You’re masterful Mr President: Standards of Proof debate takes odd turn

The President of the SDT’s comments on the BSB consultation are highlighted in a story on Legal Futures today

“The SDT will remain the master of its own destiny in this debate. Its membership will do what it believes to be right in a rational, informed, evidence-based manner.

“The SDT will lead on the issue of the standard of proof applied in its proceedings on its own terms and in its own time and will not be distracted by the sometimes ill-informed rhetoric of others.

“The SDT is watching the BSB consultation with interest, recognising that the Bar’s tribunal is a smaller body than the SDT with different issues.”

Like Tony Blair saying this is not a time for soundbites, this President says that this is not a time for rhetoric. Masterful. Never mind that one might wonder how one side can be omnipotent in a debate. Or that the SDT, on current practice, may see itself as more similar to a regulator Vets than the Bar (Vets being the only major profession disciplined to a criminal standard according to the BSB consultation).

I suppose what is meant is that the SDT will decide for itself what its balance of proof should be. This is a curious position because, as I understand, the SDT has previously indicated it is bound by decisions of superior courts on this matter (decisions which Leveson LJ have indicated might need rethinking). But putting that to one side, the comment does throw up an interesting reminder of the unusual position of the SDT in the regulatory structure. It is an independent tribunal, funded by the Law Society but at arm’s length, but it is also subject to supervision by the Legal Services Board.  That supervision is more limited than for the approved regulators. The Board can only direct that the SDT take action where it has failed to perform any of its functions to an adequate standard (or at all) or to comply with any requirement imposed on it by or under this Act (per s. 179 and s. 32 of the Legal Services Act 2007).

However, the SDT is required to get certain rule changes approved by the LSB. The current rules, which are mainly procedural in nature, do not state anything about the balance of proof they apply. It is of course not very impressive that the balance of proof, something which of critical interest to lay complainants and professional respondents, is not in the rules. This must be especially true for a body that has transparency* as one of its three banner values. Yet the SDT has indicated it will be bringing forward rules and will be consulting on the standard of proof. It remains to be seen whether the standard of proof will be in the proposed rules, but even if it is, that is not enough for the LSB to insist that the SDT’s rules are updated in the way the LSB might want. If the SDT decided to stick with the current approach the LSB might decide not to approve the rules, within the constraints imposed by the LSA and public law, forcing the SDT to rethink but the game is then one of regulatory ping-pong. Mastery may not be total on either side. Unless the SDT can avoid putting the standard in rules that need approval they will have to debate the merits of their position with the LSB.

The criticism of rhetorical arguments is also an interesting piece of rhetorical diversion. What are these arguments, and who is making them?** The only argument that I have seen persistently advanced in a sound-bite way is this one: if a profession disciplines to a criminal standard then that profession is failing to discipline professional members that are ‘more likely than not’ unethical or incompetent. That doesn’t strike me as a rhetorical argument. It strikes me as a good argument that needs careful countering if it is not to be conclusive. The barrister Lucy Reed wrote an exceptional blog on this pointing to the special pleading involved in thinking that lawyer’ rights to practice are pre-eminent over the public’s right to be protected.

The SDT’s indicates it is not however up for a debate with the BSB. It’s not because the BSB is too small or has (unspecified) different issues – something it might have been helpful for the BSB to understand. The SDT curiously declines to give a view, or even helpful experiences and evidence that might assist the BSB in making up its mind. This they do on the basis that it might prejudice their handling of future cases saying it:

must have in mind that it should not make public statements (even in the context of consultation) which might give rise to a complaint at a future date from those appearing before it of predetermination and/or apparent bias. The Tribunal is able to respond to a Consultation highlighting difficulties or issues that have been encountered while sitting to determine cases. That is an appropriate function enabling the Tribunal to pass on knowledge and experience to policy makers.

It passes on no such knowledge in the Consultation. The position is difficult to understand, particularly given that it is planning to consult itself: does it plan to suspend the hearing of cases while it cogitates, so as to mitigate the risk? I am imagining the answer is no. And why, if it is impartial, does it need to say the Bar is smaller (indeed, how is that relevant to the balance issue?) and why does it feel the need to speak gnomically of different issues, without acknowledging that the issues faced will also often be very similar? That does not strike me as impartiality so much as laying the ground for special pleading.

