The Geek in Review Ep. 55 – The Legal Tech and Innovation Pipeline – Can Law Schools and Law Firms Better the Process?

Listen, Subscribe, Comment

Transcript

[00:00:00] Marlene Gebauer: Here we go. This should be good. You can hear like dishes and stuff in the background.

[00:00:07] Greg Lambert: Welcome.

[00:00:08] Marlene Gebauer: Welcome to the kitchen cleanup version of The Geek in Review. All right. Welcome to The Geek in Review, the podcast designed to cover the legal information profession with a slant toward technology and management. I’m Marlene Gebauer.

[00:00:30] Greg Lambert: And I’m Greg Lambert. Marlene, I thought that last week’s episode with all the talent that we had from the NYU campus was a packed show, but I think we may have one-upped ourselves this week.

[00:00:42] Marlene Gebauer: We certainly did. We have so much content that we had to skip inspirations this week.

[00:00:47] Greg Lambert: Oh, no.

[00:00:47] Marlene Gebauer: I know. Don’t worry, though. They will be back.

[00:00:51] Greg Lambert: All right. In addition to the return of Emily Feltren, who is going to give us an update on what’s going on in Washington, D.C. Regarding government actions with legal information, we have a number of guests on our main interview this week.

[00:01:07] Marlene Gebauer: We’re going to be covering the huge topic of technology and innovation pipeline from law schools to law firms. We have innovation directors from three different law schools, Jeanette Ikes from Vermont, And returning to The Geek in Review is Cat Moon from Vanderbilt and Kenton Bryce from the University of Oklahoma. We also have Nikki Schaber from Paul Hastings. Nikki and Greg and I will be covering the law firm side of innovation.

[00:01:32] Greg Lambert: We do our best.

[00:01:33] Marlene Gebauer: We try.

[00:01:35] Greg Lambert: We also have a partner from my firm of Jackson Walker. Matt Acosta will join in and give his perspective. And Kanza Khan, a second year law student from Michigan State who is actually engaged in the process of technology and innovation as a law student will join us as well.

[00:01:51] Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, it’s a really great topic and a great panel of guests. I’m looking forward to it.

[00:01:58] Greg Lambert: Can I say something about the dishes?

[00:02:01] Marlene Gebauer: Yes. Yeah, go, please go ahead.

[00:02:05] Greg Lambert: And if listeners can’t tell, Marlene is actually doing this recording apparently from her kitchen because you can hear all the dishes being put away right now.

[00:02:14] Marlene Gebauer: It is the kitchen cleanup version of The Geek in Review.

[00:02:18] Greg Lambert: That’s what happens when you are in transition.

[00:02:22] Marlene Gebauer: Exactly right.

[00:02:25] Greg Lambert: So it’s been a few months since we’ve gotten an update from Emily Felton from AALL. She’s making up for it with a number of issues that are going on in Washington, D.C. While most of America is focused on the impeachment process, Emily has lasered in on what’s going on in the world of legal information and government access, including, Marlene, more on Free Pacer.

[00:02:51] Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, there’s been quite a few goings-on on Capitol Hill in the last few weeks, so I’m really looking forward to what Emily has to say.

[00:02:56] Greg Lambert: All right, let’s get to it. Joining us, as she does most months, from Washington, D.C., is Emily Felton. Emily is the Director of Government Relations at the American Association of Law Libraries, and she is here to give an update on important news regarding the government’s impact on legal information. Hey, thanks for joining us, Emily.

[00:03:21] Emily Feltren: It’s good to be back, Greg.

[00:03:23] Greg Lambert: Yeah, it’s been a few months since we last talked. Luckily, I don’t think there’s been anything going on, so, you know, hey. But just in case, can you catch us up what has been going on in D.C. over the summer?

[00:03:34] Emily Feltren: Yeah, surprise, surprise. There actually has been a little bit happening in town this summer. A few things even related to legal information that happened before Congress began its October break, which actually starts this week. And they didn’t only involve the prospect of impeachment. shutdown by passing a continuing resolution, which goes until November 21st. So that’ll nicely set up.

[00:04:01] Greg Lambert: I was gonna say, that seems to be how government operates these days.

[00:04:05] Emily Feltren: Exactly. Put the pressure on around a holiday weekend. So it nicely sets up the potential for a Thanksgiving funding shutdown. So the agency is charged with the accessibility and preservation of government and legal information, including the Library of Congress and Law Library of Congress, the National Archives, and the Government Publishing Office. They will all continue to operate as normal for another two months or so. So that’s a small win there. Okay. Second, and maybe it didn’t receive as much attention as it might have in a different week, given other work the House Judiciary Committee was attending to. The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Courts held a hearing on ensuring the public’s right of access to the courts. The hearing focused on the policies around sealed court filings, audio and visual access to court proceedings, and PACER. And the Judicial Conference of the United States was represented on the first panel by Audrey Fleissig. She’s the United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, and she’s also Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management. She was joined on that first panel by Judge Richard Storey of the Northern District of Georgia. In her testimony, Judge Fleissig raised concerns about making PACER free, which is something that we’ve talked about here on the podcast a couple times, saying that the judiciary won’t be able to do so because it needs the revenue to support the system and to continue important judiciary operations. and that there are dangers in raising filing fees to compensate for a loss in revenues, as some legislative proposals suggest, because that could harm access to the courts. On the other side, you had Seamus Hughes on panel #2. Hughes on panel number two. He’s the Deputy Director of the Program on Extremism, George Washington University, who testified about the problems with PACER. And Seamus had written a really interesting piece in the Politico magazine a few months back about the problems with PACER. So he was building on that piece, talking about the usability problems for research and journalism. And Seamus gave some great examples that illustrated both the day- to-day frustrations of users and the broader policy and technical issues that hamper the system. And he offered solutions, including making PACER free, setting a uniform system for documents filed in the system, and making those documents text searchable. So, AALL submitted a statement for the record for this hearing, outlining the ways in which our association has supported the administrative office’s efforts over the years to provide greater access to PACER, and expressing the association’s support for the legislation to make PACER free, the Electronic Court Records Reform Act. And that bill, which is H.R. 1164 in the House, would both modernize the system and provide free access to PACER.

