Technology has become the main driver for increasing access to justice, and there are huge opportunities for legal service providers to leverage both existing and emerging tech to reach new clients. Dennis and Tom welcome Natalie Knowlton to discuss the current state of legal services, the justice gap, and ways technology is helping attorneys provide better and more affordable services to consumers.
As always, stay tuned for the parting shots, that one tip, website, or observation that you can use the second the podcast ends.
Have a technology question for Dennis and Tom? Call their Tech Question Hotline at 720-441-6820 for the answers to your most burning tech questions.
Natalie Anne Knowlton is the Founder of Access to Justice Ventures, which empowers entrepreneurs developing scalable solutions for legal consumers.
Mentioned in This Episode
A Segment: Fresh Voices on Legal Tech: Natalie Ann Knowlton
B Segment: More with Natalie Knowlton
Intro: Web 2.0. Innovation. Trend. Collaboration. Metadata–
Got the world turning as fast as it can, hear how technology can help legally speaking, with two of the top legal technology experts, authors and lawyers, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell. Welcome to the Kennedy-Mighell Report here on the Legal Talk Network.
Dennis Kennedy: And welcome to Episode 337 of the Kennedy-Mighell Report. I’m Dennis Kennedy in Ann Arbor.
Tom Mighell: And I’m Tom Mighell in Dallas.
Dennis Kennedy: In our last episode, we interviewed Chase Hertel from SimpleCitizen as part of our New Fresh Voices on legal tech interview series. In this episode, we’re excited to bring you another guest in our Fresh Voices on Legal Tech with again another very special guest. Before Tom and I go back to our regular format for an episode or two to make sure we don’t get out of shape. In this series, we want to showcase different and compelling perspectives on legal tech and much more. We have another fabulous guest Tom, what’s all on our agenda for this episode?
Tom Mighell: Well, Dennis, in this edition of the Kennedy-Mighell Report, we are thrilled to continue our Fresh Voices on Legal Tech interview series with Natalie Anne Knowlton, the Founder of and Principal Consultant at Access to Justice Ventures. A 2023 ABA Journal Legal Rebels and so much more. We want our Fresh Voices series to not only introduce you to terrific leaders in the Legal Tech space, but also to provide you with their perspective on the things you ought to be paying attention to. And as usual, we’re going to finish up with our parting shots that one tip website or observation that you can start to use the second that this podcast is over. But first up, we are so pleased to welcome Natalie Knowlton to our Fresh Voices series. Natalie, welcome to the Kennedy-Mighell Report.
Natalie Anne Knowlton: Thank you. Thank you so much for having me on.
Tom Mighell: Absolutely. Before we get started, can you tell our audience a little bit more about yourself and A to J Ventures?
Natalie Anne Knowlton: Absolutely. I have been in this field for the better part of two decades now and a really long time with the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System which is a civil justice reform, Access to Justice Reform Institute at the University of Denver. And I would say that’s where I really became radicalized around the need to change the legal system so that it served more people. Now I met Access to Justice Ventures where we’re empowering entrepreneurs who are building scalable justice solutions and we’re particularly focused on areas of the country that allow for some regulatory flexibility with respect to unauthorized practice of law rules and also some 5.4 co-ownership and fee sharing rule flexibility.
Dennis Kennedy: So, Natalie, Access to Justice is really being driven and going to be driven more and more by technology. And that’s part of the reason for the series and why we have you, why we invited you on. So, sometimes I get frustrated with how difficult it still is to explain technology, both the old technology and new technologies like AI and its benefits to those in the legal profession. I really enjoy the way you talk about technology when you guests speak to my law school classes, would you talk about your own approach to communicating with lawyers and others in the legal profession about technology and its benefits?
