>> From the Library of
Congress in Washington, D.C.
>> Jane Sanchez: Good
afternoon everyone.
>> Good afternoon.
>> Jane Sanchez: Welcome to the
2018 Commemoration of Law Day.
My name is Jane Sanchez and
I have the honor of serving
as the 25th Law Librarian
of Congress.
Before we get started, I would
like to recognize
Elissa Lichtenstein
of the American Bar
Association for her work
in making today's event happen
and for her 38 years of service
to the ABA Standing
Committee on the Law Library.
Congratulations.
[ Applause ]
So, here is the good part;
Elissa retired yesterday,
but apropos of her work ethic,
she is here today to make sure
that everything goes smoothly.
Thank you Elissa.
You have been a great friend
and a great colleague on behalf
of the entire Law Library
of Congress and we want
to thank you for your
work and dedication.
Thank you very much.
[ Applause ]
So, now on to the
business of this afternoon;
Law Day is a national day
to celebrate the rule of law
and its contributions to the
freedoms Americans enjoy.
Law Day had its origin in 1957.
There's going to be
a quiz afterwards,
so just keep this in mind.
Law Day had its origin in 1957
when American Bar Association
President Charles S. Rhyne
envisioned a special day for
celebrating our legal system.
On February 3rd,
1958, again remember,
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
proclaimed May 1st as Law Day.
In his proclamation, President
Eisenhower urged "The people
of the United States to
observe the designated day
with appropriate
ceremonies and activities"
which brings us to
today's event.
Today, we are so pleased to
have with us Hilarie Bass.
The current President of the
American Bar Association,
the world's largest voluntary
professional organization
with more than 400,000 members.
So, just a little bit about
Hilarie; as Co-President
of International Law
from Greenberg, Traurig
and a prolific trial attorney
with a highly successful 30-plus
year career, Hilarie Bass is one
of the most recognized woman
attorneys in the United States.
She currently serves
on the Greenberg Traurig's
Executive Committee
and previously served an
8-year term as National Chair
of its 600-member
litigation department.
Hilarie is also the
founder and former chair
of the firm's Women's
Initiative.
Pretty cool, huh?
So, Hilarie can you tell
us about your career
and how did you become;
how did you decide
to become an attorney?
We're starting with
a softball question.
>> Hilarie Bass: Okay.
So, I always enjoyed government.
I was always very politically
active and so when I went
to undergrad at George
Washington University,
I studied political science.
>> Jane Sanchez: Wow.
>> Hilarie Bass: And really
enjoyed political philosophy,
but I graduated when
I was 20 and decided
that was a little too
early to go to law school.
So, I went to New York for
3 years and was an actress
which was the other passion.
>> Jane Sanchez: Wow.
>> Hilarie Bass: That I had
throughout the time I was
in high school, and had this bit
part on a soap and when the soap
on NBC went off the air,
I said "that's a sign,
time to go to law school."
So, went to law school and
started at my current firm
as a summer associate between
my second and third year.
>> Jane Sanchez: Wow.
>> Hilarie Bass: Accepted
the job on the spot
when it was offered at the end
of the summer and never left.
Obviously, I can't find
another job or something.
So, that's been,
yes, a while ago.
>> Jane Sanchez: So,
what was the soap?
>> Hilarie Bass: It
was called "Summerset."
It was a spinoff
of "Another World."
It was on the air for
7 years, and as I say,
if it hadn't gone off the air, I
don't know if I would have gone
to law school after
all, I don't know.
>> Jane Sanchez: Well, maybe
you have a second career?
>> Hilarie Bass: Right.
Yes, I'm sure.
>> Jane Sanchez: So, what
obstacles did you face
in your legal career if any?
>> Hilarie Bass: I don't think
I would say they were obstacles
in my legal career.
I've enjoyed every minute of it.
There are always challenges in
any career, things you do well;
things you don't do as well
they have to work harder at.
I think for women and
diverse attorneys,
there are unique challenges
in the law practice
as there are in many
other fields.
We continue to make progress,
but they're still there and one
of my initiatives
as ABA President is securing
long-term careers for women
which is really focused on why
it is that women start off 50%
of law school classes and we
get our first jobs in about
that ratio and by the
time we're age 50,
half of us have left
the profession.
>> Jane Sanchez: Wow.
>> Hilarie Bass: So,
we're doing along,
yearlong longitudinal
study to try
and evaluate why women choose to
stay, why women choose to leave,
and we're doing a separate
cohort on women of color,
because the statistics are
even worse for women of color
and the hope is to
come out of this study
with some recommendations
as to what legal
employers can do differently
to make the profession
hospitable,
more hospitable to
diverse lawyers.
Because we're putting
all of this focus
on getting diverse undergrads
to get into law school
and then all fighting over
hiring them and then we seem
to drop the ball and don't
create the support system
to make them feel really welcome
and a member of the team,
and for various reasons,
they're choosing to leave
and that's not a healthy
thing for our profession.
>> Jane Sanchez: Very good.
>> Hilarie Bass: So,
hopefully more about that soon.
>> Jane Sanchez: Okay.
Excellent.
So, this year's ABA Law Day
theme is Separation of Powers;
Framework for Freedom
and that reflects
on our distinctive
system of government
with its built-in
checks and balances.
Why is it important
today to discuss
and examine our constitutional
democracy
and what does Framework
for Freedom mean to you?
