Between July 2016 and February 2017, the federal government is consulting Canadians on planned federal accessibility legislation. The goal of the law would be to promote equality of opportunity and increase the inclusion and participation of Canadians who have disabilities or functional limitations in all areas of every day life. It is expected that the new legislation will incorporate many features from Ontario and Manitoba’s accessibility laws that would include the process or processes that the Government would use to develop the accessibility standards, as well as the areas or activities to which the standards would apply. . . . [more]

‘”The Opposite” is the 86th episode of the NBC sitcom Seinfeld,’ according to Wikipedia. It is also one of my favourite episodes because it teaches an important life lesson. Here is a clip to refresh your memory:

Today, a Canadian company backed up by tech interests and talent announced acquisition of an important Canadian legal publisher Maritime Law Book (“maritime” here does not mean admiralty law; instead, it refers to the Maritimes—the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island—presumably because that’s where the publisher originated).

Law tech startups, attention. Your exit strategy probably involves acquisition . . . [more]

Technological disruption comes at a price.

I’m not talking about the price of lost jobs, disappearing economies, or even the competitors that go under. I’m talking about the cost to the innovator themselves as they create new models and paradigms that historic regulatory structures are unprepared for.

One of the most talked about contemporary change these days is Uber (although its status as disruptive is disputed). The obvious regulatory burdens faced by the company include the anticipated clash with taxis, notable for the protests in Toronto and Montreal.

The more significant legal challenges faced by Uber is the . . . [more]

Big data and privacy was one of the topics discussed at the Canadian IT Law Association conference this week. Some of the issues worth pondering include:

• Privacy principles say one should collect only what you need, and keep only as long as needed. Big data says collect and retain as much as possible in case it is useful.
• Accuracy is a basic privacy principle – but with big data accuracy is being replaced by probability.
• A fundamental privacy notion is informed consent for the use of one’s personal information. How do you have informed consent and control for big data

At one point in time, an original meant something. Now with the proliferation of computers, cellphones, and web based platforms, we create and store most documents electronically. This new reality has redefined the value and definition of an original copy. But like most things, the court system has largely ignored this new development.

In Ontario, our courts continue to demand that the original document be filed with the court. And in doing so, has failed to justify why this is necessary in 2016.

As a relative newcomer to the profession, I ask: why does our court need original affidavits of . . . [more]

In last week’s post I talked about the Legal Trends Report, a data-driven benchmarking report based on actual billing data.

This approach an industry first, and as such the Legal Trends Report uncovers a number of interesting insights that I’ll be digging into over the next few weeks.

However, I personally found one most surprising finding of the Legal Trends Report to be the vast disparity between self-reported data and “real” data derived from real-world usage. Take, for example, utilization rate, the percentage of a lawyer’s day that ends up as being billing time. The Legal Trends Report found the . . . [more]

In the 4,000-year history of the legal profession, unbiased information sharing has never been the norm. Instead, insights have remained siloed in large institutions—or traded anecdotally among groups at networking events.

That changes with today’s release of the Legal Trends Report. The Legal Trends Report is being published by Clio, the world’s most widely-used legal practice management platform (disclosure: I am the founder and CEO of Clio). By leveraging anonymized, aggregate data from 40,000 active Clio users and over $60 billion in billing volume, the Legal Trends Report provides new insights into topics including average billing rates by state, . . . [more]

If you’re at all interested in legal technology, you’ve probably grown tired of the recent influx of fear-mongering articles about “robot lawyers” that are going to put legal professionals out of a job. This sub-genre of legal tech reporting features a lot of buzzwords. There’s “machine learning”, “NLP (natural language processing)”, “AI (artificial intelligence)”, and “predictive analytics”, to name just a few. Regrettably, a lot of these articles discuss legal technologies only in very vague terms, or sometimes don’t bother with definitions at all. And it’s very difficult to have a nuanced conversation about legal tech when it seems like . . . [more]

Google debuted new hardware on Tuesday – including new Pixel phones, and an Amazon Echo competitor called Google Home. A key thread to all this is their new Google Assistant replacement for Google Now. (Similar to Apple’s Siri and Microsoft’s Cortana.)

But the most noteworthy part is their comment that we are switching from Mobile First to AI first. Over the past few years websites and online services have increasingly needed to be mobile friendly, so people can do what they want from whatever screen happens to be in front of them. Advances in artificial intelligence are going to put . . . [more]

A private correspondent writes: “Have you ever heard of any cases on electronic chattel paper that is subsequently printed out (apparently called “papering out” in the biz) and the printed version being considered as an ‘original’?”

Views? What protections are there in law or in practice to avoid duplication of a record that should be unique, or at least have a single authoritative version?

On what basis is electronic chattel paper issued or used in Canada, if at all? UCC Article 9 makes special provision for it, and negotiable electronic records generally, but Canadian e-commerce law has not followed that, . . . [more]

Most people today are employees who drive cars and get married. Most people today deal with law only when they are fired, ticketed, or divorced. (It’s nice that the vast majority of people never interact with the criminal justice system.) So most access-to-justice issues have to do with employment, personal injury/traffic, and family law. This is because these are the main three areas of social complexity and government regulation in most people’s lives. When there is no complexity or regulation, there are few access-to-justice issues because there is no need for lawyers.

Tomorrow, most people will be freelancers (the gig . . . [more]