What Lesson Will COVID-19 Leave To Lawyers?

The great lesson that this pandemic will leave us is that the most important thing is people. The offices will have to worry and take care of their collaborators and build more horizontal relationships.

If we look at the results globally, it can only be concluded that these have been good years for lawyers, and the memory of the 2008 crisis has been in the past.

The crisis would be the end of the pyramid model, hourly billing, and the emergence of new business models, but the data shows something different. The traditional partnership model persists, and so does the billable hour, firms grow in turnover and revenue, and partners continue to earn money. Legal managements, while growing, continue to operate under the same traditional practices, and alternative providers of legal services have failed to compete with incumbents with the projected intensity.

But history brings us a new event that, if we look carefully, maybe the trigger for a bigger change in the legal profession: COVID-19. Although only in the next few months will we be able to know its real impact, everything indicates that the current health crisis will leave traces in the life of contemporary societies, and lawyers will not be immune to it.

Teleworking will test efficiency and productivity, speed of response, technology or lack of it, and, most importantly, the resources that today, entered the 21st century, are no longer indispensable for the success of the firm: large offices.

In a context of economic tightness, such as the one that is coming, the lawyers will have to be able to put, once and for all, their practice at the level of their verbal imagination.

Lawyers Will Face Three Challenges In The Coming Years

First, put the customer in the center. Selling legal services is no longer enough; today, better customer experience must be delivered. The legal industry is obsessed with “innovation,” but not with the result: customer satisfaction. Successful innovators will be those who can create a better fit for the legal market between the services they offer and what consumers want.

Second, incorporate technology. It is not about talking about legal tech; it is about investing in technological tools that make teleworking a habitual practice, dispense with physical spaces, be closer to customers, and make management, processes, traceability, control natural.

Last but not least, the great lesson that COVID-19 will leave us is that the most important thing is people. Firms should be concerned and concerned with their collaborators, building more horizontal relationships, driven by collaborative work, where the benefits are distributed based on work, merit, and effort.

It is essential to worry about the physical and psychological health of the collaborators, to assure them a good quality of life, and space of equality.

5 Common Myths About USA Gun Laws

There are many myths out there about gun laws in the United States and the fact is that many people still believe these myths. Owning a gun is an important responsibility, and you want to know the right information. Here are five of the most common myths about our gun laws.

To be clear, many gun laws in America change due to who is in power in the government at any given time. Furthermore, gun laws differ across the country so it’s best to consult certified professionals or the relevant authorities in your state to get more specific information that applies to your situation.

Myths with American Gun Laws

1) The first myth of gun laws in the USA is that people with a criminal background are automatically barred from owning a gun. In reality, this is not true. Criminal background checks do not necessarily exclude anyone from owning a gun, but they can make it more difficult. In reality, it’s not true that anyone with a criminal background can’t own a gun.

2) The second myth of gun laws is that if you have a felony on your record you will be denied a gun. That may seem hard to believe, but it is not true. Anyone who has been convicted of a crime, or who has a felony on their record, will be asked for a criminal background check before getting a gun license. This includes people with misdemeanor convictions. However, a mentioned previously, USA gun laws vary by state so there are some states where these checks are not required to apply for a gun license.

3) The third myth with gun laws in America is that if you haven’t taken a course you will automatically be denied a gun license. Again, this is not true. To get a license you must be at least 21 years old, pass a background check, be a citizen of the United States, and be a legal resident of the state in which you are applying. There are thousands of people who have received gun licenses despite having no formal training.

4) The fourth myth with gun laws in America is that people in safe neighborhoods cannot buy guns. This myth is also false. While it’s unlikely that they will need to use a gun, this does not mean that they can’t get a gun, nor does it mean that they will automatically be denied the license. You will simply need to present a compelling reason for your need to own a gun.

5) Finally, the fifth gun law myth is that individuals can be denied a gun license if they have previously been arrested for a drug charge even if it wasn’t a felony. Again, this is not true. USA gun laws vary by state

There are indeed some states that prohibit certain groups of people from getting a gun license.