Natalie Anne Knowlton: Yeah, and I appreciate the kind words. One thing that I tend to say often, and I suspect I’ve said this to your class, but when we’re talking about technology in the context of legal services delivery and when I talk, I’m primarily going to be referring to the people law sector. But we’re talking really simple technologies here. This is not predictive analytics. It’s things like Gmail and other technologies that allow people to reach consumers in a way that is easier, that meets them where they are. And we’re also talking really simple design tools. Get on Canva and start revising the way that you send client invoices so that people appreciate what you’re adding value to more. So, that’s just kind of a small example, but be creative and we’re not talking about crazy, sophisticated, intricate legal technologies here. They’re very simple tools that people are already using.
Tom Mighell: I love that because it’s not just about, go and find a fancy new tool and use it. It’s makes use of what you’re already using or make use of some of the simple tools you’re using. One of the things I think you are planning to do or already doing with Access to Justice Ventures is offering support to tech startups that are going to benefit consumers of legal services. Based on that, how do you view the current state of justice technology? What do you see are the opportunities out there or maybe some gaps that are out there that need to be filled, that maybe some of these tech startups, these entrepreneurs or people who are going to be starting things up might be able to help fill or fill out that whole Access to Justice technology?
Natalie Anne Knowlton: So, the biggest gap, I’ll start with the gap because then I think it highlights the opportunity. For me, the largest gap is in this diagnostic area. So right now, you have that firm divide between legal advice and legal information. So, you have a lot of technology providers out there that are capitalizing on legal information, trying to package it in a way that gets to consumers. But there’s that diagnostic gap between what the information says and then what that individual person needs to do with it. How do you — one, you can access the illegal information, but can you deploy it? And that’s where legal advice gets into play here. So, I think the opportunity because of that gap in what legal technology companies can offer right now, I think the opportunity is in allowing some very limited legal advice so that consumers can actually have that accessibility and deployability piece in the information that they’re consuming. So, when I talk about regulatory areas around the country that are working on creating opportunities to fill this vacuum, that’s really highlighting that gap that I think is the primary or a primary impediment for legal technology to really start reaching consumers in a way that they need it.
Tom Mighell: Does that mean — I’m going to follow up Dennis really quick, does that mean that a tech startup that may not have any legal experience, are they going to have to start hiring lawyers to do that? I mean, what’s the best way to – because there might be folks who are great at the technology, less so on the legal advice. How do you see that working out?
Natalie Anne Knowlton: I see that as a fantastic example of an opportunity. A technology company is partnering with lawyers. We have these new providers that are popping up around the country who are able to offer very, very limited slivers of legal advice in certain instances. So, there are document preparers, that technology companies can partner with who are authorized to walk someone through and fill out a form. There are other providers that can, for example do a non-contested divorce for an individual. So, I think there’s huge opportunities if the regulations can allow for them to develop and mature, for attorneys and legal technology providers to come together to provide a better service to consumers.
Tom Mighell: So, good opportunities for the tech company, but also for lawyers who may be looking for access to an audience that they are a market that they don’t currently have access to.
Natalie Anne Knowlton: I think so.
Tom Mighell: Yeah.
Dennis Kennedy: So, I sometimes call that opportunity area pre-lawyer assistance. So, it’s like you know that you need help with something and you’re not ready yet to go to a lawyer or you can’t afford to go to a lawyer and had a number of conversations recently, including with one of my students who to me really illustrated that issue and what the opportunities potentially are there. So, my question comes down to this. So, my former CEO at Mastercard, Ajay Banga always talked about doing well by doing good. And you have talked about the win, win opportunities to improve access to justice while also operating a profitable business, serving that very, very large middle band of legal consumers above the legal services qualification line, but not wealthy enough to be able to afford the traditional legal services or lawyers. Would you share your perspectives on that? Because I think that could well be a game changer.
