Tag: technology

Posted on

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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

Posted on

The Road to (Legal) Innovation

First, I would like to start by congratulating the class on the successful completion of the Law Hacks presentations. I thoroughly enjoyed all the presentations which exposed me to some great ideas regarding legal innovation. I am excited to know that at least one of those ideas, Summons, is already on its way to becoming reality; I hope that more follow. As we look towards our future and the innovation of legal practice, there is a caveat to be considered.

In his article “The failure of legal innovation“, Jordan Furlong introduces the readers to the nature of the start-up market. Furlong points out that we live in the age of start-ups, a phenomenon that brings about significant social and economic benefits, but one which is characterized by the risk of failure. For every successful start-up, there are far more failed ones. As Furlong points out, the reason for failure is not always a bad idea, sometimes its bad execution, or worse still, pure bad luck. The point that he is trying to drive home is that there are immense challenges in the way of start-ups, which we got a taste of by getting grilled by the ‘dragons’.

As we learned during the semester, the legal profession is going through a transitional period as we play catch-up with the technological advancements. As much as it scary, it is a good sign that we have chosen the route of innovation rather than extinction.  It is no doubt that the need of the hour is investment in bold and fresh new ideas. However, I would like to add one caveat to this process: know when to stop. As mentioned earlier, a start-up’s failure isn’t always due to a bad idea; there are numerous other variables that account for success. Therefore, it is important to know when to give up on an idea, lest we end up chasing down a rabbit hole.

As part of the first graduating class of L21C at TRU Law, we are well on our way to start contributing meaningfully to the transition. The challenges ahead of us, as lawyers, are greater in way because lawyers don’t like to be told that they have been doing something wrong, especially when they hold considerable power in terms of regulating the practice of law. However, incremental changes by way of resilience will make sure that we come out stronger at the end of every battle. As Furlong said “[o]ne LinkedIn or Uber is worth many pets.com”; let’s keep trying for our LinkedIns and Ubers.

Finally, I would like to thank Professor Sykes for putting this innovative course together and introducing us to the future of our legal careers.

Posted on

Technology and the Aging Client

Much of the conversation has been on the impact of technology on the delivery of legal services and the changes that the profession will undergo in the coming years. Extremely relevant points have been made and discussed in both the partner meetings and blogs, demonstrating that the firm is live to the evolution that the profession is undergoing. One aspect that has been somewhat more on the periphery has been the societal changes behind the push for transformation.

I had the opportunity to attend and speak at the Canadian Elder Law Conference this past week and gain a better understanding of the practical realities that are facing the profession in light of a shifting demographic. For the first time in Canadian history, the percentage of the population over 65 is greater than the population under 15. While we have been focusing largely on the increase in technology that the profession has at its fingertips, there are a growing number of potential clients that will inevitably need our services but may not understand the technology we will be employing. This requires those of us that will be working with elders to appreciate the impact of technology on this growing demographic.

I do not dispute that a willingness to innovate is going to be essential, nor do I suggest that those 65+ are incapable of using or appreciating technology. I do think, however, that as we seek to integrate new methods and technologies that we take into consideration the impact that may have on our clients. Creating more affordable services will greatly benefit our senior clients and, as the baby boomers get set for retirement, this portion of the population will be facing a society that is increasingly more tech savvy.

We must be sure to balance our reliance on technology with the very personal service that our aging clientele has become accustomed to. It cannot be our approach to either assume our client understands technology or require them to familiarize themselves with it in order to benefit from an affordable service. Nor should we assume that technology will be able to replace the personal aspect of our profession, such as the interview in which a lawyer conducts an assessment for testamentary capacity. It is this personal interaction that sets us apart from machines such as IBM’s Watson. And it is this interaction that clients appreciate, along with getting the job done for a fair price.

How can we balance our growing use of technology with an aging population?

Posted on

Technology and Outsourcing – a Change in the Legal Market?

In Blueprint for Change, William Henderson states that the future is bleak for law graduates in the United States because the job market is increasingly uncertain. He writes, “our current legal education is likely to enhance the human capital of our students, but in the emerging economic environment, the benefits of that education are insufficient to pay back its cost […]. The issue is whether the education we offer is able to adapt to the rapidly changing legal industry.”

According to Henderson, the current market is unable to sustain the large numbers of law graduates, and while law schools are having some difficulty filling seats, which ultimately leads to difficulty in finding professional employment for their graduates, they continue to offer attractive financing packages to perspective students, which increases enrollment (and ultimately increases the debt load of graduating students). Additionally, while law schools train students via traditional education models, companies that offer legal products and services (but are not classified as law firms) are becoming increasingly attractive alternatives to hiring lawyers. This in turn decreases the demand for lawyers and leaves many law graduates with an inability to find work in private practice. As Henderson states, “by removing the lawyer from the value chain, cost goes down, quality goes up, and service delivery time becomes faster.”