>> Hilarie Bass: So, I came
up with the theme as one
of the things that the president
gets to do, is about 15 months
in advance to pick the
focus of your Law Day
and given what was going on
in our democratic system,
I couldn't think of something
that was more appropriate
than going back to the concept
of 3 separate but equal branches
of government, because
it seems to me
that there is a certain
level of ignorance
about what the Constitution
really says and what it had
in mind when it talks
about checks and bal;
or it doesn't talk about
checks and balances,
but a system was designed to
ensure checks and balances
and I read a study recently
that I'm sure many people
in this room are familiar with
that indicated that only 26%
of our American citizens can
even identify our 3 branches
of government.
>> Jane Sanchez: Oh, boy.
>> Hilarie Bass: So,
that's a scary thought,
because when you look at
the challenges that we face
as do many other
democracies around the world,
one of the most important things
to ensure the future protection
of our democracy is for people
to understand the way
it's supposed to work.
And I fear that the
lack of focus
on civics education is
leading to a real ignorance
about our Constitution, about
the concept of 3 separate
but equal branches, and even at
the highest levels there seems
to be a lack of clarity.
So, one of the statements I made
earlier in the year was directed
at some criticism
of our judiciary
when our President suggested
that our judiciary was not
giving appropriate deference
to the Executive Branch, and
in my statement, I simply said
that actually our
Federal Judges were oath
to the Constitution not to a
particular branch of government,
but it's sort of a
reflection of that.
A lack of understanding that an
independent judiciary is there
to act as a check and balances
on the other 2 branches
of government and
that's a healthy thing
and that's the way the
system was designed.
And I fear that ignorance
about what was contemplated
will be a challenge for us
in the future, and so,
anything we can do to focus
on greater civics education
I think is a positive.
>> Jane Sanchez: So, what do
you think we can do about that,
because I agree with you?
I think civics education
is not something
that is emphasized now.
>> Hilarie Bass: I would suggest
that that's one of these things
that civic activism
can make a difference.
I mean, as we've seen across
the country in the last month,
people are really unhappy
about the lack of funding
for our public education system.
You saw it in West Virginia,
in Kentucky, in Arizona,
in Colorado, and I think
it's making a difference
and I suspect at that level of
civic activism about something
like civics education
would also be appropriate.
How can you hope to
maintain a democracy when 74%
of your citizens cannot identify
3 branches of government?
How can we hope that they're
going to make educated decisions
when they go into the
ballot box to vote
if they don't even understand
the way the system is supposed
to work?
So, I think it behooves all of
us to get behind the movements
that say, we can't just
be teaching to tests
that teach math,
science, and reading.
That civics education is a
fundamental underlying part
of any American citizen's
education and anything we can do
to support that I think
is a very important thing.
>> Jane Sanchez: You
know, one of the things
that has been happening this
year and I actually participated
in a small march for our lives,
is that it would appear to me
that some of our
younger members,
younger citizens are
much more engaged
and much more thinking
about voting.
What do you think about that?
Do you think it has
a lasting impact?
Or I hope it's not
a fly-by-night.
>> Hilarie Bass: I hope
it's a lasting impact
and there's no reason
to assume it won't be.
I mean, I live about
50 miles from Parkland
and I can't tell you,
particularly given how critical
we are of public education,
to see these high school
students come up with a focused
and really dedicated
commitment to changing the law
in this particular area of
gun control, and as an aside,
I happen to be friends with a
lawyer whose grandson is one
of the 5 of leaders of
the effort for the March
for Our Lives on
March 24th, and so,
I reached out to his grandfather
and I said, "I just want you
to know that the American Bar
Association has a real depth
of policy in the
area of gun control,
so to the extent you would like
a representative of the ABA
to appear on March 24th and
to talk about what the lawyers
of this country believe is
appropriate gun control that's
consistent with the
Second Amendment;
I'd be happy to do so."
So, he spoke to his grandson
and he came back and he said,
"Hillarie, they love the fact
that you're so interested,
but they decided that
they're not going
to have anyone over
the age of 21."
I said, "Well, I clearly
cannot meet that requirement."
But I, it was so refreshing,
and in fact, you know,
when I watched it on television,
it was the right call,
because they really did
speak with a unique voice
that we are the next generation.
We are the new voters and
we don't understand why
for years people have said
well we just can't do anything
about this.
So, I look forward to
this new generation
and how they view some of the
challenges of our democracy.
It's interesting,
Bob and I spoke
at a Close-up Seminar this
morning on the same issue,
separation of powers and at
the end, the question was asked
of the students first, when
how many of you do vote?
Can vote? And how many
of you will be voting
either by November or 2020?
And of course, by the
time we got to 2020,
every hand was raised,
but we asked the question,
"How many of you
have an affiliation
with a particular
political party?"
Five hands went up out of
more than a 125 students.
I thought it was so interesting.
Also, when we asked them
about whether they thought
political parties were a
positive or negative, the
reaction was all negative,
that they thought that they
were the cause of this sort
of recalcitrance, this
inability to meet in the middle
on issues before
Congress and the like.
I just thought it
was very interesting.
I don't know whether
it's reflective
of this young generation's view
of the cause of the stalemate
in Congress, but clearly they
have a very unique perspective
on things and I suspect
we will see some changes
when they begin to vote.
>> Jane Sanchez: Well, and
that was one of the things
that I was so impressed by.
I watched footage of the
march here in Washington,
D.C. and I was actually in
St. Petersburg on that day
and it was very clear to me
that there is a strong sense
among these young people
that they will vote.
They are going to change;
they're going to
change the tide.
They're going to vote.
>> Hilarie Bass: I
hope that's true.
>> Jane Sanchez: I hope so too.