Conclusion

As you can see, these are the five major myths about gun laws in the United States. Unfortunately, many individuals refuse to believe the things that are true try to make their life harder than it already is. These people should be educated, they should be made aware of the facts. Therefore, it is up to us, to tell the truth about these things, but we also need to be vigilant enough to make sure that we do not fall victim to these myths ourselves.…

Why Should Legal Practice Be Reinvented In The Digital Age?

Digitization is transforming legal and contractual relationships between companies, individuals, and governments. The profile of traditional legal practice is changing as technology advances.

The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence, Robotic Automation Processes, and macro data are revolutionizing the way customers evaluate and optimize their operations.

These technological implementations in legal practice allow to reduce the evaluation and diagnosis times of legal and other challenges, also allowing a more comprehensive strategic approach for clients that allows them to make better business decisions in order to achieve their objectives.

Examples of technology initiatives in legal practice

The chatbots are a solution for answers that provide customers a flexible, allowing savings in time, higher analytical skills, better delivery times, and greater information security. Digital contracts are another facility that technology has allowed for them to be managed digitally. Virtual audiences enable online dispute resolution through telepresence or other tools. Legal, due diligence management through artificial intelligence, the use of blockchain in decision making, machine learning, among others, are tools that little by little have been incorporated into the legal world to optimize processes, save costs and generate greater productivity.

According to the EY study called “the Capital Trust Barometer,” the investment in legal technology of various companies was $ 233 million, surpassing the investment made in 2016, which was $ 224 million. This shows that investment in technology for legal use continues to grow.

The way in which law firms provide services to their clients will be being transformed by technology through artificial intelligence to provide exceptional, efficient, and secure service, but also to bring efficiencies in the internal management of law firms.

Legal practice is facing pressure from different areas, allowing an environment to drive change in the digital age.…

Ethical And Legal Dilemmas Of The New Era

The new era already has many names: the era of perplexity, the era of uncertainty, the era of complexity, and many others. They are all true and incomplete. All of them must compel us to take more seriously the risks that are being generated for the rights of citizens and as a whole for the human condition.

The world of law is accumulating many new obligations to which it will have to respond with ingenuity, talent, agility, and flexibility if it does not want to lose its leading role in an insecure and bewildered society in the face of the profound changes that are generating an authentic new reality. And it will not be an easy task.

  • All technological and scientific advances have legal implications. Our establishment cannot turn its back on this reality.
  • Citizens as a whole are not aware of how these advances can affect their specific rights and the current structure and structure of society. The right to privacy and privacy – and this is not the only example – is being diluted without any effective reaction. Even more sensitive issues may be in question and at risk.
  • The scientific world, with the determined support of the legal world, has to become closer to the citizen and promote a more constant and more committed media disclosure about the effects of its research and discoveries.
  • The political world also has a duty to be aware of these new realities and open debate both on the impact on the pension system and on the changes and risks that could be generated in many other fields. They cannot continue to be isolated in a ghetto, always operating in the short term due to electoral pressure.
  • In all these tasks and duties, it will be vital to organize multidisciplinary meetings in which scientists and technologists participate to educate and guide us in the new processes and the foreseeable implications. From a fixed and one-dimensional mind, it is impossible to understand such complex problems and therefore seeks the appropriate solutions.
  • The legal world is not the only factor or the key factor in this process, but it cannot give up having a special role as a body to which it corresponds to regulate, through the law, citizen coexistence by giving each one his or her own.
  • The legal world must prepare itself, not to control or limit scientific and technological advances, –a task that is impossible,– but to know them in-depth and foresee –a task that is not impossible, but extremely difficult– their consequences in terms of basic rights and the legal order as a whole.

Legal journals have been published for a long time on all the aforementioned topics ( Robotic Law Journal, Biology and Law, and others) and there are countless essays and articles on the impact that artificial intelligence can have on the legal activity as a whole and specifically about the dangers that can be generated.