Alternatively, is it implying that the evidence that it has or will collect, on which it will found its eventual decision, is based on its own experience only and therefore cannot be of assistance to the BSB? Importantly for the future consultation by the SDT, its experience is based on its current practices, the criminal standard, and not its alternative. How will the SDT get round the myopia of its status quo? Or will they expect other regulators to be willing to engage with them in a way they were not? It is a defensive and troubling statement with more than its fair share of rhetorical silliness. If the SDT is so concerned about asserting its neutrality, independence and ability to decide on something as important as the standard of proof, can it really do so with a membership dominated by legal members (lay members are about a third of the membership) and led by a former President of the Law Society? Getting away from ‘chaps regulating chaps’ was one of the central reasons for having the Legal Services Act. The SDT, with its idea of what constitutes independence, has issued a reminder of times past.

————————–

*If the SDT really wants to be transparent it could a) improve the drafting of its judgments and b) put those judgments online in a fully searchable way.

** I blogged my own short thoughts on the standard of proof here.

 

SCJs sing in Unison: Grayling’s high risk poker with the courts opens the tap on A2J jurisprudence

I thought it might be of interest to some of my readers to have a quick highlighting of the key points from R (on the application of UNISON) (Appellant) v Lord Chancellor (Respondent)  [2017] UKSC 51, although there will no doubt be many analyses, especially those praising this significant reversal for the Government. It was a unanimous decision. Lord Reed gave the judgment of the court.[1]

The case is about whether fees introduced for Employment Tribunal (ET) cases by the (then) coalition government were lawful. In contextualising the ET’s work Lord Reed observed they, “are designed to deal with issues which are often of modest financial value, or of no financial value at all, but are nonetheless of social importance. Their procedural rules, which include short limitation periods and generous rights of audience, reflect that intention. It is also reflected in the fact that, unlike claims in the ordinary courts, claims in ETs could until recently be presented without the payment of any fee.” From here on, for

From here on, for brevity of effort from me, I am paraphrasing and quoting from Lord Reed unless I indicate otherwise by (for example) square brackets.

The key points, I think, are:

• In order for the rights conferred to be effective, and to achieve the social benefits which Parliament intended, they must be enforceable in practice.
• The constitutional right of access to the courts is inherent in the rule of law. There is a constitutional right of access to justice traceable back to Magna Carta via Blackstone, Coke and evident in decisions on prisoners’ rights [an interesting example of how prison rights cases can shape the broader law].
• Justice is not merely a public service like any other and the provision of adjudication is not of value only to the users themselves (and those who represent them). In particular, Lord Reed emphasises the value of precedent setting in court cases but also what law and society folk would call the Shadow of the Law argument: employment relations generally, and mediation of employment disputes more specifically, are shaped by the potential to access justice.

But the value to society of the right of access to the courts is not confined to cases in which the courts decide questions of general importance. People and businesses need to know, on the one hand, that they will be able to enforce their rights if they have to do so, and, on the other hand, that if they fail to meet their obligations, there is likely to be a remedy against them. It is that knowledge which underpins everyday economic and social relations. That is so, notwithstanding that judicial enforcement of the law is not usually necessary, and notwithstanding that the resolution of disputes by other methods is often desirable. What I read from this is that the rule of law, and its limitation, must bear in mind any detriment to these positive externalities of access to justice for individuals. 

