Bob Ambrogi: [00:00:00] all right, everybody. Welcome to a legal tech

week for June 12th, 2020. This is Bob Ambrogi and, uh, we have, uh, being joined

by, uh, a guest this week. Uh Rohan Pavuluri, the CEO and cofounder of Upsolve to

talk about, uh, An article he wrote this week, that was kind of in the news. A lot of

people were talking about it.

We also have a new panelist joining us this week, Victoria Hudgins from news

Victoria, how are you doing

Victoria Hudgins: [00:00:40] welcome.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:00:42] And, uh, other than that, some of it, some of the usual,

the usual panelists are back. Um, let's go around and just quickly introduce each

other. Uh, Molly, start with you.

Molly McDonough: [00:00:53] Hi, I'm Molly McDonogh. I'm a legal affairs writer and

editor and media consultant based in the Chicago area.

[00:01:00] Bob Ambrogi: [00:00:59] And, uh, Joe,

Joe Patrice: [00:01:01] uh, Joe Patrice from above the law. I'm not in New York, I

guess now we're w we should, we should say where we're all from. Cause we're all

from all over the place, I guess. Yeah.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:01:11] Or Nikki.

Nicole Black: [00:01:13] Nicky black. I am the legal technology evangelist with my

case law practice management software. I'm also a legal tech journalist.

I write regular legal tech columns for ABA journal above the law daily record. I also

write for the, my case blog and I am in Rochester, New York.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:01:37] You got one of those great titles. Who's the guy like a

week ago or something you've got to have the title of, I get shit done or something

like that

Nicole Black: [00:01:43] was better than mine.

I sought out.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:01:49] That's

Nicole Black: [00:01:49] a good one for sir.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:01:50] And Caroline, what's your time? Pretty,

Caroline Hill: [00:01:53] pretty much. I get shit done to other people might not say

that Caroline [00:02:00] and it's a lead lighting designer based in the UK, as I was

just saying before, but not

Bob Ambrogi: [00:02:11] quite as thrilled that we're doing this earlier this week,

because it's not pastor bedtime, which is joining us soon. So, what we're gonna do

today is, uh, speak with Rahan a little bit, uh, maybe maybe 15 minutes or so, and,

uh, then go into our regular, uh, round table, uh, on the week's top stories. But,

uh, Ohad wrote a really interesting story this week, uh, on, uh, law three 60, uh,

on, basically on a question of whether unauthorized practice of law.

Rules promote racial injustice in this country. So we'll have, why don't you just kind

of begin by summing up what your, what you had to say about that?

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:02:54] Thanks so much, Bob, for having me and for everyone.

So [00:03:00] I'm sure this audience all knows about UPL rules in America, that

grant a monopoly to lawyers on providing legal advice and, uh, uh, Every day in my

job, uh, helping low income families through the process of, uh, accessing your

civil legal rights in particular with bankruptcy, I'm exposed to countless, uh, where

people in this country that can't afford lawyers, uh, and in our civil justice system,

those people don't have the same rights as everyone else.

Because they can't afford the lawyers to help them access those rights. And one of

the reasons why, uh, these lawyers are out of, uh, not affordable for folks is

because, uh, there aren't enough helpers around and, uh, unauthorized practice of

the law rules as they exist today. Constrain the supply of people who can provide

meaningful, legal assistance.

And as a result, drive up the price of, uh, uh, accessing, uh, uh, [00:04:00] legal

rights in this country. Uh, and I think one thing that's important in this discussion is

to be clear that I'm not proposing getting rid of UPL rules in America. I believe in

UPL rules, I believe in regulation, but as they exist today, uh, where only people

who go to three years of law school and pass that bar exam of being able to

provide meaningful legal assistance.

That to me doesn't make any sense. I think it's obvious that we can create other

alternative forms of training to vet and, uh, qualify people to provide, uh, legal

assistance in certain areas, especially the ones I care about and poverty law.

Joe Patrice: [00:04:46] I think you're muted.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:04:50] Having all sorts of technical difficulties, our Facebook live

just went dead. Um, and I'm just trying to restart that. Um, I thought it was really

interesting that you brought that up this week because this also [00:05:00]

happened to be the week in which, um, the state of Washington decided to

discontinue it.

L L L T legal limited licensed legal technician program, um, which, you know, kind

of fed into what you're talking about in the sense that it was a way for people who

couldn't afford three years of law school and at the time and expense and

everything else to become a licensed legal services provider of a sword.

Uh, I was really disappointed to hear that news. I mean, did you have any thoughts

on that?

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:05:31] Yeah. I mean, I think that program fail for two main

reasons. One, the barrier to entry was way too high. Um, and to one of the reasons

their attention was too high is because of wrong people where the regulators, uh,

if you have a Supreme court, um, and a bar association as the regulators, um, uh,

then it's obvious that a program like that is destined to fail from the beginning.

Um, so I think that. Uh, those are the main two reasons why a [00:06:00] program

like that didn't succeed. And, uh, but I think we learned a lot and uh, in my

industry and technology, when something doesn't work out, you don't give up, you

iterate. And the vision of the program was in the right direction. Let us create

more helpers, make the barrier to entry, lower for becoming a helper.

Let's limit that the people who can provide help to a certain areas of the law that

are more commoditized. And, uh, I have no doubt that if they, uh, use what they

learned and iterated they'd be able to achieve some successful outcome in the

future.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:06:38] So anybody on the panel have any questions or comments

on this or they want to bring up.

Molly McDonough: [00:06:42] I mean, I would just echo that the biggest

disappointment for me was the, the abandoning of the entire project, instead of,

um, looking at it, looking at what wasn't working and adjusting or shifting to make

sure that, that it was less bureaucratic, less, um, [00:07:00] less, Mmm.

Complicated to work through and open it up so that the services were meaningful

and provided instead of just tossing out the window.

