French Attorneys Now Want a Data Analytics Ban That Applies to Lawyers
The demand by the French bar follows the passage of a law in France that criminalises the use of data analytics to assess patterns in judges' court decisions.
July 03, 2019 at 07:06 PM
4 minute read
Three months after France passed a law banning the use of public court data for the statistical analysis and prediction of judges' decisions, France's National Bar Council is demanding passage of a similar law that would apply to lawyers.
The Conseil National des Barreaux (CNB), France's national bar association, adopted a resolution last month that reads in part: "It being specified that the identity data of judges and members of the court cannot be reused with the purpose or effect of assessing, analysing, comparing or predicting their actual or perceived professional practices, [we] demand that identical treatment be reserved for identity data of lawyers in the context of the dissemination of court decisions in open data."
The law barring use of data analytics to analyse and predict judges' actions, which passed in March and carries a penalty of up to five years in prison if violated, does not bar the use of data to assess and predict lawyers' actions. But according to The Artificial Lawyer, the CNB is now lobbying the government and French Ministry of Justice for an equivalent law that would apply to lawyers.
The CNB does influence regulations governing lawyers in France but it does not have the power to change a law or regulation governing the use of public data. It is not clear whether it will hold enough sway to get such a law approved by politicians and high-level government officials.
The CNB's resolution, dated June 15, also says lawyers need to be guaranteed the same access to the flow of court decisions that is provided to judges, and that treating them identically in terms of protecting their personal identifying data in released decisions is "the only way to guarantee the equality of arms under the European Human Rights Convention".
"Equality of arms" is the legal term used to describe procedural equality between parties, and is considered a core part of the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Some in France's legal community have criticized the law passed in March, as the country has made a concerted push for more transparency in the courts and more open government. But France was an early proponent of the right to be forgotten and is a country known for guarding its citizens' privacy.
So far, France is the only country with a law barring the use of digital analytics to reveal patterns in judges' court decisions. And no other country is known to be considering such a law, let alone one that would criminalise the use of data analytics to assess and predict patterns in lawyers' actions.
In fact, data analytics is a burgeoning field and is frequently used by lawyers and law firms – especially in high-stakes litigation. Companies such as Lex Machina, now owned by LexisNexis, have been mining litigation data culled from various sources for years, gaining insights about judges, lawyers, parties and the subjects of the cases themselves.
Other companies that have big legal data analytics businesses include Ravel Law, which is also now owned by LexisNexis, Thomson Reuters, Bloomberg, Premonition and Gavelytics.
If the CNB succeeds in getting the government to ban the use of analytics on lawyers, legaltech companies could, in theory, still analyse the rate of success of certain legal arguments and claims. But they would not be able to do so with the names of the lawyers or judges involved.
No one at the CNB could immediately be reached for comment.
The CNB's resolution (in French) is below:
|Related Reading:
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 AllKennedys and Irwin Mitchell Replace Longstanding Leaders
Asia's Top Stories 2024: Departures, Layoffs and Breakups at the Likes of Kirkland, Skadden and Mayer Brown
Hogan Lovells M&A Partner Returns to Baker McKenzie Ahead Australia Exit
2 minute readTrending Stories
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