• The right of access to justice, both under domestic law and under EU law, is not restricted to the ability to bring claims which are successful. Lord Reed seems to say those with arguable claims have a right to present them for adjudication [this is a significantly more generous test than a legal aid merits test or the test that would typically be passed by cases funded under typical CFAs or insurance].
• Access to justice need not be free but it must be prompt and fair.
• Impediments to the right of access to the courts can constitute a serious hindrance even if they do not make access completely impossible. If so, they will be unlawful unless plainly authorised by statute.
• Even where a statutory power authorises an intrusion upon the right of access to the courts, it is interpreted as authorising only such a degree of intrusion as is reasonably necessary to fulfil the objective of the provision in question.
• Even so, where such a policy provides for a degree of intrusion into a constitutional right greater than is justified by the objectives the policy is intended to serve, it fails.
• Here the policy aims were as follows. Using fees to help to transfer some of the cost burden from general taxpayers to those that used the system, or caused the system to be used. And using a price mechanism to incentivise earlier settlements or to dis-incentivise unreasonable behaviour, such as pursuing weak or vexatious claims. These are legitimate aims that may lawfully restrict access to justice.
• [It is notable that there was no evidence to suggest that the policy met either aims of discouraging vexatious cases or encouraging settlement and whilst it did raise some revenue in considering what level the fees should be set at there was no consideration by the then Lord Chancellor of what the optimal level of fees would be in terms of raising revenue – although Lord Reed is too polite to say it the policy was a bit of a shocker when considered against its stated aims].
• In the absence of statutory words authorising a limitation of access to the relevant tribunals, the test was whether there was a real risk that access to justice would be prevented. Conclusive evidence is not required if real risk is demonstrated.
• Ability to pay is not conclusive of legality. The question of whether fees effectively prevent access to justice must be decided according to the likely impact of the fees on behaviour in the real world. Fees must, therefore, be affordable not in a theoretical sense, but in the sense that they can reasonably be afforded. Where households on low to middle incomes can only afford fees by sacrificing the ordinary and reasonable expenditure required to maintain what would generally be regarded as an acceptable standard of living, the fees cannot be regarded as affordable.
• Fees which would require low to middle-income households to sacrifice ordinary and reasonable expenditure for substantial periods of time (one to three months) are [by implication] too high.
• In order for the fees to be lawful, they have to be set at a level that everyone can afford, taking into account the availability of full or partial remission. The evidence before the court, considered realistically and as a whole, led to the conclusion that that requirement was not met. The fall in the number of claims was so sharp, so substantial, and so sustained as to warrant the conclusion that a significant number of people who would otherwise have brought claims have found the fees to be unaffordable. This was seen as particularly important in employment cases where applicants are practically compelled to take cases [what he means by this I found elusive on first reading].
• It is not only where fees are unaffordable that they can prevent access to justice. They can equally have that effect if they render it futile or irrational to bring a claim. [Hence fees which impact on low-value cases or cases where relief is non-financial will need to be especially carefully justified and set low – raising interesting questions especially in judicial review and for the online court, I’d wager].
• It has not been shown that less onerous fees, or a more generous system of remission, would have been any less effective in meeting the objective of transferring the cost burden to users. [This implies an obligation to set fees at a level which is based on a solid prediction of what is optimal in financial and access to justice terms].
• A discretionary power to order the remission of fees in exceptional circumstance did not change that conclusion. The problems which have been identified in these proceedings were not confined to exceptional circumstances: they were systemic. [An interesting question is whether this is true in general or because the exceptional power was only operable in very limited circumstances, but logic seem to dictate, this would only be so if an exceptional power altered the systemic picture ].

This I think gets the guts of the decision (corrections and comments of course most welcome). Whilst the case is put on the basis of domestic law, there is also an interesting discussion of the impact of EU law, especially as regards employment rights deriving from EU law. Kniat v Poland, Application No 71731/01, judgment given 26 July 2005, “concerned fees payable in divorce proceedings. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the applicant was ordered to pay a court fee of 10,000 PLN. She was able to pay it, having received a share of the matrimonial property amounting to 300,000 PLN. Nonetheless, the imposition of the fee was held to violate Article 6(1), since the 300,000 PLN constituted apparently her only asset, and it did not seem reasonable to demand that she spend part of it on court fees, rather than build her future and secure her and her children’s basic needs after the divorce (para 44).”

Chris Grayling, should he be reading the judgment on his summer break, will be having a fit.

The judgment itself is, of course, well worth reading. There is a concise and highly readable summary of the evidence surrounding the nature of the fees charged and the impact on cases – which is shocking. The defence of the rule of law is neat, tidy and – forgivably on this occasion – court-(tribunal-)centric. The shadow argument is deftly done. But I thought, before concluding, I would pick out one hypothetical as an indicator of how the test (as was) would bite:

To put the figures discussed in the preceding paragraphs into perspective, the national minimum wage of £7.50 per hour produces an income of £1,300 per month, assuming a 40 hour week. That is before taking account of any benefits and tax credits (which, subject to specified exceptions, are included in the calculation of income under the remissions scheme). A couple each earning the national minimum wage would therefore have an income of £2,600 per month, before benefits and tax credits were taken into account. Such a couple would not normally qualify for any remission of fees for a type A claim, but might qualify for partial remission of the hearing fee for a type B claim.