Natalie Anne Knowlton: Absolutely. Right now, we have and I’m trying to break this down and I know many others around the country are as well, we have this artificial dichotomy almost between people who can afford legal services and people who cannot. And in that latter category, people who cannot, we often look at legal services corporation, the eligibility requirements, income requirements and at that particular gap, anything under is someone who cannot afford legal services and therefore is entitled to subsidize legal services. But then the corollary that people assume is that everyone on the other of that income level, that criteria, can afford legal services and that’s absolutely not right. Someone making $5,000 more than someone who’s eligible for legal services, that doesn’t make them any more likely to be able to afford legal services. But also, and I was talking about this with Sony and Deborah from courtroom five not too long ago.
And Sonya really highlighted what I talk about, and it’s this difference between income and wealth. So, we’re looking at income levels, and income isa really poor indicator of what you can afford. It’s really your wealth level. So, if you’re making $100,000 a year and you have $200,000 in medical debt and you have $300,000 in student loan debt, you’re required to care for your family member all by yourself. You live in a large city and you have to pay for rent and a car. You’re not going to be in the position of someone who we traditionally think of as wealthy. So, I really am for breaking down this stereotype that people who fall on one side of an income level can just automatically afford legal services. And if I can just keep harping on this for one more second, I think this also raises the issue of consumer choice and I think that’s really important, because right now we’re making as an industry, we are making an assumption that people on one income level can afford an attorney, and so therefore they must afford an attorney.
While everyone else on the other side has access to a subsidized attorney. But if someone who is making $100,000 a year, who could easily afford an attorney but doesn’t want to afford an attorney, it makes me really uncomfortable as an industry for us to say, well, no, you have to have an attorney. That’s your only option, there’s no consumer choice in this calculus.
Dennis Kennedy: Yeah, as a follow up, I was going to say that I think of that as well. If any of us got sued in today’s litigation environment and the way the court system works, we absolutely can’t afford that. There’s just no way. So, I think there’s that piece of it. And then I think there is this notion, and let me just follow up on this, that sometimes you think that the legal services route is the only way to go and we need to provide traditional legal services for free. But I think there is this area you’ve talked around legal advice, quasi advice, different things like that, where you can scale that advice and what you’re doing and actually turn it into something that’s more profitable than, say like the standard law practice. So, maybe if you might comment on that approach as well.
Natalie Anne Knowlton: Yeah, this notion of scalable legal services as attorneys are trying to figure out how to better meet the needs of consumers, I think offers a lot of opportunity to rethink what the value add is for consumers. So, attorneys are obviously focused on legal advice, that’s what we’re licensed to do. We pay a lot of money to do it. But consumers often need legal information. And there’s this entire realm of legal information that comes right up to the line of legal advice that consumers nevertheless are really interested in learning about. So, I think there’s great opportunities for attorneys to start capitalizing on that market. And I really like the way I think it was Richard Susskind with his son writing in a book. And they talk about this disintermediation that has happened with the legal profession, particularly with the rise of online information and the democratization of legal information. And so, to the extent of which attorneys have been disintermediated by that attorneys now are and have the opportunity to re-intermediate themselves as people are looking online for legal information, they can stumble across an attorney in their area that offers a five step online video course for how to fill out your divorce forms that really is not offering anything more than legal information, but in a way that’s curated so that people can understand it and is staged in a workflow that makes it a lot easier for people to digest than if they were doing so on their own.
Tom Mighell: I actually have a follow up to the earlier thing you were talking about, about the notion of wealth versus income. And this is the part of the podcast which comes every time, where I confess that having not practiced in the law for 15 years, I sometimes lack some of the experience that I need to have. So, I want to ask this question, which is when you talk about the person who makes $100,000 who, because they have crushing debt, they’re in almost the same position as the person who would be eligible for pro bono services. But I don’t feel like that’s. I mean, maybe I’m just preaching to the choir here by saying I don’t ever hear about that. Is that something that’s being addressed? Is that something that Access to Justice Ventures is addressing? What’s going on right now to try and address that group who is probably just as deserving? There’s not going to be a rule out there that says you must provide pro bono services to this high income but not wealthy people. What’s happening these days?