[00:06:37] Greg Lambert: Now, one thing I did read this week, Emily, was that PACER has increased the quarterly threshold for users. What’s the amount now?

[00:06:49] Emily Feltren: So, it’s going from $15 to $30. That’ll be effective at the start of the new year.

[00:06:54] Greg Lambert: Okay.

[00:06:55] Emily Feltren: And I’ll say that that’s a really good next step in terms of allowing, you know, even more users to reach a higher threshold, but it still doesn’t address problems related to modernization, the ease and use of the system, the fact that it’s not very efficient, etc.

[00:07:09] Greg Lambert: It’s definitely a Band-Aid.

[00:07:12] Emily Feltren: So, beyond PACER, a couple of other interesting pieces of legal information-related legislation were also introduced in the last couple of months, and I’ll flag a couple of those here. One is the Open and Responsive Government Act of 2019. That was introduced in July. It’s S. 2220. The legislation would restore a longstanding legal interpretation of FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act, the Exemption 4, which deals with confidential commercial information. That was recently weakened by the Supreme Court decision in Food Marketing Institute versus Argus Leader Media. And it would also respond to recent regulatory actions, most specifically by the EPA, by making clear that any information which doesn’t otherwise fall within one of FOIA’s nine exemptions should be made public.

[00:08:00] Greg Lambert: Just curious on the FOIA, are they going to make FOIA requests any easier to do?

[00:08:05] Emily Feltren: Well, so, they’re supposed to be, the Office of Information Policy within the Department of Justice is charged with both creating sort of centralized portals and also requiring agencies to make certain steps to allow easier FOIA requests.

[00:08:22] Greg Lambert: I know I’ve had a researcher working on some FOIA requests, and those are not easy.

[00:08:26] Emily Feltren: Yeah, they’re really not. And I mean, they vary so greatly from agency to agency. There is a FOIA advisory committee that’s made a number of recommendations to make FOIA just better overall, including on the requester side. And unfortunately, OIP hasn’t acted on those yet.

[00:08:42] Greg Lambert: Let’s hope they do something.

[00:08:43] Emily Feltren: Yes. So, another bill is the OLC Sunlight Act. That’s the Office of Legal Counsel Sunlight Act, introduced just before recess on September 27th. which would provide greater access to Office of Legal Counsel opinions. And there are a couple of other bills that AAW has been tracking that have already passed the House, but haven’t yet passed the Senate. So, these include the Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports Act, which in the Senate is S-195, which would require the Government Publishing Office to make reports available for public access and bulk download through GPO’s GovInfo site. and the GREAT Act, which would modernize federal grant recipient reporting and improve agency grant management across the government. And this would ultimately improve program administration and grant making and reduce compliance burdens. But most importantly for our members, it would make that information available to the public. So, ACMRA was recently reported favorably by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Reform Committee in April. And the GREAT Act was also passed by the House in January and reported by the HSGAC, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in the Senate in September. So, we’re hopeful that the last couple of months of this year will lead to some action on those bills as well.

[00:09:56] Greg Lambert: Are these bills going to be hung up with all of the political issues that are going on between the Senate and the House?

[00:10:05] Emily Feltren: Yeah, so the politics of both impeachment and then just general sort of leading into an election year politics, which are even more complicated this time around.

[00:10:13] Greg Lambert: I was going to say, we seem to always be leading into an election year. There is no off year anymore.

[00:10:19] Emily Feltren: Yeah, that is true. And that’s a whole other topic. But yes, it definitely will impact some of the chances for some of this legislation to move forward. I would say we don’t really know yet the impact, especially on the House, that any impeachment proceedings might have. But let’s just say we remain hopeful and engaged and continue to advocate for our legal information.

[00:10:40] Greg Lambert: All right. Well, great. Well, thank you very much, Emily, for joining us again this month and catching us up on what’s happened over the summer.

[00:10:48] Emily Feltren: All right. Great to be with you, Greg. Thanks.

[00:10:50] Greg Lambert: All right. Bye-bye. So, there’s a lot of talk about improving the pipeline of tech-savvy and innovative law students as they make their way to law firms like ours. However, as law students transition to new fall associates, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of practical technology or innovation skills that they are actually bringing to the firm. Business schools work on these skills, but law schools, well, some do and some don’t. And law firms, being savvy with tech and innovation isn’t on many of their required checklists when they go through their interviews.

[00:11:32] Marlene Gebauer: So, we’re going to have a conversation about this. Three law school innovators, three law firm innovators, a law partner, and a law student, each with their own experiences, but all with a vision of improving the tech skills of lawyers as they move into their practice.

[00:11:52] Greg Lambert: Sometimes 280 characters can get a really good conversation started. And that happened recently when Nikki Shaver sent out a tweet about how only one of the 25 fall associate class this year that she had taken any type of law and technology course in law school. that she had had taken any type of law and technology course. And she said, had taken any type of law and technology course in law school. And while 280 characters can start a conversation, we want to pull a group of law school and law firm innovators together to dive deeper into this issue. So, we gathered the following people here to do just that. So, let me do a quick round of introductions. First, we have Nikki Shaver from Paul Hastings. Nikki,

[00:12:31] Nikki Shaver: thanks for getting this conversation started. Thanks so much for having me on, Greg.

