This second of two special editions of ICLR news reports on some of the breakout sessions that took place at this year’s ICLR conference held in Melbourne between 16-18 October. We also round up some of the other news and events that might be of interest to the ICLR community.
No sooner has the 2024 conference concluded than planning begins for the 2025 conference. If you wish to suggest themes or topics that you would be interested in the conference covering, it is not too early to make a suggestion. Please send your suggestions to contact@iclr.net. and please also do not forget to provide your post-2024 conference feedback at the ICLR 2024 Conference Feedback Link
This report covers some of the topics covered in the breakouts and workshops but in the interest of space cannot cover all of the sessions on offer. Links to some of the materials shared by presenters at the conference are also included.
ICLR 2024 Workshop Themes
Over the three days of the conference, fourteen breakout sessions and workshops were held, mostly exploring different aspects of the plenary session themes. Some highlights are covered below.
Different Perspectives on AI and Data
The conference offered the opportunity for regulators to share insights on how they are experimenting with AI in their own work.
Ankur Doshi, General Counsel of the Oregon State Bar (OSB) described the work undertaken by his team to find use cases for AI. He described the process that his team of regulators had followed, in conjunction with AI experts, what had worked and what had worked less well. The key takeaways were:
Whilst AI did not necessarily replace entire processes, it has been helpful in significantly shortening the time taken for certain tasks. The OSB had first experimented with using AI for purely information tasks but was also looking at possible regulatory applications for supporting the attorneys operating the ethics helpline and speeding up intake procedures for complaints.
Regulators should think about the strengths and weaknesses of AI and use it accordingly. Implementing it required time and effort to map processes and experiments. Ankur Doshi’s presentation – Developing a use case
Alvin Chen of the Singapore Law Society explained how the Law Society of Singapore had been exploring the use of AI in its regulatory work. He set out 9 principles for fostering a trusted AI ecosystem and highlighted the importance of data, in terms of quality, copyright, and data protection. Alvin Chen’s presentation – Breakout Session 1 – Using AI as a regulator
Matt Simms of Standpoint Consulting, who has been supporting data-driven regulatory activity in various law societies in Canada and other regulators in the US, spoke in more detail about data. He gave a practical demonstration of how the body of data collected by the Prairie Law Societies about their members could be mined by AI to produce useful insights. In his presentation he again stressed similar themes to the previous speakers, highlighting the importance of involving the right personnel, developing a use case, and the need to be willing to experiment. Matt Sims’ presentation – Using AI as a Regulator
Finally, Heidi Chu of the Law Society of Hong Kong, who had chaired the session, summarised the key takeaways for Breakout Session 1, 2024 ICLR
Interesting developments in AI regulation since the ICLR conference include an open letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales published on LinkedIn on 29 November by a LegalTech company, which critiques the Practice Note on Generative AI recently issued by the Court. This letter highlights some of the pitfalls of regulating AI and highlights the need to involve technologists when doing so.
Supporting and sustaining the profession
The conference theme of supporting and sustaining the profession was explored in three workshop sessions addressing challenges for new lawyers, how to manage exits from the profession at the end of lawyers’ careers, and how to manage systemic change in managing lawyer wellbeing.
Lucy Fraser of the VLSB presented the Lawyer Wellbeing Theory of Change project, which explained how the regulator in Victoria is seeking to co-design systemic change in lawyer wellbeing in the State. Having identified drivers of poor well-being, following thousands of interactions with legal practitioners, the project is now seeking to ask what change might look like in those drivers. Lucinda Soon of the IBA Wellbeing Commission, built on her plenary presentation to explain the connection between risk management and building better workplaces and Dr Carly Schrever spoke about the responsibilities of individuals in managing their stress and the techniques for doing so. Lucy Fraser – The VLSB+C Lawyer Wellbeing Program and our Theory of Change Project
Further resources:
- Victorian Legal Services – Lawyer Wellbeing
- Institute For Well-Being In Law
- LawCare
- Law Council of Australia – Mental Health and Wellbeing in the Legal Profession
Restorative Justice
Stan Winford of the Centre for Innovative Justice at RMIT University in Melbourne led a workshop on restorative justice, explaining the concept, principles, and forms of engagement, practice, and processes it entails. Contrasting such approaches to traditional adversarial processes of addressing consumer harm, Stan explained the potential benefits of using restorative justice in legal regulation. (Stan Winford – Restorative Justice and its application to legal regulation and Stan Winford – Handout and further details of the Restorative Justice work of RMIT.
Evaluation workshop
Another practical workshop offered at this year’s conference was a session led by Tamur Siddiqi of the VLSB, which looked at good evaluation techniques and their application in the work of regulators. Drawing on practical experiences of the VLSB, Tamur explained the theory behind evaluation activities and the importance of distinguishing between outputs and outcomes and selecting the right indicators and data. The VLSB showcased four examples of where evaluation had helped to drive a better understanding of the Board’s work and shape future activity. Tamur Siddiqi – Measuring and Evaluating the Impact of Our Regulatory Work
Consumer protection and redress – when things have gone wrong
This breakout focused on three case studies from different regulators about challenges to their consumer protection activity. Howard Bowles from the Victorian Legal Services Board spoke about recent trends in claims on consumer compensation funds, such as the growth in large claims, often involving junior staff and activity undertaken by solicitors outside of normal legal practice, such as mortgage financing. These trends were leading to a significant increase in the complexity and cost of managing claims. Howard Bowles – Financial protection, and related issues, for consumers of legal services in Victoria, Australia
Motlatsi Molefe of the South African Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund spoke about the challenges for his organization, including maintaining the solvency of the Fund in the face of prevailing interest rates, difficulties in the recovery of funds through prosecution, and scarcity of regulatory manpower. His presentation is available here: Motlatsi Molefe: CEO of the Legal Practitioners’ Fidelity Fund
Juliet Oliver of the Solicitors Regulation Authority described the workings of the SRA compensation fund. She highlighted similar challenges to those faced by the regulators in Australia and South Africa: A growing number of interventions and much larger interventions which in turn have brought challenges over ensuring the financial sustainability of the Fund and how it might need to adapt to changing business models. She also outlined the work being undertaken by the SRA to look at how it protects consumers, particular in relation to client money. Juliet Oliver – Compensation Funds and Consumer Protection
Since the Melbourne conference, the SRA has published a consultation on how solicitors hold client money:
SRA – Consultation on potential changes to how client money is handled in the legal sector