I thought, I thought it was working really well. I thought a lot of good lessons

learned. It helped develop sandboxes and other areas that are hopefully going to

continue and learn from what didn't work there. Um, and instead of abandoning it

just iterate, like Ron said,

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:07:28] And Bob, one thing that, uh, I think that, uh, uh, we

should, I mean, we don't talk about enough when it comes to civil justice reform is

the racial justice component.

That's why I brought it up this week in particular and the criminal justice reform

movement. They've talked about how black men are six times more likely to be

incarcerated. Um, and, uh, in the civil justice, you serve often talk often talk

about socioeconomic. Status, but class and race are intertwined in America due to

centuries of pressure and slavery.

And to not talk about [00:08:00] race when it comes to talking about, um, uh,

housing or access to family lawyers, um, that is a real problem. And I really think

this should be a bipartisan issue. On the right conservative should really focus on

how the existing monopoly we've given to lawyers, um, is, uh anti-democratic and

that it has, uh, an unnecessary bureaucracy associated with that.

I mean, you have the Koch brothers arguing against licensing laws across the

country and, uh, for, for, for things like hair braiding, et cetera, and then on the

left, Um, this is really an issue of social justice and to be against UPL reform is to

say that you do not believe there is a more creative way to train people, to provide

lower cost legal services.

And to me that demonstrates a lack of imagination. If you really believe there's

absolutely no way we can rewrite UPL laws, um, uh, in America. Yeah.

[00:09:00] Caroline Hill: [00:09:00] Oh, sorry. You're good. Okay. Oh, um, one of

the things in the U K so we've obviously got a lot more deregulation in the UK. Um,

I'm one of the things that they've done is open up the entry to the profession as

well, which I think is essential and intensive.

Um, recognizing. So rather than just having one breach where everyone has to go

to the same line, which is, which makes me miss it, it's less likely to be diverse.

Actually, if you, if you're a paralegal or a few things, they've now made it possible

for you to move into training contract within a corporate department or whatever

it might be, they've opened up all these different channels to make it much more

accessible.

And I think that's also probably a big factor, you know, in terms of being more all

embracing and recognizing, we have lots of different stages as well in terms of the

types of. Assistance, et cetera. Um, so I think that, and that champion choppy, I

must revisit intensive because that was fairly recent. Um, [00:10:00] but it'd be

interesting to monitor that in terms of what impact that has had on diversity.

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:10:08] And I mean, we also need to, I mean, uh, unfortunately

this is kind of a wonky subject UPL perform. I think it's one of the most important

topics in a democracy, um, that, uh, uh, I mean, accessing your rights is a, it's a

civil rights issue. I mean, UPL reform is a civil rights. And, uh, it's a shame that,

um, we haven't brought it to the forefront of, uh, our national dialogue and that's

something I'm obviously trying to do.

Um, but, uh, it really limits the amount of democracy that some people get. Um,

because it limits who can actually afford to access their, their rights. So, um, I

really see a UPL reform, um, in this specific moment as potentially rising in

international dialogue. That's my hope.

Caroline Hill: [00:10:58] Did you get much, [00:11:00] obviously, if it's, you're

talking about your, your obstacle, has that been anything, you know, what sort of

feedback have you been getting, do you think it's always obviously been helpful

and raising the issue?

Is there any kind of reaction that you think has been really helpful?

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:11:12] Yeah, I mean, I am very hopeful, uh, opportunities in

Utah and California. Obviously people are talking about those right now. I had a

chance, uh, yesterday to talk to one of the committee members of the Utah.

Reforms that are going on and hoping to get more involved in trying to be helpful

there.

Um, I think, uh, one of the challenges is of course, attracting people to provide

these alternative forms of legal services and figuring out a way to encourage that

at scale is also an interesting operational problem that requires strong leadership

in each of these States. It's not like you can just change the rules and overnight.

All of these alternative service providers are going to show up. Um, you need to

encourage that as well. And maybe that's when one of the issues with what

happened in Washington. Now you can, it's [00:12:00] not, if you build it, people

will come. If you change the laws, people aren't going to come. Um, uh, and you

need to encourage, um, uh, alternative providers.

Nicole Black: [00:12:10] I am a little conflicted on the UPL amendment

Caroline Hill: [00:12:14] and I come from.

Nicole Black: [00:12:16] And this is why I was a public defender for years, and I

was on the board of Monroe County, legal assistance for years. And the Monroe

County legal assistance Corps provided, um, people of low income with civil serve,

uh, with, um, access to the civil side of the criminal justice system and free

attorneys if they qualify through that.

Um, now, so I've always felt like. It's the government's responsibility to provide

this. But the problem is that what has happened even under Obama, because the

Republicans had the majority in the Senate, they have essentially defunded LSC. So

that's, that's the problem. That's the way I think it ought to work.

But the [00:13:00] problem with that is that. It is a political issue. And as a result,

you have, you can't have access to justice. And even then LSE did not provide

incredible access to justice. It just felt a small gap sort of, or a large gap sort of,

but you know, at the end of the day, um, that's, the problem is because it is a

political issue that access comes and goes depending on who has political power.

And that's the problem with that. But I still think that. That's the way society

should operate. There should be access to justice for everyone. And I guess the

innovation is how are we going to fill these access to justice gaps without relying

upon this way of political? You know, opinion and thought. So, I mean, I, but I still

sort of fundamentally believe that's the way to do it.

It's just not working. Cause that's

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:13:47] my, my, my view is it'd be great. If everybody could

have a lawyer, I see that as a political non-reality. So we need to think creatively

around how to address the problem. And, um, I think there's [00:14:00] another,

uh, a solution that's tied in my mind with UPL reform, which is redesigning our

courts that serve low income people around the assumption that people won't have

lawyers.

