Attorney-Client Privilege: U.S. Perspective Steven M. Richman, Esq. Clark Hill PLC Princeton, NJ / New York, NY [email protected] +609.785.2911

Privilege as Ethics Rule • ABA Model Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information • lawyer not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, UNLESS (a) disclosure impliedly authorized to carry out the representation OR (b) prevent harm or crime or necessary to establish defense, detect conflict, or per court order

Prospective and Former Clients • ABA Model Rule 1.18: Prospective Clients

– Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, lawyer who learned information from prospective client not use or reveal that information, except per Rule 1.9 as of a former client.

• ABA Model Rule 1.9: Former Clients

– lawyer who formerly represented client in matter or whose present or former firm formerly represented client in matter shall not thereafter: (1) use information relating to representation to disadvantage of former client except as Rules permit or require with respect to client, or when the information has become generally known; or (2) reveal information relating to representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.

Rationale • Fundamental principle: trust encourages full and frank discussion including embarrassing or legally damaging subjects, to enable lawyer to effectively represent client and advise against further wrongful conduct. • Not generally apply to business advice, only legal advice

Related Doctrines • Attorney Work Product: may vary state to state, but generally, "At its core, the workproduct doctrine shelters the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client's case." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975).

Evidentiary Privilege • Federal Rule of Evidence 501: common law as governs privilege, but in civil cases, state law governs where it provides the rule • Federal Rule of Evidence 502: rules on waiver and disclosure in various circumstances; notably, no waiver for inadvertent disclosure (where reasonable steps taken and prompt rectification) • Though “procedural,” Rule 44.1 allows proof of foreign law, including privilege, in federal proceedings

Restatement Definition • § 68 Attorney--Client Privilege Except as otherwise provided in this Restatement, the attorneyclient privilege may be invoked as provided in § 86 with respect to: (1) a communication (2) made between privileged persons (3) in confidence (4) for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance for the client. Restatement 3d of the Law Governing Lawyers, § 68

Corporate Context • Privilege applies not just to legal advice but information provided to the lawyer; extends to communications, not facts; purpose, not black and white “control group” test, applies. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1981) • Factors: (1) communication made for purpose of securing legal advice; (2) employee making the communication should have done so at direction of corporate superior; (3) superior made the request so the corporation could secure legal advice; (4) subject matter of communication within the scope of the employee's duties; and (5) communication should not have been disseminated beyond those persons who need to know it. Cuno, Inc. v. Pall Corp., 121 F.R.D. 198, 203 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Weinstein on Evidence)

In House Counsel • Generally, in house counsel in United States have attorney client privilege for legal, not business advice • Higher scrutiny in house than with outside counsel regarding scope • Subjective; “primarily” or “predominantly” legal advice required • Generally applies to parent or affiliated companies

Joint Defense Privilege • Extends privilege to third parties sharing a common legal interest • Exception to general rule of waiver when disclosure to third parties: joint defense strategy, ongoing common enterprise, multiple clients sharing common interest about a legal matter. Schaeffler v. United States, 806 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2015) • Rationale of protecting communications

Bogota Ethics Panel Tuesday, November 15, 2016 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Platinum Ballroom 1 Surfing the Wave: Maintaining Balance in Legal Ethics Technology and increasing cross-border practice have placed increasing pressure on lawyers seeking not only to understand ethical obligations, but also the applicable rules of professional responsibility. In certain cases, there are significant differences between applicable rules. This panel will explore the impact of technology and social media on ethical compliance, the use of alternatives to traditional legal activity (such as the use of robots and artificial intelligence), and continuing challenges to privilege and conflicts issues. The format will be a round-table discussion with audience involvement throughout. The speakers will explore best practices and the rules of professional responsibility where the choice of law and applicable rules are not always self-evident. This panel will provide 1.5 hours (90 minutes instructional time) of Ethics/ Professionalism credits (CLE) Panel Chair: Steven Richman, Clark Hill PLC, Princeton, NJ Moderator: Steven Richman, Clark Hill PLC, Princeton, NJ Speakers: Joseph Raia, Gunster, Miami, FL Sara Sandford, Garvey Schubert Barer, Seattle, WA Alejandra Almonte, Miller & Chevalier CHTD, Washington, DC 11:00 -11:05: Inrtoduction of panel and topic 11:05-12:15: Guided Questions Each panelist should participate, but I have indicated where one of you should take the lead and go first. You can develop a core thought in response to each. 1. Social media is an all inclusive term for everything from Facebook to Linkedin, and the mix of “social” versus “business” had blurred. It may also be that the immediacy and looseness of electronic communication leads people to believe that somehow it is less formal and the rules don’t apply. In particular, the borderless nature of the Internet makes this issue relevant to international practice. Focus on the following: a. First, does attorney client privilege come into play in the use of social media by attorneys? Richman: ABA Model Rule 1.6—confidentiality of communication—lawyer not reveal inforatmatoin relating to representation of client unless informed consent, or impliedly authorized or otherwise permitted by exception. And Note ABA Rrule 1.6(c):

205153917

“A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.” Raia, Almonte, Sandford: discuss whether your firms have guidelines for use of social media, how police. What training give partners and associates? b. We’re in Colombia. Does it matter if US attorney uses social media to communicate in other countries? What about asking a “hypothetical” question about practice in Colombia? Richman: Rule 8.5 addresses choice of law, and one’s home ethics panel should apply law of place of tribunal or predominant effect. But where is that in on line communiations? Almonte to take lead on how, if at all, it affects her South American practice, and what precautions she takes. Audience experiences? Sandford: responsible ethics partner in her firm—active Japanese practice where Japan’s privilege very different or non-existent in key respects—how educate or control those in firm, and in particular, use of social media? c. Examples of what may happen: The lawyer answers a question about a point of law and the questioner acts on it A lawyer talks about a “hypothetical” with no names that the real client nonetheless recognizes and believes confidentiality was breached The lawyer “friends” an adverse party or fails to “unfriend” an adverse party Many other possible scenarios Panel response: agree, disagree? Problem overblown? d.

Peshek case as warning (in materials)

one example from case: She published blog with information regarding her legal work suspended from the practice of law for sixty (60) days. On or about March 14, 2008, Respondent represented a college student in relation to allegations that he possessed a controlled substance. On March 14, 2008, Respondent published the following entry on her blog: #127409 (the client's jail identification number) This stupid kid is taking the rap for his drugdealing dirtbag of an older brother because "he's no snitch." I managed to talk the prosecutor into treatment and deferred prosecution, since we both know the older brother from prior dealings involving drugs and guns. My client is in college. Just goes to show you that higher education does not imply that you have any sense. e.

205153917

Does it interfere with free speech?

