Legal EducationTwo ABA presidents to weigh in on future of legal education at South Carolina Law Review symposium Feb. 27 – 28.Legal Education

For more information and to register online, go to the South Carolina Law Review website.

Will non-lawyers soon be allowed to provide certain legal services? They might if one of the key conclusions from a recent report by the ABA Task Force on the Future of Legal Education is implemented. (See my blog post on this topic at: Limited Licensing of Legal Technicians: A Good Idea? 

I am participating in this program so I will get another opportunity to air my somewhat contrarian views on whether there should be another licensed class of professionals serving the public directly who are not lawyers. A complicated subject that needs more debate.

The report, released in January, will be the focus of the South Carolina Law Review Symposium Feb. 27 – 28 at the University of South Carolina School of Law. The symposium will explore why law schools and the legal profession must make changes – and what those changes should be – to keep up with the evolving marketplace for legal education and legal services delivery. 

Titled “On Task?: Expanding the Boundaries of Legal Education,” the symposium will take place in the law school’s auditorium. 

The symposium will begin at 4 p.m. Thursday with a panel discussion in response to the Task Force’s report and a keynote address by Jim Silkenat, president of the American Bar Association and partner at Sullivan & Worcester LLP in New York. Silkenat will discuss the legal profession and future of legal education and its impact on law schools, corporate counsel and private attorneys. USC board of trustee, alumnus and ABA president-elect William Hubbard will introduce Silkenat and offer his views on the future of legal education. 

Friday’s sessions, which take place 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. will focus on proposals outlined in the Task Force’s recent report and law schools’ responses to changing markets within—and outside of—the law curriculum. Panels also will address the changing expectations of law firms and clients, new platforms in the delivery of legal services, the growing demand for information management by corporate clients, and the promises and challenges of limited licensing. 

Participants include, among others: 

  •  Elizabeth Chambliss, USC professor of law and director of the Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough Center on Professionalism;
  • Steve Crossland, chairman of the Washington Supreme Court Limited License Legal Technician Board;                                          
  •  Barry Currier, managing director of accreditation and legal education, ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar;  
  • Neil Hamilton, professor of law and director of the University of St. Thomas School of Law’s Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions; 
  • Renee Knake, professor of law and co-director of Michigan State University College of Law’s Kelly Institute of Ethics and the Legal Profession;  
  • Paula Littlewood, executive director of the Washington State Bar Association;
  •  Hon. Barbara Madsen, chief justice of the Washington Supreme Court;
  • Lisa Rohrer, executive director of executive education and the Case Development Initiative at Harvard Law School; and
  • Ronald Staudt, professor of law and director of Chicago-Kent College of Law’s Center for Access to Justice and Technology.

I am participating on a Panel with my colleague and friend, Ron Staudt, focusing on teaching legal technology in the J.D. curriculum,  a current project of mine through the new Center for Law Practice Technology at Florida Coastal School of Law..

·        

American Bar AssociationThe American Bar Association has issued its draft Report and Recommendations on the Future of Legal Education. You can download it here.

I agree with many of the recommendations of the report which urges law schools to experiment with different modes of legal education, recommends relaxing ABA accreditation rules which impede innovation, and modifies the traditional law curriculum to focus less on the teaching of doctrinal law and more on skills the prepare law students to actually practice law. Many of the recommendations,if adopted, would radically change the structure, focus, and culture of many law schools.

One of the recommendations of the Task Force is the idea of limited licensing of non-lawyers ("legal technicians") to deliver legal services to the public directly without the supervision of a lawyer:

"However, there is today, and there will increasingly be in the future, a need for: (a)persons who are qualified to provide limited law-related services without the oversight of a lawyer; (b) a system for licensing of individuals competent to provide such services; and (c) educational programs that train individuals to provide those limited services. The new system of training and licensing limited practice officers developed by Washington State and now being pursued by others is an example and a positive contribution."