>> Hilarie Bass: And not just
on this issue, but I just think
as a matter of civic
engagement, a higher percentage
of voters is always
a positive thing.
It means a higher percentage
of your citizens care
about the way government
is going to operate and one
of the things that I think has
been very apparent as a result
of this recent administration
coming in,
is that people I think
are more focused perhaps
than in the past,
that voting matters
and there are consequences of
your decision not to bother
to vote, and if you're unhappy
with the current system,
you do have the ability
to change it,
but it requires you make the
effort to vote on Election Day
and I hope this new generation
looks at it differently.
>> Jane Sanchez: So, what do you
think separation of powers means
to the legal profession
writ large?
>> Hilarie Bass: Well, I guess
for the legal profession,
the most important thing that
we do is support the concept
of an independent judiciary,
because I think when you look
across the globe whether it's
in Turkey or Hungary, or Poland,
whenever anyone is in
power and they want
to minimize the ability for
descent to percolate up,
the first thing they
do is attack the judges
and the next thing they
do is attack the lawyers,
and I think you see that
over and over again.
And so, for the legal
profession, first and foremost,
is speaking out on the
independence of the judiciary.
We have some unique
challenges in that regard
and we see it every week.
Just last week, we
saw that, as you know,
the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court made certain decisions
about the Congressional maps and
it went up to the Supreme Court
to try and reverse it and
twice the court said, "No,
we're going to leave it with
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court."
And then there were these
news reports that the Republic
and Legislatures were
going to start a campaign
to impeach the Democratic
members of the Supreme Court
of the State of Pennsylvania.
It's a perfect example of the
ignorance about the concept
of separation of powers.
No, no you don't, you
don't impeach a judge,
because you don't
like their decision.
That's not what our concept of
checks and balances is supposed
to mean, but the ABA spoke
out about it and I think a lot
of other organized groups did
and the latest I've heard is
that this effort is going by
the wayside, but it's something
that requires tremendous
vigilance.
It's one thing to be unhappy
with the legal opinion,
any judge can get it wrong on
any particular day and even
if many people think that he
has, or he or she has it right,
it's our right under the
First Amendment to be critical
of a judicial opinion,
but that's very different
than criticizing the
individual judge either
because of their ethnicity
or because you want
to call them an inappropriate
name,
that is not what our judiciary
stands for in the country
and that's certainly not what's
contemplated with the concept
of separation of powers.
>> Jane Sanchez: What
do you think separation
of powers means to
American citizens?
I know we, you've
touched on that already.
>> Hilarie Bass: Well, I fear
that it doesn't mean enough,
because I don't think
most people understand it.
This idea that the reason
that the constitutional framers
gave lifetime appointments
to judges was to insulate them
from the politics of the day;
was to say we're going
to give you the authority
to consider what the executive
does, what the legislature does
and the way we're going to
protect you from the politics
of the day and from being swayed
as to what the interpretation
of constitution should be, is to
give you lifetime appointments.
And so, this constant
criticism of,
well if you don't vote my
way, you know, let's get you
out of office is a real
reflection of ignorance
about what the framers
contemplated, so again,
I comeback to civics education.
We have to immerse
people in the idea
of what our constitutional
framers intended in coming
up with these separate but equal
branches of government each
of which serves as a check
and a balance on the others.
>> Jane Sanchez: Can
you talk a little bit
about your term as
ABA President?
What do you hope your legacy
will be to practicing lawyers,
future lawyers, and to society?
>> Hilarie Bass: So,
that's a broad category.
But I can tell you the
things that I'm focused on.
One of them as I
mentioned was this issue
about the diversifying the
profession and to not just focus
on getting the pipeline,
but ensuring
that our profession really is
hospitable to diverse lawyers
and that they don't
perceive that they're held
to some higher standard than
the other white male colleagues.
We've also been spending
a lot of time focusing
on this commission on the
future of legal education,
because most practicing lawyers
understand the transformative
change that's going on
in the practice of law.
Some people suggest
that the next 20 years
of the law practice is going
to be more transformative
than the last 200, and
yet we're still educating
and testing our lawyers as if
they're practicing in 1950.
And so, this commission on the
future of legal ED is trying
to find some alignment
between what we're teaching
in law school, how we're
testing our law grads,
and what legal employers expect
them to be capable of knowing
when they get out of law school.
So, you know, you've heard a lot
of people talk about the issue
of whether law school should
be 2 years or 3 years,
it's just one example of
many, but many people think
that if you had a
2-year law school program
with a mandatory
internship of 1 or 2 years,
so that by the time
law grads came out,
they actually had been solving
client problems for a year or 2;
most people think they would
be much more client-ready,
much more capable of solving
client problems at that point
than just sitting in a substance
class for another year.
It would also potentially
minimize their debt
which is another major issue
for law students by coming
out with a press of debt at
a time when many of the wages
for lawyers are going down.
So, right now, we
continue to test lawyers
as if they're all
general practitioners.
Most lawyers today
specialize and
yet we give them
a 3-day Bar Exam
or some states 2-day Bar Exam, 3
years after the basic coursework
that we're testing them on.
I mean, would anybody
design a system like that?
Would anybody design a
system where if you mess
up on criminal evidence,
you have to take the
entire test again?
I mean, we know from
the accounting example,
from the med school example,
there are alternatives.
You could give a test after the
first year on, oh my goodness,
the first year courses.
So, you're tested right
after you take the classes
and then you take a secondary
test at the end of law school
about some of those other
issues, and oh by the way,
if you don't pass the
criminal evidence portion,
like the accountants, we
only make you retake the test
on criminal evidence.
