the complexity of the file as well as the student’s experience and confidence level. At this initial meeting it is important to explain that the tribunal is unable to hear constitutional questions (including Charter questions) or issues dealing with the Human Rights Code.

Once it has been determined who will take the lead in overseeing a specific file (student(s) or lawyer) the client would be informed of the decision and work directly with the assigned representative in preparing for the tribunal hearing. If it is determined that the student can take the lead, they will be in charge of interviewing the client, drafting motions and generally preparing the case for the tribunal hearing. In this case a supervising lawyer would directly oversee all work completed by the student and remain on hand to advise whenever necessary.

If the client’s case makes it to the second tier of the clinic’s program, the tribunal-hearing phase, it is recommended that the representative from tier 1 explain the process to the client; including the general expectation that clients represent themselves. If the client is unable to represent themself (age or impaired capacity) a lawyer from tier-two would be informed of their need for representation at the hearing.

It is suggested that the student assigned to the file would not change as the file moves from tier one to tier two to facilitate a smooth transition and provide clients with a consistent contact person. However, since the lawyer overseeing the client’s file may change from tier one to tier two, all representatives must be versed on each cases details. The clinic will hold monthly “case briefing” meetings (law students and tier lawyers discuss tribunal cases) and ensure detailed file progress is recorded.

The monthly “case briefing” meetings would serve two purposes: (1) provide an opportunity for tier lawyers to ask questions about the client file and (2) provide students with the opportunity to discuss each case and receive lawyer feedback.

C. Access to Justice

We recommend that the clinic have flexible hours to accommodate low-income clients who may have difficulty accessing the clinic during regular work hours. To accommodate this we recommend that in a given week the clinic should be open for a minimum of one day during the week and one day on the weekend. The clinic may also wish to offer drop-in appointments, dependent on lawyer and student availability, to increase access to clients who have little notice with their work schedules.

Similarly to other legal clinics, we recommend that particularly vulnerable persons be given priority. This includes, but is not restricted to, immigrants, visible minorities and senior citizens. Lastly, we recommend that the clinic consider providing semi-regular seminars on issues such as self-representation. These discussions would be of value to both the clinic and the community at large. As with all our recommendations, the feasibility of such may be determined once the clinic is running.

Sincerely,

New Age LLP

[1] Bill 44, Civil Resolution Tribunals Act, 4th Sess, 39th Parl, British Columbia, 2012.

[2] The Law Society of British Columbia, Code of Professional Conduct, British Columbia: Law Society of British Columbia, 2013 [Code of Professional Conduct].

[3] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].

[4] Human Rights Code, RSBC 1996, c 210 [Human Rights Code].

[5] Supra note 1 at cl 3(2)(a), (b).

[6] Supra note 1 at cl 4(3), 5.

[7] Supra note 1 at cl 20(1), 20(2)(a) – (c).

[8] Supra note 1 at cl 20(4)(a), (b).

[9] Supra note 2 at s 6.1-1 (1).

[10] Ibid.

[11] Supra note 1 at cl 17.

[12] Supra note 1 at cl 2(3)(b).

September 9, 2015September 3, 2016

LawHacks: The Main Assignment

The main project that participants in L21C will work on for the next three months is called “LawHacks.” It’s a group project that will culminate in a pitch, “Dragon’s Den” style, to a panel of judges. The challenge is to come up with innovative ways to provide legal services and do law better.

Here are the detailed instructions:

The Problem

The idea behind LawHacks is crowdsourcing solutions to a problem. The problem, in very simple terms, is finding better ways to be lawyers.

To elaborate:

From a certain perspective, there is an oversupply of legal services: it’s becoming harder for some firms to compete and stay profitable, there’s softening of demand (and expectations of better deals on price, speed and efficiency) from traditional purchasers of legal services, and the job market is getting tougher.

At the same time, there is an undersupply of legal services: there is a huge amount of need for help with legal problems that is not being met. Business clients still need legal services, but they are facing their own pressures to ensure that each dollar spent on lawyers is justified. Ordinary people generally have severely limited access to legal services, or no access at all.

So the problem is how to bridge that gap, between shrinking profitable work for lawyers and unmet demand for our skills and help.

