This past May I participated in the Multnomah Bar Association’s first-ever legal hackathon. Having been on the planning committee, I was excited to see the event come together so well. MBA Past President Andrew Schpak wrote a great summary of the event for the July/August edition of Multnomah Lawyer (beginning on page 10).
Recently I was interviewed by Legal Geek, a London-based organization that puts on legal-tech and legal-design events around the world. Today the interview was published on their site as part of their ongoing Legal Geek of the Week series.
Today I had the pleasure of presenting at the North Carolina Bar Association’s annual meeting in Wilmington, NC. The theme for the conference was “the future of law.” Tom Brooke, Chair of the Future of Law Committee, selected fantastic speakers including Andrew Arruda, Dan Linna and Ed Walters. I was delighted to be invited to speak about design thinking in the law, which resonated nicely with the other topics being discussed—including A.I., the ethics of A.I., and data-driven approaches to law practice. Below is a copy of my remarks (the slides are available on Slideshare):
Last week I participated in the Summit on Law and Innovation at Vanderbilt University Law School. The theme of the conference was Breaking Down Silos and Building Connections—particularly between legal educators, practitioners and technologists. My role was to guide the 127 participants through a design-thinking sprint at the end of the conference, together with my amazing co-facilitators Cat Moon, Nicole Bradick and Tony Threatt.
Last weekend I co-organized an open-space conference here in Portland on the topic of the future of work. We had about 100 participants, and together we generated a rich marketplace of topics covering everything from culture, fractals, relationships and design to occupational hazards of the knowledge worker. (You can see the full list of topics on the conference website.)
My main takeaway from the conference is that the future of work involves many paradoxes. I think it is important to identify the paradoxes because otherwise it can feel like we’re contradicting ourselves, or that we’re not all on the same page—when in fact I think there was a lot of harmony among the sessions.