LSC's 2020 Innovations in Technology Conference

As the maxim goes, "content is king," but whether developing a portal or app, the quality of the content must reflect coordinated information among providers. This session will explore how the Justice for All coalition framework enables a local community to create and harmonize tech- ready self-help content, as well as offers a pragmatic structure for addressing the governance challenges that can undermine the success of technology projects. After a general presentation, attendees will break into facilitated groups to problem solve specific examples that illustrate the power of aligning technology and trusted intermediaries.

Algorithmic decision-making has enormous potential to help vulnerable people in our society. By reducing the role of human decision-makers, Artificial Intelligence (AI) promises to increase efficiencies, reduce biases, and simplify processes. States want AI to decide eligibility for Medicaid, public housing, SNAP benefits, and more. But, with all this promise and potential, why are we seeing litigation challenging automated decision-making in Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, New York and other states? The lawsuits are contesting applications that have gone awry with erroneous outcomes, embedded biases, and wrongful findings of fraud, and are insisting, among other things, that government adjust processes and standards, and re-do adverse decisions. AI applications are going awry with erroneous decisions, embedded biases, wrongful findings of fraud, and requirements to re-do decisions. Will AI systems, including portals and online dispute resolution, work as hoped? Due process, equal protection, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and statutory challenges are proceeding against AI models, and are on the rise. What are the consequences of saying to ourselves and to others “the computer did it”? Our community needs advocacy tools, including national standards, to hold government, tech firms, and other powerful interests, accountable to the rule of law. We must preserve the rights of people against the new tyranny of presumptions of accuracy. Join this group conversation about the promise, the perils, and the national standards that are defining the entry of AI into the justice sphere.

For centuries, the Bar has said only a lawyer can engage in the practice of law: people shouldn’t charge for expertise they don’t have or people shouldn’t perform tasks for which they lack skills. But, do claims of harm prevention go too far? Do the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) rules harm people by preventing them from getting the help they need? Do they prevent people or computers from performing tasks that they can do well, even if these might be "the practice of law"? Are there best policies and practices that would protect librarians, social workers, organizers, counselors, navigators, "trained advocates," and even some computer software applications - especially in nonprofit settings (or, only in such settings) - from the UPL prohibitions? Join this discussion of necessities, pros, and cons, of the multiple models proposed for UPL rules reform. Reform efforts are moving forward across the country, often led by for-profit tech companies under the banner of expanding access to justice. But which reforms are good for people in need and which would truly expand access to justice? Join this discussion of the pros and cons of the multiple models proposed for UPL rules reform.