If one were to put the judgment’s impact in its most general way, it will require the Ministry of Justice to think much more carefully about the impact of its proposals: the MoJ opined in a report “while there is clear evidence that ET fees  have discouraged people from bringing claims, there is no conclusive evidence that they have been prevented from doing so” (p 6) They can no longer get away with putting the risks of their (rather feint and contrived) uncertainty about the problems so firmly back on others. They did so, no doubt, at the behest of their Minister, who – in taking such a high-risk line with what was already recognised to be a constitutional right – has opened the tap on an access to justice jurisprudence which is likely to be running for several years to come. And most of it domestic. And extending well beyond employment tribunals. Grayling’s legacy may be rather different from that which he imagined.

 

[1] Baroness Hale added a coda, which Lord Reed agreed with, on the discrimination points of the case – which did not in the end need deciding.

Birds of a feather… Exploring gender homophily in the Supreme Court bar

A guest post from Chris Hanretty, School of Politics, University of East Anglia and Steven Vaughan, Faculty of Laws, UCL

Most of us, for reasons conscious and subconscious, associate more with people who are like us in certain respects.

This homophily, or preferential attachment to similar others, is very often innocuous. As academics, we are much more likely to associate with other academics than are non-academics. Yet so far, this homophily has not had any grave consequences (save perhaps for those non-academics around us who are bored by shop talk).

Homophily matters much more for people who are in positions of power, who may choose to surround themselves with – or grant lucky breaks to – others who resemble them. Homophily becomes particularly concerning when people in powerful positions are disproportionately of a certain type, and where the homophily in question is related to ascriptive characteristics such as gender, race, or social background.

Barristers (and advocates, and solicitor-advocates) who appear before the Supreme Court are people in positions of power, both in an absolute sense and relative to other members of the profession. Since barristers rarely appear alone before the Supreme Court, such barristers can bestow significant opportunities on other lawyers by pairing up with other lawyers. These “lucky breaks” may go to other, similar lawyers: that is, they may be characterised by homophily of one kind or another.

Although there are many different kinds of homophily, gender homophily should be of particular interest to lawyers given the historic and continuing male dominance of the senior reaches of the several British bars. If (say) male senior counsel are disproportionately likely to team up with other men, and if having appeared before the Supreme Court forms part of the legal cursus honorum, then women will reach the top end of the profession at lower rates than men.

In an article recently published in Public Law, we investigated the extent to which “team formation” on the Supreme Court is characterised by gender homophily. We collected information on the counsel who appeared before the Supreme Court in cases decided by the court between its establishment in 2009 and the summer of 2015. We did this by consulting the lists of lawyers which feature on the second page of each judgment handed down by the court. Altogether, we identified 1,292 individual lawyers in 470 cases. We then identified the gender of each individual lawyer.

With this information, we were able to carry out a series of increasingly complex statistical tests for gender homophily in team formation. The simplest of these tests involves a comparison between two types of two-member teams: teams headed by a male barrister, and teams headed by a female barrister.

• When a male barrister headed the team, 454 of the 615 more junior barristers (74%) were also male.
• When a female barrister headed the team, 50 of the 95 more junior barristers (53%) were male.

Although both types of team are more likely than not to have male juniors, the proportion of male juniors is much higher when the team is headed by a male barrister. This difference is also statistically significant: if we were to repeat this exercise many times, we would be confident that the proportion of male-led teams with male juniors was higher than the proportion of female-led teams with male juniors.

This simple comparison provides evidence that team formation on the UK Supreme Court is characterised by gender homophily. However, this pattern is compatible with a number of different mechanisms. In the remainder of our article, we discuss two particular mechanisms.

The first of these mechanisms is selection from within an area of law. Different areas of law have different gender splits. Female barristers are, for example, more prevalent in family law than they are in commercial law. This is true both generally and in our Supreme Court data. The chances that junior counsel will be female are therefore higher for family law cases than they are for commercial cases. By failing to take this into account, we may have created an artificial association between the gender of the more senior barrister and the gender of the more junior barrister. Homophily would still exist, but it would exist only in virtue of the way that barristers of different genders sort into different areas of law.

The second mechanism – selection from within one’s own chambers – is similar. Different chambers also have different gender splits. Counsel from the same chambers may be more likely to form teams than counsel from different chambers. Once again, failing to take this into account may create an artificial association. It would then become important to explain why some chambers have disproportionate numbers of male or female barristers.

Neither of these mechanisms, when properly accounted for, does much to reduce the role played by homophily. Whether or not we control for the area of law or the gender composition of the senior barrister’s chambers, male senior barristers are one and a half to two and a half times more likely to have a male junior compared to female senior barristers.