I actually think it's such a crazy thing that we've designed. Housing court bank,

consumer bankruptcy courts, consumer debt collection courts, uncontested

divorces around the assumption that people can afford lawyers. When the majority

of people, for example, are filing for bankruptcy or have negative networks that

are in the tens of thousands of dollars.

And how crazy is it that we expect people to be able to pay for lawyers when

they're in tens of thousands of dollars of debt. And that we haven't even thought

twice about how that system might be reformed. So we need to redesign our court

system around the assumption that people are going to be pro se because that's the

reality.

Um, and, and I, I feel very strongly about that as well.

Molly McDonough: [00:14:49] Well, and I'll just add to that, to the redesign. It's,

it's more about looking at, you know, where. Solutions, um, get [00:15:00] bogged

down into the system. And a lot of it is at those earlier stages that aren't designed

well and open and open enough. And so if we kind of, if we, if the courts

themselves opened up the processes to make them less complicated, more

accessible,

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:15:15] um,

Molly McDonough: [00:15:16] automated forms, Easy to use tools, um, in multiple

languages in plain language and with navigators to help people through that

process, then, you know, it frees up the courts and lawyers to take on that high

skilled.

Um, work that ends up being disputed and that's a fraction of what we see actually

go to court. So, but yet the courts are bogged down with hearings and status

checks and these complex processes that just don't don't aren't necessary.

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:15:52] And, and I, I, I think I want to be clear, especially when

it comes to the conversation in the last few weeks, I think, and [00:16:00] my own

experience over the last three or four years running up solve is that there's a great

degree of elitist, um, and racism.

Um, and, uh, I really do feel that. Uh, part of the reason these changes haven't

taken place is because legal profession itself, um, there's this prestige and lead

TISM, um, intertwined with becoming a lawyer in America that, um, people want to

hold on to, um, and, uh, to the detriment, um, oftentimes of, uh, poor people and

black people.

Um, and Brown people in this country.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:16:35] Wow. There was a question from somebody who's

watching, uh, asking what changes should have been made to the LLT program in

Washington to make it useful for providers and to consumers. The rules in place

sounded onerous as they were. I think that point is kind of already been made that

the rules were owners, but what changes should have been made to it?

Do you

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:16:53] think. Yeah. I mean, I think number one, reducing the

entry. I think there's a certain number of credit hours and [00:17:00] work hours

that nobody in their right mind, if they care about their own feeding, their own

family would have a failed. So that's number one. Um, uh, in my mind, and then

number two is, uh, in my understanding is that it limited it.

So only one area of the law. I think it was only family law and I'm opening it up

because you always need to think from a, I mean, a market perspective, like what

is going to make this attractive for the helpers as well. Um, and, uh, because

they're going to need to feed their own family. So I don't think their approach is

pragmatic enough.

Yeah, that

Joe Patrice: [00:17:33] strikes me. One of the, one of the problems with limiting it

to one area of law is, and this is a problem. I have a lot of times when in the media

business too, when people want to do a new thing, uh, the answer is not do a lower

scale version of what you want, but instead to build a part of the thing you want,

uh, the, the difference between I want to build a luxury car.

Instead of starting with a bad car, you start with why don't we get in [00:18:00] the

actual business, which doesn't really give you enough to build on or to see whether

or not you're succeeding. And when they decided to just be limited in practice

area, like that means you don't get the opportunity to get people coming in from

different vectors.

You only people who are interested in that one thing. And that means it's a small

enough sample. It's always kind of destined to not get the results.

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:18:23] Right. And that's, I mean, uh, and that's sort of, one of

my fears in Utah is, uh, just like a small population. Um, there's a risk of there

being an innovative solution, but just the fact that it's in a state and it's in a small

state.

I mean, that's one of the big problems with, uh, legal tech innovation in America. I

mean, B2C. Consumer legal tech, which is specifically my field. And one that I care

deeply about. I mean, one of the reasons is there's so many different state by state

differences and all of a sudden when there's these UPL differences that are stateby-

state and you subject yourself to regulators in every state, I mean, what

entrepreneur in their right mind, who's trying to make a big impact on the world is

going to [00:19:00] choose consumer legal tech as the, as the place.

Um, so, uh, uh, I, I see just, uh, unless States are working together, moving

forward, there's going to be problems in attracting entrepreneurial solutions.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:19:13] And ironically, there were proposals pending in

Washington to expand, uh, the triple LT program into other practice areas. It was

housing and maybe consumer data.

There was one other one, I forget what it was. Um, and, uh, that also probably

would have helped address. The budget issue. Cause part of the issue here was just

the cost of running the program and the more practice areas you're in, the more

people you can attract to the participating in the program and the less, the less

strain on the budget you would have.

So well, anybody have any other questions for Ron before we let him

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:19:50] go? Well, I

Bob Ambrogi: [00:19:53] really appreciate your taking the time this morning to be

with us and share your share your thoughts on this was a really great article, really

provocative. I'm [00:20:00] glad I was really like seeing it sort of reframe the UPL

issue in a way as a, as a racial justice issue, because it's so often an access to

justice issue, which is not, they're not separate things, but it's a different way to

think about it and look at it.

I thought that was

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:20:14] great. Two last question. Um, uh, one part of the

article was about the lack of, um, black and Brown people in the legal profession.

And I like to pose the sides for him. I mean, do you think our system would exist

this way? If there were, um, uh, uh, fewer white people and more black and Brown

people from specifically socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.

I mean, I have no doubt. We'd have a different system today. If the legal

professional is more diverse in that there lower barrier to entries to the legal

industry. Um, and then the, the second thing is, um, uh, and this year helped me

frame it for myself. Uh, if I have a mom who's been sued by a debt collector, I need

somebody to represent her in court.

My more likely to want her to [00:21:00] be helped by somebody who's done

specific training module for debt collection lawsuits. Um, and is it social worker by

training or am I going to want her to be, um, represented by a, uh, uh, a lawyer

who just passed the bar and it has no specific trainings Googling around to learn

about debt collection, um, and, uh, I think for me that just helps me grasp that

there is an alternative to our current system.