-2-

2. Social Media as advertising: ABA Model Rules 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 govern communications regarding lawyer services and solicitation, and states balance free speech with appropriate messages. Generally speaking, marketing and business communication may be in many forms: electronic, oral, hard copy and so forth. The US Supreme Court has recognised that lawyers have a First Amendment right to advertise their services as commercial speech. However, it is not unlimited, and the Supreme Court has recognized competing public interest concerns, and issued subsequent opinions setting down standards with regard to advertising and solicitation. a. Richman: California Formal Opinion 2012-186: Posting on social media website is subject to rules of professional conduct Can be “communication” or “advertising” or “testimonial” within the rules E.g. post: “Case finally over. Unanimous verdict! Celebrating tonight.”—NOT communication “Another great victory in court today! My client is delighted. Who wants to be next?” Communication AND testimonial in violation of Rules Raia: Comment generally on limits of advertising, testimonials All Panelists: how choose foreign (non-US) counsel? Do you use social media? Is it too limiting? b. Audience: different countries—are there rules? What are limitations on advertising and how does social media affect, loosen or tighten those rules? 3. We are now reading about the use of robots and artificial intelligence in legal practice. Programs may allow document review functions previously done by lawyers. a. Have Rule 5.3 regarding responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance, and commentary regarding outsourcing. Does this really change anything? Sandford: comment on supervisory practices. b.

What about privilege: How control and protect?

All panelists respond. c. Broader problem: are there ethical obligations, particularly under rules regarding competence, for training new lawyers? Are we taking away opportunities for new lawyers to gain skills? How balance client needs and efficiency? 4. We are also seeing the growth of do it yourself lawyering, and on line services like LegalZoom. Beyond forms, these sites also offer certain flat fees for basis services. Is this unique to US? Experience in other countries? Implications for access to justice, even non lawyer ownership of law firms. All panelists to comment, and audience participation.

205153917

-3-

 

 

Home > Publications > YourABA > 2015 > October 2015 > How automation is changing the legal profession

ABA EVERYDAY

How automation is changing the legal profession October 2015 | Technology Translators

FREE member benefits 365 days of the year

by Gwynne Monahan FIRST FOCUS Ask someone to describe “artificial intelligence” and you are likely to get an array of answers. Some might reference Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “The Jetsons” or the collaborative effort of Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick in “AI: Artificial Intelligence.” I like to think that if Kubrick had lived to see the completion of that movie, it would have gone differently. Still others might reference Google, Siri or the Internet of Things. What does artificial intelligence mean for the legal profession? Good question—and it also comes with its own host of thought­ provoking answers. In the inaugural roundtable of a Law Technology Today series, we asked the LTRC Board, and other lawyers and legal professionals, five questions about AI and lawyers. Their answers range from skeptical to optimistic. Our panelists Sophia Lingos (SL), practicing attorney; Britt Lorish (BL) from Affinity Consulting Group; John Stewart (JS), practicing attorney and shareholder of Stewart, Evans, Stewart & Emmons PA.; and Dennis Kennedy (DK), an information technology lawyer and legal technology author. What does artificial intelligence mean to you? SL: Artificial intelligence is the technological process of automating systems to limit humans' direct ongoing involvement in certain

Big Law survival guide EYE ON ETHICS Of counsel, special counsel, senior counsel: What does it all mean TECH TRANSLATORS How automation is changing the legal profession AROUND THE ABA Implicit bias hurting justice system—and profession, says ABA president Lawyer bullies, incivility: On policing lawyer manners

steps of a matter. In other words, computers doing work we program it to do (and more). BL: I suppose I think of this as computers/machines and software that are capable of learning. They get smarter with time and access to additional information, thus exhibiting behavior that often eerily replicates that of a human.

Track these 5 metrics to aid your law firm bottom line

JS: To me, as a full­time practicing lawyer, artificial intelligence is sophisticated computer programming that allows your smart devices to provide more relevant responses to your inquiries. This could include narrowly tailored legal research results or more accurate search capabilities in document management programs. Artificial intelligence also means smart devices that learn more as you use them more. DK: The Wikipedia entry for “artificial intelligence” will make you wish you had an AI tool to interpret the entry. I like to take a practical approach to AI—software that has some capacity to learn and evolve on its own and to enable new ways to help humans or to offload tasks and processes that humans don’t need to do. I prefer a “small” definition of AI, one where you see many examples rather than a definition that tries to encapsulate everything and finds useful examples as somehow incomplete or failed. Today’s braking and lane­changing tools in cars, at least to me, are great practical examples of AI, even if the self­driving car is not here yet. What area of your practice, or of the law, has benefited the

Free­range parenting’s potential legal roadblocks Want a job change? Tips for the best fit Public health experts propose standards for response to epidemics, disasters “Litigation­free” lawyer says mediation­ based practice offers many benefits Are we there yet? The legal aspects of driverless cars

most (or could benefit) from artificial intelligence?

MEMBERSHIP

SL: Automated intake forms, identifying the need for legal services

New membership year reminder

to a potential client, has benefited but could benefit more from AI. This process saves the time and money of both parties and expands practitioners’ ability to provide necessary and relevant

ABA ADVANTAGE

legal services. Additionally, information can be extracted from the intakes and inserted into smart forms eliminating some needs for administrative word processing. BL: I would suspect that AI use in data mining for e­discovery might be one of the most helpful advancements. This would include the ability to examine data for contextual relevance. JS: In my experience, legal research has benefited the most from artificial intelligence and, in the near term, will continue to do so. The legal research experience for lawyers has changed and will continue to change dramatically as artificial intelligence is used to provide relevant research results for natural language inquiries. I also expect that these research capabilities will increase to allow functionality where your device will monitor and update your research by alerting you to possibly relevant changes in the law. I also see a future design whereby you can directly tailor your research to the judge who presides over your case. DK: Although I’m not involved in e­discovery, that’s my favorite example. As predictive coding has evolved into “technology­ assisted review,” machine learning and other AI tools have created some amazing results that offer ways to improve that whole area of practice, save costs and help clients and the court system. The

Fall savings from Ricoh and UPS

application of AI principles and tools to large datasets is an exciting area and we might be much further along than many people think. Where in your practice, or in the legal profession, is artificial intelligence being underutilized? SL: Access to justice for the middle class. The initial investment in AI is expensive, and therefore the opportunity to pass along the long­term cost saving disincentivizes practitioners servicing this sector. However, the availability of AI could decrease the expenditure in time, therefore increasing availability and quality control. BL: The concept of online dispute resolution (ODR) and eMediation is incredibly interesting, I think, as it could certainly revolutionize the amount of time and costs spent to resolve disputes. AI being used in conjunction with this to retrieve relevant court decisions I find pretty fascinating. JS: Online dispute resolution, predictive outcomes, game theory— whatever terms of art you like to use, I believe that these areas will explode as artificial intelligence enjoys more common application by lawyers. I see tremendous value in the time­ efficient, cost­effective synthesis of data and relevant law to assist lawyers and clients in risk evaluation and case­outcome analysis. I expect that programming applied in this format will be beneficial across all price structures and case values and will even address access to justice concerns. DK: That’s an easy one. Lawyers do way too many routine and repetitive tasks that could easily be done by software tools. I like to ask lawyers to look at what they actually do on the average day and imagine how great it would be to have some of these things automated with tools that learn what you need. What practical AI applications should lawyers be watching out for? SL: There is interesting work being done in document review, e­ discovery and evidence management that is worth watching. These tools will open opportunities for smaller firms to get involved with larger matters without having to expand staffing significantly. They also assist in trial organization. BL: I think that anything that might assist lawyers in analyzing/studying evidence and/or speed legal research would be something that they would want to be watching for, particularly if it were affordable technology for them. JS:  In the litigation arena where I practice, aside from predictive outcomes and online dispute resolution, lawyers can expect to see programming that allows their smart devices to synthesize complaints or answers in a matter of minutes and provide them with an almost immediate analysis of relevant case or statutory

