Legal Incubators and Legal Hackers

Personally I think that the first statement is more telling and interesting in today's world ' and more directly applicable to both legal incubators and legal hackers. Allow me to explain my personal experiences within this community:

In late February 2015, I attended the Access to Law Initiative (ALI) Incubator Conference at California Western School of Law in San Diego. The event brought together legal professionals from law schools, bar associations, and other legal groups involved with building or running law firm incubators. (A quick background on “law firm incubators.” They are, in the American Bar Association (ABA)'s words, programs “that enable newly-admitted lawyers to acquire the range of skills necessary to launch successful practices. The alpha incubator was established at the City University of New York over a decade ago.” Mainly, incubators have been created by law schools and bar associations to help unemployed and underemployed lawyers grow their practices and, in some cases, expand the delivery of legal services to those who traditionally couldn't afford them (a prime of example of the latter being the Chicago Bar Foundation's Justice Entrepreneurs Project).)

In late April 2015, I helped to organize the first-ever Legal Hackers Congress, to be held in Chicago. In the words of legal informatics scholar Robert Richards, legal hackers are “informal, civil-society associations that allow developers, designers, legal professionals, researchers, students, and others to meet to develop new legal technologies, learn about new legal startups, and create law reform proposals.” Originating in New York in 2012, legal hacking groups have emerged in multiple cities throughout the country, and even internationally. The groups advocate for a hands-on unconventional problem solving approach both to substantive legal problems and to problems in law and the legal profession. The Congress in Chicago will be the first time that leaders from many groups have met in person, and will provide a forum to shape and guide the movement, as well as facilitate collaboration between different legal hacking groups.

Personally, I have been the leader of a Seattle-based legal hackers group for more than a year-and-a-half and, after the San Diego event, am now more acquainted with the incubator movement. As referenced in the above example from Steven Levy's book on hackers, Bob Wagner's professor's reaction to Wagner's computer-generated homework provides a great means to explore: 1) overlapping challenges that both of these groups face in trying to do something different in legal; and 2) the similar approach that both groups take in going about their work.

The Focus on Precedent

Diving a bit deeper, “you used a computer!” sounds like: “You didn't solve the problem the way that I told you to solve it. Nor did you solve it the way that you were supposed to solve it, or the way that we've always solved it. So, therefore, you didn't really solve the problem.” That sentiment underscores a frequent and significant obstacle in adapting legal problem-solving methodologies: specifically, an unflinching and illogical focus on process.

And that's also what's primarily unbelievable about the professor's response of “You used a computer!” In writing a program that mimics a calculator's behavior, Wagner demonstrated a mastery of not only the specific assignment, but of the topic of the course. Because the process didn't meet the professor's expectations, he saw the output as without value.

This type of thinking is rampant in the law: legal training in law schools prescribes an unflinching adherence to precedent. This paradigm is further reinforced in most traditional legal practice settings where statements like “that's just the way we've always done it” or “that's the way we do things around here,” are as good as law.

In contrast, the legal hacking ethos directly attacks the rigidity of the precedent-based mindset. Legal hackers don't think: “what's been done before?” but instead “what can we do now?” They don't worry about operating within the norms or expectations for legal professionals, but instead focus on whether their solution actually solves a given problem. Free to explore new ideas, they then work back from the solution to determine how it can best be implemented to conform to existing norms, or, if the solution is good enough, decide if the norms should be changed, violated or ignored.

Law schools and bar associations are two of the most central and storied institutions in law. The establishment of law firm incubators at these institutions may challenge many people's perceptions of what these institutions should do. But that has not stopped those who are building them. At the incubator conference in San Diego, there was much discussion about how incubator leaders can continue to develop their incubator programs while still pacifying or, at least avoid aggravating, all of the other stakeholders and entrenched interests who see the incubators as a threat to “the way things have always been done.”

Technophobia

Secondly, I also hear technophobia ' the fear or dislike of advanced technology or complex devices ' in the professor's exclamation of “You used a computer!”

Technophobia is a frequent stumbling block for legal hackers who are working to bring the rest of the profession into the digital age. Practicing lawyers consistently present many reasons why greater technological understanding and technological adoption is unnecessary or even unethical.

The fear of the technology in technophobia can also be a proxy for fear of change. Law firm incubators represent the fact that the legal employment model of yesteryear is a fast-fading memory, not only in the wake of the Great Recession, but in light of structural changes both in the legal industry and the broader economy. The reality of law schools and bar associations getting into the business of building law firms is definitely a change. It's actually pretty radical. And for some in those institutions the change is probably a little scary.

