A newly released survey of Scottish solicitors, by the Law Society of Scotland, has found that more than three-quarters of respondent think that aspects of remote civil court work should continue post-pandemic. The results found that the majority of civil court practitioners have indicated that they think remote hearings work well for procedural and uncontentious matters, however far fewer of the survey respondents thought that more complex hearings should be carried out remotely.
The survey found that:
- 78.5% of respondents said they would like remote court hearings to continue after the pandemic. Of those, 91% said they thought procedural hearings worked particularly well, and almost all, at 99%, saying they would like to see them continue remotely.
- However 5% thought proofs, a civil court hearing which is determined by a judge or sheriff, and 3% thought evidential hearings, such as a tribunal, worked well remotely. A quarter of respondents thought first instance debates worked well.
- 32%, stated that they had no practical difficulties when participating in remote hearings, however 45% found it challenging to obtain clients’ instructions during remote proceedings. 41% of respondents thought that their clients struggled to either understand or participate and almost a quarter of solicitors, at 23%, found it more difficult to articulate their position.
- The vast majority of respondents at 91% indicating that it saved travel time, 75% that it saved waiting time, 69% that it reduced costs and over half, at 55%, said it was more efficient than being personally present in court.
- Concerns were raised in relation to the difficulties in assessing witness credibility and reliability remotely and respondents also said the lack of opportunity for proper face-to-face interaction with other agents, witnesses, and with sheriffs and judges, hindered effective participation. There were also issues with clients feeling disengaged from proceedings and problems with technology, including access to suitable devices and connectivity issues.
Amanda Millar, President of the Law Society of Scotland, said: “Covid-19 has instigated enormous change in the way we all work over the past year. The legal profession has adapted to this rapid change, however examining what has and has not worked well in relation to online proceedings will be essential as we begin to look at how civil courts should operate post-pandemic. We can draw useful insights from the survey findings and they will be helpful in considering what aspects, if any, of remote hearings could or should be incorporated into the civil court procedure longer term. While many of our members have indicated that remote hearings should continue in some form, there should be provision for in-person hearings, particularly in relation to more complex cases, but also for procedural hearings when required.”
Read more about the survey and the results.
Following the creation of the Future of Legal Practice Committee, by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), which was recently established with a mandate of facilitating significant improvement in the quality and standard of legal services rendered by legal practitioners. The NBA has now launched a survey of all its members collating the views of both the Bar and the Bench.
The views will be collated into a future report on the effects of technological innovation and globalisation on the legal profession in Nigeria. The results will then be used to inform the future direction of the Committee and its recommendation to the NBA.
View the survey here, or read more here.
Law struggles to keep pace with innovation. Twenty-first century advancements like artificial intelligence, block chain, and data analytics are already in use by academic institutions, corporations, government entities, health care providers, and others but many questions remain about individual autonomy, identity, privacy, and security. Even as new laws address known threats, future technology developments and process improvements, fueled by consumer-demand and globalization, inevitably will present externalities that the legal community has yet to confront.
How do we design laws and systems to ensure accountability, equality, and transparency in this environment of rapid change? A solution can be found in a surprising source — the regulation of professional ethics. Lawyers have the capacity to play a critical role both in assessing the risks and benefits of innovation generally and also in deploying innovative tools to enhance the delivery of legal services. This Article is the first to articulate a formal obligation of ethical innovation as a component of professional discipline and licensing rules. This proposal comes at a time when the legal profession is increasingly immersed in innovation — whether measured by the number of “NewLaw” providers, exponentially increasing financial investment in legal tech, or by the American Bar Association’s 2020 Resolution supporting innovation to address the access-to-justice crisis.
Rather than taking a particular side in the debate over whether lawyers and judges should adopt innovations like artificial intelligence or machine learning, this Article acknowledges that technology advancements inevitably are part of modern society, including the practice of law, and advocates for reforms to professional conduct rules to protect individuals in the midst of innovation. This protection is especially warranted when innovation is forced amidst a moment of crisis, for example as seen when the 2020 coronavirus pandemic abruptly halted law practice in its traditional form, canceling office meetings and jury trials and other in‑person interactions. Some lawyers and courts were prepared, others were not. Some clients received the legal advice through virtual consultations or apps, and had their cases decided by judges via Zoom hearings, but many found themselves without the justice they needed. The lawyers and judges at the forefront of ethical innovation before the pandemic hit were the ones best able to serve their clients. Formalizing a duty to innovate as an ethical obligation will make the profession better prepared to serve the public in the future.
