No products in the cart.

THE BRITISH LEGAL TECHNOLOGY FORUM 2024 IS ANOTHER SELL OUT

Legal tech experts and senior decision makers come together in London for one day, under one roof at the longest standing legal tech event in the calendar.

The British Legal Technology Forum (BLTF) will return to London in two months. An estimated 1,300 visitors from the world of law, legal technology and IT security are expected to attend this year’s BLTF, which takes place at the Old Billingsgate in central London on 14th May 2024.  

 The full line-up of expert speakers for this year’s event is stronger than ever. The selection includes legal practice IT Directors, CIOs, Managing Partners, Regulatory Representatives, Government Officials, innovation and transformation leaders, technologists, academics, futurists, and security advisors, amongst many others.  

 The 2024 opening presentation will be delivered by Nigel Tranter, Chief Digital Officer at Orrick, who will delve into the five tenants of digital fluency and the need for firms to welcome adaptability whilst ensuring a solid foundation to ride the wave of ever changing invention and innovation.   

A regulatory panel will follow to look to the future of AI and the regulatory responsibility of legaltech within the framework with input from Ian Jeffrey, CEO, Law Society and Richard Orpin, Director of Policy & Regulation, Legal Services Board chaired by Prof Richard Susskind OBE KC (Hon).   

Libby Jackson MBE, Managing Partner – Digital and ALT Global, will kick off the afternoon Main Stage session.  

 The day would not be complete without focus on a hot topic impacting the technology sector, ‘Build, Buy, Both or Integrate.’ Speakers include Shawn Curran – Travers Smith, Joe Cohen – Charles Russell Speechlys and Jeremy Morris – Clyde & Co which is to be chaired by Jenifer Swallow. The panel will discuss future proofing for tomorrow and whether off-the-shelf tech can truly align with business processes and the needs of the business.   

And, in what promises to be a popular and insightful session, Lounge Stage Chair, Christina Blacklaws, will facilitate a forward thinking panel discussion on Data Decision Making, AI Tooling, Hyper Productivity & Business Transformation – speakers include Amanda Chaboryk, Head of Legal Data and Systems, PwC, Aimee Greene, Data Extraction Specialist, PwC, and Nirbhay Sharma, Data Scientist, DLA Piper. 

Later, will welcome Jo Owen and Nirupa Wikramanayake – Group CIO, Irwin Mitchell, for a practical conversational piece entitled ‘Transformation Decoded’ – The real-life lessons and more importantly; what does change actually look like and the reality that not everyone will welcome it with open arms. How collaboration across teams is key to be stronger together and the importance of making sustainability not just the by product of a project but rather, the end goal as well as much more!      

In a panel discussion led by Legal IT Insider Editor, Caroline Hill, LegalTech trailblazers. Appropriately entitled ‘Fist Full of Dollars; The Truth Behind LLMs and Gen AI’ and delivered on the ‘Telstra’ FutureTech Stage, this stellar panel highlight three key pieces of the puzzle…The importance of stepping beyond automation, the need to up skill in order to meet demand and the window to the board, the truth on budget decisions.   

Besides a stellar line up of legal IT speakers, this year’s event will feature a fireside chat with Keynote Speaker Louis Theroux, a genre-defining documentary presenter, best known for producing immersive documentaries that explore the controversial and complex aspects of the human condition. Louis will take to the stage to discuss the human Connection in the digital era, AI & technology shaping the future, bringing the next generation into technology, and much more!    

In addition to advanced artificial intelligence and ongoing transformative disruption, this year’s BTLF presentations will debate a wide range of IT and Technology leadership issues relating to the use of technology in the legal sector and accelerated industry innovation. Topics to be discussed include Digital Innovation: Interconnecting Technology to Power Trust and Integrity, Using AI to Define Business Strategy and Growth, Why Transformation is Critical to The Business of Law and much more.     