law. This will be particularly useful as a first step in narrowing the lawyer’s time and focus spent preparing or responding to litigation filings. DK: It’s actually more a case of recognizing where AI apps exist rather than watching out for applications that are labeled AI. On smartphones, you see evidence everywhere. Typing programs get better and better at predicting what word you want next. Siri and Google Now keep evolving and impressing. Small AI apps are so interesting. Waiting for the arrival of the full­blown AI of science fiction means that you aren’t taking advantage of what is already here. Should lawyers be afraid of or encouraged by AI? SL: Both. It is inevitable that AI will have a profound effect on the future of our profession. It is wise to embrace it now so that it can be a tool as opposed to an impediment. No one wants to be competing against Watson (IBM’s Jeopardy­winning computer system), but if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em! BL: Probably a little of both. Some elements of it could certainly replace the work lawyers have traditionally done, and this may frighten lawyers into feeling they are being automated and replaced. This is particularly true when you hear about computational models of argumentation, decision making, legal reasoning, etc. But theoretically, it could be used to augment a lawyer’s abilities and knowledge, and provide better service in a more timely fashion. JS: Whether lawyers are afraid of or encouraged by the use of artificial intelligence in legal applications, artificial intelligence is here to stay. I believe lawyers should embrace artificial intelligence and other technologies that make our practices more efficient. Lawyers are often slow to adapt to technology, but when we do adapt, we adapt quite well. I strongly believe that as lawyers embrace technologies they will find that the resulting practice efficiencies will free their time so that they can use their intellect, knowledge and skill to truly add value for their clients—something all lawyers desire. This is a real chance to re­elevate our prestigious profession. DK: Totally encouraged! For many lawyers, the standard lawyer toolset (Office, document management, time and billing) has turned lawyers into data entry operators. Lawyers quite reasonably equate standard technology with routine and administrative tasks. AI offers the chance to move the routine to the machines, freeing up lawyer time for creative and high­value tasks. I’m excited by what’s already here, how it might evolve and what we will find that has arrived in the next three to five years. Consider the small example, especially in the smartphone world, and you will be encouraged too.

Gwynne Monahan is best known by her Twitter handle, @econwriter5, and follows the mantra Write Well. Edit Better. Generally speaking, she posts random, perhaps interesting, things. For more articles and practical advice on using on using technology in your practice, visit Law Technology Today.

Social Media: Developing Issues Steven M. Richman, Esq. New York, NY May 2015 [email protected]

Overview • Social media now permeates all aspects of life, across generations, geography and industries • Generally involves software platforms that allow sharing of information, real time exchanges, use of links and cross references, images • It does not change basic legal or ethical principles, but heightens the risks

Rules of Professional Conduct • Various rules and principles across borders may be applicable • These include primarily issues of confidentiality, conflict of interest, duties to former clients, truthfulness in statements to others, communication to persons represented by counsel, dealing with unrepresented persons, solicitation and contact with prospective clients , formation of attorney-client relationship, respect for rights of third persons, unauthorized practice of law, advertising and communication of specialty of practice

Confidentiality • Rule 1.6 Confidentiality Of Information • (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).

Old Wine, New Bottles • • • •

Do not talk in lavatories or elevators Who “overhears” you on social media Note rule 1.6(c): “A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.”

What Might Happen? • The lawyer answers a question about a point of law and the questioner acts on it • A lawyer talks about a “hypothetical” with no names that the real client nonetheless recognizes and believes confidentiality was breached • The lawyer “friends” an adverse party or fails to “unfriend” an adverse party • Many other possible scenarios

Hypothetical • You post on linkedin discussion group: • “I have the following situation. No names, but Client wants to break a lease. Landlord has done A, B and C. Client wants to argue X and Y, but I’m not sure Y is legally valid. Anyone try that? • How do you know Landlord or Landlord’s attorney doesn’t have access to that? • Not only breach, but possibly opened up issues for discovery, even if you abandon Y.

Illinois v. Peshek, 201 • She published blog with information regarding her legal work • suspended from the practice of law for sixty (60) days. • Violations of Rule 1.6: “Respondent knew or should have known that information contained in her [date] blog, as described in paragraph [ ], above, was confidential, or that it had been gained in the professional relationship and the revelation of it would be embarrassing or detrimental to her client.”

Complaint Allegation 1: • On or about March 14, 2008, Respondent represented a college student in relation to allegations that he possessed a controlled substance. On March 14, 2008, Respondent published the following entry on her blog: • #127409 (the client's jail identification number) This stupid kid is taking the rap for his drug-dealing dirtbag of an older brother because "he's no snitch." I managed to talk the prosecutor into treatment and deferred prosecution, since we both know the older brother from prior dealings involving drugs and guns. My client is in college. Just goes to show you that higher education does not imply that you have any sense.

Complaint Allegation 2 • On or about March 28, 2008, Respondent represented a diabetic client in relation to his drug charges. On March 28, 2008, Respondent published the following entry on her blog: • "Dennis," the diabetic whose case I mentioned in Wednesday's post, did drop as ordered, after his court appearance Tuesday and before allegedly going to the ER. Guess what? It was positive for cocaine. He was standing there in court stoned, right in front of the judge, probation officer, prosecutor and defense attorney, swearing he was clean and claiming ignorance as to why his blood sugar wasn't being managed well.

Complaint Allegation 3 • On or about April 9, 2008, Respondent represented a woman in relation to allegations that she had violated the terms of a previous order of probation. On April 9, 2008, Respondent published the following entry on her blog: • [extended description with details, inclduing use of painkillers, noting “It's a moderately decent painkiller, but after a day or 2, any opiate-type "high" is long gone - at least for most people I know. I've used it off and on for years and I've never noted any "craving" or any other significant effect when I stop. I can't imagine why someone would get "addicted" to the stuff.”

Fraud • She was also disciplined for violating Rule 1.2(g) for failing to call upon a client to rectify a fraud that the client perpetrated on the court

Advertising and Testimonials • California Formal Opinion 2012-186: – Posting on social media website is subject to rules of professional conduct – Can be “communication” or “advertising” or “testimonial” within the rules – E.g. post: “Case finally over. Unanimous verdict! Celebrating tonight.”—NOT communication – “Another great victory in court today! My client is delighted. Who wants to be next?” Communication AND testimonial in violation of Rules

“Anything you say . . . “ • Winter v. Abbott Laboratories, S.D. Ohio, 2012 • Defendant claimed plaintiff stole trade secrets • Linkedin description by Winter held against him:

• “Though the real potential of destroyed evidence is enough to show irreparable harm, this Court also finds that potential disclosure of the information Winter took away from Abbott constitutes a legitimate threat of harm. Citing to Winter's LinkedIn® profile available on the Internet, Abbott observes that Winter is holding himself out to the public as a "Patent Strategy Consultant," describing his practice as providing "seminars and workshops to educate and motivate scientists and engineers to develop and extract commercially significant and patentable inventions from their new products and technology." (Mot. For TRO, Ex. E, ECF No. 17-6.) The description of such a practice is similar enough to what he did for Abbott that Abbott argues the "inevitable disclosure doctrine" is in play, particularly if Winter is working with clients who develop nutrition products

“Friends” • San Diego County Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 2011-2: • “rules bar an attorney from making an ex parte friend request of a represented party. An attorney’s ex parte communication to a represented party intended to elicit information about the subject matter of the representation is impermissible no matter what words are used in the communication and no matter how that communication is transmitted to the represented party. We have further concluded that the attorney’s duty not to deceive prohibits him from making a friend request even of unrepresented witnesses without disclosing the purpose of the request.”