Does this matter?  We think it does. On the basis of our findings, female barristers are in a Catch-22 position: women do better as juniors when other women are in senior positions (because the seniors can grant the juniors access to more complex cases and litigation in the highest courts);  but women only reach senior positions after first being juniors. If half of senior barristers were women, then gender homophily would not be so objectionable. However, given that research by the Bar Council suggested that gender parity at the Bar as a whole is unlikely to ever be achieved (and parity at the top end of the Bar is unlikely in the foreseeable future), further progress towards gender equality at the Bar relies, essentially, on exceptional women breaking through.

In with the old, but with a new sense of purpose – innovation with users

The recent HMCTS Court Hackathon, led by the estimable Susskind and Vestbirk, got me thinking about newness in innovation and the role of users in the process. As did an exchange with in-house lawyer Chris Simkins (@hum_drums) about where innovation comes from. Chris’ was inspired by this very interesting talk from Alistair Parvin of WikiHouse.

Part of the talk involved showing how planning regulations could be broken down into a decision tree that interacted seamlessly within a computer aided design tool. The design would (probably) be planning compliant as a result without lengthy to-ing and froing between architect and planners. One of Chris’s points was that it was fascinating to see the embedding of law in the WikiHouse process being led by non-lawyers. That innovation was, as he put it, demand not supply led. Seeing this comment, and the WikiHouse approach to planning law, reminded me of a floppy disk I saw back in the early 1990s. That floppy disk was for a DOS-based programme designed to take non-expert advisers through complex welfare benefits calculations. It had a sticky address label on it with the words Lisson Grove typed across it in the Courier font. Both to support Chris’s point, but also to cause mischief, I wondered aloud how old Lisson Grove was, and to my delight, I discovered that it appeared to be still going, with all the visual pzazz of the old version intact.

My request for info on Lisson Grove’s age was answered by James Hand (@JamesAHand), who came up with this beauty.

Turns out that as our politics is taking a distinctly 1970s veneer, the 1980s are making a bit of a comeback in LawLand. The kind of managed pathway which one sees in the Canadian solution finder is one example, and it looks like the online court here may head in a similar direction. To be clear, we have far greater technological power now to build Lisson Grove type systems, and AI promises – at some point – other possibilities. The point of Wavelength’s Hackathon winning entry using Alexa is not that Alexa is the right interface. Alexa can’t even get my shopping list right. The point is that better interfaces than a computer keyboard are possible or imaginable. Lisson Grove also reminds us that these decision-tree systems can be resilient but it also reminds us of where innovation may need to come from. User needs have to be central, and perhaps chronic or strong enough to motivate action. As the 1989/90 piece tells us:

[This is] a program originally developed by Professor Brian Jarman in the
early 1980’s. A GP at Lisson Grove Health Centre, he started work on it after finding that some of his patients, in particular the chronically sick, were not receiving the benefits they were entitled to, and that their poverty was a contributory factor to their ills

The doctor was not trying to make more for less, he was trying to make his patients better. There was a higher social goal, a pressing social need, and the wisdom and skills to see a better way of doing something. Finding these axes of maximum potential is crucial to innovating for access to justice. Deep engagement with users looks essential.

What Alistair Parvin’s talk also suggests is a step change in thinking is possible when knowledge is embedded in systems: he shows how cost, environment, build, regulation (in this case planning)  and delivery can be linked in a system that raises our eyes from the prosaic (getting something done) to the social (building for a purpose – in this case sustainable living). There’s a really cool example of a farmhouse being designed and built before your eyes. It is inspiring, I heartily recommend it.

There are a whole range of interesting ideas in there: what are the design patterns of law, for instance, but the most important is – what is the overarching purpose we are aiming for, what are the values we promote in seeking to embed justice in systems, and who contributes or owns that process? As Mr Parvin says, when hearing of an innovation, one should think: that’s an interesting future – who owns it?  This is both a policy question and an ethical question; a technical question and a process question; a principled question and a consequences question. I, as many people seem to be right now, am beginning to work more seriously on these issues. James’ contribution forces a reminder that they were doing that too in the good old 1980s.

One final point, that guy from Pointless, Richard Whatsisname, pointed out this week that Tainted Love the 1980s Soft Cell classic was released closer to the Second World War than today. The Lisson Grove approach is more PostWar than it is Millenial. Let that serve as a reminder that we need to focus carefully on what constitutes progress.

Oh, and here’s one from their back catalogue, because – as you can plainly see I am feeling nostalgic and because the Hackathon is also a reminder that it is important to have fun along this particular journey. 

