alt.legal: Law Schools Can, Should, And Must Teach Innovation

How can we help people and contribute to something bigger than what’s right in front of us? Professor Dan Linna may have the answer.

Daniel Linna

Oh, you know Dan Linna. I’ve written about him before. Others have written about him before. Formerly an equity partner at Honigman, Linna is a Professor of Law in Residence at Michigan State and Director of LegalRnD – The Center for Legal Services Innovation. His last project was launching an index of law firms engaged in innovation initiatives, which was revealing and, in the words of the eminent Bill Henderson (who Joe Borstein covered in the last alt.legal post), “Linna and his students have moved the state of the art from zero to one.”

We need more work like this, a lot of it. To invoke Eric Ries of The Lean Startup fame, if you think of the legal innovation movement itself as a minimal viable product, a primary principle of lean innovation is the measuring and learning, not just the building.

Earlier this month, Linna released another index, this time for law schools. We got a chance to catch up about it, and he gave me some ideas to chew on.

Ed Sohn: In a nutshell, what is the law school innovation index?  How does it work?

Professor Dan Linna, Jr.: With the Legal Services Innovation Index project overall, I’ve tried to answer Jim Sandman’s call to accelerate legal-service delivery innovation and technology adoption across the legal industry. The overall mission is to increase access to legal services, because it’s the right thing to do, and because the current disenfranchisement of so many threatens the rule of law and democracy.

Beyond the fundamental goal of increasing access to legal services, globalization and the rapid advancement of technology present many challenges for society. Lawyers need to innovate and adopt technology to help address those challenges.

Sponsored

The Law School Innovation Index measures the extent to which law schools have incorporated legal-service delivery innovation and technology disciplines into their curriculum. This prototype includes 38 law schools that have previously been identified as innovative with respect to teaching law students about legal service delivery innovation and technology. The index emphasizes the need for law schools to teach legal-service delivery innovation and technology disciplines, while also identifying “law and” classes as valuable additions to the legal-service delivery curriculum.

ES:  Let’s talk first about that stated vision. According to the website, the vision is “all people everywhere having 100% access to the law and to legal services.” Is that a bit grandiose? Isn’t there an inherent curve to access to the law, much like there is to the markets, healthcare, and education? Why is this part of the vision for this index?

DL: I believe that we need a shared mission and vision. Why are we part of this profession? How can we help people and contribute to something bigger than what’s right in front of us?

Too many legal innovation discussions get stuck talking about efficiency. But we can improve quality and outcomes. We can prevent problems and improve the user experience. We can expand access at all levels and help preserve and expand the rule of law! We can contribute to multidisciplinary teams solving “wicked” problems. We must innovate and think big, especially in law school.

ES: No question we should be expanding access and the rule of law.

Sponsored

DL: Everyone needs to get behind solving the “access to legal services” problem. We have this stench, this terrible problem, where approximately 80% of people in the U.S. lack access to civil legal services, not to mention the myriad of problems with our criminal justice system and public defense.

A huge portion of our citizens are disconnected from the law. How is that sustainable for us as a society?

ES: Let’s get deeper into this project. There are over 200 law schools in the U.S., but I only see 38 on this list. That’s a little sad, isn’t it? What does this tell us about the state of innovation-focused activity at law schools across the country?

DL: I need to be clear about the methodology. The 38 schools are the “usual suspects” that have previously been identified in various sources. A few additional schools have submitted information through the form on the site. We will have added those that meet the criteria for inclusion in the prototype by the time this article runs.

When it comes to innovation, there’s a lot of vanity press out there. Just because someone asserts that a law school or law firm is innovative doesn’t tell us much. For instance, Michigan State makes most of the “innovator” lists, so in that sense I shouldn’t complain. But Michigan State is left off some of the lists.

ES: That’s insane to me. It is well known that your program at MSU is helping lead the way on this.

DL: It proves the point: we need to describe and measure legal industry innovation so that we can study it, learn, and improve. This index employs a methodology. I’ve sought and received feedback, and I’m working to improve the methodology.

Schools have been called innovative for a wide range of activities. Some have built curricula around legal-service delivery innovation and technology disciplines. Others are called innovative because they offer classes about the law of technology, which is great, but it doesn’t address the need for improvements in the delivery of legal services.