[00:12:36] Greg Lambert: We have Matt Acosta, who’s a partner at Jackson Walker in Dallas. Matt, thanks for your time.

[00:12:42] Nikki Shaver: Thanks for having me.

[00:12:43] Greg Lambert: We have Jeanette Ikes from the Center for Legal Innovation at Vermont Law School is here. Welcome, Jeanette.

[00:12:49] Jeannette Eicks: Thanks. Pleasure to be here.

[00:12:51] Greg Lambert: And Kat Moon, Director of Innovation Design from Vanderbilt, is back on the show. Hey, welcome back, Kat.

[00:12:57] Jeannette Eicks: Hey, y’all.

[00:12:59] Greg Lambert: And another returning voice is Kenton Bryce, Director of Technology Innovation from the University of Oklahoma. Good to talk to you again, Kenton.

[00:13:06] Kenton Brice: Man, it’s great to talk to you guys. Thanks for having me.

[00:13:09] Greg Lambert: And last but not least, we have second-year Michigan State law student, Kansa Khan, and she’s going to give us the law student’s perspective. Hey, thanks for being here, Kansa.

[00:13:20] Kanza Khan: Happy to be here.

[00:13:20] Greg Lambert: I want to start this conversation by first laying out that New Fall Associates, and you may hear me refer to them as NFAs, they are super intelligent people and typically have worked hard to get where they are once they’ve entered the big law NFA ranks. So no one is trying to say that they aren’t skilled in the roles of a freshly minted lawyer. With that said, there are some areas around the use and application of legal technology that many of us in the law firm setting would like to see improve by the time they get to us. Nikki, can you get us up to speed? What was it that you asked the NFAs at your firm that made you call out to law Twitter?

[00:14:02] Nikki Shaver: Thank you, Greg, and thanks again for pulling us all together. And before I respond, I actually just want to reiterate what you just said. We have an outstanding caliber of associates starting with us, and none of what I say, and I’m sure this goes for all of us, should be taken as representing my firm’s view, nor should anything be read as casting aspersions on our incoming associates or our recruitment process. From conversations that I’ve had with people in both the US and Canada, I understand that our position is actually typical of large law firms at the moment, not an anomaly. And to me, this is exactly what makes this question so interesting. So what happened was that as I began my introduction of our innovation and knowledge department to our new fall associates, I asked for a show of hands, how many of them had studied at law school any topics to do with law and technology, or themes generally around the changing practice of law. And keep in mind, we have about 60 or 70 new associates across multiple offices. I could only see the ones that were right in front of me in New York City. And I was speaking to a room of 25 people in that room, and only one put up her hand. And I was surprised because, of course, working in legal innovation in our little bubble, we hear so much about amazing new programs being offered at law schools, and the innovation labs that are driving change on the law school side. I had expected that more of the associates in 2019 would have been exposed to this kind of topic by the time they started work. So that’s what started all of this.

[00:15:35] Marlene Gebauer: I would feel the same way. I mean, we see so many articles about this, and we see a lot in the trades in terms of what’s being done. You see it on social media. So I’m going to turn the question over to the law school innovators. How many students, percentage-wise, do you estimate actually take some type of technology course while in law school? And Jeanette, let’s start with you.

[00:15:59] Jeannette Eicks: So right now, I generously would guess that about 15% of our students are taking technology-related courses.

[00:16:07] Greg Lambert: And that’s 1.5%?

[00:16:11] Marlene Gebauer: 15%. Yeah.

[00:16:13] Jeannette Eicks: 15%. So however, what we’re looking at adding is technology inserts across the board. So all of our core courses would have a technology component in a lab type of setting. And as we slowly roll these out across the curriculum, students will be exposed to half a credit each term of some type of technology-related curriculum.

[00:16:30] Kenton Brice: Students will be exposed to half a credit each term of some type of technology-related curriculum.

[00:16:38] Marlene Gebauer: That’s interesting because you’re basically consolidating it into required classes, and maybe even seeing it sort of in its natural habitat with those classes. Ketan, what are you doing?

[00:16:50] Kenton Brice: Yeah, so we do offer a technology course called Technology in Law Practice. And for the past two years that we’ve been offering it, we’ve averaged about 10 to 12 students per semester in that. So pretty small percentage-wise, but that’s just a course we teach. Really, what Jeanette just alluded to, we’re already doing that. We’ve been doing that for about five years where technology training is integrated across the entire curriculum. In fact, all our students, through our digital initiative, are required to go to at least three digital initiative sessions per school year. And so I host one about two to three times per week. Actually, this week, I’m doing my Word week. And so every day at lunch for five days straight, I’m teaching the students how to use Microsoft Word. And those sessions average about 50 to 60 people. Outside of a traditional law school course in our extracurricular program, we’re averaging about 94% of the student body. Completing that minimum requirement per year. And on average, actually, students go to about six of those sessions per year. On average across the student body. If you look at our graph and what kind of data is out there, we have a handful of students, maybe about 40 to 50 students, that will attend at least 20 of those sessions per year. So they’re getting 20 hours of training on technology-related issues in law practice. And that could be anywhere from Microsoft Word training, like I’m doing this week, all the way to, OK, well, how should billing arrangements look if you’re using technology in practice and you’re being more efficient? Do you still bill by the hour? What does that look like? Et cetera. And then beyond that, we also do course integrations. And so I actually go into about five to six different law school courses per semester. And I take over the class period. And I talk about how technology is applied in that discipline. So last week, I was in pre-trial litigation skills, talking about how to use e-discovery tools, deposition transcript tools, things like that. So things that you’re going to use in practice for litigation, here are the tools of the trade, so to speak. Next week, I’m going into our transactional law practicum.

[00:18:57] Speaker I: to talk about how to do contract review and due diligence with technology.

