Giving Minorities a Helping Hand

A recap: Develop a hackathon problem for the first A2J Hackathon.

Problem and Background

Minorities are often under-served demographics in society, whether they are minorities because of race, ethnicity, disability, sexuality, age, and/or other traits and characteristics. They have various challenges accessing legal services to address their grievances due to their identity group status. For example, ethnic minorities who are new immigrants to Hong Kong have to come to an unfamiliar place and set up new life, while facing many legal and bureaucratic challenges. Their options in terms of accessing the legal system and understanding their legal rights and obligations are limited as they will need to work with different cultures and may face language barriers.

Members of a minority group might also face uniquely complex barriers to justice because of statutes connected with their gender, family, employment, and visa situations, among others. For example, an individual who is a member of an ethnic minority group and who is an asylum seeker or foreign domestic worker might face compounding legal issues due to their special constitutional statuses. You should also consider the fact that there are sub-groups of individuals who might belong to one or more minority identity groups.

Some barriers might not be legal in nature. They might arise from the limitation of time and availability of particular resources, but their impact in legal services could be significant. For example, language barriers in accessing legal services arising from the limited number of interpreters in Hong Kong for particular languages and dialects. Similarly, you might like to investigate the extent of the problem for people with hearing and/or speech impediments in accessing pro bono and subsidised legal services whether provided by the government or community groups.

You are invited to address the barriers of justice faced by minorities and consider how technology can assist. These barriers might or might not have existed but for the trait or characteristic of the user of the legal system, be this a language barrier, physical and mental disability, etc. In the legal sense, some of these barriers could be deemed discriminatory, and some might not. Indeed, current Hong Kong laws do not protect certain traits and characteristics from discrimination and harassment. With today’s powerful computers and mobile devices, barrier-free justice can be advanced not only from an informational perspective. Digital communication and automation tools promise minorities greater access to justice beyond simple online legal reference materials, allowing for remote connections and tele-presence, and streamlining of administrative and bureaucratic steps.

Further Readings and Resources

1. The Equal Opportunities Commission of Hong Kong provides resources on anti-discrimination laws and publications on the protection and promotion of equal opportunities: http://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/graphicsfolder/inforcenter/dlr/default.aspx

2. The issues of crime and criminal justice in Hong Kong involving ethnic minorities: http://www.law.hku.hk/ccpl/StatusofEthnicMinorities/Chapter8.pdf

3. The Community Legal Information Centre organised by the University of Hong Kong maintains webpages on common issues related to immigration law: http://www.clic.org.hk/en/topics/immigration/all.shtml

4. Reference on how the European Union (E.U.) considers access to justice for persons with disabilities under E.U. law: http://www.era-comm.eu/UNCRPD/kiosk/speakers_contributions/413DV06/Leenknecht_pres.pdf

5. Reference on promoting in the U.S. accessible courtroom technology in advancing disability civil rights law and policy: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1262&context=wmborj

Bridging the Public and Professionals

A recap: Develop a hackathon problem for the first A2J Hackathon.

Problem

There are a number of perennial challenges in seeking legal professional help for the general public. We invite you to consider step-by-step the multidimensional challenges from both perspectives of the “user” (client) and the “service provider” (lawyer), among other stakeholders. The progress in developing the legal consultation model since systems of laws have formalised worldwide centuries ago has been glacial. However, the advent of technologies enabling digital automation, including natural language processing and textual analytics and mining, promises revolutionary changes for the consultation model. You might consider focusing on one or more practice areas, or one or more legal processes (perhaps common to multiple practice areas).

Background

Like other professions, the law has deep traditions and its own culture and language. Lawyers have to study and train in the law for many years, and obtain professional and specialist qualifications. Each area of law and practice is built around vast pools of knowledge, which could vary greatly between different jurisdictions. Most people are untrained in the law. People cannot seek professional help where they do not even realize there is a legal issue. Even if an individual realizes that there is a legal issue, he or she might not realize how serious the legal issue is and that it could be too complex for self-help remedies. Most people would in their lifetime seldom seek legal services –even basic ones– especially when compared with common medical services. It’s hard for people to improve over time in seeking legal help.

The law seems impenetrable to lay people. Lacking expert knowledge and without proper and timely referrals, people might not be able to find appropriate specialist help. Where cases are mishandled, legal rights and protections might be forfeited without any further recourse. Even where the right lawyer is found, significant time and costs could be wasted where individuals seeking consultation fail to disclose information relevant to the legal case. Alternatively, the individuals might have disclosed a lot of information irrelevant to the case, and the lawyer is left to sort this out.