More than 70 leading solutions providers will also be on-site at the BLTF, demonstrating a wide range of technology-related products and services aimed at the legal market.  

Commenting on the final speaker line-up for BLTF 2024, Frances Anderson, Netlaw Media’s CEO, says: “The distinction between mere buzz and actual progress in smart technology is unmistakable, as it transforms our environment. Navigating the complexities of today’s legal and economic milieu presents considerable ambiguity,” Anderson remarks. “Pioneering operational methods are now paramount in corporate strategy, and with the widespread debut of GenAI, it has captivated the legal sector. The focus is on assimilating this technological evolution into existing systems while maintaining data integrity, ensuring ethical practices, and securing companies’ longevity, all the while enhancing skills to satisfy the growing needs of the firm and client.” 

This is a message that many of the event’s speakers will be sending out to more than 1,300 BLTF attendees, across each of event’s five presentation stages.   

The British Legal Technology Forum 2024 is Europe’s Leading Legal IT Forum.   

To keep up to date with the latest news, follow @netlawmedia @ LegalTechNLM on Twitter or visit www.britishlegalitforum.com.  

Artificial Intelligence Act: committees confirm landmark agreement

Artificial Intelligence Act: committees confirm landmark agreement | News | European Parliament (europa.eu)

  • Safeguards agreed on general purpose artificial intelligence
  • Limitation for the use biometric identification systems by law enforcement
  • Bans on social scoring and AI used to manipulate or exploit user vulnerabilities
  • Right of consumers to launch complaints and obtain meaningful explanations

MEPs have endorsed at committee level the provisional agreement on the Artificial Intelligence Act that ensures safety and complies with fundamental rights.

On Tuesday, the Internal Market and Civil Liberties Committees voted 71-8 (7 abstentions) to approve the result of negotiations with the member states on the Artificial Intelligence Act.

This regulation aims to protect fundamental rights, democracy, the rule of law and environmental sustainability from high-risk AI. At the same time, it aims to boost innovation and establishing Europe as a leader in the AI field. The rules put in place obligations for AI based on its potential risks and level of impact.


Banned applications

The agreement bans certain AI applications that threaten citizens’ rights, including biometric categorisation systems based on sensitive characteristics, untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet or CCTV footage for facial recognition databases, emotion recognition in workplace and schools, social scoring, predictive policing based solely on profiling a person or assessing their characteristics, and AI that manipulates human behaviour or exploits people’s vulnerabilities.


Law enforcement exemptions

The use of biometric identification systems (RBI) by law enforcement is prohibited in principle, except in exhaustively listed and narrowly defined situations. “Real-time” RBI can be deployed only under strict safeguards, e.g. limited in time and geographic scope, with prior judicial or administrative authorisation. Such uses involve, for example, searching for a missing person or preventing a terrorist attack. Using such systems after the fact (“post-remote RBI”), which is considered high-risk, also requires judicial authorisation, and has to be linked to a criminal offence.


Obligations for high-risk systems

Clear obligations were also agreed for other high-risk AI systems, which could significantly impact health, safety, fundamental rights, environment, democracy and the rule of law. High-risk uses include those in critical infrastructure, education and vocational training, employment, essential services (e.g healthcare, banking), certain systems in law enforcement, migration and border management, justice and democratic processes (e.g. influencing elections). Citizens will have a right to launch complaints about AI systems and receive explanations about decisions based on high-risk AI systems affecting their rights.


Transparency requirements

General-purpose AI (GPAI) systems, and the models they are based on, have to meet certain transparency requirements and comply with EU copyright law during their training. More powerful GPAI models that could pose systemic risks will face additional requirements, including performing model evaluation, risk assessment and reporting on incidents. Additionally, artificial or manipulated image, audio or video content (“deepfakes”) needs to be clearly labelled as such.


Measures to support innovation and SMEs

Regulatory sandboxes and real-world testing will be established at national level, offering SMEs and start-ups opportunities to develop and train innovative AI before placement on the market.


