While moot courts are typically a fixture of the average law school education and are meant to simulate the proceedings of an appellate court, they are now finding their way into the legal technology industry. Last week, six teams of software engineers, data scientists and product managers from LexisNexis took part in the company's moot court competition in North Carolina, where they took turns delivering arguments on a fictitious case steeped in Fourth Amendment issues.

The prize was bragging rights and insight into the way that lawyers think and work, which could potentially help alleviate a longstanding problem. Jeffrey Kelly, an associate with Shanahan Law Group who also served as one of the moot court competition's judges, said that most of the products attorneys use are generally designed for general business.

“Even when products are designed to be 'lawyer first,' the concepts of how we work are often vague. In fairness to designers, most lawyers would probably find mapping their workflows to be a daunting task,” Kelly said.

Whereas someone who designs or manufactures pants generally has a pretty good frame of reference as to what someone might be looking for in their next pair of jeans, approximating the same degree of insight from an attorney's point of view is a little harder for someone who has never practiced law.

To that end, the moot court competition threw the 12 LexisNexis technologists into the deep end of the pool, tasking them with reading and writing briefs in addition to receiving training from company attorneys on how to research cases. Participants also observed oral arguments made in the North Carolina Court of Appeals to help get into their roles.

Jay Thakkar, software release manager at LexisNexis and one of the participants in the moot court, said the team generally gains customer insights through calls or comments. Going through the work of both learning and delivering an oral argument provided a more tangible look inside an attorney's world.

“Experiences like this help build customer empathy. In my day-to-day work, I don't get to interact with the products as much as I would like. This gave me the opportunity to learn about and use the product and truly get into the customer's shoes,” Thakkar said. 

To be sure, LexisNexis isn't the only organization out there with an interest in threading a broader understanding of attorneys and their needs into the development of legal tech. While acknowledging that there was a disconnect between practicing lawyers and technologists, Kelly also pointed to a report by the American Bar Association's Commission on the Future of Legal Services that called upon the legal profession to embrace “interdisciplinary collaborations.”

“The legal technology community is thriving and there are robust national discussions about how we can increase the access to legal services through legal innovation,” he said.

Such discussions don't always have to take the shape of a moot court. Duke Law Tech Lab launched a pre-accelerator program earlier this month that connects startups with veterans in the legal tech space who can provide industry insights and guidance. The legal tech startup Paladin also received input from the firm of Holland & Knight while developing its platform connecting lawyers to pro bono opportunities.

Kelly said that it's critical for attorneys and technologists to continue to learn from one another however they can.

“It is very important to design any product with the user in mind. Lawyers are not unique in that respect,” he explained. “For every developer who laments that a lawyer isn't using their product, I'm sure that there is a lawyer who is lamenting that a client did not follow their legal advice.”