Podcast on lawyers and articificial intelligence

Have you seen the newest commercial for LegalZoom in which lawyers say "I am definitely not a robot!"?   This line is a reference to recent debates as to whether lawyers can (or will be) replaced by robots or computers in the future.

Interestingly, some lawyers have been replaced by computers already by a computer program that allows parties to resolve disputes without the need for lawyers, mediators or arbitrators.  But I don't think we need to worry about all lawyers being replaced ....yet, at least.

 In a recent episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, the hosts discuss issues related to artificial intelligence and lawyers, try to eparate myth from reality, and ponder whether AI can take over the work of lawyers. They discuss the definition of AI, robotics, Technology Assisted Review, driverless cars, document assembly software, LegalZoom and how lawyers are assisted or threatened by these technologies.

You can access the podcast by clicking on the play button below.  If you don't see the button below, you can go here.

Podcast on the ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services

As everyone knows, the legal service industry has been changing rapidly. Some jurisdictions allow non lawyers to provide some legal services, companies provide access to legal documents and forms and many potential clients are now looking online for solutions to legal problems.  On the other hand, there is still a large percentage of the population without access to the legal services they need. In order to deal with this emerging legal marketplace shift, American Bar Association President William Hubbard formed the ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services.

The Digital Edge has posted a podcast discussing the Commission on the Future of Legal Services and its specific plans for looking into solutions.  You can listen to the podcast by pressing on the play button below.  If you can't see the button you can go here.

Court orders new trial, holding former prosecutor, now TV personality engaged in unethical conduct

Jonathan Turley's Res Ipsa Loquitur is reporting that a state court has ordered a new trial for a man convicted in 2007 due to unethical conduct of former prosecutor television personality Kelly Siegler, the star of the reality series Cold Justice on TNT.   The judge detailed an astonishing 36 instances of unethical conduct by Siegler, including withholding exculpatory evidence.  The judge explained that the prosecutor testified at a habeas hearing that favorable evidence did not need to be disclosed if the state did not believe it was true.  This is interesting because if she really believed that then you may be able to argue she did not "knowingly" violate the law.  Yet, you can also argue she is incompetent since that is obviously not the standard.  So, either way, there is basis to argue unethical conduct.

Siegler, not surprisingly, has denied she engaged in misconduct and has asserted she never withheld evidence.  Reportedly, attorneys are now re-investigating all the murder cases she was involved in.

Sadly, this is not the first "TV prosecutor" with a history of allegations of unethical conduct.  The other, of course, is Nancy Grace, who has been accused of being an unethical prosecutor who violated the rights of accused persons.

Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decides lower courts must address possible conflict of interest before deciding the merits of a case

 The Legal Profession blog is reporting today on an interesting case out of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in which the court held that a trial court erred in granting summary judgment and then holding that a motion to disqualify counsel was moot.  According to the Court's opinion

The district court erred in the sequence in which it rendered its decisions. Because a claim of counsel’s conflict of interest calls into question the integrity of the process in which the allegedly conflicted counsel participates, the court should resolve a motion to disqualify counsel before it turns to the merits of any dispositive motion. That procedure was not followed here. We therefore vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment and its denial of the motion to disqualify and remand this case for further proceedings. Because the district court will decide in the first instance whether there was a conflict of interest or an appearance of such a conflict in violation of applicable ethics rules and, if so, will determine the appropriate remedy, we offer only limited guidance on the remaining issues the parties briefed and leave to the district court to decide them in view of its ruling on the merits of the motion to disqualify.

I don't have a problem with this, except for the statement "or an appearance of such a conflict."  This appearance of impropriety standard has been abandoned and criticized by other courts; and for good reasons. See here.

For more on the case, go here.

Please help a friend with her research

My colleague Prof. Cynthia Bond is working on a article and she needs your help.  Here is her request:

I am working on an article this summer on uses of popular culture in the law school classroom.  I am defining popular culture broadly to include mass culture texts like movies, TV shows, popular music, images which circulate on the internet, etc, and also any current events that you may reference in the classroom which are not purely legal in nature (i.e. not simply a recent court decision).

To support this article, I am doing a rather unscientific survey to get a sense of what law professors are doing in this area.  If you are a law professor and you use popular culture in your class, I would be most grateful if you could answer this quick, anonymous survey I have put together:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QH3GBZK

Thanks in advance for your time and have a wonderful rest of summer!

Cynthia Bond

The John Marshall Law School

Chicago, IL

Comment on Celgard v. LG Chem, an unusual disqualification case

Over at Justicia.com, Prof. Ronald Rotunda has posted a short comment on Celgard, LLC v. LG Chem, LTD., which he calls "a most unusual lawyer disqualification case" out of the Federal Circuit. 

In Celgard, the Federal Circuit disqualified law firm Jones Day because it was representing Celgard in a patent dispute while it continued to represent Apple in other matters, even though Apple's connection to the case was that it had a business relationship with one of the parties.  

As Prof. Rotunda explains, if one reads Celgard too broadly, it is a potentially dangerous opinion, but there is no need to do that because there is no conflict simply because a law firm represents a client and the result in the case would make it more difficult or more expensive for another client to purchase goods or services.

Review of new law review article on the future (and regulation) of legal services

Professor Laurel Terry has written a short review of Andrew M. Perlman's article Towards the Law of Legal Services, Suffolk University Law School Research Paper No. 15-5 (2015).  The review is available here; the article is available here. 

No, you can't try to get clients by offering them door prizes!

Addressing what in class I call the "chicken dinner" approach to attracting clients, the North Carolina State Bar recently announced 2015 Formal Ethics Opinion 3: Offering Prospective Client a Computer Tablet in Direct Mail Solicitation, which concludes that a lawyer may not offer a computer tablet to a prospective client in a direct mail solicitation letter.

I would have thought this is obvious!  I am surprised a formal opinion was needed to clarify it.  One of the reasons attorneys are not allowed to provide financial assistance to clients (in litigation) is that we don't want to see a market for legal services based on which firm can offer the best dinners...  For this reason, it would seem obvious, to me at least, that it would be improper to offer prizes to prospective clients.

Florida releases electronic communications guidelines

The Florida Bar has released guidelines for electronic communication that consider issues of professionalism and legal ethics that may arise when an attorney uses texting, emailing, a smart phone, and social media in his or her practice. The best practice suggestions range from considering client confidentiality to understanding technology to practical suggestions for responding to an “angry email.”  To read the Florida Bar’s Best Practices for Effective Electronic Communication click here.

E-discovery and the duties of competence and confidentiality

Professional Responsibility: A contemporary approach reports that "[a] recent ethics opinion from the California State Bar Committee on Professional Responsibility, Formal Op. 2015-193, outlines how even an experienced lawyer can breach duties of competence and client confidentiality by engaging in e-discovery without the assistance of someone with e-discovery expertise."  Go here for more.