Judges • ABA Formal Opinion 462: • “A judge may participate in electronic social networking, but as with all social relationships and contacts, a judge must comply with relevant provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct and avoid any conduct that would undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality, or create an appearance of impropriety.”

Judges (cont’d) • California Judges Association Judicial Ethics Opinion 66: • Judge may be member of social media network provided adhere to rules governing public comment on pending cases, do not impugn impartiality or demean the office, do not engage in impermissible political activity or lend prestige of office.

Opinion 66 (cont’d) • Can include in that network lawyers appearing before him/her, provided maintain impartiality and not constitute ex parte communications • CANNOT include lawyers who have case pending before the judge in the social media networking

A Linkedin Aside • In re Advisory Letter No. 3-11 and Opinion No. 12-08, NJ Supreme Court, 2013: • Extrajudicial activity of municipal court judge as stand up comedian barred for as long as he is on bench; among evidence cited was linkedin reference to judge as cast member in a reality show.

Jurors • ABA Formal Opinion 466: • Lawyer can review juror or potential juror’s social media page but not communicate directly • Cannot send access request • If juror “pinged” or becomes aware, not deemed an improper communication

Jurors (cont’d) • New York City Bar Formal Opinion 2012-2: • Lawyers can use social media to research jurors subject to limitations on communications with jurors or prospective jurors and prohibitions on deception to obtain information • NY County Lawyers Association No. 743: • Pretrial search allowed subject to no contact or communication and no attempt to “friend” potential juror and no deceit

Specialties • New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion 972: – Law firm cannot list its services under a “Specialties” heading on social media site – Lawyer cannot do so unless so certified

“Linkedin” Endorsements • “a lawyer who adopts or endorses information on any similar web site becomes responsible for conforming all information in the lawyer’s listing to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Martindale-Hubbell, SuperLawyers, LinkedIn, Avvo, and other such websites may place their own informational listing about a lawyer on their websites without the lawyer’s knowledge or consent, and allow lawyers to take over their listings. The language employed by the website for claiming a listing is irrelevant.” South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion 09-10

South Carolina Opinion • 1) Yes, a lawyer may claim the website listing, but all information contained therein (including peer endorsements, client ratings, and Company X ratings) are subject to the rules governing communication and advertising once the lawyer claims the listing. • 2) A lawyer may invite peers to rate the lawyer and may invite and allow the posting of peer and client comments, but all such comments are governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the lawyer is responsible for their content.

S.C. Opinion: Client comments • “Client comments may violate Rule 7.1 depending on their content. 7.1(d) prohibits testimonials, and 7.1(d) and (b) ordinarily also prohibit client endorsements. See Cmt. 1. In the Committee’s view, a testimonial is a statement by a client or former client about an experience with the lawyer, whereas an endorsement is a more general recommendation or statement of approval of the lawyer. A lawyer should not solicit, nor allow publication of, testimonials. A lawyer should also not solicit, nor allow publication of, endorsements unless they are presented in a way that is not misleading nor likely to create unjustified expectations.”

Connecticut Bar Association Professional Ethics Committee Informal Opinion 2012-03) • Ethical for a lawyer to (1) direct clients to the client rating portion of Martidale.com's website to rate the requestor, provided not instruct or suggest “ fale or misleading” information, or give “something of value” for it • Ethical to permit client ratings to appear in the lawyer's Martindale Hubbell listing, as long as not “false or misleading”.

Distinction between What Layer Controls • “any portion of the lawyer's Martindale.com listing that the lawyer drafts or edits is advertising by the lawyer. By drafting or editing a portion of one's listing, the lawyer takes responsibility for that content and must abide by Rules 7.1 and 7.2. The client review portion of Martindale.com, however, is not (or at least should not be) written by the lawyer, and the lawyer has no control over its content except the ability comment on a client review or to suppress all client reviews. • In the Committee's view, the client review portion of a lawyer's or law firm's Martindale.com listing is not advertising by the lawyer and is not subject to the requirements of Rules 7.1 and 7.2 unless the lawyer plays a role in shaping the content of a client review or posts a comment about a review.”

What About Avvo? • “Other websites, too, permit clients to publish narrative comments about their lawyers without the lawyers' input or approval. The Committee does not view it as the lawyer's responsibility to scour the internet to ensure that all client comments comply with Rules 7.1 and 7.2 or to take action to ensure that comments that do not comply with those rules are removed or edited. Obligations under Rule 7.1 and 7.2 arise only when the lawyer has a hand in creating, shaping or publishing online client reviews.

Rule 7.1 • A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.

Rule 7.2 • Advertising: permissible, but can’t give anything of value to recommend the lawyer

Rule 7.4 • Rule 7.4: Communication of Fields of Practice & Specialization • (a) A lawyer may communicate the fact that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fields of law. • (b) A lawyer admitted to engage in patent practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office may use the designation "Patent Attorney" or a substantially similar designation. • (c) A lawyer engaged in Admiralty practice may use the designation "Admiralty," "Proctor in Admiralty" or a substantially similar designation. • (d) A lawyer shall not state or imply that a lawyer is certified as a specialist in a particular field of law, unless: • (1) the lawyer has been certified as a specialist by an organization that has been approved by an appropriate state authority or that has been accredited by the American Bar Association; and • (2) the name of the certifying organization is clearly identified in the communication.

Third Party Information • Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2013-189: • Lawyer may review someone’s publicly available information on social networking site • Ability to request access to non-public information, subject to rules regarding contact with unrepresented parties • Ability to use computer alias when requesting information, subject to restrictions on deception

Third Party Information (cont’d) • New York City Bar Ass’n Formal Op. 2010-2: • “a lawyer may not use deception to access information from a social networking webpage. Rather, a lawyer should rely on the informal and formal discovery procedures sanctioned by the ethical rules and case law to obtain relevant evidence.”

Third Party Information (cont’d) • New York State Bar Ass’n Op. # 843: • “A lawyer who represents a client in a pending litigation, and who has access to the Facebook or MySpace network used by another party in litigation, may access and review the public social network pages of that party to search for potential impeachment material. As long as the lawyer does not "friend" the other party or direct a third person to do so, accessing the social network pages of the party will not violate Rule 8.4 (prohibiting deceptive or misleading conduct), Rule 4.1 (prohibiting false statements of fact or law), or Rule 5.3(b)(1) (imposing responsibility on lawyers for unethical conduct by nonlawyers acting at their direction).”

Third Party Information (cont’d) • The Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Committee Opinion 2009-02 • “The fact that access to the pages may readily be obtained by others who either are or are not deceiving the witness, and that the witness is perhaps insufficiently wary of deceit by unknown internet users, does not mean that deception at the direction of the inquirer is ethical.”

