Can Bridging the Lawyer/Technologist Gap Yield More 'Lawyer First' Products?
In a bid to design better legal tech platforms, teams of software engineers, data scientists and product managers from LexisNexis recently took part in moot court competition in North Carolina to understand how lawyers work and think.
June 24, 2019 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
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.”
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 AllTrending 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