TLS0070 Introduction to Legal Technology

Lecture 6 Applications II Case management, online dispute resolution, access to justice University of Turku Law School 2015-02-17 Anna Ronkainen @ronkaine anna.ronkainen@onomatics.com

Case and practice management

Case and practice management -  using technology to automate common

routines in legal practice -  dedicated tools for specific tasks as well as

comprehensive suites of tools for all the most common tasks

Task-specific tools: timekeeping apps -  dozens of these, e.g. iTimeKeep -  often cloud services working across many

platforms (desktop, mobile, tablet)

Task-specific tools: Trademark and patent portfolio management - maintain records of one’s IP portfolio -  track office actions during filing -  track renewals and payments -  track oppositions and other proceedings - manage representatives -  track workflow internally and externally -  providers e.g. Patricia, WebTMs, Patrafee

Example: Clio -  comprehensive practice management,

including -  timekeeping and billing -  calendars and deadlines -  collaboration, workflow, task management -  reporting

Another example: LegalTrek -  timekeeping -  expense tracking -  billing -  financial reporting -  client management and communications -  case management -  document management -  calendaring -  contact management

Online dispute resolution and access to justice

Alternative dispute resolution -  negotiation - mediation (and conciliation) -  collaborative law -  arbitration -  small claims courts -  prevention!

Current ADR focus -  dispute resolution most important -  dispute containment next -  dispute avoidance emphasized the least ... when the priorities should be just the other way around!

Online dispute resolution -  alternative dispute resolution + tech - minimal level: keep existing procedures, add

teh internets (e-mail, videoconferencing) -  better: rethink the entire process

Access to justice -  reality: more people have access to the

internet than effective access to justice -  technology could potentially change that (at

least in theory) -  ... - most technology-based initiatives have failed

so far (Reiling 2009)

Desiderata for access to justice -  affordable -  accessible -  intelligible -  appropriate -  speedy -  consistent -  trustworthy -  focused

-  avoidable -  proportionate -  fair -  robust -  final

(Susskind 2015 report)

Tech in access to justice -  information and advice: do I have a case, is

it worth pursuing? -  communications -  process standardization -  reaches a broader population -  savings in time and money

Example: ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)

-  for resolving disputes related to gTLD registrations (e.g. wrt use of trademarks in domain names)

-  legally: mandatory arbitration (not always binding)

-  half a dozen arbitration providers -  factors considered: similarity to trademark,

rights or legitimate interests to domain name, presence of bad faith

Example: Assisted negotiation: Modria -  spin-off from ODR departments of eBay and

PayPal -  cloud-based platform for building ODR

services

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4XtV2Pr5qM

Modria platform features - modules: diagnosis, negotiation, mediation,

arbitration -  features -  filing -  communication -  case management -  decisions and appeals -  integration -  security

So, yesterday, this happened:

ODR proposal for England and Wales -  proposes a new HM Online Court (HMOC)

for small-claims cases (<£25k) -  three-tier service: -  avoidance: online evaluation: informational -  containment: online facilitation: inquisitorial -  resolution: online judges: adversarial

-  http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/reviews/online-dispute-resolution/

HMOC tier 1: Online evaluation -  informational and diagnostic services made

available at no cost, fully automated -  tools proposed to be developed by non-

profits or by law firms as pro bono work -  offering advice to those who think they

might have a case -  alternative courses of action -  emphasis on prevention

HMOC tier 2: Online facilitation - when online evaluation doesn’t resolve the

issue -  experienced people working as facilitators,

reviewing documents and statements from the parties

- mediation, advice, encouragement to negotiate

-  non-binding -  a court fee is payable (less than for tier 3)

HMOC tier 3: Online judges -  using judges from the normal court system -  decide cases (or parts of them) using mostly

documents submitted online -  teleconferencing option when necessary -  binding and enforceable decisions -  court fee (higher than tier 2, less than

normal current court fees) -  built mostly(?) for pro se litigants: biggest

savings for the parties from lawyers’ fees

HMOC: Just a pipe dream? -  not quite: something very similar to the

proposed HMOC system will start operating in British Columbia this summer: Civil Resolution Tribunal

Questions?