Thus one of the final recommendations of the Task Force Report is:

"Authorize Persons Other than Lawyers with J.D.’s to Provide Limited Legal Services, Whether Through Licensure Systems or Other Mechanisms Assuring Proper Education, Training, and Oversight."

and:

"Develop Educational Programs to Train Persons, other than Prospective Lawyers, to Provide Limited Legal Services. Such Programs May, but Need Not, Be Delivered through Law Schools that are Parts of Universities."

Unlike the other recommendations which deal with fixing legal education, these recommendations are focused on access to justice issues, which requires a different framework for analysis. 

The recommendation to create a new class of limited licensed legal providers, so-called "Legal Technicians" –  needs to be re-evaluated in the light of changing legal industry market dynamics and the accelerating impact of Internet technology on the delivery of legal services.

Just to note, for decades I have been a strong advocate for the idea that trained paralegals should be permitted to serve the public directly, without further licensing or regulation by any state body, other than graduation from an ABA-accredited law school and a few years of experience working in a law firm.  I was formerly President and Dean of the Philadelphia Institute for Paralegal Training, the nation’s first paralegal educational institution, and in that role saw how effective a trained paralegal can be in serving a law firm’s clients.

More recently. the company I founded – DirectLaw – offers a virtual law firm platform for solos and small law firms. If there were a new class of limited license professionals in the market, I would not hesitate to modify our DirectLaw platform to serve limited licensed professionals, opening up a major new market for our virtual service. So personally I have much to gain by a new class of limited license professionals that would serve the public directly.

Only recently have I begun to reconsider the viability of a new class of legal paraprofessionals serving the public directly primarily because of  changes in the market for personal legal services.

I have  reservations about the proposal to license non-lawyers to provide limited legal services. My reservations are in the form of a challenge to the Task Force recommendations on limited-licensing, in the sense that the idea needs further thought and analysis before states rush to adopt these ideas. (despite the fact that Washington State already has a scheme in place, and  California and New York are considering similar proposals). 

Here are my reservations – comments welcome:

  • The data that we have (see for example www.attorneyfee.com) suggests that the pricing of legal services by solo practitioners and very small law firm firms is going down — not up. It is not a fact that the legal fees are out of reach of many consumers. There is an issue of connecting with consumers with lawyers– but it is becoming less of a price issue and more of an "engagement" issue. There is no evidence to suggest that the fees that limited licensed practitioner would charge would be any less than the fees currently charged by solo practitioners, but their service, by definition, would be much more limited than the service offered by an attorney.
     
  • Solo practitioners are already being displaced by technology which is forcing a reduction in legal fees. Limited license practitioners would be even more vulnerable to the impact of information technology on the more routine services that they would offer.
     
  • The restrictive licensing scheme for lawyers, which is based on a "job-shop" model is likely to be replicated in the licensing scheme for "legal technicians." Licensing of legal service professionals based on the "job shop" model creates a high overhead enterprise that is vulnerable to new entrants into the market, e.g., LegalZoom, that are not subject to such restrictions.  Lawyers already suffer from a competitive disadvantage against new market entrants. Legal technicians will face the same competitive disadvantages. I can’t see how the practices of legal technicians, with certain exceptions, will be viable economically. (I have yet to see a business plan of what such a limited license practice would look like that would include the cost of malpractice insurance, office expenses, advertising and marketing expenses, etc.).
     
  • Introduction of a new class of limited licensed professionals will continue to erode the economic model of solo and small law firm practice by sucking out from those practices the more routine legal services which are important to sustaining the economic viability of those law firms. It is naive to suggest that solo practitioners should concentrate on doing "more complex legal work" leaving the routine legal work to "limited license professionals.". If the ABA wants to deliver a death blow to solo practitioners this is a good way to do it. (See: Will California Threaten Lawyer Livelihoods with Legal Technicians?)
     

Creating a new re
gulatory scheme and educational system for limited licensed professionals is going to be high in cost. It is not likely that law schools and universities will be able to offer education a price point which is much lower than there existing price levels. The result will be that we will have a new class of students being trained in law that who will incur high student loans where the income generated from their practice will be insufficient to amortize the principal and interest, because of limited market prospects and price compression in the legal industry.

