Outsourcing - Scott Key & Associates

A recent New York Times article explores whether artificial intelligence is replacing lawyers or whether it will in the future. The basic conclusion is that humans are necessary for legal work for the time being. As an attorney who does litigation, with an emphasis on appeals, habeas, sentencing, motions practice, and some limited trial work, I see this as an optimistic piece. Steve Lohr, who wrote the piece does a good bit of technology writing for the Times and has done a great job here identifying trends in A.I. and the law. So, let me take a minute to tell you why I think that this piece is ultimately optimistic.

In any law firm, or any business,, there are very few things that only a lawyer should do. And to become more profitable and efficient, lawyers should limit their work to what only the lawyers can do. What are the things that truly only I can do in my practice?

Only I can stand up and make an argument in court.
Only I can approve and sign pleadings and briefs that are submitted to the court.
Only I can represent a client, which essentially means that only I an give legal advice and ultimately execute on legal strategy.
Only I have the ability to connect with a client, opposing counsel, law enforcement officials, and judges as a human being in relationship with others as human beings. A.I. would have to surpass the Turing Test, to begin to replicate this function. And the lawyer’s stock and trade is his relationship with others in the system.

But there are things that others in my practice can do as long as I supervise. For me that might mean the gathering and scanning of all the documents in the case that were left by the lawyers and clerks that go before me (I’m seldom the first lawyer on a file). Document review can be done by others in my office as well as the preparation of internal memoranda, witnesses, and court exhibits, and some legal research. Indeed, it’s to the client’s benefit in terms of cost and efficiency if the lawyer does what only the lawyer can do. And the better news is that we live in a time where a good bit of the non-lawyer stuff can even be outsourced to contract vendors who can do an excellent job remotely, which can cut down on the amount of office space necessary to run a law firm. And ultimately, the client should be happy that the client no longer needs to fund such in infrastructure.

So, back to the article. Mr. Lohr identifies some of the areas that A.I. is improving. I’ll highlight a few.

Legal Research. Ross is one of the A.I. services highlighted in the article. Ross intelligently engages in legal research and generates a rudimentary legal memo. Again, this sort of thing is what lawyers often get drawn into but is not one of the things that only lawyers can do. There’s a great Ted Talk about Ross with its founder. The talk is kind of inspirational.
Scouting Opposing Counsel and the Judge I think that ultimately there is value in making some calls and using Listserves to scout out this information. But I’m intrigued by Lex Machina and Ravel Law. These services provide analytics of opposing counsel and judges – sort of like a Moneyball for the law. I haven’t looked deeply into these services, but I suspect that they are pretty good for civil litigation and not so great for criminal law.

I’m not concerned that these services will replace me. I think these services will allow me to be more of a lawyer and to compete with bigger firms to provide great legal services against the resources of the government.

My new favorite law blog is Judge Richard Kopf’s Hercules and the Umpire. Lately, it’s been the first place I click on my reader. His blog is conversational and offers a view of the Federal Court from the other side of the bench.

A recent post of his was particularly spot on. It begins “For a long time now, I have used digital audio recording, rather than a court reporter. Digital audio recording is the marriage of a computer and a sophisticated sound system with multiple channels. It is monitored by the courtroom deputy in real-time eliminating the necessity of a court reporter.”

The daily recordings are uploaded to CM/ECF so that any person, at a small cost, can listen to them. The lawyers have access to what was said, and a transcriptionist can render things on paper in the event of an appeal. There’s no need to fund a court reporter for take down, and the job of transcribing can be outsourced for quick turnaround. I am not sure what certifications are necessary, but presumably a court reporter anywhere in the world could be contracted to transcribe the proceedings as necessary.

I use Speakwrite to transcribe office documents or interviews when my office is too overburdened. Generally, within hours of upload, I have a transcript sitting in my email inbox. Presumably, such a system could be set up for court transcripts with folks certified to do them.

I don’t know how long it will take for such a system to catch on in Georgia, but I hope it happens soon. Such a system would change the landscape of appellate practice. Consider:

The wait for the transcript is the single longest part of the appellate process. Digital recording with upload to a central server expands the range of possible people who could do the work, virtually overnight.
Often appellate lawyers are waiting around for months or years for transcripts to arrive only to be bombarded with three or four at once.
That wait can be a great source of tension between the lawyer and the client. It is hard to explain to a client who is languishing in prison that it is not the lawyer’s fault that the court reporter is taking a year or more to type up the proceedings.
For matters where a transcript is not essential, the recording provides a way to impeach witnesses or review what is said. It provides a tangible record of what happened in situations when there is not time to get a transcript prepared or in situations where it would not be ordered.
It would save lawyers, clients, and the State money.
More will get recorded. Judges order their court reporter to go “off the record” with impunity. When that happens, something bad is going to transpire. Ordering a recording system to be turned off seems more Nixonesque somehow.

The idea of having a court reporter seated with a stenograph machine in the age of digital recording seems a tad antiquated. If one were designing a recording system for courts from the ground up today, we likely wouldn’t dream up the position of court reporter (a point made in the comments to the judge’s blog post). It likely made sense in the 1930s, but we are left with this vestigial court official.

Take a look at this new blog. And, if you are a reader with power to make digital recording happen in Georgia, please do so.

Tag Archive for: Outsourcing

Artificial Intelligence is a Net Positive for Lawyers

Court Reporters and Digital Audio Recording: Time for a Change?

ADDRESS

PHONE

EMAIL