What's Next: Ready For VR? Legal May Not Be
In this edition of What's Next, we look at VR's challenges to legal, next generation legal tech, and putting AI into perspective.
July 11, 2018 at 07:30 AM
3 minute read
Hey there again, What's Next readers! Law.com senior tech editor Ian Lopez back to help you keep pace with tech developments in the world of law. This week, we'll take a look at the whirlwind of issues posed by virtual and augmented reality. We'll also examine what Avvo's decision to stop providing fixed-fee services means for other New Law rivals and why AI may not be so earth shattering for law firms after all. You can reach me at [email protected] or on Twitter: @IanMichaelLopez ➤ ➤ Would you like to receive What's Next as an email? Sign up here.
|Ready for VR? Legal May Not Be
Mark Lemley of Stanford Eugene Volokh of UCLA “Law, Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality.” 
“Just imagine how many potential legal questions this raises!” “[It] won't be long before more and more of our interactions occur in virtual rather than real space The legal implications cross from civil to criminal. in the physical world, such a perp would “probably be arrested for indecent exposure or public lewdness,” Then there's the question of jurisdiction. Wired told Legaltech News >> Look Ahead:
|Lessons in a Legal Tech Retreat
first-mover disadvantage announced late last week it would discontinue its fixed legal services package
- Lynn Walsh, GC of Internet Brands, wrotein response to a request from the North Carolina State Bar:"As part of our acquisition of Avvo, we have evaluated the Avvo product offerings, and adjusted the Avvo product roadmap to align more comprehensively with our business and focus.”
But while the move may seem like a blow to online legal service providers Kevin Gillespie Text A Lawyer Uber-like service for fielding legal questions Atlanta attorney Nick Gladd's LegalSpark.com website lets users submit a question into the ether LawTrades Another route around ethical complications is building your marketplace for lawyers, not consumers. work together under ABA rules said in June >> Takeaway:
|
Listen Up (Before You Drink the AI Kool-Aid)
If you're tuned in to the conversation about the future of law ALM senior analyst Nicholas Bruch Legal Speak podcast More from Bruch: indifference panic Email me full podcast Apple Podcasts Google Play Libsyn
That's it for this week! Keep reading for What's Next!
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
What's Next: Judge to Quash Twitter Subpoena | SCOTUS Won't Review Trial Ban
4 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