So, I mean, there's so many
things that seem obvious.
The whole issue of what the
legal skills are for people
who will be practicing in 2050,
many people say that it's going
to be critically
important for every law grad
to know basic understanding
of technology,
to understand how AI works
and how it can make them
more efficient as lawyers.
Most law schools are not
teaching any of that now.
So, on the legal education
front, there's much we need
to do to sort of push
forward to make sure
that our legal education
reflects what our practitioners
are actually doing.
One of the other things
that we've been working
on since I became president,
is something called ABA Legal
Fact Check which is every week
or 2, we take an issue that's
in the public discourse
and we post online what
the law actually says,
it's really a response to
this concept of "fake news"
which is an oxymoron in and
of itself, but you know,
so when our president says
for example, and I don't mean
to pick on him, but
it's just an example,
when he was a candidate,
he suggested that anybody
who burned an American
flag should have their
citizenship revoked.
So, ABA Legal Fact Check, in
a completely nonpartisan way,
because the ABA is a
nonpartisan organization,
we said well actually in
1978 in the case of Texas
versus Johnson, the Supreme
Court held that the burning
of an American flag was a right
of First Amendment
self-expression
for which there could not
be a criminal penalty.
So, any issue that's
in the public discourse
where there's apparent
uncertainty
as to what the law really
says, we're addressing it
and putting it online.
So, over the course
of the last 10 months,
we have put in an ABA Legal
Fact Check on such issues
as the scope of affirmative
action;
what types of gun control had
been found to be consistent
with the Second Amendment; the
scope of executive pardons,
whether or not a naturalized
citizen can have their
citizenship revoked
and on what grounds?
Whether or not an NFL
owner can fire a player
for taking the knee
during the National Anthem?
Anything that it's in,
this week we're doing one
on what is the scope of
attorney-client privilege?
And is it what the client thinks
or what it is it what
the attorney thinks?
Any legal issue that's the
subject of public discourse
where there's a lot of debate
when we actually know
what the law says,
we're positing online
what the law is
and we've gotten well an
excess of 10s of 1000s of hits
and it's becoming a source
for law students, but citizens
in general, as well
as, the media.
When there's a legal issue
and they want to find
out the definitive fact as
to what the law really says
about a particular issue,
they can go and look
at ABA Legal Fact Check.
So, that's just an
example of some
of the things that,
that I'm focused on.
I could go on for an hour.
>> Jane Sanchez: That's great.
>> Hilarie Bass: But I won't.
>> Jane Sanchez: That's great.
I understand that at some
point in your career,
you were very involved
in adoption.
Can you tell us about that?
>> Hilarie Bass: Sure.
So, one of the cases about which
I'm most proud is a pro bono
case where I represented
2 foster children,
and Florida for about 25 years
had a statute on the books
that categorically band
gays from adopting.
You could be a felon, you could
be a domestic violence victim,
you could be all these other
categories of problematic things
and you, there were statutory
basis that you could prove
that you would be a good parent
and you would be
allowed to adopt.
The only categorical
band was as to gays
and lesbians being
able to adopt.
The case had come up twice; once
to the Eleventh Circuit and once
to the Florida Supreme Court
and had been upheld both times.
Both times it had been filed
or challenged on the basis
of the adoptive parent saying
they had a constitutional right
to adopt and they were not
being treated appropriately.
I had the opportunity
to represent these
2 foster children
and the foster children had
been adopted by a gay couple.
It's interesting, this gay
couple had been foster parents
for 13 different
sets of children
and they had decided they were
not going to do it anymore,
because it was too
emotionally wrenching.
They really wanted a
family of their own.
They had decided they were
going to move to Georgia
so that they could legally
adopt, and they got a knock
on the door the first week in
December from our Department
of Children and Families saying,
we have these 2 children.
We had to take them out
of their mother's home
because their mother
was a drug addict
and she was going
in for treatment.
Grandma took the other 3 and she
promises she'll take these too,
but we know that you'll
give them a great Christmas.
So, would you just
take them for 2 weeks?
So, they of course opened
their home for these 2 kids;
2 little boys, a
4-month-old and a 4-year-old.
The 4-month-old had
been [inaudible].
He literally, his
diaper was being changed
by his 4-year-old older brother.
The 4-year-old had
stopped speaking.
I don't know what kind of
trauma there was in the house,
but it obviously had had a
tremendous emotional impact
on them.
And needless to say, grandma
decided she just couldn't take
them and so, these children
were there with them for 2 years
and they finally decided
whatever it took they were going
to seek to get this
law overturned.
I was appointed by
a juvenile judge
to represent the 2 children,
and I'll fast-forward,
but after a weeklong trial,
the judge found the
statute unconstitutional
and it was upheld by
the Appellate Court.
We thought it was going to end
up in the Florida Supreme Court
and DCF I guess saw the
handwriting on the wall
and decided that day after the
Appellate Court opinion was
issued, that they would
no longer ask questions
about sexual orientation
on their adoption petition.
But, what made the case
so interesting is the reason
we were successful was
because we made the argument
from the perspective
of the children.
It was an equal protection
argument
that once the state
took these children away
from their natural parents and
made the decision to place them
with a foster parent
that happened to be gay,
the emotional connection
was such that we,
I brought in psychologists
to serve as expert witnesses
to talk about the
devastating effect
of wrenching these children away
from what had become a family.
I mean, these kids in my closing
argument, it still brings tears
to my eyes to talk about
it, I showed pictures
of the day they came to
this home and 3 years later.
They were in school.
They went to church together
as a family on Sunday.
