If you tuned in for part three of our ODR podcast series “ODR Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Asking (And Answering) the Hard Questions with the NCSC,” you know that we could talk for days with NCSC CIO Paul Embley and Consultant Diana Graski. So we kept the conversation going and spun off this special edition episode that speaks directly into the heart of justice: is technology really supporting the court, or just speeding up its processes?
We hope you’ll hear Paul and Diana illustrate how “automated insights” have helped Judges spend more quality time with litigants to make better informed, more compassionate decisions. Journeying us through recent use cases and their own in-person experiences, Paul and Diana put a pulse on how ODR is effectively serving the public and the court by making justice available at the litigant’s convenience, hurdling language barriers, and painting a fuller picture for each case.
NCSC resources available to help courts and other legal counsel in their ODR research, such as ncsc.org/jtc and https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/20830/2020-04-02-intro-to-ai-for-courts_final.pdf
Read the Transcript
Brad Smith: |
Hello, everyone. Thanks for joining me today, my name is Brad Smith, your host for today’s podcast. Recently, I had the pleasure of chatting with our friends, Paul Embley and Di Graski from the National Center for State Courts. During our virtual sit-down, Paul and Di tackled questions surrounding ODR. One topic artificial intelligence was not included in part three of our ODR series as I wanted to share their conversation on AI as a bonus episode. |
Paul Embley: |
So, so Brad, one of the things that I loved, you know, there, there was this phrase that somebody came up with and they said that they prefer to interpret AI as automate insights. And why wouldn’t we want to give Judges or participants or whatever, the insights that could be helpful to them in either presenting their case or in figuring out the merits of a case or anything. |
Di Graski: |
Right to me, Brad, it’s very much like the prior question we were talking about with video conferencing or other technologies that would work nicely with an online dispute resolution platform. So, you know, if there are, if there’s, if there are AI tools that can help with language access for folks, for whom English is not their primary language, or if there what, what Paul was just saying about trying to help people find the information that they need, but it is of repetitive you know, it’s a frequently asked question. Gosh, is there, you know, are there chatbots that could really help a lot of people with very little expense to the court so that those judicial resources could better focus on the, you know, the hard cases, the important cases. To me, those are completely appropriate uses of AI in ODR. |
Brad Smith: |
Yeah. AI is so broad. I mean, I could apply it in so many different ways. Like for example you know, the solution A2J which allows for people to fill out forms using almost like a, you know, just a step-by-step approach. So, you don’t necessarily see this legal, you know, the here two fours and the, the legal jargon, it’s more Q and A back and forth. |
Di Graski: |
Yeah. |
Paul Embley: |
Exactly. |
Brad Smith: |
Go ahead, Paul. |
Paul Embley: |
Well, so, so I one of the people I admire in, in the ODR world who is just an amazing gentleman is Richard Susskind he’s out of the UK, but he did speak at one of our conferences and he just amazing. But he talks quite a bit about online courts and, and you know, what, what do people want out of them? But one of the things that he sent around just recently is that in the mid-seventies, there was a book on AI and the author, AI pioneer, John McCarthy was asked one time, what do judges know that we cannot tell a computer? And McCarthy replied nothing. |
Di Graski: |
And just to put a really fine point on it. Paul, I think what, what the National Center for State Courts would advocate is the use of these automated insight tools or augmented intelligence tools, not to be robot judges, but to support access, communication help people understand what a realistic outcome, might be given their situation. How people identify legal issues, help people like, like Brad, like you were saying, help people navigate the crazy legalese and prepare the documents properly with step-by-step questionnaires. That’s the kind of AI we’re talking about, we’re not talking about robot judges. |
Brad Smith: |
Which I think is outstanding. And that’s why I was saying AI could be applied to so many different things depending on how you want to do it. I remember back in the day when Lexus Nexus and Westlaw were coming out with natural language searches versus using bully and logic. |
Di Graski: |
Right, that was huge. |
Brad Smith: |
And so, everyone’s like, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. I mean, how are we. How are you guaranteeing or getting the right answer? And so, you know, there’s kind of this comfort hurdle, which you, you had to, to get over. |
Di Graski: |
You know, Brad, I think that is one of the maybe unintended or unforeseen outcomes of online dispute resolution. Justice Himonas in Utah is so eloquent about this reporting from his trial court judges. Those people, those parties who are not actually successful in reaching a total final settlement agreement using the ODR platform, they still have their day in court. And what, what Justice Himonas is telling us is that those folks coming to have their day in court are way better, educated, way, better prepared. They know what document they know, what the issues are. They know to bring their evidence. And the Judges are in so much of a better position because instead of trying to work their way through a cattle call of, you know, 150 cases in two hours, they’ve got two cases that they can really focus on. It’s amazing. |
Brad Smith: |
Yeah, they were, there was a video fairly recently, which I observed online and, and it, I was worried that the Judges wouldn’t embrace it. But they are describing, and this was totally true that the catechol experience you just described Di where individuals would be in a, in a room with a hundred individuals there and looking at them. And it’s always, it’s it already makes you uncomfortable being in a courthouse regardless. I don’t, I don’t care who you are. It’s a setting you’re not used to. It’s a situation, which, you’re nervous and you may not want to tell the whole story, or you condense the story just because you just want to get through it. |
Paul Embley: |
So, so Brad, one of the things that you and I talked about kind of in preparation for this, that, that I wanted to bring up and, is this, this whole idea that, that now ODR is, is only accelerating you know, bad outcomes. And, and, you know, and, and in most cases that that is a default judgment, you know, where, where creditors are just using this as, as a way to accelerate things and not really put much time and effort into it. And I know that Utah has been used as an example of that. And this applies to ODR. It applies to AI. It applies to really any technology. And, and that is that you know one of the examples I use is, a stethoscope. I probably should pick a different example, so I could say the word, but, you know, it would, it would be foolish for us to blame a stethoscope for finding a heart problem. That’s just folly. |
Di Graski: |
Well, that’s a really great analogy, Paul. I, I think that on a, on a positive note, when one of the experiences that folks are having with online dispute resolution and some of the other, you know, virtual hearings. Some of these other technologies is that Brad, you were just talking about the stress, you know, that’s just associated with coming into the courthouse, you know, going through security, being in front of a judge, being surrounded by all these strangers at the cattle call. Especially for folks who have experienced some trauma. Those are, those are debilitating environments for them, cognitively debilitating. They, they are not at their best in that environment. And I think some of the courts have adopted online dispute resolution are seeing that the virtual ness of it, the asynchronicity of it, you know, the less formality of it. It is more conducive to helping people tell their story and collect their thoughts and their evidence in productive ways. |
Paul Embley: |
Absolutely. And I am glad that you turned this to the positives. Let’s always end on a positive note. |
Brad Smith: |
I couldn’t agree with you more. And as a matter of fact, I just, I wanted to thank you guys for your time. I mean, you, you guys are favorites in my book regardless. It, it was so interesting to go the whole gamut of where we’re at and where we should be in and where we can be. And I really appreciate your guys’ time. |
Paul Embley: |
Well, thank you, Brad. |
Di Graski: |
Thanks, Brad. |
Paul Embley: |
Been a pleasure and it’s, it’s always so great to do these with Di, she’s so amazing. |
Di Graski: |
Well, right back at you Paul. |
Brad Smith: |
I will see you soon. Cheers guys. Take care. |
Paul Embley: |
Thanks again. |
Brad Smith: |
If you haven’t already done so, download our online dispute resolution three-part series. If you’d like to learn more about the opportunities online dispute can bring to your court system, we encourage you to visit our ODR specific website, www.resolvedisputes.com. |