The gap is connected to other challenges facing the profession, including: attrition of talented and highly trained people, especially women and minorities; narrowing access to the legal profession linked to the cost of legal education and a shrinking supply of articling positions; and the difficulty that some lawyers experience in achieving a satisfying and well-rounded life.

There are lots of smart, talented people who want to help solve clients’ legal problems and have the knowledge, intelligence and creativity to do it, and there lots of potential clients who need them, yet in many ways our current system for connecting one side of that equation to the other is not functioning well.

This is what is known as a “wicked problem.” It is multidimensional. It does not have a single “right” solution (although there are surely solutions that are better and more effective than others). Wicked problems are tough to solve – or even impossible to solve completely – because they involve a complex mix of contradictory and changing requirements, and a solution that deals with one dimension may reveal or create other problems.

The Proposal

Your task is to come up with a strategy, idea, tool, product or something else that helps address the problem.

Essentially, you are developing an innovative technology, in the broadest sense of the word:

Technology is the collection of techniques, methods or processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives (Wikipedia)

This does not have to mean technological solutions in the narrow sense (for example, designing an app or using modern communications technology) – but of course, you are welcome to incorporate “tech” elements like these into your project.

You choose your own direction.

Your team can choose which of the many dimensions of the problem you want to focus on.

Here are a few suggestions for directions you might want to pursue. They are suggestions only, intended to spark your imaginations, not to constrain you.

New approaches to regulation of the profession and/or business models (see readings for October 14)
New approaches to charging for legal services (see readings for October 21)
Technological solutions to enhance access to justice for disadvantaged groups (see readings for October 28)
Reformed approaches to legal education and the law school curriculum (see readings for November 11)
A plan for improving diversity in the profession and the retention of women and minorities (see readings for November 18)
A better way of disseminating legal information to those who need it
A new approach to funding legal education to improve access to the profession and give graduates more freedom in their choice of career options
A plan for getting better and more complete information about unmet needs for legal services

How you turn your idea into a proposal to present to the judges is really up to you. There are two main things to keep in mind:

You have to explain to the judges why it matters – why is it important to do the thing that you are trying to do?
And you have to convince the judges that it will work – is this a practicable solution that will produce useful results?

The Pitch

Teams will pitch their LawHacks to a panel of “dragons” in the last two class sessions, November 25 and December 2.

Each team has a total of 40 minutes allotted for its pitch.

The overall goal, similar to “Dragon’s Den,” is to persuade the dragons that your project is worth “investing” in. Unlike in Dragon’s Den, however, your project does not have to be a business proposal intended to generate profits (although it can be – and if it is, you should be prepared to show the dragons how it will make a profit). You should persuade the dragons that this project will give a good return on investment – whether that is measured in the traditional way (profit) or as a social investment that creates benefits for the community.

The total time consists of:

The “elevator pitch”: 5 minutes. This is a very quick explanation of the essence of your idea.
A more detailed presentation: 15 minutes. This is where you walk the dragons through the specifics of your proposal. Think of it as something like a TED talk.
Interview with the dragons: 20 minutes. The dragons will question you about how your proposal will work, what problems there might be and how you plan to address them.

How you set up your presentation and what tools you use is completely up to you. You can use live talk by the whole group or any number of members of the group; Powerpoint; Keynote; Prezi; video; a web site; a demo of any prototype you have created; or any combination of these or anything else.

You need to have a realistic plan for putting your idea into operation; just a vague idea is not going to cut it with the dragons.
You should gather relevant information and research to support your proposal, show why it’s needed and that it is feasible.
You should give due consideration to how your idea might exacerbate problems, or reveal new ones, while solving the problem you are focusing on (this is characteristic of wicked problems). Be prepared to convince the dragons that you have a plan to mitigate the difficulties, or that your idea is a net positive even if it might have some unavoidable costs.

***IMPORTANT: Materials to Submit in Advance***

You must prepare at a minimum, a two-page summary of your proposal for the dragons and the rest of the class, and submit it one week in advance of your presentation.

You are also allowed (but not required) to prepare any other materials you like and submit them to the dragons to help them understand your idea – but use your judgment and avoid overloading them.