[00:19:01] Kenton Brice: So really, it’s kind of this overarching, all-encompassing program here. And percentage-wise, a majority of the student body are taking part in that here at OU.

[00:19:11] Marlene Gebauer: See, that’s interesting, too. You have it integrated into classes, you have extracurricular, and you have official classes. So you’re hitting them all ways, right?

[00:19:20] Kenton Brice: Yeah, we’re trying to, as much as we can, get in front of them, absolutely.

[00:19:24] Marlene Gebauer: So, Kat, what’s going on at Vanderbilt?

[00:19:27] Speaker I: Well, in the program on law and innovation, we offer, I think, the core courses that we offer that would kind of touch on the innovation and technology subject matter are, for the most part, experiential and because of the nature of the course and how they’re taught, they’re also limited enrollment. For instance, our class of 2020 has 168 students. And for the handful of courses I’ll be teaching, enrollment is limited to 24, which will be primarily third-year students because they get first dibs. I will also tell you that all of the program on law and innovation or Poly courses are oversubscribed. Typically, our waiting lists are full. So the demand is very high. I think it’s partly a function of being able to meet the demand by scaling the content and also, frankly, finding folks who are qualified to teach the content. But as I think Jeanette and Kenton have both described, we do have innovation and technology subject matter and opportunities for more practical training dispersed across the curriculum. There are folks who teach doctrinal classes who do offer opportunities to experiment and use technology in different ways. But, frankly, we are challenged, right, to give every single student a really deep and meaningful opportunity to leverage this. Now, I’m a huge proponent of project-based learning, and I think that actually could transform a lot of this, but that is the subject of another podcast.

[00:20:55] Marlene Gebauer: learning, and I think that actually could transform a lot of this. But that is the subject of another podcast, so I will stop talking now. Well, that’s great. I mean, I like to see that there’s a lot of demand, but also that you’re keeping the setting kind of intimate. And perhaps that’s a good learning environment for folks because they have more of a direct touch, I guess. Jeanette, I think you had

[00:21:18] Jeannette Eicks: a follow-up. Yes. So I wanted to go a little further into, I was sticking with the questions in Google and didn’t go further into what we offer. We do have a suite of courses as well that are electives. Nobody’s requiring these courses for JDs, and it’s not a competency. However, we have an e-lawyering course, which teaches document automation and expert systems. It teaches Susskind’s book. It’s based around legal innovation and the changes in the legal industry. I teach a big data and e-discovery course. We teach cybersecurity, and I have a hackathon course that I teach for two credits. So the students come in with a challenge that they find in the legal system or access to law. They work with stakeholders in the community and faculty that have expertise in that, and they develop a technical solution for that. So you may be familiar with Text-a-Lawyer. That’s one of my graduates. The ACLU is picking up an application called Driving While Black, which is from one of my students as well.

[00:22:24] Greg Lambert: Very cool. So Matt, let me turn to you for a second. In our discussion earlier offline, you said you had actually gotten some tech training in law school. How was that experience, and what do you think that you would like to see from New Fall Associates as they come in as far as solid technology training while they’re still in school?

[00:22:44] Speaker J: Sure, and first, of course, disclaimer. These are my opinions and comments, not the opinions and comments of the firm. But as for law school, yes, the technology that we dealt with was mainly trial technology. So we used trial director and also created PowerPoint presentations. And that was really appended to the trial course that everyone had to take during their third year of law school. You could optionally get a couple of additional credits by learning and using trial technology to present your case. So a lot with trial director. I was telling you earlier that there were some very late nights where I was taking depositions and coding the transcripts, syncing transcripts with the deposition video, which essentially involves sitting there and pressing the spacebar for about seven hours, the length of the deposition. But not to say trial director isn’t useful for so many, a variety of things, both before trial and leading up to trial. And now, obviously, there’s a bunch of additional products that do the same and more on the market, because it’s been about a decade since I was in law school. And to answer your second question, I don’t know that there has been a big push for some of our associates to learn additional technology besides the technology that the firm uses day to day, maybe related to document filing, document management, both for discovery and the documents that we generate within the firm. And so beyond that, at least in my knowledge and experience, there’s not a real push to try and educate some of our associates on trial technology, advanced discovery technology, those kinds of things, or any upcoming technology. So I think there might be opportunities to do that. But part of the issue is they’re here for such a short time period. Mostly what the program is here for is to test their writing skills, to test their resource skills, and to some degree, their personality. One of the problems integrating technology is to try and figure out where to put that type of education in some of our associate programs. Now, we here have a trial for all some associates that last a couple of days. And within the trials, a lot of the presentations do have demonstrators. But what we’re using right now is mainly physical demonstrators, blow-ups on cardboard. So there’s certainly an opportunity in the litigation space, at least, to integrate some technology. I don’t think it would be all that hard to do it.

[00:26:15] Greg Lambert: Gotcha, gotcha. So Kansa, have you taken any type of legal technology course while you’ve been studying there at Michigan State?

[00:26:25] Kanza Khan: Actually, I have not. All my legal tech learning that I’ve done was through the Institute for Future Law Practice program. And that happened last summer.

[00:26:36] Greg Lambert: Well, what about while you are out either, and I think you’ve worked at Elevate?

[00:26:42] Kanza Khan: Yeah, Elevate Services, which is a legal tech consulting firm.

[00:26:46] Greg Lambert: So you’re getting it there more than you are in school. Are you seeing things offered at the school?