They were just doing
phenomenally well and the idea
of taking these children
away from their parents
because some statute on the
books 28 years ago decided
that these people
were not appropriate
to be adoptive parents
was just absurd,
so in any event,
the statute is gone.
It took a couple of years after
the actual opinion for somebody
in the legislature to have
the bravery to say, alright,
it's already been upheld,
been held to unconstitutional.
Let's get rid of it.
But, I love what I do in the
commercial business space,
but clearly it's my
most important case.
>> Jane Sanchez: Very good.
Excellent.
Thank you.
So, there has been a great deal
of discussion about the future
of the legal profession and
you've touched on that already.
What do you think law practice
and the legal profession
will look like in 10 years?
This is where you get
to put your little.
>> Hilarie Bass: Very different
from what it looks like today.
I guess I would say,
first and foremost,
we continue to have an enormous
justice gap in our country;
80% of American citizens
cannot afford a lawyer.
So, we can put whatever
regulations on the book we want,
but I was just speaking
at Stanford 2 weeks ago
at a CodeX conference where
there were 300 legal tech people
with 10s of millions of
dollars of capital behind them,
and I promise you they are
the going to figure out ways
to solve this problem.
With 80% of the American
people not being able
to access legal services whether
it's providing online forms
for free or whether or not
it's, I mean LegalZoom,
and Rocket Lawyer, and
Novo those are just the tip
of the iceberg and I do get a
lot of pushback from lawyers
who say "we've got to
get out in front of this.
We've got to stop this."
And I think about the
Uber and Lyft example.
I know in South Florida where
I live, Uber and Lyft came
in to the marketplace.
They must of violated 10
different regulations,
because of course, the
regulations all applied to taxis
and they didn't meet the
standards and they didn't,
you know, have the insurance
requirements and it was a mess.
But what happened?
They were providing a
service that people wanted.
By the time the county
commission got its act together,
3-4 months down the road
to say "This is outrageous.
You can't do this.
We're going to regulate all
of you out of existence."
And literally threw everybody
out, through threw both out for
about 60 days and what happened?
The public went crazy,
because the public said,
"What are you doing?
They're providing a
service that we want.
We don't care what your
stupid regulations say.
We want Uber and Lyft.
We want to pay less.
We want the updated cars",
whatever it was were the reason
why people found this a better
alternative than having to
call a taxi and wait 45 minutes
for somebody to show up,
maybe, and what happened?
The county commission had
to back down and, of course,
Uber and Lyft are now
actively competing with taxis.
I use it as an example of
what I think is inevitable
in the legal profession.
If we have this enormous justice
gap, it is absurd to think
that a small group of lawyers
is going to be successful
in saying, "Oh you can't
practice law over the Internet.
You can't provide free forms.
You can't do this because
you're competing with us."
Well, what we know is many of
those people are never going
to hire me and they're never
going to hire most lawyers.
What they're looking for
is inexpensive self-help,
and so I believe
first and foremost,
the biggest change is the
Internet will become a source
of information, forms,
support for people
who want basic information to
solve their legal problems,
because we can't prevent
that from happening.
It's a huge need
that is going unmet,
so somebody out there is going
to figure out a way to meet
that need and to monetize it.
In the law practice, the other
portion of probably what most
of our members our ABA
members are practicing in,
I think there are going to be
significant changes as well,
because what we know is
that technology can make
us much more efficient
and that our clients, as they
become more sophisticated,
are going to demand
that efficiency.
So, when I look back at
my years and an associate
in the legal practice,
much of the work
that I did is not
being outsourced.
I can't justify having my
Harvard law review person review
documents for a document
production when I know
that there is an outsourcing
service 3 blocks away from me
in downtown Miami where JDs
will review the same documents
for 40 dollars an hour.
Similarly, my clients now
demand when I get a matter,
I say yes okay this is the
new case and you're going
to do the legal work, but
you're going to use this firm
to review the documents, you're
going to use this other firm
to do any due diligence, you're
going to use this third firm
for translations,
etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
My point is, that there are
ways to be much more efficient
than the way lawyers have
practiced historically
and as our clients have
become more sophisticated,
they're going to insist that
we break apart how we handle a
particular matter to
ensure that each piece
of the matter is handled
by the most efficient group
and that's going to be a very
big challenge for lawyers,
because we are going to have
to figure out how to ensure
that we're able to
provide our best use
in an economically efficient
way and that's a big challenge.
>> Jane Sanchez: So,
how different do you think
the legal profession will be?
You've already touched on
that, but what, if any,
new or different attributes will
future lawyers need to have?
>> Hilarie Bass: Well, I
certainly think knowledge
of technology is right up there.
There are a lot of
things like, for example,
nowadays you would go into
court for a 5 minute hearing,
and you might be in line with
20 other lawyers, and you sit
and wait for your
case to be called,
and you get your 5 minutes
in front of the judge,
and then you drive half-an-hour
back to your office.
Well, why can't all that done,
be done with some form of video?
I mean, it used to be a big
deal to have video conference.
Now you go to GoToMeeting
or Skype
and you can put your
PowerPoint up there.
I mean, there's just no reason
for lawyers to be wasting time
to get into a car and to
dive across town to show
up for a 5 minute hearing where
they're charging their client
for 3 hours of their time
when it's only really
taking 5 minutes.
That's just one example
of many that we have
to get much more efficient.
I mean, I don't think
lawyers will be unhappy
about those changes, but it
does require sort of getting
with the program and
figuring out well
that means I have a whole lot
more hours of my day to fill,
which creates some interesting
challenges, but certainly,
technological savvy is going
to be an important capability
of any future lawyer.