  • Many of these new students who aspire to limited licensed professionals professionals are likely to be members of minority groups. Since there will be no hard data on the income prospects for this new class of professionals — just the idea that that once graduate they will be able to compete with lawyers in a limited way – seducing students into a new field where there is no effective demand.
     
  • I can just hear the pitch of commission-based admission’s representatives at a variety of educational institutions who will jump in this market: "Become a licensed legal professional and you can provide legal services like a lawyer."

One result will be the imposition on a group of students excessive loan burdens which will be impossible for them to discharge. (This reminds me of the banking industry preying on minority neighborhoods with fraudulent loans). I would feel more comfortable with an of educational program to train legal technicians if the tuition was very low or free. Since there is no evidence that there is a viable career upon graduation, the risk should be assumed by society, and not the individual student. So if law schools and universities want to jump in this educational market the least they can do it make it tuition free or very low in cost for the first three years, until it is clear that there is a real career after graduation.

I could write more abut this subject, but this post is already long enough. 

 

Center for Law Practice TechnologyThere has been much discussion lately on whether law schools are training lawyers for 21st century law practice. At the ABA Annual Meeting this week in San Francisco a Presidential Task Force on the Future of Legal Education is scheduled to report out its recommendations.. In my last blog post, I identified 13 law schools that were making a commitment to training law students in legal technology and law practice management. At one point in my career,  I taught these subjects at several law schools under the guidance of Gary Munneke., — whose untimely death last November has created a vacuum that will be hard to replace.

My own bias is that in this digital age, to be a competent lawyer requires an understanding of legal practice technology. The ABA supports this view as at last year’s mid-year meeting the ABA House of Delegates  acting on the recommendations of the ABA 20/20 Commission, voted to amend the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to make clear that lawyers have a duty to be competent in technology. Specifically, the ABA voted to amend the comment to Model Rule 1.1, governing lawyer competence, to say that, in addition to keeping abreast of changes in the law and its practice, a lawyer should keep abreast of “the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.”

Center for Law Practice TchnologyI have been looking for an opportunity to getting back into teaching law practice technology and now have the opportunity with Stephanie Kimbro to create a new Center for Law Practice Technology with the backing of Florida Coastal School of Law in Jacksonville, Florida.

Stephanie and I will become Co-Directors of this new Center. and the plan is to develop a series of online courses for law students nationwide  that will lead to a Certificate of Law Practice Technology and Management. The first courses will be offered in January, 2014.

The Center will also be a laboratory for developing and testing new forms of online legal services.  Students will have the opportunity to experience virtual law firm technologies and other emerging technology tools such as legal expert systems, document automation technology, and legal applications that are designed to increase access to the legal system. You can read more about this new Center here.

The eLawyering Task Force of the Law Practice Management Section of the ABA was created in 2000 by then President of the ABA, William Paul. At that initial meeting Gary Munneke, a founding member of the Task Force and the leading law school educator and author on the subject of law practice management and then Chair of the Law Practice Management Section of the ABA (now deceased),  recommended that law schools update their law practice management courses to reflect the impact that the Internet would have on the practice of law.

13 years later there are few law schools that have made a sustained commitment to teaching what the Task Force calls "law practice technology". By "law practice technology" the Task Force does not mean technology and law courses such as Intellectual property courses, patent law courses, courses in copyright, etc.

Instead the Task Force means the intersection of internet technologies and the practice of law.  It is no longer possible to teach law practice management without taking into account the impact of information technology on law practice. We include within this category courses that train law students in document automation, legal expert systems, and other course work that has an impact on the nature, productivity and profitability of law firms.

The Task members believe that to educate law students to be "practice ready",  particularly for law schools where the majority of graduates will end up in solo and small law firm practice, understanding the principles of law practice technology are essential.

The Top Legal Practice Technology Schools Project

In honor and in memory of Gary Munneke, the eLawyering Task Force is working on a project to identify the top law schools teaching legal practice technology today. Our methodology is to review law schools web site catalogs and also seek input and recommendations from law schools themselves through a self-nomination process.

