Here are eight predictions for how the legal sector will be different and mostly better in 2033. If you have an alternative vision, there's one sure way to prove me wrong.
Your prediction number 8 is of course of interest to me. I agree there will likely be little progress on this front in the next 10 years. I wonder though if the grassroots progress you’ve predicted will materialize either as that sector depends greatly on the generosity of individuals and corporations, not to mention government funding, all of which is precarious in an environment of reduced philanthropy, an increasingly competitive nonprofit sector, and more time sensitive and arguably urgent needs for limited government dollars to fund environmental, climate and health initiatives. Over the 30 years I’ve been practicing, the need for access to legal help has increased in excess of the supply and I don’t see that balance soon shifting. On the whole I am skeptical, if not outright pessimistic about any progress in this regard.
This is my first time accessing your substack posts, having spotted your post on slaw.ca today. I always appreciate your views, that are invariably well thought out, thorough and well articulated. As an experienced self-represented litigant I have views that most members of the legal profession either don't agree with or won't comment on. A question you didn't touch on is regarding whether the public will ever have a voice in determining what happens to the justice / legal system. That certainly isn't the case right now. I got into a situation where I was directly challenging the judiciary, including the conduct of specific judges through complaints filed with the Canadian Judicial Council. I concluded, among other things, that the copious rhetoric about judicial independence is a denial of the truth - which begins by appreciating that there is no separation between the bar and the bench. My guess is that even most SRLs don't really comprehend that. And that many - e.g. family law litigants - are not exposed to any evidence (at least overt evidence) of judicial bias. But I am among the SRLs who have faced lawyers for powerful (in my case politically powerful) parties and who sometimes witness - in the courtroom and in judgments - overt evidence of bias. This does not interest the political establishment, and sadly it doesn't interest the media / press corps either. But unless I am wrong then a resource that contains a great deal of evidence is the CanLII database. If AI does indeed have the potential that is being promised then it should be able to find that evidence in that database.
The existence of billable hour arrangement is probably the result of strong bargaining power of the supply side.Where the supply is scare due to uniqueness of the service, high barrier of entry, high transaction cost of changing supplier, etc, the billable hour pricing model help suppliers to best use its resources and maximize revenue. Once the competition became stiff in one sector of the legal service, the price model that benefit suppliers will not hold.
Your prediction number 8 is of course of interest to me. I agree there will likely be little progress on this front in the next 10 years. I wonder though if the grassroots progress you’ve predicted will materialize either as that sector depends greatly on the generosity of individuals and corporations, not to mention government funding, all of which is precarious in an environment of reduced philanthropy, an increasingly competitive nonprofit sector, and more time sensitive and arguably urgent needs for limited government dollars to fund environmental, climate and health initiatives. Over the 30 years I’ve been practicing, the need for access to legal help has increased in excess of the supply and I don’t see that balance soon shifting. On the whole I am skeptical, if not outright pessimistic about any progress in this regard.
This is my first time accessing your substack posts, having spotted your post on slaw.ca today. I always appreciate your views, that are invariably well thought out, thorough and well articulated. As an experienced self-represented litigant I have views that most members of the legal profession either don't agree with or won't comment on. A question you didn't touch on is regarding whether the public will ever have a voice in determining what happens to the justice / legal system. That certainly isn't the case right now. I got into a situation where I was directly challenging the judiciary, including the conduct of specific judges through complaints filed with the Canadian Judicial Council. I concluded, among other things, that the copious rhetoric about judicial independence is a denial of the truth - which begins by appreciating that there is no separation between the bar and the bench. My guess is that even most SRLs don't really comprehend that. And that many - e.g. family law litigants - are not exposed to any evidence (at least overt evidence) of judicial bias. But I am among the SRLs who have faced lawyers for powerful (in my case politically powerful) parties and who sometimes witness - in the courtroom and in judgments - overt evidence of bias. This does not interest the political establishment, and sadly it doesn't interest the media / press corps either. But unless I am wrong then a resource that contains a great deal of evidence is the CanLII database. If AI does indeed have the potential that is being promised then it should be able to find that evidence in that database.
The existence of billable hour arrangement is probably the result of strong bargaining power of the supply side.Where the supply is scare due to uniqueness of the service, high barrier of entry, high transaction cost of changing supplier, etc, the billable hour pricing model help suppliers to best use its resources and maximize revenue. Once the competition became stiff in one sector of the legal service, the price model that benefit suppliers will not hold.
I dont want it to be a prompting or conversation with a screen.
And it can never be that.
GenAI will create two delivery models.