The Future of Law (22): The Future Couldn’t Wait II

Last week I reported a couple “the future is already here” developments, and said I would tell you a couple more this week. But one of them deserves its own post.

To set the context, this is from Law by Algorithm, earlier in this series:

Google customizes the news you see. Amazon suggests if you like this, you might like that. Your cellphone carrier, bank, and pretty much everybody else you deal with on a regular basis gives you the option to customize your own account page.

  • The new commoditized/democratized purveyors of legal products will also give this option to consumers. The days of “mylaw.com” are upon us.

Welcome to law by algorithm:  artificial Intelligence at work, serving up the customized law you need personally and for your work and business. And you don’t have to go looking for it — it will come to you automatically, based on your preference settings and past choices.

And this is from The New Legal Experts:

The world of commoditized law dispenses legal advice not by lawyers in individual consultations with clients, but instead through IT distribution channels, to a wider market of similarly situated consumers. Legal content is subsumed into the greater context in which the advice is pertinent, so that the consumer (no longer a “client”) gets comprehensive, multidisciplinary advice in one stop shopping, without the need to separately consult a lawyer and other relevant professionals.

Expert lawyers do this already, dispensing advice in the context of one-to-one client relationships. The legal experts of the future will do this on a wider scale, creating more broadly applicable IT products embedded with legal advice.

  • The creators of this new kind of legal advice will be much in demand in the new world of law.

Against this background, meet Catherine Hammack — a “new legal expert” and founder of Jurispect, whose website greets you with these slogans:  “Regulatory Intelligence For Companies” and “Real-Time Regulatory Analytics for Better Business Decisions.” Ms. Hammack began her career by being in the right place at the right time (all of the following quotes are from this National Law Review article):

“Catherine was present on two momentous occasions in U.S. financial history: as an intern at Arthur Anderson when Enron was indicted, and as a first-day associate at Bingham McCutchen the day Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, and the start of the financial crisis in 2008.”

She took that experience to the epicenter of commoditization:

“Following her time at Bingham as a financial litigator, she transitioned to join Google’s Policy team, where her perspective on legal services dramatically changed.”

At Google, she learned, commoditization, multidisciplinary perspective, IT marketing and distribution channels… all the things we’ve been talking about in this series. And then she turned it all into a Law by Algorithm company.

“As Catherine elaborated in a post-conference interview: “There was a huge gap between the way law firms traditionally provide counsel and the way companies need information to make business decisions.” She was surrounded by engineers and data scientists who were analyzing vast amounts of data with cutting edge technology.  Catherine became interested in adapting these technologies for managing risk in the legal and regulatory industries.  Inspired by Google’s data-driven decision making policies, she founded Jurispect.

“Jurispect’s team of seasoned experts in engineering, data science, product management, marketing, legal and compliance collaborated to develop the latest machine learning and semantic analysis technologies. These technologies are used to aggregate information across regulatory agencies, including sources such as policy statements and enforcement actions.  Jurispect also analyzes information in relevant press releases, and coverage by both industry bodies and mainstream news.  The most time-saving aspect of Jurispect are the results that coalesce into user-friendly reports to highlight the importance and relevance of the regulatory information to their company.  Users can view this intelligence in the form of notifications, trends, and predictive analytics reports.  Jurispect makes data analytics work for legal professionals so they spend less time searching, and more time on higher level competencies.  As Catherine elaborated, “We believe that analytics are quickly becoming central to any technology solution, and the regulatory space is no exception.”

We’ll look at another new legal expert offering next time.

The Future of Law (21):  The Future Couldn’t Wait  

I intended this series to be over with last week’s signoff. Apparently the future couldn’t wait. Several developments came to my attention this past week that were just too good to pass up. We’ll look at a couple this week, and a couple more next week. And maybe more, and maybe longer… depending on how fast the future keeps arriving.

Part 15 of this series, Law by Algorithm, said this:

“Welcome to law by algorithm:  artificial Intelligence at work, serving up the customized law you need personally and for your work and business.”

Then it made two predictions. Here’s the first:

  • Law by algorithm will enable consumers to self-diagnose legal issues and access legal “remedies” for what ails them.

Check out this article from two days ago in Above the Law, about LawGeex  which will do exactly that:

“The fact is many people could use the help of a lawyer to review everyday documents but either lack the means or simply do not want to deal with the pain of finding a lawyer.