Use of Discovery Mechanisms • Romano v. Steel Case Inc., 2010 NY Slip. Op. 32645 (U) (Suffolk County 2010): • Held that plaintiffs who place their physical condition in controversy may not shield from disclosure material which is necessary to the defense of the action, and that it was public information that clearly belied the plaintiff’s claims, showing a need to get to the nonpublic pages.

Further Caveats regarding Judges • Rule 3.6: • a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

Florida Bar v. Conway • In a blog, Conway “criticized Judge Cheryl Aleman's practice of setting unreasonably short time periods for criminal defendants to prepare for trial. In the post, Conway referred to Judge Aleman as an ‘evil, unfair witch’ and indicated that she was ‘seemingly mentally ill.’“ • Fined $1,200 • Digital Media Law Project 9/19/2008

Concluding Comments • Access to information available on social media can also be sought through formal discovery and if need be, by court order with appropriate protections in place • The use of digital media does not change the rules regarding non-digital media • Opinions may be binding or advisory, and differ from jurisdictions to jurisdiction

Selected Conflict of Interest Issues Steven M. Richman, Esq. Clark Hill Princeton, NJ and New York, NY 609.785.2911 [email protected]

Rule 1.18 Duties to Prospective Client • A person who discusses with a lawyer the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client. • Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has had discussions with a prospective client shall not use or reveal information learned in the consultation.

Rule 1.18 Duties to Prospective Client • A lawyer shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter. • If a lawyer is disqualified from representation under this paragraph, no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, unless screened.

Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer • A lawyer respects decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and consults with the client as to means of achievement. However: • A lawyer may take actions on behalf of the client as impliedly authorized in order to effectuate the representation, and a lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if limitation is reasonable and the client consents. • Lawyer generally has say on procedural issues

Rule 1.1 -Competence • A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. • Assign the right people to the right tasks (Rule 5.1 – Responsibilities of Supervisory Lawyers)

Rule 1.3 Diligence • A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

Rule 1.4 Communication A lawyer shall

• consult with the client about ways to accomplish client’s objectives; • keep the client informed about the status of the matter; • promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; • consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; and • explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

Rule 1.13 Organization as Client • A lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents. • Note that for conflicts purposes, even if not technically required, individual officers may involve business conflict issues.

Rule 1.13 Organization as Client • If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer or employee is acting in a matter related to the representation that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization and that is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, then the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization. Unless the lawyer reasonably believes that it is not necessary in the best interest of the organization to do so, the lawyer shall refer the matter to higher authority in the organization, up to the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization

Rule 1.13 Organization as Client • A lawyer who reasonably believes that he or she has been discharged because of the lawyer's actions taken pursuant Rule 1.13, or who withdraws under circumstances that require or permit the lawyer to take action under this Rule, shall proceed as the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to assure that the organization's highest authority is informed of the lawyer's discharge or withdrawal.

Rule 1.13 Organization as Client • In dealing with an organization's constituents, a lawyer shall explain the identity of the client when the lawyer knows that the organization's interests are adverse to those of the constituents with whom the lawyer is dealing. • A lawyer representing an organization may also represent any of constituents, subject to the provisions of Rule 1.7. If the organization's consent to the dual representation is required by Rule 1.7, the consent shall be given by an appropriate official of the organization other than the individual who is to be represented, or by the shareholders.

Identifying the Actual Client • The officers of a corporate client should be informed CLEARLY in writing as to the identify the client, and that they individually are not the client, nor are other affiliates. • However, if multiple representation, should be dealt with in engagement letter and be with informed consent • Also covers issues of confidentiality

The Warning: Sample Language • As we discussed, the ideal way to proceed would be for each of you, [name of client A, name of client B, and name of client C] to have separate counsel, as there may be issues where you may or will have conflicting or potentially conflicting interests among or between you. Nonetheless, you have each said that, because your interests in this matter are similar or identical for the most part, and in order to keep your respective legal costs to a minimum, you each would like [LAW FIRM] to represent all three of you.

Addressing the Confidentiality Issue • We have agreed that there will be no confidences among us regarding the work we do for you in this engagement. In other words, if we receive information from or about one of you that we believe the others should have in order to make decisions regarding the subject of our representation, you each agree and acknowledge that we shall give the others that information.

Informed Consent as to Conflict • We have informed each of you of the potential conflict of interest arising from our representation of all of you in this matter. This letter confirms our understanding that each of you, [name of client A, name of client B, and name of client C], has been advised of and acknowledges our representation of all of you, and agrees to waive any potential or actual conflicts of interest that arise or might arise as a result of our representation of all of you in this matter. If you disagree on any issue, we will ask you to resolve your differences as to that issue among yourselves, without our assistance. If you cannot resolve your differences, we will not be able to represent any one of you as to that issue.

Resolution • If the differences are serious enough, we may be required by applicable ethics rules to withdraw from this matter completely. [OR If you cannot resolve your differences, we will not be able to continue to represent all of you. [client A (and B)] agree(s) and understand(s) that in the event of any dispute or litigation of any kind between [client C] and [client A (and B)], we will be required to withdraw from representing [client A (and B)], and will continue to represent [client C] only. [client A (and B)] agree(s) that in that event [it/they] will not attempt to interfere with Duane Morris’ ongoing representation of [client C] in any way in this or any other matter.]

Conflicts of Interest Rule ABA Model Rule 1.7 – Conflicts of Interest relative to Current Clients states that (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. (b) Waiver permitted if still can provide competent representation, not prohibited by law, no assertion of contrary claims against each client, and informed consent.

Business Conflicts: Rule 1.8 • No business transactions with client unless independent review or opportunity by client, informed consent, and confidentiality obligations honored, among others.

Former Clients: Rule 1.9 • May represent client against former client in same or substantially related matter where interests materially adverse if former client gives written informed consent • Cannot represent in substantially related matter where prior firm represented client where interests materially adverse and acquired material information • Can’t otherwise use confidential information

2.5 United States 1. What is the basis for determining the rules governing professional activities in your jurisdictions?

Is there a code of conduct promulgated by the profession? Is it a code of conduct promulgated by the courts?

2. Who enforces the code of conduct? Is enforcement commenced by regulatory/court authority in response to a complaint? Is the enforcement commenced by the regulatory/court authority upon its own instigation?

3. Does your jurisdiction have rules regarding advertising and marketing by members of the profession?

203967487.2

The United States is a federal system with attorney regulation at the state and territorial level, which egulations and laws form the basis for governing professional activities, with limited exceptions Lawyers are subject to the rules of professional conduct promulgated by the local jurisdiction’s regulatory body, which include advertising and solicitation,.In addition, though, a lawyer may be sanctioned by a state regulatory authority or court if that lawyer engages in conduct in a state where the lawyer is not admitted, provided there is personal jurisdiction over that lawyer. The American Bar Association, a voluntary association of lawyers, also issues so-called ‘Model Rules’ that are often the basis for the various states’ adoption, either in whole or in part. With limited exceptions, generally attorneys are licensed and regulated on a state-by-state basis. While certain federal courts may permit admission before them notwithstanding the absence of admission before the state authorities in which the federal court is located, and certain safe harbors for specified types of transient practice, lawyers are generally permitted to practice only in the states in which they are licensed. When marketing and ethics are considered in the United States, then they are considered in terms of the applicable jurisdiction’s particular rules. Yes. Marketing and business communication may be in many forms: electronic, oral, hard copy and so forth. The US Supreme Court has recognised that lawyers have a First Amendment right to advertise their services as commercial speech. However, it is not unlimited, and the Supreme Court has recognised competing public interest concerns, and issued subsequent opinions setting down standards with regard to advertising and

solicitation.

