CrowdJustice’s weekly roundup of law, news and legaltech. This week we discuss why a BSB report mentioned crowdfunding, what big data can tell us about legal case 'win ratios' and why Greenwich might just be the new Venice.
Bar Standards Board mentions crowdfunding in report on improving legal access and service quality
The Bar Standards Board's Risk Report, published last week (on 6 April) identifies "unmet legal need" as a key issue for the legal profession in 2016. The Report highlights the significant growth in the number of litigants in person. It goes on to suggest that unmet need could present an opportunity for barristers, and points to crowdfunding specifically as one way to be more accessible:
"there is an opportunity for members of the Bar and other lawyers who find new ways to make themselves accessible to consumers not currently benefiting from legal assistance. This could be achieved, for example, by... exploring how new models such as online crowd-funding for litigation [referring in a footnote to CrowdJustice] could open up access for more clients to legal services."
Recognition from the BSB that crowdfunding is a growing way of addressing the gap in funding for legal cases is promising. It shows **real willingness by a regulatory body** to get ahead of the curve when it comes to new technologies in the legal space, something that many other industries have struggled with.
Is the “best win ratio” a valuable use of big data?
Image by justgrimes on Flickr
Last week Premonition, a US-based legaltech company, announced that it had put its software to use to analyse 12,000 UK High Court cases in order to determine which barristers and firms of solicitors have the “best win ratio” in the QBD.
It’s a fascinating announcement, both because it draws on the field of big data – which is relatively unexplored in relation to the law – but also because it claims that the information it has mined is valuable for (for example) assessing barristers’ track records. And of course “win ratio” data may be valuable, but what is legitimate to infer from this data?
Plainly data doesn’t tell the whole story: it can be useful for drawing hypotheses, but correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation. The the utility of the premise (“best win ratio in the QBD”) is also potentially limited. Nor did Premonition in its press release publish the actual numbers of overall cases per firm in the QBD or the “win ratios” themselves. There are undoubtedly applications for big data in law, and we look forward to see how the field develops. In our view, methodology, assumptions – and the purpose for which the data is used – are greenfield areas.
The Greenwich Cruise Port case: another Venice?
In Venice, Italy, last year, residents asked for a ban of cruise lines from the city, citing conservation and environmental concerns. The ships had a big impact both on the fragile ecosystem of the laguna and on its equally fragile buildings - the case echoed across Europe and it is still open. After a ban was initially imposed by the port authority, the tribunal overturned the decision, while the cruise lines decided to negotiate alternative routes together with the local administration.
The outcry reflects a growing sensitivity around climate change and air quality in Europe** – also last year, environmental law NGO ClientEarth challenged the UK’s commitment to its European air quality benchmarks in the Supreme Court, and won.
A case on CrowdJustice now takes up the mantle. In March, a local resident in Greenwich launched a judicial review of the decision of Greenwich Council to grant permission for an international cruise liner terminal on the River Thames. One of the grounds is that there has been inadequate assessment of the air pollution arising from the port. The crowdfunding campaign on CrowdJustice has raised over £11,000 and has drawn large support, including from the Greenwich Green Party.
Enjoyed this? Check back every Monday for a new round-up. If you'd like to know more about crowdfunding legal cases, drop us a line at [email protected]
Have a legal case that could benefit from crowdfunding?