Natalie Anne Knowlton: So, in the regulatory field around the country, that’s where a lot of these conversations are happening, focused on market-based solutions. Some of us in the industry call that the missing middle, this large chunk of people who have affordability issues or otherwise want choices. So, these market-based solutions and states that are experimenting with them are looking at, for example, providers that have limited scope legal advice authorization that do not rise to the level of what an attorney can offer. But the theory is and, in some States, they’re mandating this to be the case, although you’d think the market would kind of reflect this anyway. But the theory is that they will charge less than an attorney. And so, we’re seeing that happen and we’re seeing people access them. So, if you have an uncontested divorce and you want to go to a limited licensed legal technician or what they’re called in your neighboring state or state you can easily choose to do that at a price that’s going to be probably half, if not more than the cost of an attorney. So, those types of market-based solutions, I think, are really designed to get at that missing middle and give them the choice.
Tom Mighell: I’m going to take a hard right and talk about something that is near and dear to our hearts, and that is collaboration. Those who listen to this podcast know that we love to talk about collaboration technology on the podcast and so much so that we wrote a book on the subject. And we are fascinated, always fascinated, to learn about how others in different parts of the legal market collaborate with others. So, can you tell us what are some of your favorite ways to collaborate? Whether it’s with co-workers or colleagues or other people?
Natalie Anne Knowlton: It’s going to seem tragically simple and boring, but my primary tools are email, phone calls and text messages at IAALS I was for many, many years and probably everyone at IAALS is in this position all the time. You are routing one person who’s asking about information on something to someone who knows something about that piece project or piece of information. And so, creating those connections across people who are doing things is extremely important. I’m also doing some work right now with the Self-Represented Litigation Network and that is eminent network of civil justice leaders around the country. And simple things like emails are what keeps that network really going in terms of how can I get help on this, who’s out there, who are my resources? And you can kind of create that collaborative learning process. So, that for me, when I learn about something or I think someone should know something, then I send a text and introduce them and then the change just gets bigger and that for me, has been the most important way that I work and ensure that people who I’m working with know what’s going on and know what I know.
Tom Mighell: Well, and a lot of times it’s probably because everybody else is familiar with those tools and are willing to meet you on them rather than introducing them to a brand-new tool that they may be either not knowledgeable about or less willing to use, so that’s rule number one of collaboration. All right, we got a lot more questions for Natalie Knowlton, but before we do that, let’s take a quick break for a word from our sponsors.
As a lawyer, insurance is one of the last parts of your job you want to spend unbillable hours on. That’s why thousands of lawyers have switched to Embroker. Embroker offers A plus rated insurance for law firms that you can quote and buy instantly online. If you need help, they’ve got experts on standby. Go from sign up to purchase in just 15 minutes by visiting embroker.com/law. That’s E-M-B-R-O-K-E-R.com/law.
Dave Scriven-Young: You like legal podcasts because you’re curious and want to be the best attorney you can be. I’m Dave Scriven-Young, host of Litigation Radio, produced by ABA’s Litigation Section with Legal Talk Network. Search in your favorite podcast player for Litigation Radio to join me and my guests as we examine hot topics in litigation and topics that will help you to develop your litigation skills and build your practice. I hope you’ll check out Litigation Radio and join the ABA Litigation Section for access to all of the resources, relationships and referrals you need to thrive as a litigator.
Dennis Kennedy: And we are back with Natalie Knowlton of A to J Ventures. Natalie, what is happening these days, right now in Legal Tech that excites you or seems to have the most potential and how might these technologies or this technology impact legal education as well as law practice. Now, it’s okay if your answer is generative AT, but it might not actually be.
Natalie Anne Knowlton: So, I wanted to give a different answer, because obviously generative AI is pretty much anything anyone can think about or talk about. And I can’t say I’m not in that realm.
Tom Mighell: That’s my next question, so I’m glad you’re doing something different because that means I get to ask my next question.