(Newman) Knake Jefferson, Renee, Lawyer Ethics for Innovation (April 20, 2021). 35 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy 1 (2021), U of Houston Law Center No. 2021-A-7,
On the 20th of April, the Legal Services Board (LSB) released a report outlining what legal services can do to support the safe development of technology and innovation, whilst also acting in the public interest. The report outlines steps regulators can take to create an environment that ‘de-risks’ innovation and reduces uncertainty for tech providers and consumers.
In the report, the LSB outlines the role that regulation plays in removing barriers to innovation, both by increasing consumer trust and managing risks. This would in turn allow technology to open the legal services market to underserved elements of society, such as citizens and small business. Addressing unmet legal need and access to justice issues.
The LSB also notes that technology carries risks that need to be considered and managed. These include ensuring that those with low digital capability and digital literacy are not excluded from accessing essential services. The ethical and regulatory challenges of advanced technologies such as Artificial Intelligence must also be considered while ensuring they are not stifled.
Matthew Hill, Chief Executive of the Legal Services Board, has said: “Technology has the potential to improve access to legal services. It can enable citizens to get advice and support in a way, and at a time, that suits them. It can also help legal professionals carry out their work in new ways that make them more competitive, reduce costs and support growth. Covid-19 has accelerated the pace and scale of technological change, with many providers adapting and using technology to offer their services in new ways. We have started to see what is possible, but there is a long way to go to unlock the full potential. Regulation can help build on the momentum that Covid-19 has created and harness technology to reshape legal services to better meet the needs of society. Regulation can also help secure consumer confidence and build trust in new technology. Legal services regulators can take encouragement in opening up their regulatory arrangements to support new ways of delivering services for the benefit of consumers. As the oversight regulator for legal services, we have an important role in fostering innovation. From considering technology as part of our regulatory performance framework to exploring a statutory statement that can underpin proactive regulatory arrangements, we can create, and maintain, a regulatory environment that unlocks the role of technology and innovation in increasing access.”
Read the full report and recommendations here.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales (SRA) has commissioned a piece of independent research into the use of technology and innovation in the legal sector, and how this may develop in the future. The research is being carried out by a research team at the University of Oxford including Professors Mari Sako and John Armour.
All 10,200 law firms regulated by the SRA in England and Wales are being asked to complete a survey around their use of legal technology, as well what the impact of COVID-19 has been on their use of technology.
As well as surveying firms, the university is also conducting wider research with a range of industry stakeholders from both within and beyond the legal profession, with a focus on how innovation and technology can improve access to services within the public.
The aim of the report is to improve understanding of:
- current use of innovation and technology across the sector
- likely areas of future development
- how to best support future innovations, including by potentially removing regulatory barriers
Anna Bradley, Chair of the SRA Board, said: “We are committed to supporting the use of innovation and legal technology that helps to meet the needs of the public, business community, law firms and the economy. Commissioning this research from the University of Oxford is an important step as we work to bring together the views of a wide range of stakeholders on what is happening in our sector at the moment, and what the future might hold. New ways of doing business and the increasing use of legal technology will affect everyone working in the legal sector, so we want to hear from as many people as possible. I encourage you all to take this opportunity to get their views heard.”
Further information about the report, including how non-law firm stakeholders can be involved is available here.
On April 22, 2021, the Convocation of the Law Society of Ontario approved the Technology Task Force’s “Regulatory Sandbox for Innovative Technological Legal Services” Report. As a result, a five-year pilot project will be launched in Q4 of 2021. In the pilot approved participants will be granted express permission by the Law Society to serve consumers using innovative technological legal services (ITLS). The participants will be required to comply with specialised requirements for risk-based monitoring and reporting.
The Technology Task Force is composed of lawyer, paralegal and publicly-appointed lay benchers, and has the mandate to consider the role of technology in the delivery of legal services, as well as to examine the role of the Law Society as a regulator in a changing, tech-enabled environment, and explore how the Law Society can encourage innovation.
The sandbox project has been designed to help fulfil these responsibilities by:
- Facilitating access to justice: eliminating regulatory uncertainty around ITLS, and removing barriers to the development of ITLS, allowing products to be developed that can address unmet legal need.
- Protecting the public: The pilot project provides a mechanism to ensure ITLS consumers receive competent and ethical services and have access to recourse, as well as the information to make informed choices about the providers of the services.
- Informing future regulatory development: The pilot project will provide evidence to inform longer-term decision-making about ITLS regulation.