Next steps

The text awaits a formal adoption in an upcoming Parliament plenary session and final Council endorsement. It will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, except bans on prohibited practises, which will apply 6 months after the entry into force; codes of practise (nine months after entry into force); general-purpose AI rules including governance (12 months after entry into force); and obligations for high-risk systems (36 months).

Breaking new ground: modern career paths for today’s legal professionals

Breaking new ground: modern career paths for today’s legal professionals | The Law Society

We hear from four women who have found success outside of the traditional route.

A lot has changed in the last 100 years since the first woman was admitted to the roll in England and Wales.

The need for a work-life balance, new discourses on wellbeing and technological advancements have all changed the working lives of legal professionals.

We spoke to four women, who have each taken a less conventional path to build successful careers in law that suit them.

They demonstrate how a foundation of legal training combined with a wider appreciation of client needs can take you beyond the corner office to the boardroom and beyond.

“It is an opportunity that has exceeded my expectations” – Margaret Obi, Deputy High Court Judge

It was never my intention to become a judge. When I left partnership, it was to pursue new intellectual challenges and increased flexibility.

However, I saw a video of Heather Hallett LJ (as she then was) speaking about a new initiative to attract more lawyers from non-traditional backgrounds to sit as Deputy High Court Judges without the need to sit as recorder first.

It is an opportunity that has exceeded my expectations. It is a real privilege to be a judge.

Not only is the work varied and intellectually stimulating but there is a deep sense of satisfaction in upholding the rule of law.

Naturally, there are challenges too. I am a criminal defence solicitor by background but as a judge, I make decisions in civil cases.

Within a day (or often less) I must quickly understand the factual and legal content of a new case, digest competing submissions, and decide which is right so I can produce a well-reasoned judgment.

This constant diet of unfamiliar law is not for everyone, but I thought it would suit me and that has proved to be true.

Solicitor judges are still relatively uncommon especially on the High Court Bench so you first need self-belief before you can convince anyone else that you’re ready for the challenge.

“People have this perception that you can’t move around but it doesn’t have to be like that” – Liz Turner, partner at gunnercooke

I was the first person in my family to go to university.

It was very daunting at the beginning but I found myself at a regional office of a global firm and was on the partnership track at 31, but also planning to adopt my daughter.

When I sat down with my manager for our annual review, he told me I needed to up my billable hours by 15% and I couldn’t see how I could balance that with caring for her.

Maybe if I’d had a role model back then who could show me how then I’d have found a way, but instead I needed more flexibility.

I took a post as a lecturer for undergraduate and LPC teaching which was a good way to stay in touch with practice, but the most fulfilling part was seeing students off on the start of their journey.

I then took an opportunity to return to private practice and having stayed up to date it was an easy transition.

I became much better at mentoring junior members of staff and helping to encourage people who might have become pigeonholed or stuck.

However, after the pandemic and time on furlough, I moved again into an in-house role where I can deliver value without needing to justify it in billable hours.

I have never really been one for a conventional career.

People have this perception that you can’t move around and that you are stuck on a path, but it doesn’t have to be like that.

Don’t be afraid to try things out and don’t think it’s just a linear progression.

There’s a lot to be gained from trying different roles.

“Change is hard, but don’t underestimate what you bring to the table” – Neha Lugg, senior legal trainer at Lewis Silkin

I started my career in private practice and qualified into employment law.

I enjoyed the work, but I was fortunate enough to go on secondment during my training contract and found that I loved being able to fit into a business and provide really tailored advice.

I went on to work within in-house legal teams for large multinational organisations.

More than 10 years later I now work as a senior legal trainer delivering training on a wide range of employment law topics to support organisations maintain effective working practices and improve workplace culture.

Sometimes I will be working to support HR professionals and people managers with the more complex parts of their roles like handling difficult conversations or what wellness really looks like.