Natalie Anne Knowlton: Well, for me, I can take it a step, fact and abstractive a little why generative AI is so exciting for me, not just generative AI itself. And it’s because it’s one of the first in my career in the law, at least the first instances where we’re seeing true disruption in what an attorney does on a day-to-day basis serving consumers. And there’s a lot of technologies that have been put forth and people say, well, it’s never going to replace a lawyer and we’re still hearing that it’s never going to replace a lawyer. But when we look at the tasks that this is capable of doing today, but then think about five years from now, this is absolutely going to change the way that lawyers operate their business, either because they get on top of it or because they’re put out of business by those who are leveraging these tools. And legal education too, it’s going to be a mandate for people, for attorneys to start using these technologies and how they deliver legal services to consumers. And law schools are going to have to reckon with how to teach traditional legal education, with how to actually deliver legal services in the modern market.
Tom Mighell: So, let’s follow that thread a little bit and maybe go into a little bit more specific of a question. We have been seeing crazy levels of hype around things like ChatGPT. And what I’m fascinated about and what Dennis and I had, I would say probably a 45-minute argument about one night before we recorded our podcast is what role a tool like ChatGPT or something similar generative AI would play in access to justice, particularly for the unrepresented. I think you spoke on a panel recently about that. And so, I kind of want to get your thoughts on the lawyer robot in your ear, I think is how I’ve seen it done. Are we getting too far ahead of ourselves? Is that a thing? And then I have a follow up on unauthorized practice of law.
Natalie Anne Knowlton: So, a couple of thoughts here, the first being this issue of how attorneys can use these tools to serve consumers and expedite the process for delivering legal services. I think there are huge implications on access to justice. So, if attorney is able to cut his or her time in which they’re offering a service to a consumer in half by using these tools, then theoretically we’d hope that passed to the consumer in terms of cost savings. But the other way is in those many, many case types around the country in this civil and family justice system that don’t have attorneys. And it’s a different question and conversation there. It’s not really how can these tools help access to justice, it’s how will people be using these tools? Because we can sit in Wax Poetics all we want about how attorneys should be accessing and whether consumers should use these tools, but they are using these tools just like they’re using the Internet. So, I think where access to justice really needs to start, having that conversation across community members is assuming people are using these tools, which they are. How can we develop better tools based on these large language models? Trusted data sets that are actually going to allow people to get answers to questions that give them some semblance of a next step and actual help. And I have to just put in a plug here because you hear a lot of attorneys saying, well, it lies and it’s inaccurate, but so does the Internet. The Internet is full of terrible information and people are accessing it all the time. What I think –
Dennis Kennedy: And attorneys too are not known for 100% telling the truth. And I think we downplay that a lot as lawyers.
Tom Mighell: I will only say, and this is the source of our argument here. I will only say that you can sue a lawyer for malpractice and it has not been proven that you can sue an AI for malpractice at least not at this day and time anyway. That’s my only difference there. So, let me follow that out and say that my follow up question is assuming that this is coming, assuming that consumers are going to start using tools, whether it’s something that a product that somebody gives or something they choose to do on their own. Is it inevitable that the regulators are going to come in with an unauthorized practice of law claims? Somewhere down the road? And if so, what are your thoughts about how that plays out?
Natalie Anne Knowlton: Well, knowing legal regulators, I’m sure it’s inevitable that they’re going to come in with that, right?
Tom Mighell: That’s kind of a softball question.
Natalie Anne Knowlton: But how I think that’s going to playout is going to be really interesting. On one hand, there is the risk of harm. I’ll acknowledge that people can get bad legal advice online and follow it through and be harmed in some way. And of course, they can get bad legal advice from attorneys and follow it and be harmed in some way. But when you look at it, what the technology is actually doing is leveraging the legal information that’s available online. And so, it makes me really nervous to start thinking about allowing legal regulators to come in and start regulating the output of these questions that’s leveraging publicly available information. So, that really makes me nervous. Now, I think there’s a bigger question brewing and the FTCs like jumping out of their pants on this one, is how are we going to regulate this technology, period. And I think there’s a lot of room for conversation about how that will impact legal consumers. But I am pretty firm on not wanting legal regulators to start waiting into this space.