Excalibur – perhaps the sword of truth got stuck?

lt is almost three and a half years since I wrote about Clifford Chance and the Excalibur case.  One reason this case may be taking a rather long time to emerge from the bowels of the SRA is that there has been ongoing litigation. In November 2016 CC were further criticised by Tomlinson LJ for an acute conflict of interest. There was also a professional negligence case which was settled.

There have been developments since then. Today the Lawyer tells us, via Financial News Today, that the SRA are investigating and that CC might be gearing up for a fight, with Clyde & Co instructed (fresh, if that be the word, from their own record-breaking run in with the SDT).  An expensive but important business will ensue -contributed to, one would surmise, by the standard of proof.

Given the level of seriousness of the allegations (medium serious not striking off serious, I’d guess), is this kind of cock up (if that is what it was) one that is best served by an adversarial trial to beyond reasonable doubt standards a la Crown Court? For all that the case may show failings of judgment and unprofessional conduct (or judicial intemperance, one or other seems to be likely on the facts as known) and for all that the case clearly merits investigation and, on the face of it – but we do not know all the facts, prosecution, I suspect we will have a hearing because a) professional defensiveness; b) the proof standard makes it worth a punt; and, c) the powers of the SRA to deal with this, other than by going to the Tribunal, are so limited (If I remember rightly, a £2,000 fine).

I most certainly do not rule out, though, the possibility that there might be: d) substantial room for doubt on the evidence as to whether anything wrong was done – Court of Appeal judges can make mistakes, as we all know. In many ways what is of interest is not just what happened to lead to this car-crash of a case, but how CC responded afterwards. As a firm that would – I am sure- like to hold is self out as a model of professional governance, it would be much more interesting to hear how it learned the lessons, rather than seeing how it goes into battle on the facts of this case for yet one more time. Or perhaps, like Sunderland AFC on one of its most enjoyable energy-sapping mid-season runs, sooner or later they have to win one of these.

The Lawyer story is worth reading in full for a better flavour of the history and my blog of old is here. In the meantime, settle down for a couple more years and await the outcome.

Standard of Proof in Bar Discipline

The Bar Standards Board is inviting comments on its proposals to bring the standard of proof into line with all professionals other than Vets and, for now, solicitors. Lucy Reed has exceeded her own high standards with an exceptional blog post on this.

In terms of the three questions the BSB asks, I agree  that the standard of proof should be the civil standard, that the decision should not await the SRA making such a shift, and I do not perceive equality or other impact concerns that should stop them doing so. I don;t propose to go into the arguments as the BSB’s document does that admirably and with concision.

I suspect one argument that may be made against the proposals is the risk of ‘political’ prosecutions of barristers for handling controversial cases. This is a risk that faces other professionals, although it might be thought to be a greater risk for lawyers, who’s work inevitably implicates them in greater controversy. Any such risk is properly protected by the independence of the regulator and prosecutorial decisions, rather than an artificially high burden of proof.

I hope also that a more public interest oriented standard of proof will also open the door to a wider range of enforcement, redress and restoration – with perhaps more disciplining of misconduct but a wider range of responses to such enforcement. Ethics is  important but it should perhaps rarely be the life and death of someone’s career. In particular, it is to be hoped that practitioners are less likely to fight made out misconduct conduct charges and more willing to engage in meaningful contrition and learning from their errors. This is not an approach likely to develop in scheme which has a criminal, adversarially oriented approach of which the balance of proof is one significant element.

A call to academics: law, technology, and access to justice in UK law schools

Roger Smith has written a challenging post on the teaching of innovation and lawtech in the UK.  I urge you to read it. Law schools should do more, but I think they Roger’s post is limited in the sense that it does not demonstrate much awareness (if any) of what is actually happening in this country around teaching law students about law, innovation technology. That’s disappointing, but rather than complain or tell you all what awesome things we already do at (say) UCL, I thought it might be an idea to do something a bit more constructive and less self-aggrandising.

So I am asking you, if you are in legal education, to help me collect some information on what is already happening in the nation’s law schools (and I am defining nation as meaning the UK here but really would be delighted if others wanted to join in).  If you are willing (and you can provide your information confidentially) I will publish a summary and if you are keen, I will try and organise a way of bringing all those interested together to discuss progress and problems in this area.

So if you teach or oversee activity in legal education on innovation or technology in legal services please fill in this survey.