Um, we just need to find it and fight for it. So thank you so much, everyone.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:21:35] Thanks. You can either leave or if you want, I can change

your role to an attending. You it'll watch the rest of it, but, uh, thank you so much.

Because he didn't want to watch the rest of us were so fascinating. Um, so, well,

alright. So, uh, we, you know, usually, [00:22:00] usually we, we talk in advance

about some of the stories that we want to, uh, Throw around here on the round

table. We haven't really done that this week, so we can surprise each other a little

bit, but a free for all.

But, uh, since Victoria is a new to our panel, let's uh, sure. I give you the honors of,

uh, kicking off with, uh, something that was something in the news that struck you

this week. What were you looking at?

Victoria Hudgins: [00:22:25] Yeah, definitely this week at ALM, which is the parent

company definitely been covering, um, just how the legal industry is in, in a

bubble or in a vacuum, like the protests going on in United States and

internationally, and how law firms are adjusting and responding to it.

And it's been kind of interesting to hear some black lawyers provide like how they

responded

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:22:50] to

Victoria Hudgins: [00:22:51] law from seeing how they. Want to promote diversity

and inclusion. And an article that I wrote this week looked into mostly. [00:23:00]

So, uh, practitioners and lawyers are small law firms that decided to use social

media.

Twitter

Nicole Black: [00:23:08] or Facebook

Victoria Hudgins: [00:23:09] to post that they would provide pro bono services to

peaceful protesters that were arrested. And a lot of their tweets and posts post

went viral and it's, and I talked to them about, what's kind of been the impact of

that. And mostly they said that they received positive insights or positive feedback

from people and a few clients and also kind of like ugly backlash.

And I thought it was interesting and everyone was just kind of. They would say

usually that was a misconception of who they were providing services for. And some

people were just saying like, Hey, you're providing services to looters or bad guys

or something like that. And I thought it was interesting

Caroline Hill: [00:23:47] just talking to the lawyers

Victoria Hudgins: [00:23:49] about like balancing their workload and why they

decided to offer the services and put that out there through social media and

everyone pretty much, even if they had a little bit of [00:24:00] backlash,

everyone seems.

They seem like they still wanted to continue to do the work. And I thought it was

kind of interesting. You see, in a big large law firms kind of saying like, Oh, we'll

put more money towards matters and initiatives. And these lawyers taking it out of

their time to like provide pro bono services. That's kind of interesting to see

Caroline Hill: [00:24:22] initial response.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:24:24] Yeah, I think that's really interesting. It's I mean, it was

it's, it's always interesting to see how loft, how social media can be used by lawyers

in that way. I was thinking back as you were talking to the early days of the Trump

administration, when, when there was a first wave of immigration crackdown and,

uh, Twitter became a, uh, a very powerful tool for connecting lawyers and others

who were trying to help out, uh, around that.

And I don't think there was the backlash at that time. It's interesting. Or maybe

there was, maybe I was just tuned out to it, but it seemed to be much, [00:25:00]

much more. Yeah. Sort of just generally well received as a vehicle for connecting

lawyers and getting them to the front lines to be able to help people.

Victoria Hudgins: [00:25:10] Yeah, I did kind of notice that with the large law

firms, um, it definitely did make announcements to their staff and lawyers about

what's going on and you know, we're going to promote the racy initiatives. I know, I

think it was one of the larger law firms. I can't remember the name, but he said he

wants to put together like a consortium of big law and legal service providers to

provide like pro bono services.

But I thought it was interesting that it was the lawyers in the small firms, regional

firms that decided like, Hey, I'm actually going to put my resources towards helping

people that are, that were peaceful protesters that were arrested in their area. So

that it was interesting.

Nicole Black: [00:25:51] Well, it's funny that, Oh,

well, it's funny that you leave. I just think it's funny that you even mentioned that

[00:26:00] because I just got an email this morning from. I'm a lawyer in Western

New York and Buffalo, which is an hour West of me. I'm in response to my above

the law article, which I wanted to talk about later. But that was, it was about, um,

information for protesters to help them protest and preserve the rights.

And he was letting me know that he records, he represented what was willing to

represent people, protesters for free. And, um, so I shared that. I want to.

Rochester, New York rallies page where I share information about all the rallies.

And so I posted that on there so that the people that get arrested will know, but it

was, it's funny.

They mentioned that cause I there's someone right in my area, that's doing that.

They wanted to make sure that I knew about it as a journalists so that I could share

the news. So it's so interesting to see. Mmm. It's great to see lawyers willing to use

their skills in this way, pro bono to help, you know, move this effort along and

yeah.

Support it. So at the end, I think it's great that you've highlighted that in your story

too, because that's, it's an important way that lawyers can make a difference.

[00:27:00] Caroline Hill: [00:26:59] So, I think so what I was going to say, so it

seems like, I think we said last week that anything's better than silence. And a lot

of law firms have been making statements and talking about racial diversity, which

is good, but, and then they're talking about pro bono and don't and giving more

money to organizations, but we're just wondering what you've seen in terms of,

um, making commitments.

So you did a really interesting survey of the top 50, or maybe that was, that was

the UK. Oh, I'm of note a competitor or where I showed that the statistically, the

top funds in terms of racial diversity have less than 5% of people of color, um,

within the firm. And I was just wondering if you've seen much into defense

committee to metrics for themselves and their tons of diversity metrics.

And then I've started to put you on the spot, but this is something that I'm rushing

right now. Um, and just looking at. Or whether that's very well to say about we're

going to do more pro bono work, but actually I fell it. They're not [00:28:00]

turning the microscope on themselves and not forgiving. Right. We really need to

make some serious commitments right now.

