Bucerius Legal Tech's Summer School; thankfully, a good thing from 2020.

Many thanks to Baker McKenzie for sponsoring this program, and allowing a global community to freely gather online and learn from the very best in the legal tech space. Professors Daniel Katz and Dirk Hartung curated an excellent collection of speakers, and I am grateful they decided to create such a unique offering for the (almost) lost summer of 2020. This program ran for 6 weeks, and featured over twenty industry experts in the following areas: Foundations (connecting legal to technology, and the start up environment), Innovator’s Spotlight, Legal Operations, Digital Justice, Legal Science and AI, and New Perspectives on Law. 

I selected 10 classes to briefly share in this article, but I gained useful information and genuinely enjoyed all of them. It was great to see so many insightful, inspirational, and entertaining speakers share their personal stories and their professional tips. Thank you all!

• Alma Asay (From Lawyer to Legal Technologist).

Alma’s grace and determination were not the intended topic of her presentation, but she expertly exhibited both due to technical difficulties during the class. At one point, we even lost the phone connection. No matter- Alma was on point when she came back, and then she shared some of the most authentic and honest mistakes/tips I have heard in recent past. A few of her “mistakes” included not hiring the right people, not doing real market research (including testing), and not appreciating the art and power of sales and marketing. Her “to do” list included using knowledge management tools to get feedback during the launch period, focus on process not product, don’t over-answer the question, lawyers and technologists don’t speak the same language, networking is key and social media matters. 

• Mary Shen O’Carrol (The Rise of Legal Ops using the example of Google).

Mary discussed the challenges to disruption, such as efficiency NOT being the motivating factor. Law firms bill by the hour, and treat any efforts to reduce billable time as a threat to the profession. Clients are demanding cost containment. Legal technology drives legal operations. 2018-2019 Billions in VC funding went into legal start ups, and it will continue. As for her legal department at Google, with some 1200 people working globally, she says "right sourcing" is the biggest obligation, and hard to do without the right metrics to measure. For more information on the CLOC Model, check out cloc.org. 

• David Cambria (Legal Ops from a Law Firm Perspective).

David explained Legal Ops as professionals collaborating to design and build systems to manage legal problems. 5 connected capabilities to improve firm performance: Alternative Legal Services (ALS), Business Management, Legal Project Management, Pricing Strategy, and Service Design. We have a productivity problem, not a cost problem here. Without data, you are just another person with an opinion. Commonalities of Innovators include multidisciplinary, renaissance people with cross over skills in arts and sciences.

• Mari Sako (AI-Enabled Models for the Delivery of Law).

Mari explained that AI automates tasks, not jobs. It augments what lawyers do when working with a multidisciplinary team in a legal service delivery pipeline. Lawyers need to also be data scientists, process, and project management experts. The legal ops model creates value by offering process efficiency and project management, with a fixed fee that is outcome based, and has a structure that incentivizes data scientists and lawyers working together to develop AI tools. The legal tech business model creates value by offering tech solutions, charging a subscription to access a platform or other IP, and has a structure that incentivizes data scientists and lawyers working together for legal solutions.

• Valerie Saintot (Legislative Data Visualization).

Valerie challenged us to “ask what the data needs to answer”. Why legislative data visualization? Transparency and Accountability, Legal Knowledge Management, and Legal Outreach. Pluri-disciplinarity and Team based work. She believes you must have a lawyer that knows technology, data science, and the law as it changes. Data visualizations for the European Central Bank are accomplished automatically by the publication process of the regulations themselves, and are live, and stay up to date. Check out www.ecb.europa.eu. 

• Liam Brown (Alternatives to Law Firms).

This man is a visionary, and I am starting a fan club if he does not have one yet. He believes that our clients need diagnosis, treatment, empathy, and care more than ever- right now. The legal ecosystem needs to adopt new business models, such as law companies. UPL restrictions on the advice of law business will change in the US, eventually. The supply of lawyers will never keep up with the demand. We need to reduce the human cost of delivering legal services. B2B does nothing for access to justice. B2C will increase access to justice, and it is badly needed here. 

• Riikka Koulu (Dispute Resolution and Legal Design).

Riikka’s research in human-computer interaction deals directly with access to justice issues. She asks “for whom are we designing these processes for dispute resolution”? Low value cases. eBay handles over 60 million disputes online per year. Successful design requires awareness of both systemic and context-specific constraints. Dispute resolution is about information management, and with a human-centered design, we can accommodate and serve the needs of all people in a jurisdiction. No design choice is neutral, and the mundane is important.

• Shannon Salter (Online Dispute Resolution & Public Justice Reform).

Shannon’s work proves her and us all right about legal tech, and how it can transform access to justice issues. She has the results, and continues to improve and expand the project. BC, Canada has the first online tribunal, the Civil Resolution Tribunal. The CRT has jurisdiction over certain low value cases, and is part of the justice system. Human-centered design for the technology is the answer to provide flexibility and accommodations. If you cannot resolve the issue own your own using the self-help tools, you can apply to CRT for dispute resolution. Using Solution Explorer, you can negotiate, and reach an agreement. Facilitators may assist in this part of the process. If you cannot reach an agreement, you can get a written decision as a last resort. Live or in person hearings are available for special accommodations only. ODR works!

• Richard Susskind (Online Courts and the Future of Justice).

Richard’s predictions have been spot-on for over 30 years. He asked “is court a place or a service”? Worldwide, 40% of people have access to courts, and 50% of people have access to the internet. Online judging (decisions on the papers) would allow low value disputes to be handled quickly. Human facilitators, as part of the court, would extend the range of services available and increase access to justice. DIY works in the digital society. Mindsets need to change to outcome-based. People don’t want courts, they want the outcomes the court brings. COVID has forced us into this online court position, and he is helping court systems around the world with these efforts. Early indicators show it is working well, and is sustainable. His new book, Online Courts, came out last year and it should be required reading for all lawyers and judges working through the pandemic.

• Daniel Rodrigues and Markus Hartung (Regulating Legal Tech).

Daniel shared his experience with the 50 different regulatory strategies in the US, and 50 versions of UPL (the unauthorized practice of law). There is no one venue to reform the legal system because the state bars each regulate their lawyers. Attorneys don’t want reform. The most contentious objections to change are from the practicing bar; protectionism via self-regulation. We need multidisciplinary solutions and have attorneys on the team with business people. Tech companies need to support changes to the framework of US regulations. Some states are starting to explore reform options; they should be supported.

Markus shared his experience with the 27 member states in the EU, and no one set of rules. He asked “who should benefit from regulation”? People need to trust professionals, they do not need limited market-access to experts. Self-regulation is important, but should not be used to preserve the past. Clients want cost containment, and outcomes they can trust. ALSPs are necessary to help us cope with the future demands on the legal system. Change is coming and lawyers will not be able to stop legal tech.