Aba Commission on the Future of Legal Services

In addition, the Commission has received feedback from many leading companies in the legal technology community, including the very companies that O`Keefe identifies as good sources such as Avvo and LegalZoom. The CEOs of both companies – Mark Britton and John Suh respectively – spoke at the Commission`s National Summit on Innovation in Legal Services alongside other technology innovators such as Richard Barton (founder of Expedia, Glassdoor and Zillow), Colin Rule (founder of online dispute resolution firm Modria) and Richard Susskind (author of The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services and the UK Civil Justice Council report Online Dispute Resolution for Low-Value Civil Claims). Many others testified at public hearings and submitted written comments in response to the Commission`s briefing papers, including experts identified by O`Keefe, such as Richard Granat, CEO of SmartLegalForms. All comments and testimony were carefully considered by the Commission. This information is documented on the Commission`s website. Many Commission members have a long history of working on legal technology and innovation, including: Recommendation 10: Resources should be significantly expanded to support long-term efforts that have proven effective in addressing the public`s unmet needs for legal services. This recommendation urges lawyers to get out of their silos and realize that while we are smart, we don`t know everything. It notes that key innovations are created with the support of people outside the system and that increased cooperation with other disciplines can help improve access to legal services. Recommendation 3: All members of the legal profession should keep abreast of relevant technologies. Recommendation 7: The legal profession should cooperate with other disciplines and the public to better understand innovation in the delivery of legal services. This recommendation indicates that there is a lack of empirical evidence of the effectiveness of various legal innovations across the country.

(I can`t help but note that there is also a lack of empirical data on the effectiveness of “traditional” legal services across the country – aside from the fact that they don`t serve large parts of society.) The report calls on law schools, law societies and research institutions to work together to measure results in order to replicate successful innovations. Recommendation 11: Results from established or new models for the delivery of legal services should be measured to assess the effectiveness of achieving regulatory objectives. Last Saturday, the ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services presented its final report at the American Bar Association`s annual meeting in San Francisco. There were about 125 people present. Past and future ABA presidents spoke: William Hubbard, who founded the commission two years ago, Paulette Brown and Linda Klein. The Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson and the Rapporteurs of the Commission introduced the report and answered questions. The American Bar Association (ABA) has released its report on the future of legal services in the United States, available at abafuturesreport.com. Its recommendations indicate that the ABA supports the established goal of 100% access to justice and addresses this view of the organized bar association. The twelve recommendations – abafuturesreport.com/#recommendations – begin with the first: “The legal profession should support the objective of providing effective support to meet the basic needs of civil law to all people who otherwise cannot afford a lawyer. Information on the ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services is available at www.americanbar.org/groups/centers_commissions/commission-on-the-.

The report on the future of legal services in the United States, published by the Commission on 6 March. Published in August 2016, some readers may consider others controversial or not brave enough (which we are happy to acknowledge in the introduction to the report), but the report cannot be criticized for the lack of contributions from the world of legal technology. It is a recognition that the Commission, although it is in the process of dissolving, must continue its work. The goal of the centre “is to position the ABA as a leader and architect of the profession`s efforts to improve access to legal services and to improve the delivery of and access to these services to the public through innovative programs and initiatives.” The centre would do its job by providing resources and materials, serving as a clearinghouse for innovation efforts, and running an innovation grants program to work with a number of other professionals, including technologists, contractors and design professionals, to develop new delivery models. Finding B: Advances in technology and other innovations are already changing the way legal services can be accessed and delivered. Any report on the future of legal services will soon be outdated. The Commission wisely calls on the Bar Associations to continue to tackle this problem. Demand will only intensify. When I finished reading the report, I wanted more.

I definitely belong to the camp that thinks the recommendations are not brave enough. The aba Commission`s job for the future of legal services was to examine legal services through the eyes of the public. The public`s point of view, which is reflected in the section on the results of the facts, makes me uncomfortable. We fail to serve the public and justice. Maybe all of us lawyers should feel uncomfortable. The springboard for innovation is discomfort with the status quo. The ABA`s Commission for the Future of Legal Services not only included members who dealt with legal technology, but we also actively sought input from legal technology entrepreneurs and innovators. Finally, the Commission has gained the expertise of leading companies in the field of legal technology and innovation by hosting webinars and compiling a special issue of white papers for the South Carolina Law Review.

Webinar attendees included Michael Mills, Founder and CSO of Neota Logic, and John Mayer, Executive Director of Computer Assisted Legal Instruction (CALI). White paper topics include Legal Startups by Dan Linna, founder of LegalRnD at Michigan State University School of Law; Watson, Esq. by Paul Lippe, CEO of LegalOnRamp; Online dispute resolution by Ethan Katsh, director of the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Colin Rule; Gamification and Online Engagement by Stephanie Kimbro; and Disruptive Innovation by Raymond Brescia, professor at Albany Law School and founder of the blog The Future of Change. The Commission`s 10 recommendations, all with sub-recommendations and supporting documents, are as follows: Recommendation 4: Individuals should undergo regular legal examinations, similar to medical examinations, and the ABA should establish guidelines for lawyers, law societies and others who develop and conduct such investigations. Outcome C: Public confidence in justice and access to legal services is hampered by prejudice, discrimination, complexity and lack of resources. The report notes the evidence and stresses the need to expand, fully fund and better promote legal aid and voluntary efforts. The ABA should continue to support the full funding of civil aid companies, and courts should adopt rules to encourage pro bono representation by lawyers, such as CLE credits for the service. Also, echoing something I say in conversations with lawyer groups, the public needs to understand that there is a difference between legal representation by a lawyer and online services or by an unregulated legal service provider. Recommendation 12: The ABA and other law societies should integrate consideration of the future of legal services into their ongoing long-term strategic planning.

Result A: Despite our efforts to expand access to justice, the public has significant unmet legal needs. About the drafter of the act, David Lat (@davidlat), and then I heard from Renee Knake (@reneeknake), a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center and a reporter for the commission, that the commission felt there were inaccuracies in my column, particularly that there were liaison officers, special advisors and individuals who testified before the commission and had experience with legal technology startups. Although I continue to believe that what I have written is correct, I thought it was right to allow the Commission to respond. You can then draw your own conclusions. For the rest of this column, I`ll turn it over to Renee Knake. Finding C is extremely broad and surprised me. As explained in the program, the Commission listened to and considered the evidence from the perspective of consumers of legal services. The Commissioners believed, based on the testimony they heard, that the following findings are relevant to the future delivery of legal services in the United States: Recommendation 8: The legal profession should use methods, policies, standards and practices to best promote diversity and inclusion. Kevin O`Keefe (@kevinokeefe) is the CEO and founder of LexBlog, which enables lawyers to increase their visibility and accelerate their online business relationships.