No, because I don't think it's enough personally, just to donate more. I think they

need to really start to make sense. And we talked about this last week in, in, in the

panel, um, about how the need short term and long term veterans, and I'm really

struggling to find any measure metrics when it comes to racial diversity.

Is that, am I just missing it?

Victoria Hudgins: [00:28:22] Yeah, that is something like when I first saw it, like

the roundups of responses that law firms were making, um, they weren't, and I can

understand why they may be don't. There may be hopefully putting together the

plans of like how they're going to be facing inward in their firms.

And like the diversity issue is, um, in their firms and kind of like black lawyers

coming into the firm and feeling isolated and, um, leaving the friends because they

feel like it's, um, There is no way for them to be promoted and to be really a part

of the firm. Um, I really haven't seen that yet. My hope would be that they would

just say, we're not just going to write a [00:29:00] check and say like, Oh, we have

a diversity officer and not arm them with, um, actually keep keeping people

accountable, the managing management level.

Um, I think that's something that needs to happen. And I think hopefully it isn't just

getting. It doesn't just get lost in kind of like, Oh, this is a police brutality issue.

It's

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:29:18] more of an instructional

Victoria Hudgins: [00:29:19] racism issue. And that includes working environments

and law firms, like a lot of, um, job industries.

Haven't been the most, um, welcoming for diverse talent. And I think that's

something that law firms hopefully will start to say, okay, we need to be more

concrete on what we're going to do and what our steps are. So I'm starting to see

it. I think I saw a local firm in Philadelphia. They, I think hired a chief diversity

officer.

So hopefully that's something that you see more of and they're actually able to

implement concrete steps to make black lawyers more, feel [00:30:00] more

encouraged and welcomed and feel like they can build their book of business and

felt like it's not a dead end. Just being an associate in big or mid sized law.

Nicole Black: [00:30:08] Well, Victoria, one thing, one thing that I've noticed that a

lot of the, um, protests I've gone to is this. It's not just fill the quotas, but it's put

black people in positions of power on the, on the firms that make the decisions or

on the committees that make the decisions in the firms and provide them with

promotion paths that don't just, um, so they're not just stuck at the bottom.

Do you, are you aware of any firms that have actually. I mean, I'm guessing the

answer is no, but I wish it was not, no, but I've actually provided, um,

commitments to do that rather than just quotas or create diversity committees.

Victoria Hudgins: [00:30:47] I haven't seen that yet. My colleagues, maybe on the

business of law, they might have a little bit closer on that topic.

But, um, I know, um, a few months ago when, um, I saw an article, I believe on the

American lawyer [00:31:00] where they were talking about with COVID-19 and the

recession could diversity, um, strides that law firms, some law firms were making.

Could that go away when budgets are starting to tighten and. I read that some of

the chief diversity officers in the few friends, they said, no, because you know, of

course, diversity dips after the great recession, but we think they have more

concrete plans.

So I think it's still up in the air of what big law will do and kind of like turning the

mirror on themselves and saying like, okay, this is an issue that we have. And it's

something maybe that they need to look into, like the law schools that they're

recruiting from. Um, making sure when they have like these mentorship programs,

is it really doing anything?

Are they making sure that they're putting their black associates in front of clients

and building their book of business? So I think it's hopefully something going on. I

haven't read about it yet, but hopefully.

Caroline Hill: [00:31:54] Sorry. Go ahead.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:31:55] Go ahead.

Caroline Hill: [00:31:56] There's interesting stuff coming from clients. I think some

of the pressure's going to come, so obviously [00:32:00] we've talked about it.

There's been some stuff about Intel. So Intel now said that by 2021 going that way

with that rule. But so, so it might be 22. I think it, I think it's really wrong, but

anyway, they, they, they, and they've given a concrete divest that they expect to

see this, this percentage of women and this was entered, um, people of color or,

um, Did they get this thing?

I think you talk about if they want it to

Um, and I think that's the right way forward, but I think that the orphans just not

doing. And often they need pressure from the people who pay the bills. And I think

that Microsoft really quite impressive program where they have several metrics

within the account in terms of the people that were working on a, not on a matter.

And they grade the grade, the law firms follow these metrics, and then they've

made this. And I think that that more clients should be doing that because actually

that's where the law firms will really start to take [00:33:00] notice. They're not

doing it themselves. I think the clients have to drive. Drive it forward.

And obviously some of them are, but I think that needs to be something that there's

much more collaboration. I'd quite like to see some kind of group where there's a

way of gender, maybe this exists and that kind of collaboration when people who

pool their ideas and pool that I think this was a strength in numbers, aspect of this

as

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:33:23] well.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:33:24] Yeah, I'm going to, I'm going to move on to the next one

only cause I know, but both Molly and Nikki have other other programs to get to

after, after this is done by did it just want to point out I just dropped a link, uh,

uh, of an article that was on Bloomberg law this week that looked at some of the

statistics around diversity in the.

If I should pulling from a us Bureau of labor statistics data and a few other sources,

but, you know, it's, it's pretty much as, as bad as you would think. I mean, it's, uh,

it says 80% of those in legal occupations, which is a pretty big term, uh, are

[00:34:00] white and, uh, 10.6% are black and, um, Asians are 8.2% and then it has

some other statistics from some other sources as well.

So, um, Molly. I know you have to get off early and I wondered if you want to, uh,

be next up and talk about what, uh, what was in your mind this week on your

mind?

Molly McDonough: [00:34:20] Sure, sure. So I'm offline, we've talked a little bit

about this. I, the university of Pennsylvania, they're actionable intelligence for

social policy program, uh, released a new toolkit for this is new for me.

Um, centering equity. Um, I I'm big into, I understand putting a, um, equity and

diversity in context, uh, and racial, um, in terms of data. Um, but their, their focus

in this report is on centering, uh, which is really based on understanding where the

data, how the [00:35:00] data is collected and how bias is worked into the data

collection at its root.

