Autor: AEA - EAL

We invite you for the conference on fundamentals of performing profession of a lawyer, organized by the AEA-EAL together with the Kazakhstan Bar Association and Bar Issues Commission of the International Bar Association (IBA) in Alamaty on June 15 – 16 , 2018. During the conference we will discuss not only such topics like:
· Independence of laywyers and the bar associations,
· Rules of ethics,
· Continuing legal education,
· Structure of legal aid,
· Disciplinary proceedings,
but also make an opportunity for networking between lawyers from Central Asia and Europe as well as to participate in a social program showing the beauty of Kazakhstan.

More information coming soon!

Since 2002, 27th January has been instituted in Europe the international Day of commemoration in Memory of the victims of the holocaust and prevention of crimes against Humanity. In France, this day is dedicated to the memory of all genocides and to the prevention of crimes against humanity.

If this date has been chosen in memory to the date of liberation of the cam in Auschwitz-Brikenau, it has become a date of commemoration but also a day of prevention, specially for young generations to prevent such new crimes.

On January 25, 2018 Monique Stengel, Past President of the AEA-EAL participated in the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, organized by UNESCO under the main title: Holocaust Remembrance and Education: our shared responsibility.

WIth this occasion Mr Robert Badinter, lawyer and professor of law, published an important article in the UNESCO Courier – „Anti-Semitism: Learning the lessons of history”.
.
Our present international actuality shows that, unfortunately, the lessons of the History don’t avoid similar violent acts and violation of human rights, also against lawyers as we could see a few days ago, on 24. January, during the Day of Lawyers in danger.

It is our duty as citizen and our role as lawyer to be watchful and to act to report and act against all sorts of violation against human rights and humanity.

Depuis 2002, le 27 janvier a été instituée en Europe journée de mémoire de l’Holocauste et de prévention des crimes contre l’humanité.
En France, cette journée est intitulée journée de la mémoire des génocides et de la prévention des crimes contre l’humanité.

En effet, si cette date a été choisie comme étant celle de la libération du camp d’Auschwitz-Birkenau, c’est devenue la journée consacrée au souvenir mais aussi à la prévention et, notamment, à l’éducation des jeunes pour prévenir la survenance de tels crimes.

Ainsi, j’ai pu assister le 25 janvier dernier à Paris, au siège de l’UNESCO, à la journée internationale organisée sous le titre „Mémoire et enseignement de l’Holocauste: notre responsabilité partagée”.
Comme le souligne Robert Badinter, Avocat et professeur de droit, dans le „Courrier de l’Unesco” à cette occasion, „l’histoire nous invite à la vigilance”.

Notre actualité internationale montre que, malheureusement, les leçons de l’Histoire n’empêche pas la survenance d’actes de violence et atteintes contre les droits de l’Homme, y compris contre les avocats comme nous avons dû le constater le 24 janvier dernier, à l’occasion de la journée de l’avocat en danger.

Il est de notre devoir de citoyen et notre rôle d’Avocat d’être vigilants et d’agir pour signaler et lutter contre toutes ces atteintes aux droits de l’homme et à l’humanité.

On January 23 – 24, 2018 AEA-EAL President Maria Slazak, in her capacity of past President of Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), participated as a speaker and chair of the panel in the study visit, organized by Council of Europe for a delegation of alumni of the “International Law in Advocacy” to the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights. The aim of the event was to discuss the role of human rights lawyers, supporting the idea of adoption the proposed European Convention on the Profession of a Lawyer. Maria made an introductory remarks and chaired the session on the role of professional bodies in protection for human rights defenders in the light of new risks and problems in countries of Eastern Partnership. Other sessions moderated by judges of the European Court of Human Rights and experts represented civil society were related to the scope of who is a “lawyer” from perspective of NGOs lawyers (in house and/or independent lawyers) – including disbarred lawyers, the range of protection of professional privilege with a special emphasis on lex specialis guaranties and duties of lawyers, including those related to effective exercise of rights of individual petition via legal representation as well as information on the European enforcement mechanisms for monitoring and protection of lawyers’ rights. Maria was also invited to conclude the conference.

The study visit was organized for a group of lawyers from Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine by Council of Europe in cooperation with Human Rights House Foundation and CCBE.

On January 24, 2018 Maria participated also in a seminar organized by CCBE at the headquarters of the Council of Europe under the title “Threatened lawyers: The end of the rule of law in Europe?” / the aim of the seminar was to present arguments on the need for development and adoption of a European Convention on the Profession of Lawyer/ and in the Parliamentary Assembly where the positive decision to start drafting of the Convention was passed with big majority of votes.

Resolution of the Board of Directors on endangered lawyers in Egypt

The Board of Directors of the European Association of Lawyers (AEA-EAL) expresses the solidarity with all endangered lawyers. We are seriously concerned at the current situation of lawyers in many countries where fundamental rights and standards are not observed and lawyers are harassed, silenced, pressured, threatened, persecuted or even tortured. It constitutes the manifest breach of the rules which are fundamental in the democratic countries.
We would like to express our grave concern for the situation of lawyers in Egypt. We call the Egyptian authorities to refrain from harassment and repression of lawyers and to reconsider the attitude to this professional group which plays a very vital role in the society.

We would like also to remind that when adopting the Declaration on Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, the United Nations Organization stressed that “Governments shall ensure that lawyers (a) are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference; (b) are able to travel and to consult with their clients freely both within their own country and abroad; and (c) shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.” We call the Egyptian authorities upon the observance of these rules.