While Henderson’s research is based on American law schools, I believe that in an era where the legal profession is changing to accommodate self-represented litigants and the entry of ‘do-it-yourself’ products on the legal market, this research adds an extra layer of understanding when it comes to envisioning our futures as lawyers. As my colleague Salman outlined in his blog post “Surviving the Technological Threat,” we have been hearing from our speakers and professors throughout the semester that our current method of practicing law is in danger of changing significantly with respect to new technologies and new methods of outsourcing legal work.

Henderson suggests deviating from the traditional structure and tailoring legal education to fit labour market outcomes, but this does not seem entirely practical for Canadian law schools. While the Canadian legal market is increasingly saturated, we have yet to experience the demise of traditional legal education as Henderson sees it, likely because we have far fewer law schools than the US, and despite our tentative adherence to Maclean’s yearly rankings, our country has yet to implement a tier-based system. As Salman also points out, it is unlikely that the introduction of new technologies will change the legal landscape as a whole. Rather, these technologies will likely assist lawyers to provide more efficient legal services, particularly if lawyers are free to concentrate on more complex legal issues that are outside the scope of these products and technologies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

The Future Of The Legal Education: Specialization Or Degradation Of The J.D.

As the legal field continues to expand, general practitioners are expected to know more in their respective fields to better assist their clients. A lawyer is expected to enhance their knowledge by keeping up with the evolution of the legal sector. Harry Arthurs recognizes the dangers that future lawyers may face in The Future of Legal Education: Three Visions and a Prediction.

He suggests a possible option where “The bar may one day recognize not just one class of members, but many. Members of each class would have different educational credentials…that general practitioners will one day be licensed to appear as advocates in certain tribunals and the lower courts, and to do routine real estate transactions, simple incorporations and uncontested divorces—but not undertake appellate litigation, patent applications or tax planning”.

He further elaborates “They might offer a skills-based one-year degree for paralegals, a stripped-down tow-year ‘basic’ degree for general practitioners, an enhanced four year degree for specialist practitioners, and conversion courses for those who want to upgrade their credentials”.

On the one hand, I can see this as a form of specialization in a specific area for law students. Those that know what area of law they want to practice can choose to study that, right from the beginning while avoiding all the unnecessary courses that they will never use for their chosen area of practice.

However, on the other hand I see this as undermining the value of legal education and hence a J.D. By creating this separation in the legal education, many of the basic competencies will be omitted from one’s legal education. On a basic level many of the different fields of law interact with each other, and competencies in all these areas are crucial for a practitioner to come up with the best solution for their clients.

There is obviously a wealth of knowledge available in studying law. In my opinion, due to the enhanced level of education required to sufficiently practice in each specific area of law, I think in the future, a LLM in the chosen area of practice will be mandatory after a JD, in order to obtain an articling position in the desired field.

With each area of law expanding everyday, I think it would be ridiculous to cut down on the legal education. The only way to keep up with the evolving nature of the legal sector is to increase the education required, and thus satisfying the necessary requirements of becoming a competent practitioner. Of course, this is just my view.  What do you think are some ways our legal education will evolve to better accommodate us in being competent in our areas of practice for the future?

 

 

Posted on

Embracing Change, Innovation and Technology

Recent socioeconomic trends have significantly accelerated the pace of need for change for the legal industry and the law firm business model.  One of the big themes that our firm’s well credited visitors have pointed out is technology.

In the past, the legal sector enjoyed great comfort in the linear nature of progression. Students attended law school for 3 years, then articled, then became associates, then made partner and went down the path of success until retirement, but that seems to have changed now.  There was an understanding between the law firms and their clients that good work costs money, and there was no surprise that billing rates were expected to rise, but that’s no longer the case either. One common indicator that projects the future of this industry is the emergence of technology, and firms which adapt to the changes are ahead of the game and will be industry leaders.

We’re a profession that I would suggest in the last 100 years has not done anything differently than how it has always done, and we are the only industry that is proud of that fact. The legal industry by definition looks to the past for finding ways of the future and that in my opinion needs to change. The comfort that comes with predictability and precedent is perhaps the main factor in postponing the realization of need for change for the industry as a whole.

For us as a profession not to embrace change and innovation, we are setting ourselves up for failure.