Um, And so I thought it was really one of the things I like about it. Um, they

haven't promoted it much because it came out right in the middle of all the, um,

uh, demonstrations and protests. Um, it takes a really strong stand on race. And I

thought that was, I thought that's important. I thought it actually is more timely.

Now this isn't in response to the demonstrations they've been working on this

report for two years. Um, and one of the reasons I think it's important now is that

because of the pandemic, we've seen so many organizations, especially government

entities in courts, I'm starting to really very quickly implement technology solutions

and data-driven solutions.

And this is at a critical time to take a look at when you're using data to drive

decision making that it. Uh, [00:36:00] is, is, um, that you understand where the

biases are. It's not that it can't be useful, but you have to make sure that you

understand and as they put it center your data, um, so that you're not using it in

ways that are punitive or, um, Or lead to unequal treatment and unequal

distribution of benefits say, or, um, um, or in the case of law enforcement, um, you

know, penalizing African Americans and minorities because, um, because the data

has a lot of.

Uh, racist, um, um, history in how it was collected. So I just thought that was a

great, it's a, it's a really helpful, useful tool kit, really long with a cross section of

stakeholders from government and, uh, educational institution.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:36:57] If you happen to have the URL for that, they are the

[00:37:00] URL that was in an email that you sent around about that.

For some reason isn't working for me, I'm getting a four Oh four message when I

click on it.

Molly McDonough: [00:37:07] Yeah. I think I actually, I talked to one of the authors

yesterday and I think they same for me. They took it down briefly because they

found a

Bob Ambrogi: [00:37:15] typo. So

Joe Patrice: [00:37:21] did that. We'd never get anything done.

Molly McDonough: [00:37:30] It is a PDF.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:37:50] Nikki. I know you also have to go do a three hour, three

hours of, uh, speaking this afternoon. So, uh, what we'll, let's warm up your, uh,

[00:38:00] Nicole Black: [00:38:03] Um, well, what I really been focused on a lot

is, and I wrote about this from my above the law column this week is the

intersection of law and technology in terms of surveillance. And they use that law,

uh, law enforcement, um, the way law enforcement is using technology at the

protests and the different methods.

And, um, Tools that they're using to surveil protestors to, um, gather information

to arrest protestors and also alleged looters. Um, and it's amazing the amount of,

um, Tools that they're using, you know, there's the physical tools, there's the

drones. There are those poles where they, when I organized the post inauguration

rally in downtown Rochester, at that point in 2016, they had these polls where they

had cameras on top of them.

So rather than having law enforcement right there at our protest, there are one or

two officers, but they had those poles to make sure nothing went [00:39:00] South.

Um, With cameras on them now that they have drones. So when I was at a black

lives matter rally last weekend, there were a number of drones and one of them

came down very low.

Once we all settled in one spot, um, and really annoyed a lot of the protesters,

cause it was pretty low and invasive, but. In addition to those, they're also using,

you know, license plate readers. They're using social media to try and track

protesters and get information they're using,

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:39:26] um,

Nicole Black: [00:39:27] uh, other sorts of, um, data from cell phones that they

collect, um, because at some sort of tool I wrote about it on.

Uh, the above the law posted the idea was to give protesters that I give the tools

that law enforcement is using how to lock down their phones. That's another thing

that's really important is learning how to secure your data, your information, how

to stop, um, sending information, geolocation data from your phones that might

help law enforcement.

Um, and, and my perspective is more help them unlawfully, extra, you know, uh,

Unlawfully, [00:40:00] um, restrict the right to protest. That to me is the most

important thing, you know, they're restricting the right to protest, it's our

constitutional right. And so I think it's important to secure your data so that they

don't get information unlawfully from you.

It can be used against the protesters. And so I provided that information, um, But I,

if they, you know, I think it's all this surveillance they're doing in the militarizing of

the police is it's unbelievable to attack people that are peacefully protesting about

a really important issue. And so the other thing I just wanted to mention was, um, I

linked to a video.

Um, we have a lawyer in Rochester who represents protesters and I link to a video

that we'd recorded right after the election, where he provided information to

protesters about your rights when you protest and how to protest lawfully, or at

least understand what that means and understand when you're crossing that line

and make cross that line knowingly.

And, um, I also linked to, uh, I just had a birthday and I, um, [00:41:00] For the

first time I ever did a fundraiser for the bail project, which, um, it's an intense too

Mmm. For, you know, address the. Biased use of bail in the criminal justice system

by bailing people out. And so my raised almost $3,000, I just wanted to throw this

pitch in there.

I'm I'm like 175 off for my $3,000 goal. It was initially a thousand, but I raised that

in about four hours. So I pushed it up to 3000, but I'm still a little bit short of that.

So there's a link to that fundraiser, if you want to. Donate to it. It goes right to the

bell project. I'm just the go between through Facebook.

But I just, I just think it's super interesting. All the tools that the police are using.

To prevent people from exercising their first amendment, right. To protest. And it's

a little offensive.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:41:46] And also to go back to what Victoria was talking about a

little bit, there was a story this week, this suggested they're also watching your

Twitter accounts.

So there was a story out of Portland, Maine, where somebody had posted on Twitter

about sort of in favor of defunding the police. And [00:42:00] next thing he knew

the police were showing up at his door with an arrest warrant over some

misdemeanor. Graffiti charge or something. And they, some of the, some of what

they said to him suggested that they had in fact been aware of what he'd been

posting on Twitter.

So who knows?

Nicole Black: [00:42:16] Oh, the other really important aspect of that is which I

hadn't thought about that at the first protest they went through for the second

protest, I was aware of it as blurring faces out of the photos you take to show on

social media. Oh see you next week. Um, but, uh, The signal offers a tool to do

that, the signal messaging app

Bob Ambrogi: [00:42:38] so that you can,

Nicole Black: [00:42:38] before you post a social media, blur, faces out of that.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:42:42] Yeah,

Caroline Hill: [00:42:43] thank you. Did you say you've posted a link to your

hundreds

Nicole Black: [00:42:45] and I can't see it on

Caroline Hill: [00:42:46] that. You're going to place it in the chat.