Read the full report about the pilot here, or read more on the Law Society’s website.
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has released a formal opinion cataloguing the relevant model rules and technological considerations that lawyers should be aware of when practising virtually. The opinion (Formal Opinion 498) identifies some of the minimum requirements for virtual practice under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct as well as suggesting several best practices to meet ethical obligations in a virtual setting.
The opinion states that “When practising virtually, lawyers must particularly consider ethical duties regarding competence, diligence, and communication, especially when using technology,” the opinion said. “In compliance with the duty of confidentiality, lawyers must make reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized disclosures of information relating to the representation and take reasonable precautions when transmitting such information.” Noting that the “duty of supervision” requires lawyers who supervise others to “make reasonable efforts to ensure” that their direct reports comply with the model rules, particularly if these colleagues are still working virtually.
The best practices cover hardware devices and software systems; accessing client files and data; using virtual meeting platforms and videoconferencing; and virtual document and data exchange platforms, among others.
Read the full opinion here.
Renowned legal educator Roscoe Pound stated, “Law must be stable and yet it cannot stand still.” Yet, as Susan Nevelow Mart has demonstrated in a seminal article that the different online research services (Westlaw, Lexis Advance, Fastcase, Google Scholar, Ravel and Casetext) produce significantly different results when researching case law. Furthermore, a recent study of 325 federal courts of appeals decisions, revealed that only 16% of the cases cited in appellate briefs make it into the courts’ opinions. This does not exactly inspire confidence in legal research or its tools to maintain stability of the law. As Robert Berring foresaw, “The world of established sources and sets of law book that has been so stable at to seem inevitable suddenly has vanished. The familiar set of printed case reporters, citators, and second sources that were the core of legal research are being minimized before our eyes.”
In this article I focus on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and natural language processing with respect to searching. My article will proceeds as follows. To understand how effective natural language processing is in current legal research, I go about building a model of a legal information retrieval system that incorporates natural language processing. I have had to build my own model because we do not know very much about how the proprietary systems of Westlaw, Lexis, Bloomberg, Fastcase and Casetext work. However, there are descriptions in information science literature and on the Internet of how systems with advanced programing techniques actually work or could work. Next, I compare such systems with the features and search results produced by the major vendors to illustrate the probable use of natural language processing, similar to the models. In addition, the use of word prediction or type ahead techniques in the major research services are studied–particularly, how such techniques can be used to bring secondary resources to the forefront of a search. Finally, I explore how the knowledge gained may help us to better instruct law students and attorneys in the use of the major legal information retrieval systems.
My conclusion is that the adeptness of natural language processing is uneven among the various vendors and that what we receive in search results from such systems varies widely depending on a host of unknown variables. Natural language processing has introduced uncertainty to the law. We are a long way from AI systems that understand, let alone search, legal texts in a stable and consistent way.
Callister, Paul D., Law, Artificial Intelligence, and Natural Language Processing: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to My Search Results (October 14, 2020). 112 Law Library Journal 161-212 (2020).
The Law Society of Hong Kong has partnered with the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks (“HKSTP”) Global Acceleration Academy (“GAA”) to launch a 12-month pilot initiative called the “Future of Law” project. The project aims to find technology solutions and co-create impactful and practical solutions with selected innovation providers that best-fit law society members’ needs in legal practices.
Two online discovery sessions have already been held, which covered topics such as: system integration and corporate innovation, AI, Open API and Robotics.
Read more about the project and the events on the Law Society’s website.
Legal Tech (LT) products and services automate certain tasks that lawyers usually perform. The use of these tools in business-to-consumer (B2C) markets create many opportunities for consumers and the justice system in general, but also raises concerns in terms of access to justice, choice and information, quality, fairness, redress and representation. This paper deals with the question of whether the current legal framework in the EU is fit to meet the challenge LT poses in consumer markets, focusing especially on (national) legal services regulation, EU consumer law and EU data protection law. It concludes that applying the current legal norms to LT creates both the risk of under-regulation and over-regulation, and discusses possible regulatory options that should be taken into account at national and EU level to achieve the right balance between innovation and protection.
Ebers, Martin, Legal Tech and EU Consumer Law (July 15, 2020). Martin Ebers, Chapter 12: Legal Tech and EU Consumer Law, in: Michel Canarsa/Mateja Durovic/Francisco de Elizalde/Larry di Matteo/André Janssen/Pietro Ortolani (eds.), Lawyering in the Digital Age, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.,
Read the full paper at SSRN.