In the 90’s the advent of technology, in particular the internet and MP3 services, would disrupt the music industry, leading to, not only new formats to enjoy music in, but to decreased album sales. Innovations in technology and the development of the internet has worried lawyers and the legal field. Lawyers, like everyone else, continue to question whether robots will replace their jobs. Thus, The Barhas been stagnant in its response and use of technology. However, slowly, automation is  doing the job.

Two articles stuck out to me in my research—a 2013 article called, “The Laws of (Legal) Robotics: Automatons, Apis, and the Aba,” by Tim Hwang & a 2017 New York Times article, “A.I. Is Doing Legal Work. But It Won’t Replace Lawyers, Yet” by Steve Lohr. Hwang’s article discussed the developing legal technology and the resulting economic and the legal implications. In particular, although automation and technology can displace the need for a lawyer, it can be used to supplant tedious and rudimentary job requirements, such as document reviewing. This is software which, for example, “replaces the cumbersome manual filling in of repetitive documents with template-based systems where the user answers software-driven interview questions” (i.e. E-discovery and Axiom). However, automated document assembly technology has led to big business, with some of this supplanting the lawyer altogether, not just aspects of crafting the work product (LegalZoom). This is what lawyers were concerned with. Only lawyers can participate in the practice of lawand lawyers remain resistant to automation and artificial intelligence in part, because of this requirement, however  automation has already taken advantage of its ambiguities. The practice of law as it defined by the law has been challenged by these technologies and the difficultly of cleanly delineating which tasks are permissible for automation will only increase as more technology develops.

Lohr’s article details the development of automation, declaring that the adoption of artificial technology in law firms will be a “slow, task-by-task process.” What this process may look like istechnology automating pieces of the work, streamlining the rest of the work. Currently, portions ofbasic document review have already been outsourced or automated at large law firms. Thus, under this view, technology and automation assisting human work rather than replacing it. The work that consumes most lawyer’s time still involves “strategy, creativity, judgment and empathy” — and those efforts cannot yet be automated. However, lawyers need to remain cognizant that technology and the accompanying innovations are unpredictable.

Now back to my music industry analogy – Today, as streaming services dominant the field, money is being transferred from the industry execs to independent labels and artist. Thus, as a very intelligent professor (Professor Hollis) once stated, either you adapt to this need and changes, and benefit from technology, or other/new players will come along and supply this and force you out of the picture altogether. As Daniel Domingo stated in his blog, The Big Four Accounting firms are already planning to insource and automate some legal work. Ultimately, disruptive change will happen, and although there are human qualities necessary to the field of law that preserve the demand for lawyers, technology is beginning to tread in this domain. One thing Hwang’s article indicated was that “if the technology is not sufficiently capable to replace at least some of the tasks done by lawyers, there will be no adoption.” Thus, ultimately, the technology that will challenge the lawyer’s job will be of optimal quality, and thus as the Innovator’s Dilemma reveals, in the end efficiency and competence in the legal field will be furthered.

Questions:

1. What legal services and jobs are at risk with the development of automation and artificial technology in the legal field?
2. Are there any new legal services and jobs that can development with the advent of technology and automation?

Many have recognized that law schools must implement changes in order to adapt to the continuously evolving legal landscape.  (One example of such commentary can be found here.) These changes to the legal profession include automation, changing client demands, and legal technology development.  While law schools continue to emphasize doctrinal law, changes in the legal industry mandate experiential learning and learning about the business of law, among other things.

Some law schools and state bar associations have attempted to keep up with the changing legal profession by effecting changes to their curriculum, emphasizing tech-savvy, forward thinking and taking legal education outside of the typical classroom.  Such innovative courses include those that require the creation of a legal aid app, those that focus on e-discovery, and those that target business professionals.  Other law schools have attempted to expand access to a legal education by accepting both the LSAT and the GRE.

Other changes have been suggested, such as shortening law school to two years in order to lower the cost of tuition and allow for a year of experiential learning.  The idea has been voiced for many years, as this example from a 2013 speech given by former President Barack Obama at the University of Chicago illustrates.  Additionally, some have suggested that the ability to get a law degree through online courses would expand accessibility to a legal education.  For example, in Fall 2019, The University of Dayton’s law school plans to offer a curriculum in which some of its courses may be taken online.

It will be interesting to see whether these implemented changes prove successful and become more widespread, and what new changes will emerge as the legal landscape continues to evolve.

Historically, lawyers have enjoyed a unprecedented monopoly on the practice of law. Couched as a measure to protect recipients of legal services, this phenomenon seems reasonable and remains justifiable. However, is this a tenable justification? In professions ranging from medicine to architecture, traditional practitioners (e.g., doctors) have relinquished their exclusive abilities to practice. This begs the question: is the legal profession next? Should it be next?