Ultimately, the story about Wagner and his professor also illustrates a principle of approach. Wagner didn't wait to build the calculator on the computer. He didn't ask whether he could do his homework on it. To him (and greater background on the story illustrates this fact), he saw no sense in not building the calculator on the computer to do his homework, and he took great joy in the process of building it. The hands on, “do now, ask questions later” approach is also common among legal hackers and law firm incubators.

The hacker ethos can often be described (and not unfairly) as “ready, fire, aim.” The goal of hacking is to build, to challenge, to engage and learn by doing. Legal hacking is the same. Legal hackers learn about the law and about legal issues by engaging them, by challenging them, and even by thinking about how technological solutions and approaches can incorporate them.

A bit surprisingly, I found a similar sentiment at the incubators conference. With a large group of legal academics and bar association leaders in attendance, I did not expect to encounter a group that was particularly flexible or open to change. I was sorely mistaken. The attendees at the incubator conference were, almost to a person, delightful pragmatists. Much like legal hackers, they weren't concerned about whether a given solution was right or wrong, conventional or not; rather, everyone seemed interested in finding solutions that worked . Throughout the duration of the conference, incubator leaders sought resources that would help them build their programs and make their incubator attorneys successful. Period.

Conclusion

Today, the story of Bob Wagner's professor seems ridiculous. In fact, some would argue that many of us rely too heavily on our computing devices. But the professor's sentiment is instructive: we can frequently lose the forest of results and understanding for the trees of process. Further, our fear of things that are new and that we don't understand may result in our missing opportunities. The legal hacking and legal incubator movements are new. They are strange. They are innovative and they have the potential to dramatically change much of the legal profession. Instead of rejecting these institutions because they appear different than what's been seen before or don't adhere to a comfortable precedent, wise legal professionals will, like legal hackers and legal incubator leaders, approach them with an open and flexible mindset.

Dan Lear is Director of Industry Relations of Avvo, an online legal marketplace connecting consumers and attorneys.

'

SPECIAL OFFER: Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and Google+ followers can get an online subscription to LJN's Legal Tech Newsletter for only $299. Click here, select Digital Only and use promo code LTNOL299 at checkout. This offer is valid for new subscribers only.

'

The seminal book on the origins of hacking and the hacker culture is Steven Levy's Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. One of my favorite stories from the book is of an early hacker at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Bob Wagner, who was not content to use a wimpy, clunky electromechanical calculator to complete homework for a Numerical Analysis class. Consequently, Wagner wrote a program of almost three thousand lines of code that made the computer emulate the calculator's exact functionality. Then, Wagner used the calculator program on the computer to do his math homework.

His grade when he turned in his homework: Zero. “You used a computer!” The professor told him. “This can't be right.”

Levy uses this story to demonstrate that there was a strong largely unfounded anti-computer bias among some in academia in the early days of hacking and early years of computing. This is evidenced by the professor's second statement: “This can't be right.”

Personally I think that the first statement is more telling and interesting in today's world ' and more directly applicable to both legal incubators and legal hackers. Allow me to explain my personal experiences within this community:

In late February 2015, I attended the Access to Law Initiative (ALI) Incubator Conference at California Western School of Law in San Diego. The event brought together legal professionals from law schools, bar associations, and other legal groups involved with building or running law firm incubators. (A quick background on “law firm incubators.” They are, in the American Bar Association (ABA)'s words, programs “that enable newly-admitted lawyers to acquire the range of skills necessary to launch successful practices. The alpha incubator was established at the City University of New York over a decade ago.” Mainly, incubators have been created by law schools and bar associations to help unemployed and underemployed lawyers grow their practices and, in some cases, expand the delivery of legal services to those who traditionally couldn't afford them (a prime of example of the latter being the Chicago Bar Foundation's Justice Entrepreneurs Project).)

In late April 2015, I helped to organize the first-ever Legal Hackers Congress, to be held in Chicago. In the words of legal informatics scholar Robert Richards, legal hackers are “informal, civil-society associations that allow developers, designers, legal professionals, researchers, students, and others to meet to develop new legal technologies, learn about new legal startups, and create law reform proposals.” Originating in New York in 2012, legal hacking groups have emerged in multiple cities throughout the country, and even internationally. The groups advocate for a hands-on unconventional problem solving approach both to substantive legal problems and to problems in law and the legal profession. The Congress in Chicago will be the first time that leaders from many groups have met in person, and will provide a forum to shape and guide the movement, as well as facilitate collaboration between different legal hacking groups.

Personally, I have been the leader of a Seattle-based legal hackers group for more than a year-and-a-half and, after the San Diego event, am now more acquainted with the incubator movement. As referenced in the above example from Steven Levy's book on hackers, Bob Wagner's professor's reaction to Wagner's computer-generated homework provides a great means to explore: 1) overlapping challenges that both of these groups face in trying to do something different in legal; and 2) the similar approach that both groups take in going about their work.