>> Jane Sanchez: Okay.
Any questions from
our colleagues
and we do have a
couple microphones?
So, please this is
your opportunity.
Hilarie's with us for another
20 minutes, so please anyone?
Come on Elissa, you can
think of a question.
>> No, I have a comment though.
>> Jane Sanchez: We'll get a,
we've got a microphone coming.
There you go.
>> Thanks.
I have a. Wow.
>> Jane Sanchez: Wow.
>> A comment relating
to your discussion
of how lawyers can
use technology
and technology relating
to legal services.
I had heard at least in the
homelessness, homelessness
and poverty arena that there
are experiments in skyping
with lawyers for clients who
live in rural communities and is
that something that the ABA
is looking at promoting?
>> Hilarie Bass: So,
one of the focuses
of our pro bono efforts
this year,
is providing legal
assistance to homeless youth.
There are over a million
children in our country
that live on the street or couch
surf, but don't have a home
to go to at night and one of
the things we've been focusing
on is trying to get our
associations, law firms,
in-house groups to pair
with homeless shelters
in their community to be
available whether by phone
or once a month in a
homeless legal clinic
to answer basic questions
for these youth.
Two weeks ago I was at Google
and they've been very engaged
in this project and they
have started a program
where they have a terminal
in the homeless shelter
where people can Skype
their legal questions
to an in-house lawyer who's
willing to say; I mean,
it's very easy to get a lawyer
to say I'll commit an hour
or 2 hours to answer
basic legal questions.
It's much tougher when you say
oh and by the way we want you
to get in your car and drive
an hour-and-a-half and then,
you know, battle traffic
to come back to the office.
So, that's a perfect example
where we can use technology
to address so much of this,
as long as the homeless shelter
has a terminal and can utilize
that capability, you
can have a whole wealth
of additional lawyers
who are more than happy
to spend half an hour
answering questions,
and what we've created
in the homeless youth
space is a whole toolkit.
We have one for Washington,
D.C., one for New York,
one for Florida,
one for California,
where any lawyer can get the
basic information they need,
because we know the
questions of many
of these homeless youth
are often times the same.
How do I get back in school?
I'm a runaway from foster care,
I want to get my
high school degree.
How do I get access to my birth
certificate, because I want
to get a driver's
license and I'm
in a foster care environment,
I don't know how to do that?
How do I apply for
public benefits,
because I believe I
meet the requirements?
There are all kinds of
questions, but there's a lot
of repetition, so these
toolkits we put together
and they're also online.
So, any lawyer sitting
in their office can say,
oh birth certificate
or eliminating a criminal
infraction, type it in,
and they get all the information
they need right there
to answer these basic questions
for these homeless youth.
>> Jane Sanchez: Fantastic.
Anyone else?
>> Hi. I found your
discussion very interesting
for when you talked about
separation of powers
and you mentioned a few
countries, foreign countries
where this is very acute.
I just wanted to commit from
my knowledge and expertise
in foreign law that this is
a topic that actually appears
or is it's often discussed
in many more countries
as exactly the same way
you mentioned as a way
to empower government
by reducing the stature
of the courts.
>> Hilarie Bass: Right.
>> One of the arguments that
is sometimes made in comparison
of foreign law to American law
is that look there is a process
of politics in selecting
and appointing judges
in the United States.
So, that's I think
something I wanted
to hear your opinion about.
Now, regarding the second,
to me second among
many interesting points
that you mentioned, the effect
of technology on the practice
of law, I think I can
see that in the future
because of technology the
need for lawyers will decrease
and maybe young people should
be advised to specialize
in other professions and
I think that the lawyers
that could be successful in
the future economy are those
that are not dealing just with
the technical things, the forms,
everything will be
very easily obtainable.
So, all these people that
worked on procedural thing,
maybe that will be, there
won't be so much of a need,
but the ones that deal
with the principles,
the constitutional principles
for example the case you
mentioned on that adoption,
these are the important
and always classical types
of professional legal
work in my view.
So, I wanted to hear your.
>> Hilarie Bass: So, let me
take the first question about.
>> The judiciary, yes.
>> Hilarie Bass: So, obviously
every time you have an
administration change, the
president has the ability
to appoint judicial nominees.
The ABA is involved in
a peer review process
with every president
since Eisenhower.
This president has us in the
post-nomination review process,
but senate judiciary
still looks to the ABA
to get our peer review report
where we do a non-ideological
peer review,
meaning we don't ask
people what their party is,
whether they're conservatives or
liberals, we're looking purely
at whether they have the
intellectual capacity
to be a lifetime
appointment judge,
whether they have
the temperament,
and whether they have the
integrity and that process
of peer review, remains constant
from president to president
and I believe it's
one of the reasons
that this Senate Judiciary
Committee relies upon our
reports even if they don't
always agree with them,
because our committee does a
completely confidential review
process, even I as president
of the ABA does not get access
to those reports, and they
literally call a 100 people
everybody who's been,
has been an advisory
to this judicial nominee,
they're law professors,
they're the judges in front
of whom they've appeared
to really get a full
perspective about whether
or not this person has the
appropriate temperament
and intellectual
capability irrespective
of their ideological basis.
So, is there more politics
in judicial selections
than there have been
in the past?
Well, obviously anybody
who reviewed what happened
in the last 6 months of
the Obama Administration
with his inability to
fill a judicial vacancy
on the Supreme Court
has to believe
that politics have
infiltrated that process more
than in the past, but the ABA
continues to endeavor to ensure
that politics do not affect
their analysis of whether
or not the person has the
appropriate intellectual
capacity and integrity
to be a judge.
