Training students for the technology infused law practice of the 21st Century

Daniel Martin Katz

Quantitative Legal Prediction is the Next Frontier of the Industry
Later this week at Emory Law’s Symposium on Legal Practice in a Changing World, I will be discussing the next great frontier of our business - Quantitative Legal Prediction – here is the basic idea:

Human generated prediction is one the hallmarks of the legal services industry. That was the past but this will not define the future. The race for the future of this industry is in developing 'soft' artificial intelligence processes that leverage the data/information streams being used by "expert reasoners" (i.e. lawyers at all price points) to mimic their underlying decision processes but do so with the benefit of large scale datasets (if you do not think this is possible see IBM Watson - coming soon to your laptop in some version via Moore's Law). In much the way computation and large-scale data analytics changed an industry such as finance (or since it has been popularized - baseball – see Moneyball), it will (it already has) change the legal services industry at all price points (high end and the retail level).

On the high end of the market, sophisticated law firms, general counsels and even the future retail legal industry are (will be) interested in two forms of prediction:

(1) How much will this matter cost? Law firms will want to know this so they can do matter pricing (if they are forced to do so) and GC's want to know this so they can control their legal spend. In particular, both Law Firms & GC's are in a epic struggle to manage the global legal supply chain. GC's are getting lots of help doing intelligent procurement from their procurement divisions and/or are hiring vendors such as TyMetrix and leveraging insights from documents such as the Real Rate Report.

(2) What is the likelihood of success or the ultimate projected exposure in the particular matter? This second class of prediction is usually done through instruments such as the classic client memo, mental models (ancedote, gut, instinct) that are honed using a variety of data stream – most notably on the job experience. As I discuss in my presentation slides linked to below - this is ready for a significant reset:

Quantitative Legal Prediction - Legal Tech 2012 - Professor Daniel Martin Katz

View more presentations from Daniel Katz

 

Toward the MIT School of Law

In light of the technology infuse world where we are likely heading - the training is simply not good enough. The skills that students are going to need to be competitive -- technology, computational data analytics, finance, informatics, economics, accounting, human computer interaction, supply chain mgmt, etc. are in limited supply (particularly the technology and high end data analytics). To make our students competitive (hopefully thereby restore the Return on Investment associated with the JD) will require legal education to move away from its significant liberal arts / humanities bent and look more like polytechnic research and teaching operation – or what I have called in other related work "THE MIT SCHOOL OF LAW"

Listen I do not expect every school to adopt this approach. When it comes to real reform the legal academy is pretty damn conservative. Although, I have nothing against the humanities but this is no longer a humanities age (other than this). It is an age of technology. Law school needs to transition from its liberal arts predisposition to a polytechnic research and teaching operation (you know one with peer review and grant $$). From both a scholarship and training perspective, it is time to get serious about science, computation, data analytics and technology.

I have argued that the arbitrage opportunity in the market for legal education is for an institution(s) the move toward an “MIT School of Law.” In other words, an MIT style institution would do just fine in the market for legal education (in the long run perhaps better than HYS?).

If you are an employer – hiring a lawyer for the 21st Century – please ask yourself this question: do you want a student from an MIT Style institution or some sort of liberal arts school? Of course, the market will ultimately decide this question — but I would place my bet with an MIT style legal institution.

Yes there is going to be math (technology as well) on the exam

This is the reality of our industry and it is already underway. Technology is going to reduce the total number of lawyers needed and recast the set tasks associated with those who remain in the practice of law. Law is a mature industry and the total number of jobs is not likely to grow over the coming years.

As I have previously argued “the return on investment (ROI) of a J.D. is waning and reform is needed before the system collapses (via the reform in student loan market). The ROI is not really within the control of any particular institution. What institutions control is the curriculum and it is fair to say that the curriculum offered at most institutions is in need of a serious reboot.”

Here is the implication for legal education – stop exclusively training your students for primary sector of the legal services market that has essentially experienced ~0% net job growth since 2000 and try to help your students compete for the law jobs of the 21^st Century – you know the ones that have experienced more than 90+% net job growth since 2000.

