In an article entitled ,”The Algorithm Says You’ll Win the Case. What Do You Say?.” This Bloomberg Law article investigates the rules behind the issues dealing with marketing prediction analysis software.
Here’s a snippet
So I asked a few lawyers who handle professional responsibility matters if they thought Ex Parte and tools like it could be used in attorney pitches. Something like: “Hi, Ex Parte says you have a 25% chance of winning this case with me as your lawyer. And that’s the highest percentage among all the lawyers in its database.”
“If you say either one of those two things in most states I’m familiar with you’re going to be in trouble,” said David Rubin, a New Jersey lawyer who has handled professional responsibility matters. (And, in full disclosure, is the father of Bloomberg Law reporter Jordan Rubin.) “You have given a client unjustified expectations.”
Michael Frisch, ethics counsel at Georgetown University Law Center, agreed.
“There is a first amendment right to create information like [Ex Parte’s],” Frisch said. “But for the lawyers to participate in it would be a pretty clear violation of the rule.”
Fair enough. At least it’s not a ban on judicial analytics like the one implemented in France. But should lawyer marketing rules hold back the distribution of analytics?
Let’s hypothesize that Ex Parte was really, really good at predicting the outcomes of litigation. It seems like that would make the whole process more quick and painless, relatively speaking.
Plenty of litigators say cases drag on because of clients’ emotional attachment to them. A 5% chance of winning should help most rational clients cut their losses and settle.
Read full article https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/the-algorithm-says-youll-win-the-case-what-do-you-say
