Date post: | 07-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Law |
Upload: | anna-ronkainen |
View: | 50 times |
Download: | 2 times |
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 [email protected]
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?