This means that who you hire to teach might need to be different. Different criteria simply need to be privileged.

In other words, if you want to help your students - it is time to start training them for the technology infused law jobs of the 21^st Century. This starts by jettisoning the general technophobia and anti-quantitative culture present in many law schools. The fact that the culture of law school all but celebrates the "I did not go to law school to do math pathology" is at the heart of the problem.

The task for legal education is to ensure our students have the training necessary to be competitive in the legal employment marketplace. The training we offer is simply insufficient for the current reality. To command the salary of today - in the not too distant future - our students are going to have to be able to do much much more.

In short, welcome to law’s information revolution - revolution already in progress and as I like to say in all of these forums - yes there is going to be math (and technology) on the exam.

   

Comments

[Rakesh K. Anand]

Daniel,

You write that "this is no longer a humanities age (and, correspondingly, argue that law schools should adopt a technological, quantitative analytic and, I gather, commercial orientation about themselves). In your opinion, is this a healthy social development?

[Daniel Katz]

That is a normative question (typical law school move is to try to turn everything into a normative argument BTW). It is not actually relevant whether it is a healthy social development - what is relevant is that it is happening.

I am for the students and helping my students get the skills they need to survive (thrive) in this new ordering. In order to this I cannot be myopic about what is happening within our industry. Instead, I feel an obligation to determine (to the best of my ability) what is happening and how best to respond. My comments above are directed at this goal.

Best,
Dan

[Rakesh K. Anand]

Dan,

I think it compelling that you feel an obligation to determine what is happening and how best to respond. But isn't "how best to respond" a normative question?

As for the irrelevancy of the health of society -- I'm not sure how that is a "myopic" point of view -- I would hope that really isn't your position.

[Daniel Katz]

No it is not normative – while errors are possible there is a set of information (labor market data, BLS forecasts, surveys of industry leaders (general counsels roundtable), offerings at LegalTech, etc.) about what is going on in our industry as well as additional well reasoned forecasts about where this is industry is likely heading.

Your argument is that we should NOT ALIGN the training of our students with the demands of the labor market. Again, my post above is a set of good faith responses in light of that information where I try to work through how to align the training of our students with the good faith projection of the demands of the labor market.

I am sure you mean well but your post (as well as your comments here) read like you really do not understand the current depth of the problem. If you did - you would write something that is more responsive to the problem - you know - The Economic Realities Facing the Profession.

Best,
Dan

[Rakesh K. Anand]

Dan,

Your position is that we should align the training of our students with the demands of the labor market, and do so in an acute way. That is a normative position, and one that is open to question. Hence my original post. Additionally, in terms of how to respond to what is happening, you might ask yourself whether a healthy society is in the interests of our students.

As for not understanding the depth of the problem, I don't claim to be a wholesale expert in the field. But, I do know that I have something to offer the discussion. And, I will note that I did practice law for several years.

I intended my question as a sincere and serious one, in the hope of beginning a constructive dialogue. Unfortunately, we are unable to have that discussion.

[Daniel Katz]

Hey - lets just agree to disagree - :)

I will continue with trying to help position my students in the best way I can for success in a rapidly changing profession and you can pursue whatever approach you consider to be appropriate.

Best,
Dan

[Rakesh K. Anand]

Sure. I did think your piece was thought-provoking. Perhaps we will have a chance to engage a dialogue in the future.

[Lawyer-turned-Prof]

Dan, I have a couple of problems with this. First, you keep saying "our profession" but it does not look like you ever actually practiced law (which I think Prof. Anand was politely drawing attention to) so how can you speak in broad terms about the actual practice of law and on-going changes in the practice? Second, the issues you raise are important in the abstract and perhaps, in reality, to a few people in the profession -- the ones actually crunching the numbers to make predictions. But the vast majority -- like 99.99% -- of practicing lawyers will NEVER do the number crunching, will NEVER care where the underlying data came from, and will NEVER care about or understand the mechanics. Practicing lawyers of the future -- i.e. current students -- will only care about getting the numbers and using them. So saying we need to change our teaching to deal with (or worse focus on) qualitative analysis is insane. That is no more necessary to the practice of law than a degree in mechanical engineering is to trying a car accident case.