The legal consultation model relies, at least partly, on the client to “input” by asking questions and disclosing information. In some legal scenarios, this could be very difficult. By analogy, there is no clearly discernible but ailing body part to point to for the practitioner to diagnose and treat. If the “input” conditions are sufficient, the properly trained and skilled consultant should “output” with responsive advice, clarifying questions (if needed), and/or relevant legal documentation.

From the “service provider” perspective, legal professionals, in the public, private, and non-profit sectors, are facing Big Data challenges like many members of other professions and industries. Case by case, the professionals are required to review and handle increasingly more complex information within tight timeframes. The demands for high quality, responsive, and cost-effective legal service are also growing. The laws and regulations in many areas of life are also getting more complex in our sophisticated society.

In many scenarios involving the provision of legal services, there should be ways to make more efficient the sharing of information between the lawyer and the client. Currently, professionals could spend hours taking instructions from each client, even though the key types of information required are essentially the same. Time could be wasted because the presentation of relevant information by the clients seem incoherent or insufficient. Improving the legal consultation model could lead to a win-win scenario for lawyers and clients.

Further Readings and Resources

1. The Legal Aid Department provides funding for legal representation to eligible applicants so that their rights for taking or defending a legal action is not deprived due to lack of means: http://www.lad.gov.hk/eng/las/overview.html

2. The Duty Lawyer Service in Hong Kong provides useful legal information and advice to general public including, Tel-Law Scheme for recorded legal information on various topics over the phone, Duty Lawyer Scheme for legal representation in criminal matters, Free-Legal Advice Scheme for general public to obtain legal advice: http://www.dutylawyer.org.hk/index.asp

3. Please see the top 10 enquiries which the government usually receive: http://www.1823.gov.hk/eng/faq/index.htm

4. As an illustration of the details to be taken by lawyers in their first consultation session with clients in a divorce case, please see the link: https://www.bankrifkinlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/divorce-attorney-initial-consultation-what-to-expect.pdf (note: there may be overseas legal references that might be inapplicable)

5. As an illustration of the topics of discussion in the first consultation session of a personal injuries case, please see the link: https://pricebenowitz.com/dc-injury/initial-consultation (note: there may be overseas legal references that might be inapplicable)

6. Law Society of Hong Kong Free Legal Helpline and Free Legal Consultation Scheme: http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/popup/20130515/20150602.pdf; http://www.choosehklawyer.org/en/search_fl_practice_areas.asp

7. Law Society of Hong Kong Mediation Services: http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/mas/faq.asp

8. Other free legal assistance schemes: http://www.lasc.hk/eng/links/advice.html

[INSTRUCTIONS: READ ] Designing Your Hackathon Solution: Guiding Questions

Basic instructions.

In designing your hackathon solution, please consider all questions set out below, subject to the umbrella of issues set out in the problem scenarios of the Hackathon. We are looking for solutions that address real-life problems. We encourage you to consider potential problems and solutions from diverse perspectives, taking a cross-disciplinary approach. We have also set out recommended websites and readings in each problem scenario section.

At the pitching session in the afternoon on the last day of the Hackathon, you and your team are required to make a maximum five (5)-minute presentation to the panel of judges, which may or may not be followed by maximum two (2) minutes of questions from the panel.

In the presentation, your team is required to answer three (3) questions:

• In one sentence, what problem are you solving and why is this problem important to access to justice?

• What are the benefits, including returns on investment and time and cost-savings, for your target users?

• What are the costs of implementation and maintenance?

In the presentation, your team is required to “demo” and walk-through your solution. This could be a prototype supplemented by wireframes and graphical diagrams for discussions on relevant workflows or a rough but functional mockup. No PowerPoint deck is necessary.

What is the core issue you are building a solution for? And what is the context of the issue?

You are recommended to select a subject area your team is genuinely interested in understanding and helping. Please define in precise and practical terms the core issue(s) you are building a solution to address.

You could select common legal problems, including but not limited to those, arising from: advice for tech start-ups, intellectual Property, building management; consumer goods and services; conveyancing and stamp duty; divorce and child custody; employment benefits and unfair dismissal; landlord and tenant; loans and debt collection; minor crimes (or summary offences) and criminal procedures; personal injuries (general and employment related compensation); traffic offence; refugee and asylum seekers, etc.