Posted on

Surviving the Technological Threat

Almost 3 years ago, I started my first year of law school. Since that time, I have been hearing a lot about how the legal profession is changing. Many people have told me that the golden age for lawyers is coming to an end or that it already has. Technological advances are changing the way we practice law in almost every sense. Even as I began law school, the profession has changed from the way it was practiced before. The internet has completely altered how legal research is conducted. Information is at ones’ fingertips and there doesn’t seem to be a need to spend hours in a dusty library searching up case law book by book. At this current point of technological advancement, I’m comfortable with how things are because I grew up with these innovations and I feel fully prepared to integrate them into my future practice.

The problem is that things are continuing to change. The way we are being taught to do things in legal practice is in danger of being out-dated by the time we graduate from law school and are actually ready to practice the law. In this class, we have had many guest speakers talk to us about the constant evolution of the profession and how a majority of core legal work could be handled easier and in a more efficient way by computers. Considering what most of us have spent on our legal education, this is a frightening concept. What if we don’t end up making what we planned to? What if the number of jobs shrinks even more after we graduate? What if our loans pile up and we have to start working at Starbucks to make ends meet? These are concerns I’m sure we all have in the back of our minds and they’re creeping ever slowly to the forefront, especially for us third year students.

While these things do scare me as well when I think about them too much, I still believe that the overall big picture will remain consistent. People need lawyers to help them navigate through their legal issues and, in my opinion, no amount of technology will get them to the point where lawyers will not be needed. I think that technology will make things more efficient in the long run for both parties involved; lawyers and their clients. A program like Knomos for example, will help lawyers in their research efforts. The user friendly way it is organized even means that clients could use it as well to educate themselves on the pertinent legal issues before meeting with a lawyer. The Civil Resolution Tribunal is another example of innovation that helps the profession. While not really a technological advancement, it allows clients to resolve disputes online in cases of small claims and some strata disputes. This saves clients time and helps avoid backlogging the court system with these types of issues.

These are positive improvements that will not take away from the services lawyers offer. Despite the advancement of online resources, I believe that in general, people will always prefer to talk to people. Clients will want to discuss their important problems with an educated person who can respond like a human being. I think the value of this is understated these days. Whatever legal issues the client has, it is almost assured that those issues are of the utmost importance to them and they will not want to be filed through a system by a computer without human contact. It’s the same reason I punch the “0” button somewhere around 15-16 times when the Shaw automated voice comes on. I don’t want to press buttons to hear responses from a machine and I believe that I am not the only one who thinks this way.

So in the end, I believe that lawyers will always have a prominent place in the professional work force. Technology should not be viewed as a threat, but it should be embraced as something that can and will change the way in which we do what we do. We have to learn and grow with it to survive. It is an evolving tool at our disposal that will not take away from what we can offer, but instead open up our options so that we can offer more. We can efficiently manage our time and use the analytical skills gained from our education to better serve our clients. Further educating ourselves on these technological advancements will allow us to maintain our positions in the professional realm for now and in the future.

Posted on

The Practice-Ready Lawyer

Harry W. Arthurs, renowned Canadian labour lawyer and law professor, spoke to the University of Alberta Faculty of Law about the future of law schools and legal education in Canada in his address titled “The Future of Legal Education: Three Visions and a Prediction.”

Arthurs begins by outlining differing views of the core function of law school, namely the production of “practice-ready lawyers”, of “tomorrow’s lawyers”, and of being a leader in the “creation and transformation of legal knowledge, legal practice, and the legal system.”

From this address there are several points I would like to comment on. First, Arthurs strongly critiques the view that law schools should be producing “practice-ready” lawyers, assuming that “practice-ready” equates to omni-competent. As the legal field is highly specialized and stratified, Arthurs suggests that no law student will ever be “practice-ready” upon graduation from law school. While I agree with the assessment that no law student (or lawyer for that matter) will ever possess all of the substantive knowledge to be competent in every legal field, I disagree that is what is necessary to be ready for practice. While an understanding of general legal principles and substantive law are required competencies  in one’s practice, they are attainable when one possesses the appropriate skills listed in Chapter 3 of the Code of Professional Conduct for BC (i.e. legal research, analysis, application of the law to the relevant facts, writing and drafting, problem solving, etc.). It is my opinion that the possession of these skills and competencies is what makes one “ready” for practice. In addition, I believe that law school is exactly the place where we should be taught these skills.

Arthurs goes on to argue that skills-based training is not enough to prepare students for legal practice, and a “preparation for practice” based curriculum is far inferior to one that emphasizes “thinking skills, theory and inter-disciplinarity”. While intellectual ability is certainly a coveted attribute, it must be applied practically to accomplish anything. Even Arthurs agrees that lawyers must “think like human beings” to avoid harming “themselves, their clients, the reputation of the bar and the effectiveness of the legal system.” Lawyers need to be relevant, relatable, and able to apply their intellectual training practically. It is my opinion that including some form of skills-based training in law schools helps accomplish that.