ES: Do interdisciplinary programs count?

DL: Absolutely. But which bucket does it fall into? If you tell students to take engineering courses because they’ll be better patent lawyers, that’s great, but that sounds like it falls into the “law and” technology category.

Yes, lawyers should work with technologists to learn and shape the law of technology. That’s incredibly important. But we also need law students working with engineers, product managers, behavioral scientists, and other scientists to improve the delivery of legal services.

I’ve been meeting with Jeff Liker and Mike Rother, professors at the University of Michigan Engineering College. Jeff wrote The Toyota Way and Mike wrote Toyota Kata. They’re helping me incorporate lean thinking, the improvement kata, and organizational excellence into the legal innovation class that I’m teaching at Michigan Law next semester. I’m excited because this is a natural continuation of my work with Jim Manley, who has lectured about lean thinking and organizational excellence at MSU Law.

ES: What’s your recommendation for law schools trying to do more?

DL: First, listen to your customers. This came up during a recent Thomson Reuters panel. Law schools should ask customers — prospective students, current students, alumni, and employers — how they can better prepare students for long-term career success. A bedrock principle of lean thinking is that the customers define value. I hope that customers use this information to provide feedback to law schools about what they value.

Prospective students should consult this index, but keep in mind that it’s an initial, incomplete prototype. Don’t write off schools not listed here and do not treat this prototype as a ranking. But ask every school, “What are you doing to prepare me for the future of legal practice?” Likewise, alumni and employers should provide feedback to law schools.

ES: For some of these schools, it seems like it might be tough to add new courses out of nowhere.

DL: This isn’t all about law schools creating new courses. Some of these topics have obvious integration points into existing courses. For example, document assembly and computable contracts in Contracts. Data analytics and project management in Negotiation. Blockchain in Evidence. Cybersecurity, metadata, and the extent to which competent lawyering mandates technology knowledge and usage in Professional Responsibility.

There are also many opportunities to introduce legal-service delivery disciplines through co-curricular activities. At Michigan State, we’ve done this with field work, directed study projects, speakers, weekly meetings, workshops, hackathons, students attending conferences, and more. We’ve done programs open to the public and I’ve spoken at many events, including at other law schools. Law schools can call Ed Sohn or Joe Borstein, or a host of others, who would love to talk to students about the evolving legal landscape.

One final point: not every law school should look the same. There is a lot of Blue Ocean in this space and a real need for law schools to differentiate.

ES: What’s next for this project, and for you?

DL: I will review the feedback and improve the law school innovation metrics and model. Then I’d like to continue this research and expand the analysis to 200+ U.S. law schools and international law schools. Customers should use this information to make better decisions, such as where to enroll, how to direct philanthropy so that it has the greatest impact, and which graduates to hire.

As for me, at Michigan State, I’m very proud of how we’ve empowered LegalRnD students. Former Dean Joan Howarth and former Professors Dan Katz and Renee Knake started something great with ReInvent Law. LegalRnD expanded the curriculum, added co-curricular activities and field projects, and extended industry engagement and collaboration. With LegalRnD established and well positioned for long-term success, the 2017-18 academic year will be my last at Michigan State.

I recently joined CodeX – The Stanford Center for Legal Informatics as an Affiliated Faculty member. I’m beyond excited about contributing to CodeX projects and advancing my research. Also, at the University of Michigan Law School, where I’ve taught negotiation for several years, I’m teaching a Legal Technology & Innovation class beginning in January 2018.

In addition to my work at Stanford’s CodeX and the University of Michigan, I have a few other things in the works. It’s an amazing time to be working in legal innovation and technology!

ES: Dan, it’s always a pleasure. Best of luck.


Ed Sohn is VP, Product Management and Partnerships, for Thomson Reuters Legal Managed Services. After more than five years as a Biglaw litigation associate, Ed spent two years in New Delhi, India, overseeing and innovating legal process outsourcing services in litigation. Ed now focuses on delivering new e-discovery solutions with technology managed services. You can contact Ed about ediscovery, legal managed services, expat living in India, theology, chess, ST:TNG, or the Chicago Bulls at edward.sohn@thomsonreuters.com or via Twitter (@edsohn80). (The views expressed in his columns are his own and do not reflect those of his employer, Thomson Reuters.)

CRM Banner