The headline, of course, is that AnyLaw doesn’t cost anything to use. Despite the existence of a legal research industrial complex spearheaded by ancient behemoths like Lexis and Westlaw, there is a current drive to make legal research more accessible = less costly, or free. So far, AnyLaw has done the best job of putting its money where its mouth is, by delivering an ad-supported legal research tool. Using AnyLaw for legal research is similar to listening to free music on Pandora or Spotify; ads are present, but not distracting. At the home page, the search feature appears, with an ad at the bottom of the page; within search results: ads are on the right side of the page, search features are on the left.
Of course, ‘free’ is only a part of the equation: even free solutions have to work well, to merit consistent usage. And, AnyLaw works well. Full coverage of state and federal case law precedent is supplemented by responsive live filters, linked citations and real-time updates. You can easily tweak searches on the fly, or follow chains of case precedent. Users can filter for particular court systems via the main search page, or from within search results. There is also a download feature for case text, as well — since lawyers love to cling to paper documents. All those features are not only free, but don’t even require a login. If you join AnyLaw (provide an email address, and create a password), you’ll also be able to save (or, ‘favorite’) cases, which will then be accessible later, at your account, under the ‘My Stuff’ tab. This is less an inducement to solicit email addresses, and more of an answer to the reality of having to create a personal storage unit for the cases you wish to go back to. Saving search results is a key component to modern legal research, and AnyLaw offers that ability via its ‘Save’ feature.
For lawyers who are tired of haggling over research fees, with an end result of saving pennies on the dollar for a significant budget line item, AnyLaw is the answer for eliminating that overhead cost altogether. Of course, AnyLaw also has significant ramifications for access to justice (A2J) — not only because it offers legal aid lawyers a legitimate free research tool, but also because it provides DIY legal clients with a no-cost research alternative. Since cost is not a barrier with AnyLaw, it has the potential, as a research tool, to better connect lawyers and law firms with legal consumers.
. . .
AnyLaw is free to use; and, there’s really no excuse to not at least try it today! Start here.
]]>But, even as the target client list of the A2J model has been expanded, what remains unclear is the effect that the expansion of A2J services will have on lawyers in an already hypercompetitive environment, especially in consideration of the continued advance of legal-facing technology. Machine learning, automation, improved intake protocols, the extension of internet access, the ubiquity of the smartphone and even the A2J movement itself have made possible a future in which lawyers are largely cut out of the A2J model. If the bulk of a client’s questions can be answered by plugging them into an app, where does the lawyer fit in? In theory, an attorney practicing at the top of his law license would delight in automation that removes the necessity of his presence for the answering of basic questions — that strips down the intake burden, and increases the value of the lawyer’s contribution — but in A2J, there is no pot of gold awaiting at the end of that rainbow, because the A2J client is not paying a premium cost for the creative services a smart and experienced lawyer can provide.
So, this begs the question(s): What is the end of A2J for lawyers? Is the object to replace the majority of a lawyer’s functions with technology? Does this eliminate legal jobs, or effectuate a paring down of the bar rolls — which is maybe not a bad thing? Does it fundamentally change the way lawyers practice, influencing a revision of the way lawyers work? Is that a good thing, if it means that lawyers end up performing higher level work more of the time? Or, is there a volume problem, in that there is not enough of that higher level work to go around? In the defining of new roles for lawyers and legal technology, is the goal of A2J to incorporate technology to feed clients to lawyers, at a point where they can pay for limited services that require human interaction?
The crux of the A2J question for the average solo and small firm lawyer (the vast majority of whom are not the actual decisionmakers in this realm) is just how much of the pie gets left behind for them. If technology can be used to source potential pro bono, fee shifting or low bono clients for lawyers, if it acts as a higher-level, better-leveraged lawyer referral service, then that’s probably a good thing; but, to the extent that that same technology ends up replacing lawyers’ work, it’s, um, not so good.
And, that’s as good a reason as any for solo and small firm lawyers to get involved in discussions surrounding access to justice.
. . .
Liner Notes
‘Caroline’ by Old Crow Medicine Show
Turns out, Caroline is good name to have if you want to get yourself into a country music song.
]]>