The criteria for inclusion on the list is:

 

1. A full-time faculty member dedicated to teaching and coordinating a program in law practice technology.  This subject matter should be the focus of serious research, including the development of innovations in law practice.

2. At least two credit courses in this subject matter such as law practice management, law practice technology, ediscovery and big data, outcome prediction,  legal project management, virtual lawyering,  expert legal systems development, document automation, and/or other coursework which deal with innovation in the delivery of legal services and law practice.

3. Non-credit courses taught by adjunct instructors don’t quality.

4. Law schools sponsoring incubator programs are interesting, but these programs involve lawyers who have already graduated, not law students.

The initial list includes the following law schools, in alphabetical order:

 Brigham Young University Law School for their ground-breaking work in teaching computer-based practice systems under the leadership of Larry Farmer and Blair Janis.
 

Chicago Kent Law School‘s Center for Justice and Technology under the leadership of Ronald Staudt and CALI for their work in piloting law school clinical programs and for their innovative On-Line Course on Digital Law Practice under the leadership of John Mayer.


Columbia University School of Law, Lawyering in the Digital Age Clinic, under the leadership of Professor Conrad Johnson, Professor Mary Marsh Zulack, and Brian Donnelly, Lecturer in Law. Conrad Johnson is chosen as 2013 Professor of the Year.

 

Georgetown Law SchoolGeorgetown Law School’s Iron Tech Competition and Technology, Innovation and Law Practice Seminar   under the leadership of Tanina Rostain and Roger Skalbeck.

 

 

 

Maurer School of Law at Indiana University under the leadership of William D. Henderson for his courses on Legal Project Management and the Law Firm As a Business Organization and for Directing the Center on the Global Legal Profession.

 

Reinvent Law LabopratoryMichigan State Law School‘s Reinvent Law Laboratory, under the leadership of Dan Martin Katz and Renee Newman Knake.

 


New York Law SchoolNew York Law School’s Certificate Program in Mastery of Law Practice Technology under the leadership of Dan Hunter.

 

We are adding today, (May 17, 2013) a 13th school to our list – the Northern Kentucky University Chase College of Law because of a $1,000,000 grant made just last week by W. Bruce Lunsford to establish and support the W. Bruce Lunsford Academy for Law, Business + Technology. Lunsford, is  a 1974 graduate of Chase College of Law, and is chairman and CEO of Lunsford Capital, LLC, a private investment company headquartered in Louisville, Ky. The Academy will be operated by the NKU Chase & Informatics Institute under the leadership of Professor Jon Garon Click here for the full press release.
 

University of Miami Law School’s LawWithWithoutWalls Project under the leadership of Michelle DeStefano and Michael Bossone and the Apps for Justice Project within the Law School’s Clinical Program.

Stanford Law School Codex Center for Legal InformaticsThe CodeX – Stanford Law School Center for Legal Informatics – under the leadership of Mark A Lemley and Roland Vogl. See course on Legal Technology and Informatics by Ron Dolin.

 

Institute for Law Practice Technology and Innovation

Suffolk Law School‘s new Institute for Law Practice Technology and Innovation under the leadership of Andrew Perlman.  Co-Chair of Advisory Committee are Jordon Furlong and Marc Lauritsen.

University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law for their course on Computer-Assisted Litigation under the leadership of Professor Fred Galves and Tim Pignatelli, CEO, Legal Technology Consulting.

 
 

Vermont Law School‘s new Technology of Law Curriculum and their course on "Digital Lawyering" under the leadership of Oliver Goodenough, Jeane Eicks, and  Brock Rutter.

 

This is a preliminary list. The eLawyering Task Force is inviting self-nominations from law schools and recommendations by others either commenting the Task Force’s list serve or for convenience by simply adding comments to this blog post. Our plan is to publish a more complete list by the Annual Meeting of the America Association of Law Schools in January, 2014 in New York City.

Disclosure: I am Co-Chair if the eLawyering Task Force. Any opinions expressed in this blog post are my own, and not the opinion of the eLawyering Task Force of the Law Practice Management Section of the American Bar Association..