Last Thursday July 18th I attended the 2nd Boston Legal Innovation Meetup, hosted at the Suffolk University Law School and sponsored by that school’s Institute on Law Practice Technology and Innovation (“SILTI”). Adam Ziegler, former Goodwin Procter associate and now start-up innovator at Mootus, organized the event, titled “Tech-Enhanced Legal Services,” and featuring a broad range of experienced legal innovators. (Bob Ambrogi covered the first event).
I am pleased to see this series of meetings get organized, and am also very happy to see legal innovation / legal technology programs launched at two Boston-area law schools. In addition to the program at Suffolk, which started in the 2012-2013 academic year, my former Bingham McCutcheon colleague Dan Jackson is directing a program called “NuLawLab” at Northeastern School of Law. These programs join only slightly more established programs at Georgetown Law School (see the ILTA KM Blog on Iron Tech Lawyers) and at Columbia University, inter allia (Richard Granat identified 13 such programs in May 2013.)
My understanding is that Adam and the other organizers are looking for ideas for future meetups. Contact him at LawInno , the hashtag for the event going forward is #lawinno.
The meeting showcased Andrew Perlman’s Google Glasses; document assembly expert Marc Lauritsen; document assembly vendor Terry Lee of Exari, and LawWithoutWalls Miami University professor Michele DeStefano.
Google Glass At Work
The meeting started off an appropriately geeky note. SILTI’s leader Andrew Perlman demonstrated Google Glass, the mini-computer masquerading as a chunky pair of eyeglasses. Once the Bluetooth connection to the projector was set up he demonstrated voice commands, taking pictures, taking video, Googling the next Red Sox - Yankees game and Googling images of Niagara Falls. It also has built-in messaging and, appropriately for wearable computing, can provide turn by turn directions to Quincy Market.
He proposed several uses for this technology in legal academia. He'll be using it in his legal teaching by providing another way for students to ask questions. He proposes that they could also be used in a legal clinic where the pretend client would wear Glass and record the law student taking the "client" interview.
In legal practice, he suggests that another possible application would be to use it to record a deposition and have a Google Hangout going where other lawyers view the deposition and make suggestions through Glass, potentially saving client spend on lawyer travel.
The Document Assembly Landscape
Marc Lauritsen next spoke and gave a sweeping overview of the document assembly, automation, and management area, its past and future. Marc teaches "Lawyering in Age of Smart Machines" at SILTI and has his own document automation consulting operation, and is a very well-informed practitioner of this art.
Mr. Lauritsen analogized the recent history of document assembly to the "Cambrian Explosion" that led to a wild diversity of primitive marine life 500 million years ago. There was a comparable explosion of document automation companies over the last fifteen years; the market remains small in comparison to the market for legal technology generally, but has matured in terms of the number of players.
Document automation includes creation, analysis, and management of documents. Document creation includes power drafting and auto assembly. Analysis might include disassembly of clauses within an document, or validation, or meaning extraction. Document management might include storage and tracking of the documents themselves, or of the legal obligations therein.
Mr. Lauritsen mentioned that the remaining document automation vendors cover a wide range of use-cases:
· Content Bundles such as Smokeball (for small law firms)
· Legal Services—LawHelp (there is huge latent demand for intelligent legal documents serving middle- and lower-income people).
· Automated Legal Reasoning—Neota Logic
· Document Analysis / Benchmarking—KM Standards
· Software Management-style Document Assembly--CommonAccord
Going forward, Mr. Lauritsen suggested that there will be innovations in collaborative online drafting, with intermixture of freeform drafting and Q & A. Computers might suggest reuse of a clause, or might raise an alert when a drafter attempts to define a term already defined. The growth of interactive systems will change the nature of practice. (Ed.—his thoughts here reminded me of Kasparov's notes about computer-assisted chess, where amateurs working with three weak computer programs were able to beat grandmasters playing without computers as well as the most powerful chess-playing computers playing alone).
Are we free to code the law?
Mr. Lauritsen has recently written on the legal implications of online legal software. Should it be suppressible as the unauthorized practice of law? Mr. Lauritsen has forcefully argued that it should not.
A Vendor’s Perspective On Document Automation
Terry Lee spoke about the development of a successful document automation company, Exari. While I knew that Exari is a serious competitor in the law firm document assembly market, I confess I was surprised at the extent to which its services have been adopted outside of legal organizations such as law firms, and at the major drivers for its adoption.
Exari started out in Australia, then it went to London; then the big banks realized they needed auditable ways to create documents. They work with 15-20 of the largest firms, but their clients also include large banks which use Exari for onboarding documents and the like. The prime driver is auditability and control rather than efficiency (though it is more efficient). Most of the time lawyers are involved, but the market has expanded well beyond law firms and legal organizations; They've automated non-disclosure agreements.
A collaborative portal allows two people to work on a document at the same time. There's been some talk about collaboration at the industry level. Exari is all .xml behind the scenes. It is all browser-based, with creation, editing, and approving documents all possible through iPads and the like.
Mr. Lee described a typical adoption process for Exari. It might start with in-house lawyers using the forms; then lawyers getting the people in the line of business to use the forms; then the line-of-business people getting the corporation's clients or vendors to fill out the forms.
Document automation in smaller firms is often integrated with practice management software. Exari doesn't itself provide practice management software or target smaller firms.
Exari has partnered with Vermont Law School to develop a course on how to use document automation; they've hired the first person to come out of that program.
Who Should Innovate? Legal Practice vs. Legal Education vs. Legal Vendors
Prof. DeStefano founded the “LawWithoutWalls” program at the Miami University School of Law. She has a very unusual background with a combination of non-legal advertising experience, legal practice, and academic excellence.
She suggested that legal educators and legal practitioners are blaming each other for the legal industries’ failure to innovate and meet clients’ 21st century needs, with questions like “When are legal educators going to train young people to be 21st century lawyers?” and “When will practicing lawyers start to innovate?” Rather than mutual finger-pointing, she argues for cooperation between the academy and practitioners to develop young lawyers and legal technologies that will meet future needs. She calls for more permeability between law providers and law schools, and also law-related service providers like Exari.
An example of that permeability is her program’s partnership with the international “Magic Circle” firm Eversheds, where that firm provides funding and expertise and obtaining opportunities for its lawyers to work with legal innovators and law students. She believes that an LPO will likely partner with a law school.
Despite vast and continuing improvements in technology, there will still be economic activities like litigation funding that people with law degrees will be able to do better than others.
Prof. DeStafano acknowledges that we don’t know what the entire range of future legal careers will be. How can we train lawyers for jobs that haven't been created yet? She suggests that students need to learn higher-order skills such as cultural competency or creating a business plan through attempting them, though they may fail at first.
Networking & Next Event
As can happen at meetings with a lot of bright people from diverse backgrounds, the chance to chat in small groups afterwards was one of the most enjoyable aspects of the event. I talked to a former Microsoft in-house counsel (who was friends with my University of Michigan law school roommate), a solo practitioner who is moving into coaching startups on IP issues (and who blogs), Suffolk Law School deans, an experienced elder law attorney; and others. My thanks to Suffolk for the generous donation of space and after-event food.
The next Boston Legal Innovation Meetup will be hosted by Northeastern School of Law on Wednesday September 11, 2013, and is titled “Legal Design: What Can Lawyers Lean From Design Thinking?” The event is public; simply obtain a meetup account and join the event (and group).