Nicole Black: [00:42:48] Oh,

Caroline Hill: [00:42:49] I'll do

Nicole Black: [00:42:51] I'll link to above the law. Um, and at the very end I'll link

to my fundraiser too. I'll link to the fundraiser and above [00:43:00] the lot in, um,

the

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:43:02] momentary.

Joe Patrice: [00:43:03] Well, you know, w while, while she's working on that, I'll,

uh, share my favorite.

Um, the government is monitoring your Twitter story. Uh, I don't know if people

saw this, but a, I believe it, I believe a journalist, uh, tweeted something out

saying if I mysteriously disappear, this is why. Um, and what he had done is reached

out to the official CIA account saying that he had information on the

communication.

Devices that Antifa uses to keep in contact with each other, uh, and they needed to

follow him so he could DM them. Uh, the CIA official account immediately DL

followed him, uh, and asked for the stuff over direct message. And he responded,

yes, they are utilizing some sort of technology called up dog and they responded

with what's up dog.

He said nothing. What's up with you to the official CIA account. Uh, He posted it all

on Twitter at that, I [00:44:00] don't use the word hero very often, but

Bob Ambrogi: [00:44:04] that's good. That's good. You got any other stories this

week, Joel, that you want to talk about?

Joe Patrice: [00:44:09] I mean, there's been a lot of random stuff like that. Uh, we

have dealt with more, uh, bar exams, forcing applicants to sign with legal waivers,

uh, that they, uh, won't hold them responsible when they all get COVID after.

Packing into a convention center in July. Um, so that's a thing we've gotten more

statements from law firms, uh, as we were talking about earlier, all these, uh,

social media statements, which, uh, kind of to go on to that, uh, one of the trends

that we're noticing of those statements is that it's going to spark some view of what

on Twitter is being called.

Like the hashtag this, you. Backlash of people who have had negative experiences

with those firms [00:45:00] go going really? Wait, where was this? All this love of

racial justice. When I got treated the way I did and that that's developing. And it's .

It's going to be an inflection point. I think for a lot of the firms, because I feel,

especially with issues like this, that a lot of firms and by firms, I'm just going to

generally say white people have a sense that a sense that these issues don't exist

on a spectrum.

They feel as though if I've said I'm for racial justice, that's the end of the inquiry

for me. Uh, I I've done it. I'm, you know, there's, can't be anything else I can do.

Better than to say that. And I think it's going to, and when they're called out for

other stuff, they tend to go insular and defensive and lash out at the idea that

something's wrong.

And I think this is the next inflection point that these firms are going to face is

when they, after these statements of support, [00:46:00] they get flagged for

various. Microaggressions. And so on that they've done over the years, are they

going to become defensive or are they going to remain open to that conversation

about what they can do better?

Uh, and so that's the other friends that we've been following throughout the week?

Um, yeah, we've been all over the place this week.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:46:21] Yeah.

Joe Patrice: [00:46:23] Yeah, but those are the two that are kind of relevant to

this conversation. I don't think anybody cares about my Michael Flynn coverage.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:46:31] Somebody does,

Joe Patrice: [00:46:32] right. It has fewer legal tech angles to it.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:46:37] Yeah.

Any comments,

Joe Patrice: [00:46:41] did you follow that? No, I have an audience now. Uh, he

was banned from using his computer because he couldn't have anything that

connected to the internet and the government filed this really bitchy, uh, Motion

saying, Oh, it looks like he participated in the drafting of some of the [00:47:00]

filings in his own defense.

That means he must have had a computer. Uh, we need him like, yeah. And they

tried to get an inquest going and the judge was just like, give him a computer with

software on it. So he can't go on the internet, just get this out of my face. But, uh,

that, that was a tech tech story of the week. That's interesting.

Yeah.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:47:20] Alright. Well, how about Caroline? How about you? What

do you got this week?

Caroline Hill: [00:47:22] Um, yeah, so we'll catch him. He said, so, um, if I might

just do a little short one again about zoom, about new vulnerabilities that have

been identified and what was more interesting? I think the, my story, which was

just. The King yet, something that Cisco, um, found, wrote about, um, sorts of web

security vulnerability with some of the feedback that I got after I got quite a lot of

people coming back to me saying, what have you got against you?

Right. And someone's, it's almost like saying you go to agenda to try to promote

teams or whatever. And I was like, actually, what? That's interesting. Cause you

have to listen, you know, perhaps, perhaps, and they will [00:48:00] say, well,

look, you know, It's quite a few people actually have come back to me and said, I

don't think there's enough positive coverage and the amazing stuff.

We've always talked quite a bit about in a few weeks until we come up

disproportionately, not often, but yeah. Um, I think that's an interesting thing that

there's, um, the, the reaction was more of interest to me that then I can really say,

we really think that this is saving our life. You know, what, if you can sit on, like I

can just fix, you know, I know she mentioned that the thing that, the thing thing

about the article was that, um, the whole point of the article was that you need.

um, it's doing it's in patches. Um, that it's, you can't just rely on that, that you

need to make sure you're using the latest version of the software. And there's some

assumptions that use with the students facing stuff, but actually you need to make

sure you've got the legend or else or else the vendors, or you might protect without

saying, but, um, perhaps the obvious to [00:49:00] everybody, um, does a new app.

To help people get back to the office, which is like the kind of space, um, design,

um, out from slip platelets, which is really interesting. Um, they can kind of create

zones or different tools and work out who's in who's out. And then you go get in,

um, Without, without, you know, you see sort of scan, scan a QR code to get in,

and a lot of interest in that from Norfolk too.