Dennis Kennedy: It’s interesting because in my AI and law class, we spent a lot of time talking about this idea to say we know that there are some areas with technology that we’ve as a society made decisions about whether we want to regulate them, whether we want to clamp down or we want to be expansive. So, with the internet, I think we consciously made this decision that it was going to be a place for innovation and we weren’t going to regulate heavily at the beginning with human cloning, genetics, those sorts of things, we went absolutely other way. And so, the question with I think new technologies like AI are on that spectrum, are we closer to the internet or are we closer to the biologics, I’ll call it, which I think and that’s going to be difficult, but the fact is that it’s changing every single day. Like I’ve given up doing reading assignments in my class, we just go AI in the news because there’s always something to talk about. So, it is kind of interesting what you were saying and I think it’s also forcing us a little bit toward this, really focusing on these two parts of law. And this is, I think, where Tom and I sometimes differ, is that there is one type of lawyering that you need when you’re in the court system and there’s another type of lawyering when you’re sort of out in the world doing business and other things like that. And if you’re self-represented, you need different types of things.
And I guarantee right now there are lots of people self-represented doing business, legal deals using ChatGPT. I just saw Dan Linna on a seminar or in a webinar basically draft a demand letter to get a security deposit back and to file the pleading for the lawsuit for that using ChatGPT. So, that’s out there and then we also feel like ChatGPT feels like in the world of the MBAs, when spreadsheets first came along, they didn’t say like, “oh my God, people have to go back and to do things by pencil and paper. They accepted the tool and they really drove it for what they could do.” So, that makes me optimistic about where some of the AI stuff is going. But as you look to the future, what gives you optimism about the use of technology in the legal profession and the legal system?
Natalie Anne Knowlton: Well, I’m optimistic in general in this area, which is rare because I’m probably not billed as an optimistic person. I just think there are so many opportunities that are available, there are tons of issues, there are a ton of challenges. I do think though, the whole world is focused on this right now. A lot of talk about regulation of generative AI. I think we will have solutions, and they might be imperfect and we might have to scratch them and start a new, but I think we will have solutions that are going to address some of the coming challenges. So, I tend to leave those to others who are far more well positioned to handle those and definitely above my pay grade. And I just kind of air on the side of focusing on how this can help the industry and how this can help consumers in the industry.
Tom Mighell: So, you talked earlier about how getting people to use the simple tools that they have is often more effective than introducing other new tools. What would you say are one or two technologies that you’d recommend that people should be focusing on right now and learning about right now and how would you suggest they get started?
Natalie Anne Knowlton: Well, I’m actually in that boat of looking at a bunch of tools. I don’t know if I would necessarily recommend at this point, but if I can take a step back and answer that question by the journey that I’m going through and trying to figure out how to automate processes and workflows, it can seem overwhelming when you start diving into everything. But I think if you two things, one, open your mind and be curious when you’re looking at these do demos. Look at this as an opportunity to explore and learn about new ways that you can make your own processes efficient. I think that’s probably the best mindset to have coming into these conversations. And then number two, is ask your friends, ask your colleagues, ask people outside of the legal industry what they’re using. I think legal tech is a very tight knit community and so we tend to really talk up, as we should talk up the tools that come out of our little legal tech niche. But there are tons of other tools out there used by industries that you might not think to look at. Advertising has been a big one for me in terms of some of the content generation tools that I’ve been using and some gen AI tools in there as well. But don’t make everything up. Ask people, figure out what they’re using and replicate what you can. Copy it, but also explore.
Tom Mighell: So, I will just note for the record that even though I don’t think she expressly recommended it, she is now the third guest in a row that we’ve had people who has talked about automation and looking at automation tools. And so, folks if you’re out there listening, this is not just a theme, it’s not just a coincidence. You need to be paying attention to this. So, we’ve got a couple more questions, but before we get back with Natalie Knowlton of Access to Justice Ventures, let’s take a quick break for a message from our sponsors.