More recently, I have focused on diversity, equity and inclusion and work with clients to embed more inclusive working practices. It’s a really varied and interesting role.

I’ve also spent time during my career working as a professional support lawyer.

This involved making sure fee earners are never caught out by the latest developments and that the firm’s guidance and precedents were kept updated.

As a student, I only ever knew of the traditional solicitor route to partner but we need to build awareness of the breadth of the legal profession.

I definitely have not taken a conventional career path, but I’ve taken forward what I’ve learned from each role.

What would I say to someone thinking of changing career direction?

Change is hard, but don’t underestimate the skills you’ve learned and what you can bring to the table.

“The SQE route gives people like me options” – Lara Oseni, legal officer and case presenter at General Pharmaceutical Counsel

I remember at college, being told by a law lecturer “it’s not about what you know, it’s about who you know”.

This instantly put me off joining the legal profession, because I was a first-generation university student, and I did not know any professionals.

The introduction of the SQE meant that I could take a different route to enter the legal profession. I can utilise my already vast years of legal experience with the last phase of my legal studies.

Studying and working is not something that is new to me nor to lots of people from ethnically diverse backgrounds. That doesn’t make it any less challenging, but I am determined, because this is something I really want.

I feel as though I am getting closer to attaining the career that I have wanted for so long. I started out as a paralegal, and I am now a legal officer (the equivalent of a legal trainee) in the fitness to practise department of the General Pharmaceutical Council (the GPhC).

I get to improve my advocacy skills by presenting cases on behalf of the GPhC and have been involved in some amazing projects, such as contributing to the development of the Equality Diversity and Inclusion Strategy.

I have had moments of imposter syndrome, and doubts from not seeing enough people who look like me in this field, but recently I have been very fortunate to be mentored by some amazing people (mainly women).

The SQE route gives people like me options. We are not all the same and so we need different routes into the profession to accommodate that.

The legal profession needs to ensure that people feel like they belong and that there is space for them. This hasn’t always been the case with traditional routes.

Never give up and never be afraid to find creative ways to challenge how things are done.

SRA wants views on suite of support for in-house solicitors

SRA | SRA wants views on suite of support for in-house solicitors | Solicitors Regulation Authority

We have developed a raft of new resources to support the 34,500 plus solicitors working in-house in England and Wales. And views are now being sought on the guidance and advice before they are formally adopted.

Developed in conjunction with the regulator’s virtual in-house solicitor reference group, the materials build on issues which arose from our 2023 thematic review in working in-house and wider feedback from in-house solicitors over the past 12 months.

The resources include a new document aimed specifically at employers which outlines a solicitor’s professional obligations and the benefits of employing a regulated professional. The resource is also designed to help solicitors establish a mutual understanding of what this means they can – and cannot – do for their employer

Other newly published guidance covers areas such as identifying your client when working in-house, handling internal investigations, and reporting wrong-doing by your employer. Alongside the guidance, we have published a number of case studies illustrating how it can be put into action.

The documents are being published ahead of our second annual in-house solicitors conference, which is being staged next week and will bring together more than 250 in-house practitioners. The materials are also being published on our website, with feedback being invited by 19 April.

Juliet Oliver, General Counsel at the Solicitors Regulation Authority said: ‘As well as ongoing feedback from the those working in the sector, recent high-profile cases such as the Post Office case have really shone a light on the unique challenges and issues which in-house solicitors can encounter.

‘We have been working closely with the in-house community over the past year to consider what support we can offer to address some of these challenges. We believe these resources will provide valuable support and guidance to in-house solicitors across a range of important issues. But to make sure this is the case, we want to take this opportunity to invite those working in the sector to input’

The number of in-house solicitors in England and Wales continues to grow year-on-year and now accounts for more than one-fifth of all practising solicitors and work across more than 6,000 employers.