The Focus on Precedent

Diving a bit deeper, “you used a computer!” sounds like: “You didn't solve the problem the way that I told you to solve it. Nor did you solve it the way that you were supposed to solve it, or the way that we've always solved it. So, therefore, you didn't really solve the problem.” That sentiment underscores a frequent and significant obstacle in adapting legal problem-solving methodologies: specifically, an unflinching and illogical focus on process.

And that's also what's primarily unbelievable about the professor's response of “You used a computer!” In writing a program that mimics a calculator's behavior, Wagner demonstrated a mastery of not only the specific assignment, but of the topic of the course. Because the process didn't meet the professor's expectations, he saw the output as without value.

This type of thinking is rampant in the law: legal training in law schools prescribes an unflinching adherence to precedent. This paradigm is further reinforced in most traditional legal practice settings where statements like “that's just the way we've always done it” or “that's the way we do things around here,” are as good as law.

In contrast, the legal hacking ethos directly attacks the rigidity of the precedent-based mindset. Legal hackers don't think: “what's been done before?” but instead “what can we do now?” They don't worry about operating within the norms or expectations for legal professionals, but instead focus on whether their solution actually solves a given problem. Free to explore new ideas, they then work back from the solution to determine how it can best be implemented to conform to existing norms, or, if the solution is good enough, decide if the norms should be changed, violated or ignored.

Law schools and bar associations are two of the most central and storied institutions in law. The establishment of law firm incubators at these institutions may challenge many people's perceptions of what these institutions should do. But that has not stopped those who are building them. At the incubator conference in San Diego, there was much discussion about how incubator leaders can continue to develop their incubator programs while still pacifying or, at least avoid aggravating, all of the other stakeholders and entrenched interests who see the incubators as a threat to “the way things have always been done.”

Technophobia

Secondly, I also hear technophobia ' the fear or dislike of advanced technology or complex devices ' in the professor's exclamation of “You used a computer!”

Technophobia is a frequent stumbling block for legal hackers who are working to bring the rest of the profession into the digital age. Practicing lawyers consistently present many reasons why greater technological understanding and technological adoption is unnecessary or even unethical.

The fear of the technology in technophobia can also be a proxy for fear of change. Law firm incubators represent the fact that the legal employment model of yesteryear is a fast-fading memory, not only in the wake of the Great Recession, but in light of structural changes both in the legal industry and the broader economy. The reality of law schools and bar associations getting into the business of building law firms is definitely a change. It's actually pretty radical. And for some in those institutions the change is probably a little scary.

Ultimately, the story about Wagner and his professor also illustrates a principle of approach. Wagner didn't wait to build the calculator on the computer. He didn't ask whether he could do his homework on it. To him (and greater background on the story illustrates this fact), he saw no sense in not building the calculator on the computer to do his homework, and he took great joy in the process of building it. The hands on, “do now, ask questions later” approach is also common among legal hackers and law firm incubators.

The hacker ethos can often be described (and not unfairly) as “ready, fire, aim.” The goal of hacking is to build, to challenge, to engage and learn by doing. Legal hacking is the same. Legal hackers learn about the law and about legal issues by engaging them, by challenging them, and even by thinking about how technological solutions and approaches can incorporate them.

A bit surprisingly, I found a similar sentiment at the incubators conference. With a large group of legal academics and bar association leaders in attendance, I did not expect to encounter a group that was particularly flexible or open to change. I was sorely mistaken. The attendees at the incubator conference were, almost to a person, delightful pragmatists. Much like legal hackers, they weren't concerned about whether a given solution was right or wrong, conventional or not; rather, everyone seemed interested in finding solutions that worked . Throughout the duration of the conference, incubator leaders sought resources that would help them build their programs and make their incubator attorneys successful. Period.

Conclusion

Today, the story of Bob Wagner's professor seems ridiculous. In fact, some would argue that many of us rely too heavily on our computing devices. But the professor's sentiment is instructive: we can frequently lose the forest of results and understanding for the trees of process. Further, our fear of things that are new and that we don't understand may result in our missing opportunities. The legal hacking and legal incubator movements are new. They are strange. They are innovative and they have the potential to dramatically change much of the legal profession. Instead of rejecting these institutions because they appear different than what's been seen before or don't adhere to a comfortable precedent, wise legal professionals will, like legal hackers and legal incubator leaders, approach them with an open and flexible mindset.

Dan Lear is Director of Industry Relations of Avvo, an online legal marketplace connecting consumers and attorneys.

'