Sharon Nelson: As a lawyer, keeping up with developments in information security, cyber threats and eDiscovery is a never-ending process. Fortunately, the Digital Detectives Podcast does the hard work for you. I’m Sharon Nelson and together with John Simek, we bring on industry experts to discuss the latest tech developments that help keep your data secure only on the Digital Detectives Podcast.
Jared Correia: They say the best things in life for free, which either means The Legal Toolkit Podcast is pretty awesome, or we’re totally committed to the wrong business model. You’ll just have to tune in to find out which it is. I’m Jared Correia and each episode, I run the risk of making a total ass of myself so that you can have a laugh, learn something new, and why not maybe even improve your law practice. Stop believing podcasts can’t be both fun and helpful. Subscribe now to the Legal Toolkit. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
Dennis Kennedy: And now let’s get back to the Kennedy-Mighell Report, I’m Dennis Kennedy.
Tom Mighell: And I’m Tom Mighell. We are joined by our special guest, Natalie Knowlton of A to J Ventures. We do have time for just a few more questions and I would like to start with sort of what we’re calling our best advice question. And I’ll give you the option. What’s the best advice you’ve been given from someone that you trust, somebody mentor or other somebody that you appreciate or what’s the best advice you could give to our audience and leave our listeners with or both? If you got two good nuggets.
Natalie Anne Knowlton: They actually might be one and the same. This is a lesson that I learned when I had a separate life working with some people in the innovation space outside of the law. And I would say I would pass this advice along as well and I was thinking beforehand how to phrase this. Normally what I was told and what I now embody is assume that disruption is coming and that you will be disrupted. But that sounds really negative and people kind of take a step back when you say that to them. So, let me try to reframe it and going forward, maybe I’ll use this messaging if it resonates. Plan to be the disruptor. Assume that you can be part of the disruption, that just because an industry is being disrupted and I think on all counts we understand law as being disrupted even if you’re in it, you can see the tides are changing, but just because you’re in it doesn’t mean you can’t be part of the disrupting wave. And so, have that mindset in everything that you’re doing going forward. And I think at the very least, if the disruption never comes, great. I mean, that’s probably not going to happen. But if it does come, then you’re prepared and you’re on the first wave and I think that’s where most people should try to be if they want to stay in the game.
Dennis Kennedy: Yeah, there’s this sort of great quote that I won’t get quite right and I’ve forgotten who actually gets the attribution on this one. But the best way to predict the future is to create it yourself. So, last question, who are your fresh voices in legal tech? The people you like to listen to that you would want to single out and maybe see as part of our Fresh Voices series.
Natalie Anne Knowlton: So before coming today, I listen of course to Kristen and she and the rest of everyone associated with the Justice Technology Association, those are some of my heroes and I applaud the work that they’re doing and I listen to almost everything that all of them say. One of the things that I’ve started doing lately and really trying to double down on is looking at from the legal technology space, how can I listen to voices in industries that have nothing to do with legal technology, but nevertheless, I can apply those learnings to it? So, I love the work coming out of MIT on Generative AI right now. I love looking at other industries in terms of what the advances in technology are looking like there and also what some of the implications are. So, the medical field, I think, struggles or has struggled and will continue to struggle with many of the same things that the legal profession does in terms of service, delivery, challenges and demand and other industries are similar to that. So, I’m looking for fresh voices that have nothing to do with the law, because I think they have a lot to say about how we can improve the law.
Tom Mighell: Well, I think this has been a great conversation and we want to thank Natalie Knowlton for being a guest on the podcast. Natalie, can you tell the people where they can learn more about you, more about Access to Justice Ventures and what you’re doing?