4. Are members of the profession allowed to publicise historic success?

5. Are members of the profession in your jurisdiction permitted to advertise fee arrangements?

It varies from state to state. The American Bar Association’s Model Rule 7.2 permits advertising subject to Rule 7.1's admonitions, and certain restrictions on “direct contact with prospective clients” as set forth in Model Rule 7.3, but restricts a lawyer from paying (in money or in kind) for recommendations, except for reasonable advertising costs and usual charges for certain legal service plans or qualified referral services, or paying for a law practice as permitted under Model Rule 1.17, and under such other non-prohibited arrangements. Some states require disclaimers, such as that clients may be responsible for costs in contingent fee cases. Where permitted, must satisfy accuracy and non misleading standards.

6. Are members of your profession in your jurisdiction permitted to market – for example using social arrangements or giving away branded materials? 7. What are the potential consequences for breaching the rules and/or guidelines? Suspension, fine, disbarment?

8. In a few paragraphs would you please describe the policies applicable to the

203967487.2

It varies by state, with some older opinions precluding any such references, but most allowing some reference with varying degrees of disclaimers and contextural reference, subject to the general overall rule that the statements must be accurate and not misleading and not constitute a promise of future success

Generally, yes, but subject to the above-noted standards and rules governing client solicitation. Each state’s rules must be consulted.. It varies by state and will depend on severity of violation, past violations by the attorney, and other factors. Some states may also utilize public or private reprimands. It also depends whether the breach was singular or other ethics rules were involved. It is not possible to provide a comprehensive discussion of all the nuances involved.

-2-

rules/guidelines regarding members of the profession advertising in your jurisdiction?

Different states have varying levels of specificity and restrictions far beyond those of the Model Rules. Disclaimers may and should be used to make clear that legal advice is not being given and that there is no intention to be practising law in other than the lawyer’s authorised jurisdiction. Websites, like any other lawyer communication, must not be misleading. Lawyers also need to be careful to avoid creating attorney-client relationships through careless blog posts or other communications in the guise of advertising, which may be construed as legal advice.

203967487.2

-3-

Commented [A1]: Unclear. Can you clarify?

Retrieved on Oct 1, 2016, 1:09 pm CDT

Home  /  Daily News  /  Why embracing artificial intelligence is…

ASKED & ANSWERED

Why embracing artificial intelligence is in your law firm's best interests (podcast with transcript) POSTED MAR 28, 2016 08:30 AM CDT BY VICTOR LI (HTTP://WWW.ABAJOURNAL.COM/AUTHORS/27587/) Artificial intelligence has long been a tool for lawyers to perform their tasks more efficiently. However, the technology has advanced to the point where computers can now perform many of the tasks that were once the exclusive domain of humans. In this month’s Asked and Answered, the ABA Journal’s Victor Li talks to freelance writer Julie Sobowale about how artificial intelligence is revolutionizing the practice of law. Podcast Transcript

Victor Li: Artificial intelligence is changing the way lawyers practice law. It used to be that AI would help lawyers perform long tedious tasks more efficiently and quickly, like document review or legal research. However, in the last few years AI has advanced to the point where computers and software can now predict the outcomes of court cases, and even provide answers for people who might not be able to afford to hire a lawyer. With advanced technology of course, comes the age­old controversy about whether or not artificial intelligence is as reliable as human intelligence.

Image from Shutterstock (http://www.shutterstock.com).

00:00

21:06

Download this podcast (http://traffic.libsyn.com/abajournalaskedandanswered/artificial­ intelligence­change­lawyers­practice­law.mp3)

In This Podcast:

I’m Victor Li filling in for Stephanie Francis Ward. On today’s episode of the ABA Journal’s Asked and Answered podcast, I’ll be talking to Julie Sobowale, a freelance journalist and lawyer based in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Welcome to the show, Julie. Julie Sobowale: Thanks for having me. Victor Li: So you’ve written one of the main features for the April edition of the ABA Journal titled Robots Are Us (http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/how_artificial_intelligence_is_transformi ng_the_legal_profession). Could you talk a little bit about it, but

specifically about how you came up with the story idea? Julie Sobowale: Yeah, definitely. So I’ve been covering legal technology for, I would say, about six years. And one of the things that really intrigued me was artificial intelligence. And my interest kind of peaked last year when I heard about ROSS Intelligence, which is one of the companies talked about in the article, coming in second

Julie Sobowale

Julie Sobowale is a freelance journalist and lawyer based in Halifax, Nova Scotia, specializing in legal reporting. She writes about trends in the legal industry including legal technology, innovation, entrepreneurship, diversity and major shifts in legal culture. Her work has appeared in publications from the American Bar Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Corporate Council Association, Canadian Lawyer and the Nova Scotia Barristers Society. She’s also given presentations on legal trends, alternative careers and legal education. She graduated from the Dalhousie Schulich School of Law in 2012 and was the recipient of the Dalhousie Faculty of Law Leadership Award.

place for a competition with IBM Watson. And they were kind of the first company in Canada that was working with this type of technology, which was basically using robots to do the work of lawyers. And so I kind of looked into that a little bit, and then I heard about Dentons, which has now spun off a subsidiary that is totally independent and works on this type of legal technology, so artificial intelligence, predictive coding, all those kinds of things. And so I really wanted to kind of dive into where are we going in the legal profession in terms of artificial intelligence, and really, what does the future look like? Victor Li: I have a little bit of familiarity with Dentons Lab, I think it’s called NextLaw Labs, because I originally featured them in my feature (http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/some_law_firms_travel_outside_law_pr actice_to_avoid_their_kodak_moment), which is also supposed to run