[Daniel Katz]

Lawyer-turned-Prof,

I look at the data - you know the labor market data, the surveys of industry leaders, etc.
You shoot from the hip. That is not a great way to play it. Please refute my position with data not armchair theorizing.

Regarding experience in the industry - what is better telling war stories about the time you sat 3rd chair on a deposition or did doc review in a warehouse at the Newark airport - that is not a real wealth on knowledge to draw upon. I can speak about because this is what I do - I go out to industry - I work with the industry. Not the 1st year associates but the leaders of the industry across law firms, vendors, GC's , etc..

At the end of the day, it really does not matter whether you, Prof Anand or I were a partner at Cravath. The question is where are we heading in the industry.

Your Claim is "the vast majority -- like 99.99% -- of practicing lawyers will NEVER do the number crunching, will NEVER care where the underlying data came from, and will NEVER care about or understand the mechanics." You see "Lawyer-turned-Prof" that is the issue. E-Discovery made a bunch of law jobs into IBM, EMC, Symantec jobs. Why? Because practicing lawyers like yourself said "I did not go to law school to do math, computing and tech." There is lots more of this coming down the pipeline.

Here is a pro-tip - do not use the phrase "number crunching" - even using that term implies you do not know what you are talking about ....

BTW -- it is technology, platform, logistics, proj mgmt, analytics, software, etc. :)

These are the key phrases in the business of the law going forward -- both at the high end and the retail end.

You can sit there and teach your students whatever you want -- my technology infused students will come in and eat their lunch.

Again, I realize that it is difficult for you to accept but please review (with an open mind) the slides and the materials referenced therein.

Here is one other thing I can suggest if you ACTUALLY care about this topic - go to one of the technology shows in our industry Legal Tech, ABA Tech Show, etc. Then, see if you are going to maintain your ridiculous position. BTW - I am the only law prof who was invited to speak at this year's Legal Tech. Maybe because there is a big disconnect between what we are doing inside the academy wall and outside in the legal services / legal product industry.

Perhaps you can speak there next year about how 99.99% of practicing lawyers do not need to know anything about these questions. Maybe all of the large law firm partners, medium size firms, General Counsels, Vendors, etc. in attendance can help you see the error in your position (probably not).

Anyway, that is enough on this for me. Feel free can have the last word if you like.

Best,
Dan

[4th year prof]

[edited as explained below] Just because someone disagrees with the importance of your world view doesnot them an idiot. Your extreme level of defensiveness and chest thumping about how smart and great you are is, frankly, childish. Grow up.

[[Note from John Steele, acting as editor: I realize that sometimes the comments get pointed, but there is a minimum level of civility we need to enforce. I deleted a sentence from this comment from "4th year prof." If the commenter wants to contact me to discuss it privately, please do so.]]

[Daniel Katz]

These are very serious times for our students. Our students are coming out with high levels of debt and without the training necessary to make many of them competitive.

I am in this for the students not for you - and so yes -- this requires bad ideas to be vigorous resisted. When the ideas are as poorly considered as those expressed above -- well yeah you should be told without reservation that you are wrong.

It is nothing personal against you or any other the other commenters. I am sure you are all lovely people. People who know me are well aware that I am a very nice and very giving person.

In this professional capacity, however, I am not going to sit around and make nice with you folks while the students professional futures hang in the balance.

[[ edited as explained below ]]

As between you and I -- it is pretty clear that it is you who needs to do the "growing up."

Best,
Dan

[[ John Steele, acting as editor, edited this post by deleting the reference to the portion I deleted from the prior post. If Dan or anyone else wants to discuss my editing, please feel free to contact me. ]]