Technically Legal - A Legal Technology and Innovation Podcast

John Grant, lawyer and founder of The Agile Attorney consultancy, talks about adopting Agile and Kanban project management methodologies to optimize workflows, correct bottlenecks, and increase client satisfaction. He discusses the value of Kanban boards and the benefits of making work visible. Additionally, he explores the challenges of getting paid in the legal industry and the significance of scheduled meetings in Agile project management methodology.

At an early age, Feargus MacDaeid, the founder of legal tech company Definely, was diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa, which is a rare eye disease that breaks down cells in the retina slowly over time causing vision loss. Until he got to college to study computer science, Feargus’ vision was decent, but at university, it began to deteriorate and eventually went blind.  After college he landed a couple of tech jobs but ultimately decided to go to law school.  After law school, Feargus took jobs at two Magic Circle Firms in London, Allen & Overy and Freshfields where he was working on mergers and acquisitions.  Because of his visual impairment, Feargus had to develop hacks in the software he used, like custom keyboard shortcuts, to get his job done. He met his Definely co-founder, Nnamdi Emelifeonwu, at Freshfields when the two of them were working on the same deal. As Feargus explains it, his soon to be co-founder was the first colleague that actually took an interest in how Feargus accomplished his work and marveled that he was getting it done.  The two figured there had to be a better way for Feargus to work on contracts, but the duo figured out pretty quickly there really wasn’t and Definely was born. Definely is a suite of tools that helps lawyers accomplish the tedious tasks relating to the drafting of contracts. As the company describes it, they create legal tech solutions to free lawyers from frustrating, repetitive tasks, so they can get back to the work that matters.

Katherine Porter, a former lawyer turned consultant, founded Resourceful Lawyer to enhance legal teams' efficiency using project management techniques. In this discussion, she shares her journey, emphasizing the importance of design thinking in legal practices. Katherine highlights the need for lawyers to understand client perspectives, and offers practical advice on workflow mapping. She stresses that empathy is crucial for creating effective legal services, and provides actionable tips for integrating project management principles into everyday legal work.

As we close out 2023, we are replaying some of our most listened to episodes. Not surprisingly, AI was the hot topic this year and as its acceptance grows, so to tough questions, like whether AI developers need permission to use copyrighted works and other IP before using it to train artificial intelligence? In a very popular episode, Professor Mark Lemley of Stanford explained whey he does not think so because he believes that copyrighted works used to train AI fall should under the fair use exception to copyright law. Professor Lemley is the Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology, an author of seven books and more than 130 articles on intellectual property, antitrust and related areas of the law. He is also a co-founder of Lex Machina and most recently of Counsel to Lex Lumina, a boutique IP law firm. Professor Lemley argues that AI companies should be permitted to use copyrighted works to train AI models without first getting permission from owners because of the benefits AI will yield and the impossibility of tracking down millions of copyright owners to get permission. He also believes that it is a fair use for AI developers to use works protected by intellectual property laws to train artificial intelligence models because such a use is transformative and the more data available to the AI, the more accurate it will be.

Nathan Walter, founder of Briefpoint, discusses how his company is using AI to automate legal drafting tasks. They explore the time-consuming nature of copying and pasting from prior work and the potential of generative AI to eliminate typing in litigation. They also discuss the benefits of automation tools in litigation, finding a co-founder through a video game community, and the concept of law as a fractal. Overall, the podcast highlights the potential of AI in reducing legal fees and freeing up lawyers to focus on more complex tasks.

Zach Abramowitz, founder of Killer Whale Strategies, shares his insights on how generative AI, particularly platforms like ChatGPT, could revolutionize the legal tech landscape. With a rich background in law and tech, he believes this technology may drive quicker adoption in legal practices. The discussion covers enhancing efficiency, reducing costs, and the potential disruption of traditional legal models. Zach also reflects on the challenges faced by firms in embracing innovation and the societal impacts of AI on legal processes.

In this episode, trial attorney, mediator and Web3 believer Mitch Jackson talks about the future of mediation, dispute resolution and the law in a Web3 world. Mitch is a long time litigator and a name partner at Orange County, California based Jackson and Wilson. He also maintains a busy mediation practice and is passionate about the positive impact new technologies can have on the practice of law. Mitch talks about how he uses AI to facilitate mediations and his use of virtual reality to engage with clients in the metaverse. He gives a glimpse of what dispute resolution could look like in the future. He thinks cases might converted into digital files that parties interact with on a blockchain and that AI could be consulted about potential resolutions.

Crypto lawyer Nelson Rosario discuses the legal, regulatory and political landscape of blockchain technology and cryptocurrency. We also get an update from TurnSignl CEO Jazz Hampton about his company’s progress since he was last on the show. Nelson started out as an intellectual property lawyer but caught the crypto bug in law school. His boutique law firm Rosario Tech Law, focuses on servicing crypto and emerging technology companies that are working to change in the way we all interact with each other and deal with privacy and power. Although IP is still a significant part of his practice, Nelson’s firm provides those companies with strategic counseling, general outside services and assistance with privacy issues. Before he went to law school he was an election official in Florida and worked to streamline voter registration rolls and how his county processed absentee ballots. Nelson discusses the potential impact blockchain technology may or may not have on elections, the political and regulatory ramifications of the recent U.S. sanctions against crypto “mixer” Tornado Cash and how blockchain technology might change certain areas of the law.

Attorney and legal tech aficionado Stephen Embry discusses the practicality of using AI in the legal field. He emphasizes the importance of lawyers embracing AI to increase efficiency, while questioning the hype around AI adoption. Embry suggests that AI can handle back-office tasks, potentially reducing overhead for law firms. He also explores the potential impact of AI on lawyers' workload, highlighting the need for adaptation to alternative tasks as AI takes over certain aspects of their work.

If a human uses artificial intelligence to invent something, should the invention be patentable? If a driverless car injures a pedestrian, should the AI driver be held to a negligence standard as humans would? Or should courts apply the strict liability used for product defects? What if AI steals money from a bank account? Should it be held to the same standard as a human under criminal law? All interesting questions and the subject of a book called the Reasonable Robot by this episode’s guest Ryan Abbott. In the book, Abbott argues that laws should be AI neutral and that the acts of artificial intelligence should not be judged differently than humans’. He calls this a “reasonable robot” standard. The book posits that inventions created by AI should be entitled to protection under intellectual property laws and, if AI causes harm, maybe it too should be judged under the same standard as a human. Abbott argues further that if AI is treated differently under the law, it may hamper innovation. Ryan is not often idle. He has dual degrees in medicine and law. He has practiced both and also worked in bio-pharmaceuticals. He moved into IP law, and nowadays, even though he still practices, he is a professor. He teaches at the UCLA Medical School. He is also a mediator and arbitrator and Co-Chair of the AI Subcommittee of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA).