Jeff Kelly: Let`s start by saying that if lawyers really care about the best interests of consumers, why over 70 years, according to the report you`re looking at, don`t they have access to the legal services they need? I mean, at least in a civilian context. And that`s something that`s getting harder and harder in the previous conversations that you and I discussed. They don`t really look at me with a background in business and entrepreneurship and say, “Okay, why is this person leading the reform? Why is this person on fire about consumer rights? » Stand out from the thousands of lawyers looking for a job. Learn best practices and tips for using your online presence to attract legal recruiters. The other part of this that has been happening a lot lately about the good work of other people, particularly in the West, Utah, Arizona and California, is our state bar – according to the regulator, they have formed a regulatory amendment committee that is initially tasked with investigating what`s going on nationwide and, Let us hopefully make recommendations. While I will say that we met about a month ago and there is certainly a feeling that the initial charge – because it was conceived before the pandemic may not be attractive enough and I was very encouraged by many of the conversations included in it – that I would not consider a standard question is: “Who is not in the room right now, but needs to be here?” And I think it`s perhaps one of the feelings or regrets that I`ve heard from a number of our mutual friends who have served on the commissions of these other states, that most of the people in the room are defenders and defenders of a certain belief. And if we want to look at this as a truly consumer-driven initiative, which I hope and as such has been called, then we should probably have something more than someone representing consumers to make sure that what we`re working on, evaluating and hopefully designing actually meets the needs, rather than being a solution to the search for a problem. For legal services, the price depends linearly on time. This assumes the premise that more time leads linearly to more value.
This is pure nonsense. In addition, there is the assumption that each time increment produces the same amount of value. This is obviously not the case: an hour devoted to litigation strategy does not have the same value as an hour listening to a conference call with several callers. The first could have a huge added value and the second almost not at all (who does not continue to work on the computer during such calls?) As the legal industry evolves and changes, lawyers need to keep abreast of new and emerging areas of law. Following the latest trends in the legal industry can seem daunting for lawyers. Alongside the obligation of ethical competence, there are issues of legal liability related to the use of AI tools. Two particular issues of accountability are at the forefront. First, to what extent are lawyers or will they be accountable for when and how they do or do not use AI solutions to meet their clients` needs? An example explained above is whether a lawyer or law firm is liable for fault if the judge accesses software in a case that identifies guiding principles or precedents that the lawyer did not find or use. It does not seem an exaggeration to believe that liability should be associated if the consequence of the lawyer`s non-use of this type of instrument is a bad outcome for the client and the client suffers harm as a result. Much more complex and difficult to resolve are the issues of apportionment of responsibility between the creator of a faulty software solution and the law firm that uses it for the supposed benefit of the client. Of course, this is partly contractually decided, but in the likely situation where the AI provider has a limitation of liability in its contract, what happens to the lawyer`s liability, because in some jurisdictions (including many US states), the lawyer may not receive an initial limitation of liability from the lawyer`s client? And in determining the relative liability between the provider of the defective solution and the lawyer, should the court consider the steps taken by the lawyer to determine whether the solution was appropriate for the respective client`s case? The lawyers of the future don`t need to be able to “code,” but they will need an accurate and ongoing understanding of how to identify and use AI solutions to meet their clients` needs. In particular, given that there is currently no system for scoring the suitability or effectiveness of individual AI solutions (see the section on the ethical implications of AI-derived legal service solutions), aspiring lawyers need to know how to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of certain solutions.
In particular, London-based international law firm Linklaters recently announced the creation of a dedicated legal operations “trail” for lawyers trained in exactly this way.12 In addition, OâMelveny & Myers recently announced that in order to be considered for a summer partner position (the usual first avenue for potential employees of the firm), applicants are expected to participate in an AI-based online computer game. This has been developed. essentially to test their team-building skills (i.e. empathy).13 E-discovery. It was the first use of AI in the law and it`s pretty well established. Essentially, e-discovery is software that allows you to review a large number of documents and identify documents relevant to the search criteria at a fraction of the cost, in a fraction of the time and usually much more accurately than if the same survey is conducted by teams of lawyers or paralegals. who look at computer screens. Before diving into a new line of business, do your research and understand what customers are looking for. One of the biggest mistakes you can make is offering a service that is unnecessary or quickly becomes outdated.
For example, offering advice and counseling to legalize marijuana to dispensaries in Oregon, as most dispensaries are already well established and include the industry. Privacy and cybersecurity laws are complex and vary from state to state (e.g., CCPA). Lawyers in this area need to evaluate and review current policies. In addition, these attorneys reduce privacy and security risks to comply with applicable federal and state laws. The basic principles of solicitor-client law and professional liability are contained in the amendments described in this article, including competence, confidentiality, supervision, communication and liability for error. So it is incumbent upon us, not only the regulatory reform committees, but also the Bar Association, to engage the public, and I will say that I am encouraged by some of the responses to the pandemic and by many of the racial tensions caused by the murder of George Floyd. But our chief justice has formed a couple of working groups that we`re going to see where they go, but at least in principle and in the spirit of those groups, look at committees like — it`s based on a rental model, I believe, but the Faith and Justice Committee, where the goal is to work with faith centres — so churches and other groups. to help these groups provide legal services or — I mean legal information — a way to create existing networks that most consumers would think of if they had a problem. I don`t know where this takes us in practice, but I`m encouraged by the fact that these conversations are taking place and that we see groups alongside JDs as the solution to explicitly legal problems.
I am a former practicing lawyer, speaker, media contributor and burnout prevention and stress resilience expert who has taught and mentored burnout prevention and resilience skills to thousands of professionals around the world.