Finally, I would like to address Arthurs’ proposals regarding changes to the structure of law school. He proposes a model in which general practitioners can obtain a “stripped-down two-year ‘basic’ degree”, and “higher level lawyers” would take a four year enhanced degree. Arthurs’ argues that this would save time and money for general practitioners while fitting the diverse needs of students wishing to practice in more specialized fields. While this restructuring surely has its benefits, I suggest that it might have adverse affects on “access to justice”, an increasing problem. Creating a hierarchy of lawyers may decrease costs to individuals with basic legal problems, but may simultaneously increase the divide between litigants who can afford high-level lawyers. In other words, this hierarchy has potential to further the gap between those who can afford specialized legal services and those that cannot.

In addition, I wonder as to how these changes might impact the servicing of small, rural communities. These communities are already underserved, and those that do set up practice in these areas are typically general practitioners. Why would we make it harder on them to serve their communities by limiting their scope of practice? Canadians are already abandoning legal problems that they cannot afford to address; wouldn’t these changes only exacerbate this problem for rural individuals that would typically only engage with general practitioners?

Arthurs is certainly correct to say there are many changes in store for Canada’s legal paradigm. Subsequent changes to the way we educate future lawyers will certainly be more necessary than ever if lawyers are to remain relevant in society. More than anything, I believe Arthurs is correct to suggest law schools must prepare their students “to think like lawyers, to contextualize and critically evaluate their legal experiences, to adapt to change and, especially, to learn how to learn”. A law student with that education must certainly be “practice-ready”.

Posted on

The Human Element

It’s true, computers are invading the earth – in fact I no longer use a key to get into my house, and apparently my television is smarter than I am. As mentioned in The Future of Employment, tasks that once required human skill are now being completed by artificial intelligence. Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne point out that not only are hard-skill tasks being taken over by computers, but also soft-skill “non-routine” tasks are being completed by technology. Basically, the ability to write legal opinions or to provide medical diagnoses are no longer restricted to human capability.

Though I should probably be celebrating the fact that our society has come far from the days where the invention of the wheel was a huge technological breakthrough – I still cannot seem to muster up enough enthusiasm to be happy about EVERY computerized invention. In fact, I personally believe that we as a society should tread lightly where technology replaces human skill as a main purpose, rather than a byproduct. Sure, Richard Susskind may say that I am experiencing the first stage of denial (of the three stages outlined in chapter 8 of Tomorrow’s Lawyers). At times, this is true. There are days where my denial is unreasonable and I think, “pish posh Mr. Kowalski, the threat of extinction isn’t even real!” However, the days that I choose to be real with myself and try to prepare for the inevitable changes to come in the legal profession, I realize that my denial actually comes from an underlying fear – the fear that a profession that is so heavily based on relationships will one day become a profession full of drones.

If this fear were to become reality, it would completely shatter the very reason that I chose to become a lawyer. My mother was a social worker, and very early on I came to appreciate the satisfaction in helping others resolve their issues and improve their lives. However the key to my mother’s success was her ability to empathize and to not treat her cases systematically. I was drawn to the legal profession because I knew, and still know, that I can make a difference because I genuinely care. However my passion does not come from a tiny computer embedded in my brain, it comes from within – it’s the human element. It is this very human element that drives many great lawyers to put forward the strongest arguments and to do their best work, and it is this very human element that allows clients to trust lawyers with their issues.

John Lanchester puts it best in his article, The Robots Are Coming, where he points out:

“For many years the problem with robots has been that computers are very good at things we find difficult but very bad at things we find easy. They are brilliant at chess but terrible at the cognitive skills we take for granted, one of the most important being something scientists call SLAM, for ‘simultaneous localisation and mapping’: the ability to look at a space and see it and know how to move through it, all simultaneously, and with good recall.”

I believe that “SLAM” is what lawyers do on a daily basis. During my summer articling experience I realized the importance of knowing my audience; understanding the sensitivity that needs to be afforded to clients; and to read social cues of the professionals I worked with in order to do my job well. I definitely do not know the science behind my proposition, but I truly believe that computers are not capable of the above. A computer can be equipped with the best algorithms to exist, but there is nothing like adrenaline and passion when a solicitor closes a tricky transaction or a litigator delivers a difficult argument.

Though I wait with open arms for technology to reduce menial tasks that come with being a lawyer, such as formatting a document or compiling single PDF’s into one file, I am not looking forward to seeing artificial intelligence take over aspects of the legal profession which require passion and drive. We as a society need to be cautious of extinguishing the human element.

 

Proudly powered by WordPress