Although some people say they're going to continue to work from home, obviously

not really working out how the hell they, they say meaningful social distancing and

who say. Monitoring in terms of if somebody gets sick. So then they'll have, they're

now into the weeds of rethinking about how they're actually going to achieve this

movement, which is interesting.

And I keep them taking up new jobs, which is quite an interesting time. And to me,

you know, I think the thing that we're kind of getting into that knocked down it's

normal. It feels like [00:50:00] there's a bit more movement in the jobs market.

People, obviously there's. But obviously I'm not suggesting that things like that, but

actually there's not a movement you're agreeing,

which is great. And not necessarily all the karaoke crew will be a fan of that. Um,

yeah, no, it was great to see, you know, it's nice to see positive, you know, it's

been. It's supposed to be like, it's been smarty down to moose in the UK trading.

McKenna's left galleys Kennedy. Um, um, yeah, a nice, consistent, and it's been

this, but it's been, at least felt like quite a normal week.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:50:44] Yeah. Yeah. I thought the, uh, one, uh, piece of news this

week that kind of, uh, w was more consistent with the times, but something we all

saw coming was was that a. Ulta con will in fact be virtual. I mean, I think we all

knew that was [00:51:00] going to happen, uh, but they, they made it official this

week, um, and, uh, promising, uh, bigger, even better all virtual environment.

Um, One of the big conferences of the fall that we haven't yet heard from officially

on that is, is the Clio con conference. Uh, which I know Nikki is one of your favorite

conferences to go to.

But, um, I was, uh, I was on a webinar with Joshua Lennon from Cleo this week.

And, uh, He did say there's going to be news coming very soon about the state of

the Clio con conference. So I'm guessing we're going to hear shortly that they're

going to decide to have that be virtual as well. But what I'm seeing actually in, in,

uh, in Europe, uh, that some conferences are now trying to.

Start back up as physical conferences for the fall. There's one in Prague in

September that I was scheduled to speak at, I guess, uh, I don't know whether I

could get there, but, [00:52:00] um, they're, they're gonna make a go for doing a

live physical conference. So

Nicole Black: [00:52:06] I was just talking to someone else about this one.

Was you personally be comfortable going to a conference like that? I

Caroline Hill: [00:52:16] mean,

Nicole Black: [00:52:16] granted it's fluid, right? Like you never know what it's

going to be like, but I feel like I'm not there anytime soon. I don't know. I mean, I'm

wondering about like legal tech and tech show next year. Like I'm wondering if

those are going to go forward.

What do you guys think?

Joe Patrice: [00:52:30] So I'll say this, and obviously you don't know, uh, what,

what all's going on. But I have been a few people have told me that, uh, who work

in government adjacent jobs, uh, that CDC officials are briefing them, that they

should plan on February being all clear, um, that they believe they will do that.

The CDC for what it's worth reportedly is saying to. Uh, officials that they

[00:53:00] expect vaccine distribution to begin in December and to be all clear in

February. So that's, that's what the CDC is telling universities and style. So who

knows whether that's true, obviously they can be wrong. Um, and I'm, you know,

that's just reportedly what I'm hearing from you and from the academic sector, but

yeah.

Yeah.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:53:22] I went to a restaurant last night for the first time in three

months or something, so, and it was had to sit outside and it was cold as hell.

Cause it was raining and that a roof over us, but it was the. Yeah,

Caroline Hill: [00:53:34] that's amazing.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:53:36] Yeah, just this week they opened some restaurants for

only outdoor outdoor seating in Massachusetts.

So

Joe Patrice: [00:53:42] we are outdoor seating. We're outdoor seating for now, but

I think we're scheduled my area's scheduled to go indoor like next week. I think.

Yeah.

Nicole Black: [00:53:53] So today

Joe Patrice: [00:53:55] you guys are today,

Caroline Hill: [00:53:56] which ally? I think they've said not til sometime in July

[00:54:00] that pop, pop, pop. What did you make of filters you found? I mean, I

thought it was interesting.

I'm so fascinated to see how is it that they've obviously talked about the social

events online and creating. They're trying to try to emulate some of the. Stuff that

we know Superman about ultra tends to the network, the social stuff. I'm just going

to already, I can't wait to see how they do it, you know, but some of the stuff that

they were talking about, um, just the drinks, the taste, I think they would

mentioned the not tasting to them.

I might be, or maybe I met that up. It's like all these kind of social things. I'm not

how the hell are we going to achieve that online? I hope I hope that we can,

because everyone's going to be really sad and I'll just go ahead. But.

Nicole Black: [00:54:44] Yeah, I'll talk to him about this another week.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:54:51] The ones I've been to, it's been the whole networking part

of it is kind of a, been a fail so far. Uh, the presentations are good and it's nice that

[00:55:00] you're able to open it up to a lot more people who wouldn't be able to

attend the physical conference, but as, as a networking event, it's it ain't the

same.

I got to say.

Caroline Hill: [00:55:08] And it's great. I mean, that's, what's so fascinating is I

haven't seen with other conferences that they have, but I actually miss what you're

saying about TA, which we still didn't really talk about, which is when you have

your avatar platform. So I haven't yet

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:55:22] played around with, but

Bob Ambrogi: [00:55:24] we didn't get to wish we had a question on Twitter about.

What is the preferred way for companies to present a potential story or get a new

product solution covered. And I guess in other words, how do you like people to

pitch stories to you is basically the question, but we are running, we are our guy

going on an hour here, and I think we need to call it quits.

So maybe we can make that top of list for next week and give Jason an answer to

his question that he posted on Twitter. But

Rohan Pavuluri: [00:55:51] yeah.

Caroline Hill: [00:55:53] Sounds good.

Bob Ambrogi: [00:55:57] Alright. Well, thanks. Thanks everybody for participating

again. [00:56:00] Thanks everybody in the audience for listening and we'll be back

next Friday at a time to be determined.