[00:26:52] Kanza Khan: I would say, for example, Michigan State University, our legal R&D center was opened by Professor Dan and now it’s run by Professor Carla. So we do offer, right now, AI-related, blockchain, e-discovery. So there are legal tech courses. However, I have not seen at the university or a conversation that’s happening by the general student body about the importance of legal tech. Whereas while I was doing the boot camp with Institute for Future Law Practice and us learning the T-shaped lawyer kind of stuff for three weeks. And it was mind-blowing because you recognize while you’re at this boot camp the importance of using and implementing these legal tech services to provide more efficiency at work, but also providing a better service to your clients, which is essentially the job of a lawyer, to provide the best solution as quick as possible and cost- effective as well. using and implementing these legal tech services to provide more efficiency at work, but also providing a better service to your clients, which is essentially the job of a lawyer, to provide the best solution as quick as possible and cost-effective as well. And I think the fact that legal tech services can help with that, but also law schools are not really pushing that, hey, listen, you need to know these lingos, that you need to know how this works, how contract automation works, what is the decision tree, how effective it can be to your client. So that way lawyers can finally do the job that we actually can do. And we no longer have to do those redundant stuff that sometimes looking over a contract has. Whereas if you have contract automation software, a lot of that tedious work is taken care of by a software.

[00:28:26] Greg Lambert: Do you see that the firms, the potential firms that are recruiting from the law school, are they incentivizing? Are they rewarding? Is there any type of carrot out there to make sure that you take some tech courses while you’re still paying for your schooling?

[00:28:46] Kanza Khan: So my response to Nikki was, and I’ll say that again, is that for those of us that have had an experience where we really, whether it was through me working at Elevate Services or being part of the Institute for Future Law Practice bootcamp, and really understanding the importance right now of being versed in legal tech and the fact that firms either don’t, kind of just like nod their head because, I mean, legal technology, you’re like, okay, these words make sense. But what is it really? They may not know what that is. And so it’s hard sometimes for them to understand the asset that you’re bringing in to the company. Because it’s like, yeah, of course, we know how to write memos. We’ve done all those things, just like every other law student. But listen, I’m bringing something else. And that’s all about providing a better solution, a more efficient solution to the client, but also to the firm. And sometimes they just kind of brush it off. Like if you talk about it, they’re like, oh, wow, that’s cool. But because that’s not part of their checkoff list, they just kind of are like, okay, that’s just like a random fun fact versus really understanding like, wow, that is amazing. That could be something that our firm could use.

[00:30:02] Greg Lambert: Good insight.

[00:30:04] Nikki Shaver: May I follow up to Kanza?

[00:30:06] Greg Lambert: Oh, yeah, Nikki, go ahead.

[00:30:08] Nikki Shaver: So I think Kanza is a really good point. And I mean, really, the whole discussion that ensued after my initial tweet on Twitter made me wonder how we can together across the industry from both the law school side and the law firm side, improve awareness of the kinds of developments in legal technology and process improvement and beyond that will undoubtedly have an impact during their career on the way that these new graduates practice law. I will say that I think one issue, and I’m not a recruiter, so I’m not an expert on these matters. but the OCI process and when it happens is somewhat difficult because people are having interviews before they enter their second law year. And so perhaps it’s before the time when many of these courses would be offered or open to people. I think another question is whether it is more appropriate or better in terms of people’s practice to be exposed to this kind of thing at law school before graduating or when they come into law firms. So one thing I’ve been speaking to people about here after this whole discussion arose is instituting a program for our first year associates, which goes over the course of a year and teaches a range of topics around the changing practice of law so that it is introduced to them as they practice in their first year. And another thing that we are looking at, because what Kanza raises I think is highly valid And another thing that I’ve heard recently is that graduates from specific law and technology programs are having difficulty being recruited, which is a really surprising state of affairs. And so we are looking at actually creating a partnership program that is specifically geared towards students who have taken law and technology courses or entire programs and hope that other firms follow suit so that people with this specific skillset in fact have an ability to get practical experience, come into firms and gradually that becomes another normal recruitment avenue.

[00:32:20] Marlene Gebauer: Kat, are you hearing from law firms at all on this issue? I mean, Nikki has raised some points, but are you hearing anything on your end? Are they asking for better tech skills from students who are graduating from Vanderbilt?

[00:32:34] Speaker I: So I have a few thoughts to share in response to that. It’s an excellent question. One, I will say that yes, a lot of folks who I speak with in the law firm environment identify a need to have tech-savvy young lawyers. With that said, I will issue the caveat that I tend to talk to the more innovative, interested tech-forward lawyers in firms. People who are interested. Yeah, so I mean, I think that I just have to issue that disclaimer, right? But with that said, I’ll make a couple of other points. I think that when I do have conversations with folks who I think have a more general mindset, the more general lawyer mindset when it comes to technology, so not a lack of awareness, but maybe not the strong interest and curiosity that folks in this particular space tend to exhibit. When I talk to them and we kind of drill down into what they expect from new lawyers, they recognize that yes, these tech skills are important. I don’t think it’s necessarily front of mind. but when we talk about their expectations for what they want from new lawyers, then they acknowledge, yes, these things are important. I will also point out that I’m part of the Delta Competency Model for Lawyers Working Group, and our group just issued a white paper which shares some of our initial research on talking to folks kind of across the spectrum, primarily in-house in corporate law firms, folks in HR who are responsible for recruiting and hiring and who presumably have these things top of mind, and one of the sides, so our model is a triangle with three sides of competencies, one of the sides being business and operations, which includes technology, data analytics, project management and workflow, business fundamentals, so technology is folded into that side, and overwhelmingly, folks who responded across the spectrum identified that technology specifically, understanding tech tools and knowing when to use them were either important or very important in terms of competency for the practice of law. I will say the model acknowledges that different roles require different levels of competency. You know, there’s some granularity there, but I think there’s a growing awareness and recognition that the practice of law must integrate technology in order to be effective. I think it behooves law firms to do, as Nikki suggested, and law schools, it behooves, frankly, everyone involved to really think about what this training should look like and where it is best delivered. And I think that question can be answered a multitude of ways. And also piggybacking on something that Nikki said, there are a number of firms who have created their own training programs for new associates so that they can upskill. in the ways that are important to that firm and its business. So I don’t think it’s an either-or. I don’t think there’s a binary response, and it actually can look very different depending on the law school, on the law firm, but we are going to create the richest array of possibilities when we work together on this. I think that’s just fundamental.