In scoping out your core issue(s), however, you are recommended to identify the specific legal process and area of law relevant to your core issue(s). You might be interested in helping the lawyer to enhance his or her efficiency by automating the screening and review of documentation shared by clients, or tracking requests for information from clients. The more specific and tangible the better. You are required to build a solution where you could convincingly show feasibility and impact.

What are the “solutions” existing in the current market?

Solutions” in this context should be broadly conceived. There may be actual products and services in the market, and you are advised to research on existing paid and free resources relevant to your area of interest. There are commercial vendors of legal research tools and precedent banks for legal template documentation, which are sold primarily to legal practitioners. There may be no product or service per se but there may be commercial and customary practices that address the issue you are focused on, albeit inefficiently or ineffectively.

Free and self-help options are increasingly available to the general public. People might not even know, for example, which form to fill and file or which government department to submit appropriate documentation or enquiries. In many areas of law, there are online and offline self-help resources, including forms and templates to download and frequently asked questions. Yet, the requisite information and documentation needed to deal with a single case might be scattered within and among different websites and physical locations (e.g. offices of the judiciary and government agencies). There are time and costs attached to each administrative procedure, whether directly or indirectly borne by the client.

Nevertheless, these self-help systems are mostly “passive information stores” requiring users to know what “ails” them and come up with relevant search terms or search strategies to find appropriate reference materials. This is a fundamental problem of search, data science, and information retrieval. It is also a fundamental problem in optimising choices in a multi-layered "option maze": the choices of lawyer and legal strategy, the likelihood of obtaining financial support (e.g. legal aid) are all interrelated.

Who are you helping, really?

You might start by focusing on a particular stakeholder group. For example, you might consider how a member of the general public could articulate his or her problems and what are their available means before engaging a lawyer. From the professional’s perspective, you might consider how the lawyer’s administrative and operational issues could be addressed. You might be helping non-profits or community organisations that connect the general public with pro bono and subsidised legal services.

You might have a “B2C” solution to address issues arising from the relationship between the lawyer and the client. You might have a solution focused on the relationship between the lawyer and a government agency, for example, where appointed lawyers are reporting on case management updates to the Legal Aid Department.

How to get help for your team (mentors and advisers)?

While the final solution to be submitted by your team should be your original work with any credit appropriately attributed, we do not expect you and your team members to all be experts in the field you are addressing. You are encouraged to seek help from mentors and advisers, whether they are legal, technology, and other specialists relevant to the Hackathon.

Before the competition, you are highly encouraged to find and speak with one or more subject matter experts with relevant practical experiences to learn about:

(a) the overall legal process;

(b) common documentation involved;

(b) evidentiary issues;

(c) the operational costs and workflows;

(d) timelines and timing / procedural issues;

(e) legal and operational risks; and

(f) other key stakeholders involved (e.g. banks and government agencies).

In addition to legal practitioners, senior clerks and paralegals in law firms, among others, are great resources and could offer practical guidance.

During the competition, we will provide mentors from a range of practice areas and specialisms relevant to the Hackathon for teams to consult with. They will be available around the competition venue for each team to speak with to gain a better understanding about relevant issues, and to discuss design ideas and practicality of potential solutions. However, we cannot guarantee that there will be sufficient numbers of mentors with experiences directly relevant to the area you would like to work in. We might notify ahead of time the backgrounds of the mentors, but you are advised to seek your own mentors to avoid disappointment.

Why should your target users adopt your solution?

Before building out your solution, you should conduct a “reality test” on your idea and design to check if it would work “on paper” at least. Your test could be based on the following questions:

• The user-friendliness of your solution, including the user interface and the overall workflow (i.e. what the user needs to input and what the user needs to do after the output). Your target users might be from all walks of life, and your solution should be intuitive.

• Does your solution create an extra layer of operational burden and, if so, is it worth it for your target users to adopt the solution anyway? E.g. your solution only works with digitised documentation that is rendered searchable by optical character recognition.

• Are you building a solution to address a problem that is suitable to the technology you are using? Even the latest technology in the market today can only address relatively simple, straightforward, and repeatable tasks arising from and related to legal practice. Legal analysis is still largely the preserve of lawyers.

• Why should your target users prefer your solution instead of existing ones (if any)? And, what are the “switching costs” where your target users decide to change and adopt your solution?