in April, that deals with law firms developing their own technology. So once I found out that you were talking to them, I took them out of the piece, so you don’t have to worry about me stealing your—stealing your copy. So I wanted to ask you about ROSS Intelligence because it sounded very promising to me when I was looking into it. Could you talk a little bit about what it is; what it does; and how it could potentially affect the legal industry? Julie Sobowale: Yeah, definitely. So there’s these two young lawyers in Toronto. And one of the cofounders [Jimoh Ovbiagele] really had an idea to do legal research in a more efficient and cheaper way after going through an experience in which his parents were going through a divorce and they had hefty legal fees, which is a very common story not only in Canada, but in the U.S. And so he along with Andrew [Arruda], who is also featured in the piece, they got together and they decided to create ROSS Intelligence, which was using IBM Watson to do legal research. So what does that mean? Right now, how lawyers do their research is they use Westlaw or a similar program like that, and maybe you type in a keyword, right? So maybe I’m in personal injury law and I want to look up case law on the maximum payouts for a certain type of head injury. Well, what ROSS Intelligence would do is you don’t have to put it in that kind of Boolean searches. You can use plain language. You would type it in and it would give you all the relevant legislation, case law, in a really easy­to­use format. But what makes ROSS Intelligence really special is not only when you do that initial search it will bring you all those cases and legislation about those specific personal injury cases, but it will also update you on research as it becomes available. So maybe there’s a new case that comes out two weeks later, ROSS Intelligence will let you know and say, “Hey, I found something else that will help you.” Or it will even say, “Hey, you know, remember that original search that you did? I actually found something better later on. Here’s the research that I’d like to show you.” So in other words, it’s working as a research lawyer, but a computer, and it’s doing it faster and more efficiently. And this is kind of the way these two are thinking about how the legal profession needs to evolve, in this case in legal research. Victor Li: Let me ask you, obviously with a piece of technology that powerful it can help lawyers do their job more efficiently, but it could also potentially help clients or regular people receive answers that may be otherwise have to pay a lot of money to hire a lawyer, or maybe they wouldn’t even be able to hire a lawyer. Do you see products like this as being able to help bridge the sort of access­to­justice gap that we have, not just in this country, but also in Canada?

Julie Sobowale: Yeah, absolutely. And I think there’s two key things that you have to really consider when you’re thinking about legal technology and access to justice. So there’s one piece of what I like to call legal education, which is, you know, “If I’m somebody who’s in a traffic accident, you know, what are my rights? What if I want to go to court? What is the process to go through in that?” And there’s people who are working on those kinds of things to kind of lay out, you know, “This is what the process is.” You know, online dispute resolution is another more sophisticated form of that. With technology like ROSS Intelligence, when you put that in there, if I’m somebody who is self represented, then if I have access to that technology where I can do searches in plain language, that can really change the game in terms of me representing myself in a legal system where I may not have those tools. But then there’s a second key point to that that others have made, which is that technology can’t fix all the access­to­justice problems. So with ROSS Intelligence, one of the cofounders—the reason why he created this program is because of that memory of his parents going through family law court. And this is a huge issue in access to justice right now with the number of self­represented litigants in family law. So something like ROSS Intelligence can make that research cheaper, but for self­represented litigants, they might not still understand the system itself. So I might have the tools to search all this case law on custody and access, but if I don’t really know the fundamentals of custody and access I won’t know what I’m looking for. So that’s kind of the double­edged sword here when we talk about legal text and access to justice. Victor Li: One other thing I wanted to ask you about was there was an interesting stat that I pulled from your story. You say that in general, U.S. businesses spend about 3.5 percent of their revenue on research and development, and in some industries it’s a lot higher. I think like biotech and some other industries like that it could be as much as like 13 percent. I don’t have the stat off hand. In the legal industry though, you said that it’s less than 1 percent, why do you think that is? Julie Sobowale: Yeah, I think—and I talked to Dan Jansen about this from Dentons, who has a background in advertising and marketing. And in our conversation we talked about how in the legal industry, we don’t really think of R&D, pure R&D. So, you know, trying to push the boundaries with innovation, entrepreneurship, those kinds of fundamentals that other companies do that we would think for, say, a telecommunications company and cellphones. And kind of the reason why is, our business model has been very rooted in the partnership model. And the partnership model really isn’t created for that type of R&D thinking. So the revenues which we would receive, we would have to take a percentage out of it to do the R&D. Well, that percentage is usually allocated to the partner. So you already kind of have a conflict right there. And also, the way that law firms have traditionally operated in terms of we get clients by referrals, we get clients in —you know, we do a little bit of advertising, word of mouth, all of these kind of fundamental traditional ideas, they’re not again really rooted on why you would do R&D, why would you pour money into R&D? Because again, we see it as other industries where when they do R&D they’re trying to get a competitive advantage, whether it’s a new product, a new service, a new experience. And in the legal industry that idea just hasn’t caught on yet. That’s why NextLaw Labs is still interesting because they see it as a competitive advantage to think this way because they know there’s very few law firms out there that are. Victor Li: So obviously, I read your feature. I thought it was very good. And I’m sure it will get a very good reception next month, or maybe it won’t, who knows, these are lawyers that we’re talking about. It focuses on a lot of different things as opposed to just NextLaw Labs and things along those lines. One thing you talk about is predicative analytics. And this is something that I’ve been hearing about for a while now, software and computers that can predict outcomes that can just kind of bring in a much more powerful type of system than what has been available before. Did you get a sense while you were reporting as to how widespread this is? Like, are there a lot of companies or a lot of law firms that are using this kind of predictive analytics, or is it still very much in the infancy?

Julie Sobowale: Yeah. This is also something that I’ve been hearing about for the last couple of years. I think the first time I heard about it was when I was reporting on predictive coding a few years ago. And from the time that I saw this idea until the time I wrote the piece, I think it’s still in its infancy. And what I mean by that is, there are companies who are using it, but it’s not as wide scale as for example e­discovery, and the various e­discovery tools that are out there. Even predicative coding, I think, there’s at least a sizable minority that’s using that technology. But in terms of predictive analytics that’s not—that hasn’t been as prominent yet as I thought it would be. But I think as one of the interviewees said, it’s really kind of in the education phase, so people aren’t really sure what is predictive analytics. You know, if I talk about traffic patterns and our GPS or various apps predicting the traffic and predicting the quickest route, then you understand what I’m talking about. And this is really the same thing with predictive analytics on a more sophisticated scale. So I don’t think a lot of companies have caught on yet. And I use “companies” specifically because the ones that are using it are mostly corporations’ in­house counsel, who are using it for various usages—compliance is a good example. But it really hasn’t caught on yet, I think, in terms of the traditional law firm, or the traditional client. Victor Li: Fair enough. So I also want to just ask you in general just based on—obviously you’ve been reporting on legal tech for a while now. And the constant knock on technology that I hear from lawyers is that it’s not as reliable as an actual human well­trained, well­regulated lawyer. Do you see merit in that view, or do you think something else is at play like protectionism? Julie Sobowale: Yeah. So I won’t be politically correct this. It’s definitely just pure protectionism and I’ll explain why. I was talking to the CEO of eBrevia about this, and this is in the piece about, you know, why he decided to switch careers because he had many different avenues which he could go into. But basically, he just wanted something different in his legal career. And he basically wants to help lawyers do their job by creating the tools that he has, which is basically helping to make contracts easier and that kind of thing. And I just don’t really know why lawyers keep pushing back against this. The legal industry is so behind compared to other professions, even professions that are heavily regulated. The medical field is a very easy example. There are many different innovative and forward thinking things that are going on in the medical field, from e­files to—I mean, just incredible things. Even where I live in Nova Scotia, using big data to predict the number of cancer cases that would come up every year. So it’s kind of that kind of thing. I don’t really know why in the legal field we have to be so shy about this. Technology is already a part of our society and our life in every facet, in every facet of any job, profession, industry. And we should not think, “OK, well, you’re a human being and I trust you more than this computer, even though I know the computer would be more efficient to do it.” I think a really simple analogy is: “If I’m going to write a letter to my client, I’m going to type it. I’m not going to handwrite it. I’m not gonna use the typewriter.” And that might seem like a simplistic idea, but really at this point, I think, that’s what we’re dealing with. Why wouldn’t you use the computer instead of using the typewriter? That’s really what we’re talking about here. Victor Li: So obviously we’ve talked a lot about your feature and what’s in it. I also wanted to talk about just some other things as well that aren’t necessarily in the piece. You mentioned earlier online dispute resolution. Could you talk a little bit about that and what are some things that you’ve seen, or just what you’ve heard with regards to how effective it is, how widespread it is, and whether you see that catching on? Julie Sobowale: Online dispute resolution is very interesting, because there’s been a lot of research done on this for, I would say, the past 10 years—and a lot of different programs then have popped up. I know in Canada there’s a company in Quebec that created an app that helps manage your files, so that the judges and the lawyers—it’s kind of like cloud computing for online dispute resolution. In British Columbia they’re taking the steps forward and they’re incorporating that into their legislation. So basically small claims court would become ODR essentially, so you would have the option to do it the online way if you wanted to go that route. That’s a more simplistic way of saying it, but there’s other parts associated with it. So those kinds of things give me a little bit of hope.