Natalie Anne Knowlton: Yes, and I am honored to be asked to be here. I really appreciate it, thank you both. You can find me almost always on Twitter. It’s @natalalleycat. You can also go to A to J Ventures.com and sign up for information about what we’re working on there, you’ll find some of the latest work that we’ve been doing on Sandbox regulation and advocating for that kind of regulatory approach. And also, I’m still working as a regulatory advisor with the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System. You can go to IAALS.du.edu.com to see some of the work that we’re doing there and some of the writing that I’ve been putting out.
Dennis Kennedy: Yeah, and thank you so much, Natalie. You’re a fantastic guest with great information, great advice for our listeners. And now, it’s time for our parting shots, that one tip website or observation you can use the second this podcast ends. Natalie, take it away.
Natalie Anne Knowlton: Have a growth mindset.
Tom Mighell: I don’t think we’ve had a parting shot that brief and yet so full of meaning. All right, my parting shot is in response or I guess a next chapter of what we’ve talked about on the podcast in the past. I know that both Dennis and big fan of the podcast, Debbie Foster, have mentioned Calendly as a tool to schedule meetings. I will admit that my consulting team is in the dark ages when it comes to scheduling meetings with clients, sending Outlook calendars or even just telling availability. We stink at it, but I don’t want to purchase Calendly right now. I want a tool that gets it done and to follow up with what Natalie said. If you don’t want to purchase a new tool, try and find a tool that you have that works.
And those of you who have Microsoft365 also have access to Microsoft Bookings. You can set up a bookings page for you or your team where people have 24/7 access to your calendar. It’s up to date all the time. You never have to say, “oh, wait, that calendar has changed, here’s my new availability.” People can access it. They can put time on your calendar if they want to. They can communicate with you. Otherwise, it’s a great free-way, especially if you’re a Microsoft365 user. It’s a great free way to get your clients or others to come to you and make your calendar available to them. Dennis?
Dennis Kennedy: Yeah, it almost feels like the best thing that you can do this year is start using a calendaring tool like Calendly or Microsoft Bookings. You won’t ever want to go back. So, my parting shot is, again, I just want to say please don’t forget about what happened at Michigan State a couple of months ago. We’re back in class, kind of chugging our way toward the end of the semester, but it’s been difficult and it’s been challenging. So, my continuing tip is to remember to connect with people you care about and your communities. I want to give two quick things. So, on generative AI, the source I’m really starting to like is someone named Ethan Mollick. And the best way to get started with him is on Twitter, and he’s @emollick, he’s really doing some cool stuff and practical stuff with generative AI. And then the other thing I want to point people to is I was on Steven Poor’s Pioneers and Pathfinders Podcast a while back, and we’ll have that link in the show notes. It was a longish conversation, as Tom would say, not surprisingly, but we talked a lot of legal tech history and we had fun. And so, if you want to have an idea of some of the things I’ve done and the history of legal tech and what we see going forward, it’s a great podcast to give a listen to.
Tom Mighell: And so that wraps it up for this edition of The Kennedy-Mighell Report. Thanks for joining us on the podcast. You can find show notes for this episode on the Legal Talk Network’s page for the show. If you like what you hear, please subscribe to our podcast in iTunes, on the Legal Talk Network site or in your favorite podcast app. If you’d like to get in touch with us, remember you can always reach out to us on LinkedIn, sometimes on Twitter, or you can leave us a voicemail. Remember, we like your questions for our B segment. That phone number is 720-441-6820. So, until the next podcast, I’m Tom Mighell.
Dennis Kennedy: I’m Dennis Kennedy and you’ve been listening to the Kennedy-Mighell Report, a podcast on legal technology with an Internet focus. If you like what you heard today, please rate us in Apple podcast and we’ll see you next time for another episode of the Kennedy-Mighell Report on the Legal Talk Network.
Outro: Thanks for listening to the Kennedy-Mighell Report. Check out Dennis and Tom’s book. The ‘Lawyer’s Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies: Smart Ways to Work Together’ from ABA Books or Amazon. And join us every other week for another edition of the Kennedy-Mighell Report only on the Legal Talk network.