Here’s Bob Ambroji’s take on The Pew Charitable Trusts’ entry into A2J: A Potentially Major Lifeline For Low-Income Legal Tech And A2J. Bob discusses how Pew will attack several specific A2J obstacles. “Pew’s express commitment to increase access to free online legal tools and to develop new platforms to help people interact with the courts is a lifeline the justice system badly needs.”
Marks&Clerk’s Graham McGlashan posted: UK: Intellectual Property’s Vital Role In Healthcare’s AI-Driven Future. “…(A)geing populations and complicated comorbidities continue to put pressure on healthcare budgets, … the potential rewards for those devising the innovations that overcome those challenges can be significant and protecting innovation in this space with intellectual property (IP) will be vital.”
This piece from Legal Futures (High Court judge: ethical and legal framework for AI “imperative”) discusses several views concerning AI regulation in the UK, one reason for which being, “…the impact of humans getting things wrong was ‘unlikely to be catastrophic’, while AI failures could have a much bigger impact.”
Former FTC commissioner and now partner at Covington, Terrell McSweeny posted: Competitive Edge: Antitrust enforcers need reinforcements to keep pace with algorithms, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. “The Federal Trade Commission should consider creating an independent and fully staffed office for the chief technologist or even a Bureau of Technology to enhance its required technological expertise and support its competition mission.”
Here’s a post from the ACC with recommendations from Stephanie Corey for in-house teams; these are also relevant to law firms: 5 Steps to Metrics: Building a Data-Driven Legal Department. “Don’t bite off more than you can chew!” she warns. “Start small, because going through all these steps is hard and it takes time.” She adds, “A few meaningful metrics is better than 25 metrics that are used for nothing. Change them if they need to change, and stop if they’re not being used. Metrics should evolve with your changing department, and at the end of the day will show all the great progress you and your team have made.”
Speaking of in-house legal departments, Altman Weil’s 2018 Chief Legal Officer Survey has been released. (Link to download here.) To me, the most interesting thing about it is that though “data” is mentioned dozens of times, “blockchain” and “artificial intelligence” never appear. Not once.
In this post from Above the Law, Thomson Reuters’ Joe Borstein interviews LegalMation founder James Lee. It’s a deep dive into the product’s genesis, and also discusses applications. “…LegalMation uses machine learning to automatically draft responsive litigation documents such as answers, responses, and interrogatories (which would take hours for a junior associate). For example, within moments of uploading your opposition’s complaint, you will have a competent draft response, which goes so far as to pull out key quotations from the complaint and question their basis in fact….”
In this post from Information Age (The legal implications of ‘creative’, artificial intelligent robots), Bertrand Liard of White & Case, “discusses artificial intelligence in the context of copyright, patents and existing IP rights.”
As I have reported several times in the past, “… the GLBC (was formed) to help in developing standards and policies that govern the use of blockchain technology in the business of law.” According to this release from K&L Gates, they’ve signed up too.
From Artificial Lawyer: Clause Joins Kaleido, the Platform that Makes Private Blockchains ‘Easy’. “…(I)f your firm has people who can get their heads around the mass of jargon and understand some of the technical aspects, then perhaps this could really speed things up and get people over the line into real, working uses of the tech, rather than just pilots.”