[00:36:11] Nikki Shaver: And I completely agree with that. Just to throw my hat in the ring, I think it’s something that really should be approached from both sides of the spectrum, and even vendors. I mean, I’ve heard of some vendors going into law schools and providing demos of their tools and explaining how it fits within practice, and so I really think that this could be a cross-vertical initiative broadly across the spectrum.

[00:36:35] Jeannette Eicks: to help bring this kind of awareness to new lawyers.

[00:36:39] Marlene Gebauer: Jeanette, I want to pose the same question I posed to Kat. Are you hearing from law firms at all on this issue? Are they asking for certain types of skills? from graduating students? And I’ll add to it, and I’ll also have Kat respond. Are you hearing from students that have graduated and have jobs and are coming back? Are you hearing any feedback from them?

[00:37:03] Jeannette Eicks: So I’m going to start with the easier question, which is the second one. My students come back to me with a lot of anecdotal stories about how their entire interview is taken up with questions about legal technology and that e- lawyering course they took.

[00:37:20] Marlene Gebauer: That’s incredible. That is incredible. It’s great to hear.

[00:37:25] Jeannette Eicks: And when I say a lot, I mean like three quarters. of my class comes back with stories like that every year. Interesting. It’s really wonderful. And these questions go down the, well, what could you do at this firm? And how could you make us more efficient? They start going down those sort of rabbit hole of what does innovative legal business look like? And how can you help us go in that direction? So my students immediately see a value add. And that is an incredible, an incredible asset for those students. They didn’t anticipate that it would work out that way, and they’re all a bit shocked when they come back and talk to me about it, that indeed that was the topic of the interview. I’m finding that a lot of us are finding this an asset when they go out and interview. When I talk to hiring partners, I’m talking much like Kat to the people who are interested in legal innovation. I’m talking much like Kat to the people who are interested in legal innovation. So what you see is a bit of a circle here. I’m talking to the people who want to hear from me. And those people who want to hear from me are the people that are interested in students that have this experience and have these skills. So yes, they’re saying, I even heard a hiring partner in Connecticut tell me, she’s at a Hartford firm in Connecticut, and she told me that if she had a Harvard Law student, a Harvard Law grad in the top quartile of their class, and then somebody from Vermont Law School, that had my tech course and my e-discovery course, she would hire the e-discovery student first.

[00:38:56] Greg Lambert: High praise.

[00:38:57] Jeannette Eicks: And I think it was praise that if she has a large class action practice and was looking to hire people who could actually bring skills to that.

[00:39:03] Marlene Gebauer: who could actually bring skills to that. Yep. All right, Kat, I’ll throw the same question back to you about, are you hearing from your students. once they go off into the world of law?

[00:39:16] Speaker I: Yes. So just as Jeanette said, definitely anecdotally, I get emails on a regular basis from students who are out in the world of practice and take the time to share two primary observations. One, when they see the training and the education they had at Vanderbilt, specifically in the innovation and technology piece, being really relevant to the work they’re doing. They are very kind and generous to take the time to share that and to affirm the importance of what we’re doing in Poly. And two, they also point out where they see some gaps and some future opportunities. So that kind of feedback is really, really helpful. Of course, anecdotal, a lot of my students go into a corporate big law practice. So the feedback I get is very much geared towards what that type of practice requires, but it is very good to hear. And I will say, too, a lot of our training integrates technology. So it really is a little bit wider than purely a legal tech kind of consideration and application. It’s more how that fits in with a more holistic. How are we going to move forward with change that creates value across the profession?

[00:40:30] Marlene Gebauer: So Kanza, you’ve heard a lot today about the different offerings that are available in some different law schools. So after hearing all of this, what would you like to see more of while you’re still in law school?

[00:40:45] Kanza Khan: I think what I would want to see, ’cause I know a lot of law schools are offering it, but not like necessarily an urgency, but like really showcasing how important and valuable legal tech is more than, oh yeah, it’s cool. Or I’m just taking it as an elective. I need like a two, three credit class. But really understanding like where the future is going and how much technology is used in terms of accessibility. Like a lot of socioeconomic societies where they’re low income, people have an iPhone before they have a laptop. People know how smartphones work more than they do using Microsoft Word. So understanding like where people are going and how much legal tech is going, like even with AI, right? Or virtual reality, when you’re talking about AI, there’s so much data out there. And lawyers can do something about that data that can really help your clients and also help like marginalized communities.

[00:41:52] Marlene Gebauer: So I’m going to steal a phrase from Jeanette.

[00:41:56] Kanza Khan: So would you like to see more practical legal tech application in law schools? Yes, yes. I think what I just said, it’s easier to say. Yes, practical legal tech applications and also showing the firms and companies that students can actually work at that will value the skill sets that they’re learning. Because right now, like as a 2L student who’s been exposed to it, I haven’t really experienced that yet. That firms are like, oh, my God, you know, legal tech? Come intern for us. So that hasn’t happened yet. And I think the more students see that, wow, like more firms and the big firms are really embracing that, then I think more students are going to take that class less than as an elective, but more so because they really understand the value.

