Top 20 Legal IT Innovations 2017: how CodeX is connecting the artificial intelligence and legal communities
Roland Vogl, executive director of the Stanford Center for Legal Informatics, on making law more efficient
December 19, 2017 at 11:07 AM
4 minute read
Last year, Legal Week Intelligence, in association with Fulcrum GT, profiled 20 innovators driving change in the legal sector. We focused on what inspired these figures to shift their views and how this bred innovation. In 2017, we look at the innovations themselves.
The Top 20 Legal IT Innovations report aims to get to the heart of what innovation means by illustrating how new ways of doing things, large or small, local or global, have shaken up a sector often characterised as slow moving and resistant to change.
Click here to download the report from Executive Insights (free, registration required).
Best described as an incubator of ideas, CodeX, the Center for Legal Informatics, is a joint venture between Stanford Law School and Stanford Computer Science department.
"We are an inter-disciplinary research centre," says executive director Roland Vogl (pictured). "Our mission is to bring information technology to the legal system to make it more efficient and to empower every stakeholder. We understand there's a lot of interest in helping lawyers do their work more efficiently."
Started in 2005, CodeX organises technologies into legal document management, legal infrastructure and computational law. Vogl defines legal document management as "technologies that are used to get to the legal content more efficiently: legal search technologies or ediscovery technologies". Legal infrastructure involves systems or platforms that connect different stakeholders.
Computational law is CodeX's key focus of research interest. "It's where we automate and mechanise part of the legal analysis – a branch of legal informatics where the computer understands legal concepts and can reason," says Vogl. "The other aspect is AI, statistical AI and data analytics in legal settings where you crunch the data of judges' decisions or patent examiners' decisions and try to help legal professionals make decisions that are more data driven."
In recent years, CodeX has opened its doors to the growing legal innovation community. "It's become a place where people meet and present new ideas," he says. "They find a group of like-minded people who help them elaborate."
This involves different formats: weekly group meetings open to Stanford people and visitors – broadcast through the web allowing remote participants from different countries, legal tech startups and researchers who come in and do their pitch. "It's a 20-minute presentation with Q&A," explains Vogl. "That helps this community stay on top of innovations – the discourse, the conversation about what's going on – it's pretty lively."
A monthly speaker series enables thought leaders to address the community, together with the annual Future Law conference. "The profile is changing," says Vogl. "It was very much the core legal/tech community at the beginning and now we see CIOs and partners of law firms, people from government coming."
CodeX is neutral and not for-profit. "We like to work with startups: they help us understand the space too," Vogl suggests. "There are people in the AI/law scholarly community who've been working on these deep issues for several decades – but in their own bubble. Simultaneously, we've had this explosion of startup activity: there's not been very much connection between them." CodeX sees itself as a forum to connect the two.
Vogl accepts that robo-lawyers create fear. "But the robo-lawyer really has two faces," he says. "One is mechanising and automating legal services – commoditised legal work and document checking. Legal prediction is the other aspect. That makes lawyers more uncomfortable than legal automation because they have traditionally provided this ability to predict how a judge is going to find in a case before it happens, or how negotiation with another party will turn out. They thought of that as something very much based on experience. It's what they can charge a premium for.
"Now, with data, even junior lawyers – or potentially even clients – can determine the odds of success in a particular matter. That is threatening to lawyers."
In response, he suggests, lawyers will have to redefine their role in how they deliver their expertise to clients: "They have to open their minds because if they don't, there will be others who will materialise that opportunity."
Vogl confesses to being excited. "It's in the DNA of Stanford to test new ideas. We've only started to scratch the surface of innovation in this space."
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 AllNuix Discover Named a Leader in SoftwareReview's eDiscovery Solutions Data Quadrant for the Second Consecutive Year
Trending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
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