ON the secondary issue
about technology,
clearly what lawyers
do will change,
with 80% of the population
being unrepresented,
I don't believe there's going
to be a need for less lawyers.
I do believe what lawyers
in the future will be asked
to do will be different and not
everybody is going to be able
to get into big law and
charge 700 dollars an hour.
That clearly is a market that
is retracting, but those people
who are prepared to go out
there and serve the public
in all kinds of different ways,
there will be an unlimited
opportunity for people
who are prepared to do that.
>> Jane Sanchez: Donna, up here.
>> Good afternoon.
I have a question
for both of you.
We have before us Jane Sanchez
that is the Law Librarian
of Congress, the world's
premiere repository
of legal information, more legal
information, more legal trees
and codes of laws are housed
in the Law Library of Congress
than anywhere in the world
and we have Hilarie Bass,
the Chair of the
American Bar Association,
the world's largest voluntary
professional organization,
largest organization
of legal professionals
and there is a problem that
you've cited this justice gap,
access to justice where 80%
of the people don't
have access to justice.
Is there opportunity for
the Law Library of Congress
and the American Bar
Association to work together
to close that justice gap?
You talk about legal
forms and things, I mean,
could those be collected
and worked
on by the American Bar
Association and then housed
in the Law Library of
Congress so they're available?
Are there other opportunities
where the Law Library
of Congress and the American Bar
Association can come together
for the public good?
>> Jane Sanchez: Wow.
>> Hilarie Bass:
Well, I'm all ears.
>> Jane Sanchez: As the
library, we do not give advice.
We cannot give legal advice.
We are a repository and
as you acknowledged,
we are the world's largest
law collection and just
to be a little self-serving,
as I told Tom earlier today,
60% of our collection is
foreign legal material.
So, not only are we an exemplary
American legal Collection,
we are also a phenomenal
international foreign legal
collection as well, but library,
as librarians even though many
of our librarians
are JDs and MLS's,
we do not give legal advice.
We will help people
do their own research.
We will help them find
the materials they need,
but we cannot provide
legal advice.
We are not practicing attorneys.
Over to you.
>> Hilarie Bass: Well, I
there's certainly a lot
that whether it's the Law
Library of Congress or libraries
in general, can provide
as far as capabilities.
One of the things that I would
like to see in every courthouse,
is some kind of ombudsman
that assists people
who are there pro hac,
meaning on their own,
to basically say this is where
you go for this and this is
where what you do
for that, as well as,
a kiosk where every state form
for the basic filings
would be available.
I mean, for example, uncontested
dissolution of a marriage
without children,
it's a simple form.
Why can't there be a
kiosk in every courthouse
that has the state recognized
form you just type in your name
and it puts it out and
triplicate and you're done.
They say, "Oh and by the way,
this gets filed in
the room 212."
Why shouldn't we make that
available to our citizens
who are paying the taxes to
keep the building in place?
Why don't we create
the opportunity
for online dispute resolution?
I had hoped this year and it
doesn't look like it's going
to happen, that the ABA
come up with a pilot project
for small claims court.
Right now, if you're
a low-income person
and you have let's say it's
a car repair for 800 dollars
and the repairman runs
off with your money,
that's a critical
amount of money to you
and you have no choice
but to file a small
claims claim, filing.
Our current system requires
that person to take a day off
of work, get on a
cross town bus,
travel for an hour-and-a-half,
wait around for 2 hours
to be called, be given 5 minutes
with the judge to be told go
in other room and
try and resolve this.
If you don't resolve
it, you come back
and are told well we'll give
you a trial date, 6 weeks out,
where you, again, take the
day off of work, again,
why would we have
to do any of that?
Why can't we have people dictate
into their Smart phone
what they're claim is,
have a dedicated email
address where it goes directly
to the court, obviously
we have to figure
out how we serve the defendant,
but you can have a judge
on Skype with 2 people
on Face Time
and resolve the whole dispute
within a matter of minutes.
And I believe, that if we have
80% of our population not able
to access our court system,
there are so many things we
can do to make them believe
that the courthouse doors are
open to them, because again,
when you get to the issue
of having confidence
in our democracy,
if the vast majority
of our population does not
believe they can access the
courts, that impacts their
view of our whole democracy
because they believe
it doesn't serve them.
It only serves the other
people and that's not healthy.
So, we've got to figure
out a way to ensure
that everybody perceives
that there are ways
to access the courts to
help solve their problems.
>> Appreciate the presentation
and the questions
and their responses.
One comment for you,
you've mentioned everything
from education and, of course,
many of our societal issues,
you have avertable
army available to you
that you might want to consider
and that is we're seeing
about 10,000 baby boomers
retire almost every day,
and many of those are
well-educated and had
to get retirement attorneys
and yet we're on the cusp
of a period where good
health favors many of them
and they have financial
resources.
We don't seem to have
an organized method
that could bring those
individuals into the fold
to help staff some of the.
>> Hilarie Bass: Right.
>> Of the positions you've just
mentioned in the courthouse,
provide civic education
by individuals
who are knowledgeable
about separation of powers
and many others, there
is hardly an issue
that hasn't been
touched by these people
that have spent 30-40
years in some cases ranging
from small practitioners up
to the judiciary, so one piece
for you is yes it's great
to talk about the technology
and the application and the
rest of it, but the human talent
that you have available to
you might be another piece.
>> Hilarie Bass: I love it.