[00:42:49] Speaker I: Yeah, I wanted to make just two quick points. I wanted to emphasize again that I think that absolutely there is a spectrum of relevance in technology, understanding and training. And it really does depend on the trajectory of the law student and then a lawyer. And so I think we need to acknowledge and build in some granularity, which makes it more complicated, frankly. So I don’t think there is a quick answer that every law student should take X classes or X number of classes. I think in my second point is there are some fundamental structural challenges to all of this. And to Kanza’s point, absolutely, there should be opportunities that clearly align this training and your professional opportunities once you graduate. You know, from a structural standpoint, first, we have essentially one flavor of law school in the U.S. And so we have one flavor of regulations which mandate what must be taught and what can be taught. And so this tends to lead to a homogeneity that probably does not match well with the idea that there needs to be some granularity when it comes to the tech piece. Second sub point in that point is that really law schools have the opportunity to lead in this regard by understanding where the opportunities are to offer the tech training.

[00:44:13] Jeannette Eicks: And then, but structurally, there needs to be coordination amongst the many parts of a law school. And this involves career services, frankly. So career services needs to understand the training that some of their students are getting and help those students leverage that when it comes to finding opportunities.

[00:44:31] Speaker I: I think there’s incredible gold to be mined there. I’m a human-centered designer, so therefore I must be optimistic. But these are some big structural challenges. The awesome part is that we are now having these very conversations so that we can understand the issues we face and start to mobilize.

[00:44:50] Marlene Gebauer: There’s some excellent points that you brought up there. You know, first, it’s not one size fits all. You know, secondly, the law schools have an opportunity to lead and that this is really an integrated type service. That it’s not just we’re going to teach technology, but, you know, we have to get professional services involved and sort of market that idea to firms and help the students, you know, sort of understand the importance of that. All excellent points.

[00:45:19] Jeannette Eicks: Add to Kat’s point, because one of the challenges as far as I’m concerned is that it’s chicken or the egg between career services and the firms. So career services to guide students towards more tech-related courses needs to see some language and job postings related to legal technology or design thinking or any of the other innovative tools that we bring to modern practice. And so when they’re not seeing that, they’re not guiding students to take that to in their law school career. Alternatively, when we don’t graduate students that have that capacity, the firms aren’t recruiting to that because they wouldn’t get appropriate candidates. So again, which comes first and how do we go forward together with some maybe some terms of art that we all agree are important to use in these settings?

[00:46:08] Greg Lambert: Yeah, and I will state that, you know, two important players who are not in this discussion right now are is on the law firm side recruiting and on the law school side placement. Maybe Marlene, maybe you and I go find some recruiting in some place.

[00:46:26] Marlene Gebauer: Exactly, exactly. Bring them in.

[00:46:28] Greg Lambert: So Ken, I know you do a lot at OU with the legal technology program. And before we jumped on the call, you had mentioned getting back from court today where a VR tool, a virtual reality tool was used.

[00:46:44] Kenton Brice: Sure. So we’ve been working with virtual reality here at the College of Law for about two, two and a half years. I’m just experimenting with it. Most likely, if you’ve been in my presentations on this at AALL or at Tech Show, I talked about this. And one of the things that we’ve been looking at is trial presentation and how to make 3D models either demonstrative or actually like photorealistic 3D models come alive in court. And I had never heard of it happening in a United States courtroom. It’s happened in China, it’s happened in mediations I know of, and arbitrations, and it’s also happened in Germany. But then I got sent a press release this morning about VR being used in Cleveland County, Oklahoma, which is where Norman, Oklahoma is. And I literally like sprinted over to the courthouse and tried to figure out what was going on. And it was such an interesting dichotomy. My entire experience this morning covers everything we’re talking about today. So yes, they had a virtual reality demonstrative scene of a murder that was created by an expert. The expert walked the jury through in the headset. But then the lawyer himself through his closing argument actually had a poster board with like Velcroed stickers to make his point. So the same defense team had the most advanced trial presentation to one of the more basic trial presentations all in one presentation. And the lawyer who’s, albeit a little bit older, actually admitted to the jury, I’m not tech savvy at all, so bear with me while I go through my closing. And it was such a weird experience where, yes, you had hired this expert to do this really cool thing, but you yourself have no idea what’s going on and don’t want to even figure that out, so you just go back to the poster board where the prosecutor is using PowerPoint trial director to do their stuff. And so it was just, it was such an interesting experience this morning. But we’re seeing it. So when it comes to the VR thing, that’s kind of like the cool thing that people like to talk about. I think it’s got a long way to go to become mature in courtrooms for trial presentation. But, you know, I think lawyers should know how to at least how the systems work. And so the experts, not just running roughshod on them in a trial that they know what questions to ask their experts. They know how to authenticate the evidence, etc. That being said, that was an interesting experience. And just to clarify, like our students are learning about the implications of these experiences in courtrooms. They’re not learning how to code them. And so they’re just learning how to leverage the technology inside of courtrooms, whether it be VR, AR, XR, whatever you want to call it, any kind of augmented or virtual evidence. They’re learning more about what competencies do they need to know to use this tool in court, not how to create the tool. And so it’s a little bit different than what Jeanette was talking about with one of her courses, which I think is really valuable with creating apps and whatnot for certain areas of practice.

[00:50:15] Greg Lambert: Yeah, we had talked with Ashley Matthews out of George Mason a couple of weeks ago and she used the term tech like a lawyer and so it’s like think like a lawyer but apply the tech and it sounds like you give a really good prime example of today of. and she used the term tech like a lawyer. And so it’s like, think like a lawyer, but apply the tech. And it sounds like you gave a really good prime example today of, it’s not just about technology for technology’s sake, it’s about telling the story. It’s about using the best tool for the right situation. And I think with your example, the VR might’ve been perfect for displaying the murder scene and the literal Velcro on a board was the best way to relay the story for that closing argument. It’s not just about using technology, but it’s about being smart with the technology and using it to tell the story.