But with something like online dispute resolution, there really isn’t a tool out there that I would say, “This is a game changer.” Especially given that the idea has been out there for so long. I mean, this has been out there since I would say, at least as early as 2005, 2004, when people were talking about it via email, and even earlier than that in terms of research. And so yeah, I don’t see any major changes, except what’s happening with British Columbia in terms of actually making that available to all, and they’re incorporating it into mobile technology. I think that’s really the future of ODR at this point, particularly since most people now have a smartphone compared to a laptop. And I’m talking about a specific, you know, age gap as well. You know, if you talking about anybody under the age of 30, and you’re talking about online dispute resolution, you’ve got to talk about a smartphone. But yeah, to me, that’s kind of where we’re going. Victor Li: And I’m actually glad that you talked about generational issues and young people and what not. To kind of tie it back to your feature, one point that you make is how younger lawyers are more comfortable with technology and are more used to using it in their professional lives. So do you think that resistance to technology is really just a generational issue when it comes down to it, and that as the older lawyers retire or leave the profession that you now have lawyers that are coming up that are used to using technology and that are comfortable with it and know what it can do? And they’re not worried that it’s gonna—you know, that Skynet is gonna rise up and take over and just start War Games. Do you think that that’s the case, or do you think that there will still be these kind of protectionist issues and the obstacles to widespread acceptance of legal technology? Julie Sobowale: Yeah, there’s a lot there. We have to be careful about the robots, right? Victor Li: Well, of course. Julie Sobowale: Actually—yes, of course. [laughter] Victor Li: Well, that won’t—I’m not gonna lie, that scares me, so. Julie Sobowale: No, no, no, I know. And I think there’s more legal issues with things like driverless cars than whether I want to use something like ROSS to do my legal research, but I digress. Actually, I thought at first that it was generational, particularly when I was in law school and I started writing about this. And I thought, “Oh, this is—you know, this is just typical older people. They don’t like computers. And we’re young and we like computers,” and this whole thing. But actually, you know, I’ve met some really good lawyers who have been in the profession at least 20, 25 years, who are really championing for changes in legal tech. Of course Jordan Furlong is an obvious example. But also where I live there’s a lawyer, his name is David Fraser. He has a privacy blog (http://blog.privacylawyer.ca/). It’s very popular. He’s on Twitter. He’s very tech savvy and has been for a very long time. And he’s been practicing for a very long time as well. He’s a partner at McInnes Cooper. So I see this more as a cultural issue because there are lawyers who are willing to adopt this technology, but our legal culture is: “I trust a human being more than the machine.” And you don’t have that in industries. You don’t have accountants saying, “I trust that accountant more than QuickBooks.” You don’t have that, you know, and again even in the medical field. We just have a culture where it’s like “this is how it is and we need to protect the sanctity of legaldom and our profession.” And really we need to move forward. We’re in danger of making ourselves obsolete. When you think of companies like LegalZoom, there are people out there who won’t think of LegalZoom as a law firm, they’ll think of LegalZoom as providing legal services. And that switch has already kind of happened. So I think lawyers really need to be careful about this and really just be open to new ideas of working as a lawyer. I’m not talking about thinking as a lawyer, or the fundamentals of what it is to be a lawyer, but just in terms of the practical day­to­day work, there is technology out there to make it simpler.

We don’t have to do it the old, you know, tried­and­true way. There are better ways and there are cheaper ways, too. You know, that’s kind of the point I wanted to make in the feature: that there are ways that will help you get more clients, that will make your clients happier because it will cost them less to do the work, and it will make your associates happier because they’ll spend less time doing inefficient things. But I do want to make a quick point about younger lawyers, because I remember when I made a presentation at my old law school at Dalhousie University about this. There are young lawyers, they don’t even want to be a part of any of this altogether, and they’re opting out of legal practice because they see the old antiquated system, or they’re saying, “I’m just gonna go out on my own and do it differently.” So there is a rising generation of young lawyers who are completely opting out of that old system and are trying to figure out different ways to basically practice law. It’s not a coincidence that, you know, the cofounders of ROSS or eBrevia or other companies like this are young, are younger lawyers, because they see that “I want to make a change and I’m not buying into this old system.” Victor Li: Right. Or very often they’re people who, they were at a law firm for a little bit, and then they just had to leave and go out on their own. You know, either because of inefficiencies that they saw, or just because they thought that they could do something better. Julie Sobowale: Yeah, exactly. I’ve talked to quite a few young lawyers, and I’ve written about them in the past. There’s a—I forget the name of the company off the top of my head—oh, Clio. So when I read about Clio a few years ago, and I talked with some of the people who use their product, these are young lawyers who are, you know, like 20s, 30s. And they want to practice law, but they don’t want have to use Simply Accounting or other programs that are just not efficient for what they want to do. They’re not intuitive, and they know that there’s better technology out there. They know there’s better ways to do it, you know. And they’re trying to do it in their own way, maybe as a solo firm or a partnership firm with two or three people. So we kind of need to think about those guys, too. You know, because we want to keep those lawyers in their profession. If we keep giving out a message of “technology is bad,” we’re gonna lose a lot of good lawyers in the long term. Victor Li: Right. All right, that was all I had for you, Julie. Was there anything that you wanted to talk about or anything else that you wanted to cover before we sign off? Julie Sobowale: No. It was a pleasure to chat with you. And I really hope everyone reads it with an open mind. I’m a lawyer myself, and so I just want other lawyers to know about what’s going on out there and how the technology out there can make their lives a little bit easier, just a little bit easier. So I just hope everyone reads it with an open mind. Victor Li: I’m sure they will. Thank you Julie. Before we sign off, do you have any contact information that you would like to leave for our listeners? Julie Sobowale: Sure. Readers can find me on Twitter @NSLegal (https://twitter.com/nslegal). And I would love to have a chat with anyone. And if people would also like more information about different companies or other people who are talking about legal tech, feel free to tweet me. Victor Li: Great. I’m Victor Li, thank you again for listening to the ABA Journal’s Asked and Answered. End of transcript Updated on April 5 to add transcript.

Copyright 2016 American Bar Association. All rights reserved.