In this blog post, Andrew Arruda makes a point in favor of reregulation in the legal industry that often gets overlooked. Current regs do more than inhibit #A2J progress, they drive many to bad alternatives, what Andrew calls the "black market of legal services." 1/n
These purveyors prey on vulnerable clients, such as those who don't speak English well. Unregulated (& illegal) they often leave individuals and businesses in worse shape. We have seen this happen in other markets. Poor regulatory schemes can be fixed through reregulation ... 2/n
not deregulation (and certainly not through maintaining the status quo). Many states are now considering reregulation. Read how IAALS is helping drive change so that those who need #A2J most can get it.
This question comes up all the time in situations where lean thinking is being introduced. The question is not unique to the legal industry. There are several ways to tackle the time issue: ...
1. Accept that you actually do have time to spend on initiatives. You make choices every day how to allocate your time. If process improvement becomes a priority, you will allocate time to it and not to something else. So, the "I don't have time" is really a false choice ...
2. After getting over the initial hurdle, lean thinking helps you free up time. In law, past examples show that easily over 50% of a lawyer's time is wasted. As you use lean thinking to remove waste, that time becomes available to spend on more lean thinking process ...
The obvious answer is that may be true. But, at this time we have no evidence that supports that conclusion. To get there, we would need to radically transform our current approach. For example: 1. Winnow out the many issues that are not legal. 2. Leverage tech heavily ...
in a good way (that is, to do those many simple, repetitive things that tech is good at and can be used to reduce work people should not be doing). 3. Aggressively simplify processes throughout the system (reg bodies, courts, agencies) so that resources are not spent on waste...
4. Create incentive systems to de-escalate rather than escalate legal matters.
There are a few, but not all, of the changes that would make A2J far more amenable to a "pay for itself" model.
Finally, there may (probably will) be some residual legal work that still ...
Putting together all that I have read so far: 1. Amy Coney Barrett meets/surpasses all of the objective criteria one could reasonably apply to determine whether someone should be on SCOTUS. 2. Her personality-liberals, conservatives, students, colleagues-agree is well-suited ...
to being on SCOTUS. 3. On ideology, I would disagree with her on almost everything (if not everything).
So, in normal circumstances, the Senate faced with her nomination should confirm. Of course, we are not in "normal circumstances". ...
ACB will face guilt by association with Trump, McConnell, and FedSoc. Two of those are an accident of history, the third is by her choice. But, she is fully allowed to associate with FedSoc, so that should not disqualify her.
Imagine you belonged to a party that was not supported by the majority of people in your country. Indeed, the party's leader has said many times that its members wd not get elected to office if they played fair and square. So, you look around at other countries to find ...
parties in similar circumstances. You need a model. A party that can force its views on the majority. To do well in that party, you must show rigid adherence to the party's ideology. You need an organization that will help screen for adherence and a way to award the faithful. ...
You must have mechanisms to punish those who do not toe the party line. Remember, your party and its views are in the minority. You must control the courts and the media to make this work.
There must be a name for such a system. Thinking, thinking ... yes, you will ...
Profound-perhaps, uncommon-not in my experience. Unless someone will be in a very subject-specific area at a large company, they will need to acquire a lot of knowledge. For viable candidates, that is a given. But, skill levels are very uneven and require more ...
I'll second @peterdlederer's comment - reading/writing skills rank at the top. Undergrads come to law school with weak skills in these areas (obv. exceptions exist). Law schools don't bring them up to adequate levels (many reasons). Law firms/in-house ...
have similar challenges. Plus, the pressure on billing means law firms are reluctant to spend time on editing/rewrite and time pressure in-house causes the same shortfall. Poor research skills play a role here.
We have evidence that supports this concern. Judges ...
A thread that won't do justice to the issue, but here goes (and apologies to ethics scholars for the brevity):
One of the major historical reasons for Rule 5.4 was the "runner" issue. A lawyer would pay a runner to bring him clients. Unseemly (unprofessional). ...
Fast forward decades and the rules has become intertwined with issues such as money transfers between a firm and others (let you mind run free: retirement payments, estate payments, etc.). But the basic notion goes back to professionalism.
The second rule, Rule 2.1, also ...
addresses the concept of professionalism and the idea of independence from others. However, to clarify, a lawyer may consider topics outside of law. But to stay independent, if the client needs professional help in one or more of those areas, they should hire that help ...