[00:51:06] Kenton Brice: Yeah, absolutely. And real quick, Greg, Velcro on a poster board is technology, right? And so it’s not like, I tell my students this, just because it’s electrified technology. doesn’t make it any different than leveraging other technologies. And so, you’ve got to know how to use the tools that you’re going to use. If you’re comfortable at a certain level of technology competence in a courtroom, it’s okay. As long as you’re creating that narrative for your client that you’re supposed to. Now, albeit a lot of people may say, okay, Velcro on a poster board, that’s not quote unquote technology, but somebody had Velcro at one time. It’s just, yeah, there’s different levels of basically sophistication of technologies. We’re trying to investigate here while we’re going through our entire project, our digital initiative, like at what level is it appropriate for lawyers to learn this? I think Kansa said it earlier really well, like the level of competency and technology that lawyers need to know is the level that’s going to serve their clients efficiently and get them the results that they want, right? And so not just using technology for technology’s sake, I think it’s a really important concept that we’re trying to relate to our students here. But we obviously, if they’re using Microsoft Word, for example, they need to know how to use Microsoft Word at an appropriate level to serve their clients, which has been talked about for years now, at least every single year that I’ve been here about learning how to use the more advanced features of Microsoft Word, because you’re already using the tools. And so those appropriate levels of competency, I don’t think every single lawyer needs to become like a coder or a developer.

[00:52:45] Marlene Gebauer: We’re just trying to figure out that balance. And it’s different for every single person as Kat was talking about. The competency that a lawyer needs in a solo, small firm environment is a lot different than a NFA at a larger law firm, right?

[00:53:06] Kenton Brice: We’re hoping to develop core competencies for all those areas as we continue in this.

[00:53:13] Marlene Gebauer: Excellent.

[00:53:15] Greg Lambert: All right. Well, I want to thank everyone for taking the time to join us today. Let me quick go down the list again. We had Nikki Shaver from Paul Hastings, Matt Acosta from Jackson Walker, Jeanette Ikes from the Center for Legal Innovation at Vermont Law School, Kat Moon, Director of Innovation from Vanderbilt, and Kenton Bryce, Director of Technology. and Kenton Bryce, Director of Technology and Innovation at the University of Oklahoma. And of course, my favorite was having an actual law student on board. So Khansa Khan, thank you very much. So thank you all for taking the time to talk to us. Thanks, this was fun.

[00:53:54] Kanza Khan: Thank you guys for coordinating this.

[00:53:56] Jeannette Eicks: Thank you for coordinating it. It’s been wonderful.

[00:54:02] Greg Lambert: Marlene, there is a lot, and I do mean a lot to unpack with this one. I will reiterate that we need to find us a couple of law firm recruiters and a couple of law school placement folks to get on the show and get their perspectives.

[00:54:18] Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, I absolutely agree with that.

[00:54:20] Greg Lambert: I also want to learn more about Kenton Bryce’s day in court with the virtual reality and the Velcro board.

[00:54:26] Marlene Gebauer: That sounded pretty cool. Yeah.

[00:54:28] Greg Lambert: Yeah, yeah. And I don’t know if I’ve told you this before, Marlene, but Oklahoma is surprisingly advanced when it comes to some of the practical applications of technology in the legal field.

[00:54:37] Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, Greg, you might’ve mentioned that a few hundred times.

[00:54:43] Greg Lambert: Just a couple.

[00:54:45] Marlene Gebauer: But I’m really happy to see that not only OU, but other law schools are also forward-thinking in their application of design thinking and practical technology application in the law.

[00:54:57] Greg Lambert: Yeah, and once again, I really appreciate that both Matt Acosta and Kansa Khan jumped in and contributed to the conversation. It was great having them both on.

[00:55:07] Marlene Gebauer: Yeah, really was. It was.

[00:55:08] Greg Lambert: Well, Marlene, that wraps up this action-packed episode. I want to thank again Nikki Shaver, Jeanette Ikes, Kat Moon, Kanza Khan, Kenton Bryce, and Matt Acosta for talking with us today. That’s some great stuff.

[00:55:16] Marlene Gebauer: Kat Moon, Kansa Khan, Kenton Bryce, and Matt Acosta for talking with us today. That was some great stuff. Yeah, this was a good one. This was a good one.

[00:55:25] Greg Lambert: Yes, it was.

[00:55:26] Marlene Gebauer: Listeners, please take the time to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Rate and review us as well.

[00:55:34] Greg Lambert: Yes, we’re stuck right now. We haven’t had any ratings in a couple of weeks.

[00:55:39] Marlene Gebauer: We’re feeling neglected.

[00:55:40] Greg Lambert: We are, we are.

[00:55:43] Marlene Gebauer: If you have comments about today’s show or suggestions for a future show, you can reach us on Twitter at at Gabehourm or at Glambert, or you can call the Geek & Review hotline at 713-487-7270,

[00:55:57] Speaker K: or email us at geekandreviewpodcast at gmail.com.

[00:56:01] Marlene Gebauer: And as always, the music you hear is from Jerry David DeSica. Thank you, Jerry.

[00:56:06] Greg Lambert: Yeah, thanks, Gary. All right, thanks, Marlene. I will talk to you later.

[00:56:10] Speaker K: Bye-bye. Have fun in the kitchen.

[00:56:13] Marlene Gebauer: Thank you.

[00:56:14] Speaker K: Don’t have to go too far up Salt of the earth on the way to a hearse Out the devil’s backbone bar Hey, hey, don’t take me away I can walk home by the north star But I fail to notice that it’s still daylight Out the devil’s backbone bar Out the devil’s backbone bar Out the devil’s backbone bar