“One Israeli lawyer, Noory Bechor, thinks software is the solution and has raised $700K to build LawGeex, an artificial intelligence to analyze your documents against the documents in their database and flag provisions that are “not market.” So now, for no cost, ordinary people can negotiate agreements with their landlord, employer or investor just as well as a trained lawyer. The service has already generated buzz with early adopters and, after having LawGeex analyze my new apartment lease, I was ready to learn more.”

I went to the LawGeex website, where I was guaranteed my results within 24 hours, for FREE. Nothing personal, but try getting that from your local law firm.

The second prediction from Part 15 was this:

  • We’ll also see online diagnostic networks geared for legal professionals only — similar to those that already exist for physicians.

Check out Foxwordy — a private social network for lawyers, as described in this article in The National Law Review,

“[Monica Zent, Foxwordy’s founder] is an experienced entrepreneur and had already been running a successful alternative law firm practice when she founded Foxwordy. Foxwordy is a private social network that is exclusively for lawyers. Monica reminded the audience that we are, remarkably, ten years into the social media experience and all attorneys should consider a well rounded social media toolkit that includes Foxwordy, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

“However, as Monica elaborated in a post-conference interview, LinkedIn, for example, “falls short of the needs of professionals like lawyers who are in a space that is regulated; where there’s privacy, [and] professional ethics standards.” As an experienced attorney and social seller, Monica understands that lawyers’ needs are different from other professionals that use the more mainstream and very public social networks, which is why she set out to create Foxwordy.

“Foxwordy is currently available to licensed attorneys, those who are licensed but not currently practicing but regularly involved in the business of law, certified paralegals, and will eventually open up to law students. Anyone who fits the above criteria can request membership by going to the homepage, and all potential members go through a vetting process to ensure that they are a member of the legal community.

“Membership includes all the core social features such as a profile page, connecting with others, the ability to ask questions and engage anonymously, exchange referrals, and exchange other information and resources.”

I went to the Foxwordy website and signed up. I got an email back thanking me for my interest and reminding me that Foxwordy is by invitation only, that they’re looking for the best and brightest, and that they’ll let me know if my invite has been accepted.

Apparently membership does have its privileges.

The Future of Law (16):  The New Law Masters

 [I wrote last week about open source law. Check out this article on that topic from The Lawyerist  that was posted the same day. Yes, the future of law is already here.]

I Googled “definition of expert” and got this: “a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area.”

  •  We will still see legal experts in the future, but not as we currently know them.

As we saw earlier in this series, the legal experts of the future will be systems thinkers who can fashion comprehensive, multidisciplinary, mass-appeal, consumer-oriented IT products with legal solutions embedded within them. And, as we saw last time, Law by Algorithm will increasingly provide the “think like a lawyer” artificial intelligence needed to create those products.

On the other hand, in his book Tomorrow’s Lawyers, law futurist Richard Susskind anticipates the ongoing need for lawyers (using human brains, not artificial intelligence) who can fashion legal solutions beyond the “think like a lawyer” work product.

  • Those lawyers will emerge as a new class of legal masters.

Consider this quote from Ken Coleman. host of The Ken Coleman Show and author of One Question, in which Coleman captures the essence of the commoditization we’ve been talking about.

“Society seems to favor mass production from its citizens. We dress alike, behave similarly, and speak with a common vernacular. Thanks to the gifts of the digital age, anyone today can become an ‘expert.’”

In this blog interview with author Daniel Pink — bestselling author of Drive and A Whole New Mind — Coleman and Pink agree that what’s really needed is not expertise but mastery, and share some thoughts about how you get it. Further, check out this blog post on that topic from The Lean Thinker, which ends this way:

“Put another way, the ‘expert’ knows. The ‘master’ knows that there is much to learn.”

Here are this week’s predictions about the new law masters:

  • The legal masters of the future will be valued not as repositories of knowledge, but for their inquiring minds, and especially for the ability to ask important, relevant questions whose answers aren’t already embedded in commoditized legal products.
  • The new legal masters’ key proficiency will lie not in knowing the law (the job of experts), but in knowing how to develop it.
  • The new legal masters will shape the law using innovative new methods not currently part of the law landscape. (What these might be is anybody’s guess.)
  • And the law itself will reward them for this expertise, by continuing to provide plenty of gray areas and unanswered questions, commoditization notwithstanding.