To be fair, this usurpation of legal work by non-lawyers has been taking place for a number of years (e.g., LegalZoom and CPAs’ authorization to practice before the United State Tax Court). Similar underlying pressures that precipitated the foregoing gerrymandering of legal professional boundaries, including the classical economic theory of the benefits of competition, are now pushing to expand the field’s boundaries to allow others to “practice”. For example, Big Four accounting firms are planning to practice legal work where authorized. Internationally, accounting firms have been doing legal work for years (e.g., Deloitte Legal).

Questions to consider:

• Do you feel threatened as a future lawyer?
• Will competition in the legal space serve (e.g., lower prices) or hurt (i.e., PR issues) client interests?
• How should state bars respond?
• How does this shift align with the general trend of technological and professional changes in the legal profession?

Well, lookee here … someone else is talking about how law schools need to change:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-law-schools-need-to-change/

New York’s Taxi and Limousine Commission passed a rule in December requiring that ride-for-hire platforms like Uber, Lyft, Juno and Via pay their drivers at least $17.22 an hour.

The Commission’s report explains, “[Uber, Lyft, Juno and Via] account for over 75% of FHV (for-hire vehicle) trips. Despite economic success of these companies, reflected in the massive growth in the number of trips in recent years from roughly 42 million trips in 2015 to nearly 159 million trips in 2017, the majority of drivers have not shared in this success.”

The driver pay requirements are expected to result in an increase in take-home driver pay from $11.90 net per hour to $17.22 net per hour.

Lyft and Juno filed for injunctive relief in a NY Supreme Court (the state’s trial court).  Lyft and Juno claim that the rule was unfair because it disproportionately hurts smaller companies.  Lyft claims that it will give an advantage to Uber who is the largest ride-sharing company in the industry and market.  The market share is Uber > Lyft > Juno.

To date, the FHV companies have bypassed the city’s $15 minimum wage for workers because their drivers are classified as independent contractors.

I wonder how heavy-handed the Commission should be in regulating competition in the marketplace.

What’s Behind the Surge in Giving Circles – WSJ

Adriana Loson-Ceballos wanted to help support nonprofits serving the Latino community in San Diego. But as a doctoral student, she didn’t have much money to donate and worried that her gift wouldn’t be large enough to make a real impact.

After she posted her concern on social media, a friend suggested she start a “giving circle,” where like-minded individuals can pool their money and collectively decide where to donate it. About a year ago, the 32-year-old launched the San Diego Latino Giving Circle, recruiting members from within her social and professional networks via word-of-mouth and asking others to do the same.

See Also: https://blog.philanthropy.iupui.edu/2018/12/06/giving-circles-are-growing-informed-philanthropists/?mod=article_inline

Conservation, similar to International Aid, is a well-intentioned industry fraught with inefficiencies. In this article, the authors explore many different issues facing the conservation industry from mis-allocated endangered species funding in the United States to ideas on how to get the most out of limited land acquisitions for sanctuaries. The authors highlight that the classical idea of “fencing-off” areas to prevent further environmental degradation is often wasted on large swaths of land with limited biodiversity, as in the American West, instead of being applied where more “bang for your buck” could be achieved, such as the Appalachians. As was the case in Poverty, Inc., where it was highlighted that ideologically motivated charitable efforts can run afoul of their stated purpose when inefficiencies begin to compound, the world of ecological conservation is likely in need of a makeover. The article concludes with a stinging indictment about the current conservation industry: “Dyed-in-the-wool greens who bridle at talk of ‘return on investment’ or ‘cost-benefit analysis’ need to grow up.” Through implementing some of the recommendations that this article proposes, conservation agencies may be able to accomplish more than ever before with their existing, if limited budgets, thereby saving plenty of green while saving their own “green.”

Full article here: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2019/02/09/how-to-preserve-nature-on-a-tight-budget

Contra David Pozen, old-style charity is very much IN.

https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2018-americans-gave-410-02-billion-to-charity-in-2017-crossing-the-400-billion-mark-for-the-first-time/

The latest push to grow the game of ice hockey has not come from China, as the NHL predicted, but rather from countries in Africa. With the help of The Hockey Foundation, an Egyptian hockey team has started to make a push for the IIHF to recognize them as Egypt’s national team. Even with The Hockey Foundation’s help in getting equipment for the team and assistance with its application process, the teams still faces unreasonably high startup costs. Lowering barriers to entry and tariff rates would make it feasible for a league to form in Egypt and other parts of Africa, thereby creating more jobs for construction workers, coaches, referees, and many other local businesses.

As “Poverty, Inc.” argues, perhaps the best form of charity is charity which provides its subjects with the means to help themselves. There are countless examples of entrepreneurs working to make this idea a reality. Central to the argument of “Poverty, Inc.” is that charitable actions, while well-intentioned, actually create more issues than they solve. Citing TOMS Shoes, LLC and its donative actions, “Poverty, Inc.” argues that donations actually destroy local businesses and drive the local population further into crisis. However, is this phenomenon ubiquitous, or do the negative effects of charity manifest only in developing countries? As this separate article illustrates, donative charity still has its place. Specifically, these two article highlight the importance of differentiating between when charity and when entrepreneurship should be employed to assist local populations.