Thank you.
>> Jane Sanchez: Excellent.
>> Hilarie Bass: It's
a great suggestion.
>> Jane Sanchez: Very nice.
Okay, I think we shall
begin to wrap up.
>> Hilarie Bass: You are?
>> Jane Sanchez:
Oh, I'm so sorry.
One question.
>> Well, I've sat here and I've
heard president have asked,
speak on the issues with
women and the legal profession
and staying in the retention
of women legal profession,
and then you've talked about
you have a task force that's
studying that, but I'd
be curious if you're able
to discuss or add any
perspective on what type
of things you're seeing
as to why women are leaving
the profession and not staying,
in particular, especially with
the minority women and their,
the greater gap and so I
would just be interested
in hearing more from that.
>> Hilarie Bass: Well, some
of the consistent
responses we're getting
and obviously don't come
to any direct conclusions,
because we'll do that
by the end of the year,
but one of the top things
we hear is women complain
about something called
"success fatigue",
and this is basically
the idea that women
and minority lawyers
perceive that they have
to do everything just
a little bit better
than their white male
colleagues to get the same level
of recognition, and
initially that's a bargain
that we all make because we want
to prove ourselves and we want
to reach that partnership
level, and be successful,
but at some point, women tell
us it's just very fatiguing
and at 25 years in, they
finally say, "You know what?
I don't want to do this anymore.
It's just too hard.
It's just too inherently
unfair."
So, that's something
we hear a lot about.
Implicit bias continues to
be a major issue not just
in the legal profession, but in
industry in general at a time
when we're all trying
to diversify industry,
legal professions,
boards; what we know is
that people feel most
comfortable with people
who look and act like they do.
And so, the assumption that were
objective in our analysis just
because we say, "we're
objective", what we know is
that bias infiltrates all
of us, women, men, all of us
and it does affect how we
interact with people and,
you know, there have been
all kinds of studies done.
My favorite is the one with the
orchestras where the maestros
in response to a class
action by 5 top orchestras
as to why women were only 3
to 5% of the top orchestras,
and the maestro swore up
and down "What are
you talking about?
The only thing we care about
is the quality of the music."
And the way it was resolved,
that auditions would
be held behind screens
and they even decided
to put a carpet
down so you couldn't
tell whether it was a
clup-clup-clup-clup of
high heels walking in
or the soft sloughing of
loafers and what happened?
Within 3 years, the
number of women
in orchestras more than doubled.
They're now up to 35% and
it's just a perfect example
because it's an instance
where even more
than evaluating legal work,
these concert masters
were absolutely convinced
under sodium pentothal that they
were reacting to nothing other
than the quality of the music
and it's just a reminder
that other things
infiltrate our decision-making
that we're not even aware
of, and so for anybody
who has 5 minutes today and
has not done, done it over,
go take the implicit Bias Test;
harvardedu/implicitbiastest.
It is free.
It is confidential.
You can test your own implicit
biases based on gender,
ethnicity, religion, you can
even test your bias against age,
obesity, it's remarkable,
because so many
of us today really
believe we're colorblind,
we're gender neutral, we're not
affected by this and, in fact,
every study that's been done
shows that even at 6 months old,
if you take babies and put
them in pink shirts and half
of them are orange shirts, they
interact differently by virtue
of the fact that they others
don't have the same color shirt.
So, it's in our DNA that we
just make snap decisions based
on appearances and that affects
our ability to be objective.
So, take the test.
You will be amazed.
It's a real challenge not just
for the law, but
across the board.
How do we get past
our implicit biases,
because it's affecting how
we elevate, compensate,
and promote women, diverse
attorneys, and other people
who don't look and
act like we do.
>> Jane Sanchez: Okay.
Thank you so much.
Thank you Hilarie for your
insight in today's Law Day.
>> Hilarie Bass: My pleasure.
>> Jane Sanchez: And talking
to us about the future
of the legal profession.
Before we end today, I want
to recognize a major policy
that the American Bar
Association approved
in support of the Law Library.
We want to thank you
sincerely for that.
At the American Bar
Association 2018 midyear meeting
in February, the standing
committee on the Law Library
of Congress presented
the policy proposal
for ABA PROP 109 adoption
asking the Congress
to approve the appropriations
necessary
to support the Law Library's
efforts to adequately staff
and enhance our services,
collections, facilities,
digital projects, and outreach.
We are elated to announce
that the ABA House
of Delegates numbering over 500
unanimously adopted the proposal
as ABA Policy.
This was unprecedented
and as a result,
the Law Library can count
on ABA's wide support
for many years to come.
Thank you so much.
[ Applause ]
Just a little bit
more; following up on
that endorsement, Hilarie
sent a letter to the chairman
and ranking member of the
House Appropriations Committee
in support of the Library
of Congress' FY 2019
budget request,
FY is Fiscal Year
Budget Request.
With the ABA's support
and Congress' approval
of our budget, the Law Library
hopes to increase its services
to the legal community
and increase the amount
of digital materials that we
offer free from our website.
Thank you Hilarie and the
ABA for all of your efforts
to support the Law Library.
I invite everyone watching to
subscribe, and everyone here,
to subscribe to the Law
Library's email alerts
at law.gov/subscribe so
you can keep up with all
of our news and events.
We always have something
going on.
Once again, thank you Hilarie.
>> Hilarie Bass: My pleasure.
>> Jane Sanchez: We really
appreciate you spending time
with us today.
Thank you everyone
this afternoon.
[ Applause ]
>> This has been a presentation
of the Library of Congress.
Visit us at loc.gov.