In his book The End of Lawyers?, Richard Susskind notes that disruptive innovation is disruptive to lawyers, not clients. This comment suggests another role for the new legal masters:

  • They will profoundly and skillfully shape the assimilation of disruptive innovation into the law and law practice.
  • For example, they will have the sage ability to understand and guide the law and law practice when the law goes multimedia, as it inevitably will (another topic Richard Susskind takes up in The End of Lawyers?).

As for the latter, just try to imagine what the law will be like when it is detached from its Gutenberg printing press moorings in language and logic.

I can’t either.

Which is precisely why we’ll need the new legal masters to help us out.

The Future of Law (15): Law By Algorithm

Google customizes the news you see. Amazon suggests if you like this, you might like that. Your cellphone carrier, bank, and pretty much everybody else you deal with on a regular basis gives you the option to customize your own account page.

  • The new commoditized/democratized purveyors of legal products will also give this option to consumers. The days of “mylaw.com” are upon us.

Welcome to law by algorithm:  artificial Intelligence at work, serving up the customized law you need personally and for your work and business. And you don’t have to go looking for it — it will come to you automatically, based on your preference settings and past choices.

  • Law by algorithm will enable consumers to self-diagnose legal issues and access legal “remedies” for what ails them.
  • We’ll also see online diagnostic networks geared for legal professionals only — similar to those that already exist for physicians.

Think WebMD. And yes, we will see WebJD — someone is already working on it. Also check out A2J Author, sponsored by the Center for Access to Justice & Technology, a project of the Chicago-Kent School of Law. The Center’s purpose is “to make justice more accessible to the public by promoting the use of the Internet in the teaching, practice, and public access to the law.” And for a thoughtful introduction to online legal diagnosis, see this blog post by Stephanie Kimbro, MA, JD, a Fellow at Stanford Law School Center on the Legal Profession and Co-Director of the Center for Law Practice Technology. The post was written four years ago — an eternity in the tech world — but it’s still worth a read.

  • Law by algorithm will take us all the way to its extreme expression: to open source law.

For an introduction to this topic, see this Forbes review of open source as applied to the law. It was written in 2008 — again, ancient techno history. Seven years later, open source law is no longer mere speculation; we are already living in the Outer Limits (remember that show?) of this future legal reality.

We aren’t talking here about the law concerning open source software (like this and this). We’re talking about open source practice applied to the law itself. In his book The End of Lawyers, Richard Susskind describes open source law as sustained, online, mass collaboration re: the application and creation of the law, where content is user-generated, derived from public sources such as judicial and regulatory filings. Open source users engage with this data, extracting, analyzing, applying, and creating the law they need.

Thus open source law takes the creation of the law out of the exclusive hands of lawyers and the legal system as we have known it, and instead puts it into the hands of end-users, using artificial intelligence algorithms that incorporate the best of “thinking like a lawyer.” (Without, we might add, the risk that the lawyer doing the thinking might be suffering from stress-related cognitive impairment.)

Which takes us back to the topic we looked at last time:  the place of human legal experts in the future of law. We’ll look at that topic again next time, with a new twist.

[A few posts back, I noted legal futurist Richard Susskind’s opinion that commoditization would improve access to legal advice in the future, in what he termed the “latent legal market.” Would that include clients of moderate means? I think so. As an example, consider this resource I became aware of last week re: creating a virtual office to serve this market — yet another example of how technology is creating the new world of law.]

The Future of Law (14): The New Legal Experts Cont’d.

In the spirit of the developments we’ve been considering in this series, check out these technological innovations changing trial practice.

The world of commoditized law dispenses legal advice not by lawyers in individual consultations with clients, but instead through IT distribution channels, to a wider market of similarly situated consumers. Legal content is subsumed into the greater context in which the advice is pertinent, so that the consumer (no longer a “client”) gets comprehensive, multidisciplinary advice in one stop shopping, without the need to separately consult a lawyer and other relevant professionals.

The creators of these products must be able to see the entire context in which the legal advice is needed, and then break down the legal aspects into separately implementable steps. In his book Tomorrow’s Lawyers, law futurist Richard Susskind calls this process “decomposing” the law, and provides examples of decomposing litigation and business transactions. The idea is to unbundle the law into its separately applicable components, combine the ones that have similar dynamics, and put them back together into steps that can be taken to completion after collecting relevant data.