Our in-house solicitor conference, with expert speakers from across the private, public, and charity sectors, is being staged in London on 14 March. As well as the new guidance, issues to be discussed will include what it means to be an in-house leader, how to maintain and develop professional competence in an in-house setting, and an in-house solicitor’s role in providing environmental, social and governance direction.

Final copies of the new in-house resources will be published later in 2024.

The Jury: Murder Trial review – surely this is the end of the UK legal system as we know it

The Jury: Murder Trial review – surely this is the end of the UK legal system as we know it | Television | The Guardian

This brilliant reconstruction of a real-life trial lifts the lid on the usually secret deliberation room – and the results are agonisingly close to Big Brother. TV doesn’t get more addictive … or more harrowing

It’s a premise so simple and so brilliant that you wonder how on earth it hasn’t been done before. Rerun a trial – verbatim, from the records, using actors – in front of another jury, film their usually secret deliberations and see if they come up with the same verdict as the real jury did. That is the premise of Channel 4’s The Jury: Murder Trial, with the added twist that they have not one but two juries attending the same trial, unbeknownst to each other.

It is absolutely terrifying. You know how they say you should never see how a sausage is made? Well, my friends, better a thousand sausages than any of the workings of this foundational piece of the criminal justice system – the best method of dispensing fairness we have been able to invent, and upon which the fates of uncountable millions of accused, their accusers and silent victims have depended.

According to the best guesses of criminologists – and they can be little more, given the secrecy surrounding the process, including the prohibition against jurors talking about their decisions in the deliberation room afterwards – juries reach the wrong verdict in up to 25% of cases. Ten minutes in to The Jury, you will be longing for the time when you thought such a low figure was possible.

We meet some of the jurors before the trial begins. A couple seem to be dreading the responsibility to come. Others are raring to go.

On the first day of what will be the reconstruction of eight days in court, the facts of the case are given. They are relatively simple. John (Sam Alexander) admits that he killed his wife of two months, Helen (Katie Sheridan). She was strangled and then hit three times in the head with an industrial-sized hammer. She died two days later in hospital. He admitted it as soon as the police arrived, saying he “just snapped” – on which grounds he is pleading not guilty to murder. If the jury believe the defence of loss of control, he will be convicted of manslaughter, which carries a sentence as short as two years. If not, it’s murder and a life sentence (with the tariff set by the judge).

It is at this point in proceedings that the jury’s first break begins and – just possibly, the annals of judicial history may come to record – the end of the UK legal system as we know it. What unfolds is, if you are a pessimist, everything you feared was true about your fellow man but were quite happy pretending couldn’t possibly be deployed when it was people’s lives and justice for the dead at stake. If you are an optimist – well, there’s a world of pain coming your way and all I can say is I’m sorry and maybe stay away from televised social experiments in the dismal future that now lies before you.

There are those who are swayed every which way – by facts, by the assertions of friends and ex-partners in witness statements, by John’s tears and body language – and there are those who refuse to be moved from their original positions. Which is occasionally a steadfast commitment to impartiality until all the evidence has been heard, and more often – not. People’s personal experiences colour their interpretations of events, making them prioritise different facts and impute different motives to the defendant and the late victim. Larger personalities dominate and some upset others. Conflicts between individuals threaten to subsume the reason they are all there. Jury deliberations, you cannot help but feel, should not remind you so much of scenes from the Big Brother house. There are no Henry Fondas here.

Wider, more philosophical questions abound: is personal experience always prejudicial or does it deepen understanding and empathy? Is the man who has thrown crockery at his wife in a rage the sort of man who should be hearing this case, or not? Could it be that their collective life stories can give rise to wisdom – this bias counteracting that one, this new thought enlightening another? If so – is 12 people on a jury enough? Shouldn’t we get a thousand in, like they did in ancient Athens? In an increasingly fragmented, siloed society, is the jury system still fit for purpose? Was it ever? Or is it, like democracy and capitalism, a terrible one but the best we’ve got? Whatever the answers, it is wholly addictive and possibly even valuable television, if you can afford the despair.