Expert lawyers do this already, dispensing advice in the context of one-to-one client relationships. The legal experts of the future will do this on a wider scale, creating more broadly applicable IT products embedded with legal advice.

  • The creators of this new kind of legal advice will be much in demand in the new world of law.
  • The means of entry into the professional will be altered to admit them into practice.
  • As we saw last time, they will follow a career development path not encumbered by the former “training” model which in truth was driven by law firm economics.
  • To help them serve the burgeoning legal commodities market and move more quickly to expert status, legal training in law school and law practice will increasingly promote systems thinking.

As for the law itself:

  • These new experts will have a more direct and substantial impact on shaping the law.
  • They will shape it around from the end-user’s perspective.
  • As a result, the law will be reorganized into practicable modules, replacing historical knowledge/content areas such tort, contracts, real property, etc.

As the future’s expert lawyers conduct their decomposing, embedding, and reorganizing, they will need to deal with an unprecedented challenge:  the sheer bulk of the law. Technology’s speed and storage capacity have resulted in a massive proliferation in the volume and complexity of the law. Although lawyers have access to sophisticated digital repositories of all this law, they typically use analog means to assimilate it.

  • The analog processing of legal developments — i.e., by their assimilation into individual lawyer’s brains via CLE and similar means — is a holdover from the law’s analog past that will end in the future.
  • What will replace it? Law by Algorithm. We’ll look at that next time.

Do these developments signal the end of legal solutions expertly-tailored to individual client needs? The surprising answer is, not at all. In fact, just the opposite:  the law of the future will be more personally-tailored than it is now.

Further, when we agree with Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger that the world will still need experts for the foreseeable future, we may actually mean something beyond experts and expertise:  we may be talking instead about a new kind of legal mastery.

  • The future world of law will feature both experts and masters, and we’ll need them both.

We’ll be looking at these issues as well. Stay tuned!

The Future of Law (13): The New Legal Experts

“All professions are conspiracies against the laity.”
George Bernard Shaw

But what if, Mr. Shaw, consumers could get timely, pertinent, accessible, and affordable legal expertise indirectly — because it is incorporated into democratized and commoditized legal service offerings — without the need to confer with a lawyer? Would that end your “conspiracy”?

Good questions.

We saw earlier in this series that one of the Wikipedia founders has backtracked on the radical democratization of knowledge, admitting instead the ongoing need for experts:

“As wonderful as it might be that the hegemony of professionals over knowledge is lessening, there is a downside: our grasp of and respect for reliable information suffers.  With the rejection of professionalism has come a widespread rejection of expertise—of the proper role in society of people who make it their life’s work to know stuff.  This, I maintain, is not a positive development”

From Larry Sanger’s Citizendium manifesto entitled Who Says We Know:  On the New Politics of Knowledge.

  • It’s not hard to buy Sanger’s position and predict there will still be a need for legal experts in the future.

But what will their expertise be, exactly? And how will they obtain it? More good questions. We’ll take them in reverse order.

Until now, conventional wisdom has been that new lawyers should develop expertise Malcolm Gladwell-style, logging their ten thousand hours in a career path legal futurist Richard Susskind described this way in his 2008 book The Future of Law:

“Traditionally, lawyers have developed their skills and evolved to the status of specialist by apprenticeship and then ongoing exposure to problems of increasing complexity”

Susskind also foresaw that legal commoditization could end this career path:

“Given that this book suggests IT would eliminate, streamline, and proceduralize increasing amounts of conventional legal work, does this not eliminate the very training ground upon which all lawyers cut their teeth and rely upon in progressing to specialist positions?”

It was a rhetorical question. The answer was yes, of course, and five years later, Susskind’s book Tomorrow’s Lawyers cited multiple lawyer surveys revealing what most of us already knew:  this practice was flawed anyway, since it takes only a few of those ten thousand hours to learn due diligence, discovery, and the other kinds of work that pass for lawyer training. No, it seems that the real reason for this ‘”training” was law firm economics:

“[W]e should not confuse training with exploitation. It is disingenuous to suggest that young lawyers are asked to undertake routine legal work largely as a way to them learning their trade. Rather, this delegation has been one mainstay in supporting the pyramidic model of profitability that has enjoyed such unchallenged success until recently.”

  • Regardless what we think about this path to expertise, it will end as “routine legal work” is increasingly commoditized.
  • The new legal experts will be lawyers who are proficient with the kind of systems thinking that commoditization requires.

Commoditized law requires people who can understand the larger context in which legal knowledge will be used, and then package it into self-executing, self-correcting, automated sequences to be used not just for a single client but over and again. You don’t learn this skill from ten thousand hours of legal grunt work. If you either have the cognitive knack or can learn it, you’ll be one of tomorrow’s legal experts.

More next time.

A collection of Kevin Rhodes’ Legal Connection blog posts for the past three years is now available in print from Amazon. Also available from Amazon as a Kindle, and as an ebook from Barnes & Noble, iTunes, Smashwords, and Scribd.

The Future of Law (Part 12): Commoditizing the Law (Cont’d.)

If you want to further explore the topics we’ve been considering in this series, here are couple wonderful resources:

Check out 100 Innovations In Law, the ABA Journal’s cover story, just published yesterday. The article begins this way:

“People tend to think of the law as slow-moving, immutable and disconnected from daily life. And lawyers have a reputation of being cautious and resistant to change. But in fact, when technology or sweeping changes are necessary to better serve their clients, improve access to justice or simply make their work easier, lawyers can be pretty progressive.

“While fundamental change can take decades, in the past 100 years legal professionals have eagerly adopted technological innovations, streamlined the law and launched new practice areas that were unimaginable just a century ago. The innovation of written laws dates to 1750 B.C., but many of the most important innovations in the law have come in just the last century. Here is a list of 100 technological, intellectual and practical innovations that have fundamentally changed the way law is practiced.”

For a futurist perspective on the law spanning the past twenty years, Richard Susskind is the mother lode. I’m chagrined to be just discovering him and his work after all these weeks of making my own predictions, but we’ll be hearing more from him. He writes mostly about law practice — less so about the law itself. The link takes you to his website, where all his books are listed. I recommend all of them, although there is some repetition as time goes on.

And now, back to our consideration of the commoditization of the law that we began last time.

In his 2008 book The End of Lawyers, Richard Susskind predicts that, as the law is increasingly presorted and prepackaged for delivery in the commoditized marketplace, the awareness of what is actually legal advice will fade, dissolved into more comprehensive packages of multidisciplinary service and product offerings:

“[T]he compartmentalization of information into legal and other such conventional categories will itself fade away in time. The information products and services available… will be packaged and oriented towards providing practical and directly implementable guidance with little or no distinction between the disciplines from which the final information product has been derived. A user who has a problem which traditionally may have needed, say, accounting and banking expertise as well as legal, may consult a service which provides a synthesis of these three sources of guidance, but there will be no particular need or benefit in the overall guidance being broken down into units which reflect their original structure.”

A key result of this shift in advisory practice will be a narrower field of vision concerning what the law actually is or isn’t:

  • The law in its commoditized form will increasingly be regarded as the law itself, as opposed to what the law theoretically might be. Therefore law changes will occur within this narrower field, not the wider. more theoretical field of possibilities.
  • As a result, legal advice will narrow in scope as well. Historical lawyer-like answers such as “it depends” and “on the one hand this vs. on the other hand that” will be less valued, and legal complexity will fade as a commonly-accepted paradigm.

The lack of distinction between what is legal vs. non-legal advice will have some interesting side effects on law practice, such as:

  • As the legal profession loses its monopolistic grip on legal advice, policing the unlicensed practice of law will become increasingly difficult. As a result, lawyers and legal processes will lose their exclusive franchise as the creators, interpreters, and changers of the law, opening its content to wider influences.
  • Informal collaboration among allied disciplines and practitioners will be increasingly replaced with comprehensive, integrated, ready-to-implement information product offerings. As a result, the current practices of inter-disciplinary networking and referrals will become less important for law practice and career building.

Further, these developments will create a need for a new kind of legal expertise. We’ll talk about that next time.

A collection of Kevin Rhodes’ Legal Connection blog posts for the past three years is now available in print from Amazon. Also available as a Kindle. A promotional free download is available for a limited time from Smashwords, Barnes & Noble, iTunes, and Scribd.