We express our solidarity with Egyptian colleagues who share our beliefs in the importance of rule of law and the respect for the human rights.

The Board of Directors
AEA-EAL

Journée internationale de l’Avocat en danger – 24 Janvier 2018

L’Association Européenne des Avocats / the European Association of Lawyers, AEA-EAL, exprime sa solidarité avec tous les avocats en danger. Nous sommes sérieusement préoccupés par la situation actuelle des avocats dans de nombreux pays dans lesquels les droits fondamentaux ne sont pas respectés et les Avocats sont harcelés, obligés de se taire, mis sous pression, menacés, persécutés et même torturés. Cela constitue une violation manifeste des règles de base qui sont fondamentales dans des Etats démocratiques.

Nous voudrions exprimer notre grande inquiétude au sujet de la situation des Avocats en Egypte. Nous appelons les autorités égyptiennes à cesser tout persécution et repression à l’encontre d’Avocats et de considérer à nouveau leur attitude à l’égard de ce groupe professionnel qui joue un rôle vital dans la société.

Nous voudrions également rappeler qu’en adoptant la Déclaration sur les principes de base sur le rôle des Barreaux, l’Organisation des Nations Unies a souligné que ” Les pouvoirs publics veillent à ce que les avocats a) puissent s’acquitter de toutes leurs fonctions professionnelles sans entrave, intimidation, harcèlement ni ingérence indue; b) puissent voyager et consulter leurs clients librement, dans le pays comme à l’étranger; et c) ne fassent pas l’objet, ni ne soient menacés de poursuites ou de sanctions économiques ou autres pour toutes mesures prises conformément à leurs obligations et normes professionnelles reconnues et à leur déontologie. ” Nous appelons les autorités égyptiennes à observer ces règles.

Nous exprimons notre solidarité avec nos Confrères égyptiens qui partagent nos convictions quant à l’importance de l’Etat de droit et du respect des Droits de l’Homme.

Le Conseil d’Administration
D’AEA-EAL

An Austrian citizen is allowed to sue the Facebook in personal case in his home country, however he is not allowed to lodge a class action against this company, ruled today the Court of Justice in case C-498/16.

Max Schrems had lodged the class action in an Austrian court on behalf of himself and seven other users in Austria, Germany and India against Facebook Ireland for various alleged rights violations including personal data. Facebook, which operates its European services in Ireland, had argued that Austrian courts did not have jurisdiction over its Irish operations, and that Schrems was a “professional” user and therefore not covered by consumer protection provisions.

The court decided that a Facebook user could be considered a “consumer” if their use was “predominately” for personal and not professional use and consumers can file complaints against activities in another EU member state in their country of domicile. „Mr Schrems may bring an individual action in Austria against Facebook Ireland,” the Court (ECJ said in a statement. „By contrast, as the assignee of other consumers’ claims, he cannot benefit from the consumer forum for the purposes of a collective action.”

Austria’s supreme court had referred the matter to the ECJ after Schrems’s lawsuit was first thrown out and then restored by the country’s courts. The case now returns to Austria’s Supreme Court for final judgment.

Schrems was the one who brought down the EU’s former „safe harbour” data sharing arrangement in 2015 after he sued Facebook in Ireland over the transfer of personal information by Facebook from Europe to the US.

Patrick Conrads, member of the Board of Directors and Thomas Verbeeck, a colleague of his firm went to the second edition of the “Electrochoc Numérique” semina, which took place in Brussels on December 14, 2017.

Lawyers are increasingly aware of the impact of the digital revolution on their profession. The objective of this seminar was to answer the two main questions which remained at the heart of the reflections: „Why do we have to move?” and „Where to start?”

Too many lawyers today feel innovation as a threat rather than an opportunity. Yet it is by developing a prospective vision of its activity and refocusing on its added value that the lawyer of tomorrow will emerge winner of the digital revolution.
The digital revolution, with its portability tools, misleads the traditional model because it opens up knowledge and pushes for transparency, responsiveness and collaborative mode. (The hourly rate model does not encourage firms to structure more efficiently and clients have become aware of it).

What do customers, who also live their digital revolution and have become digital consumers, expect? This question was the subject of the first part of this meeting. Customers are probably looking for more agile solutions in terms of pricing, communication, listening or content. Customers are increasingly demanding, which has consequences on the value of the benefit, on the prices charged and on how the right is approached as a product. The client wants to become an actor of his file and the lawyer becomes no more guide, but companion of road.

How can the lawyer then review his position in digital time? This question was the subject of the second part of this meeting. It is obvious that the client will no longer come to his lawyer to obtain an obscure or abstract legal answer. He will come to share a common experience with his lawyer and together, they will develop the best solution to adopt.
In order to carry out his transformation, the lawyer will have to improve his organization and develop new tools. He will have to develop a collective intelligence focused on free access to knowledge.

The meteoric developments of artificial intelligence open up new perspectives for the lawyer to manage knowledge, organize data, anticipate the outcome of litigation using predictive tools, and give time to accentuate its advisory role through empathetic listening and sharing of experience.

For lawyers, an interest in innovation, not only technological but also economic, managerial and societal, is a precondition for the necessary transformation to ensure the continuity of the essence of the profession of lawyer: defending and counseling the human.

An article written by Patrick Conrads drawing up a status of the issues of digital for lawyers is coming and will soon be published for all membrers of AEA.

Please find below a very interesting article by Patrick Conrads, member of the AEA-EAL Board of Directors and Belgian lawyer, on how digital revolution affects lawyers.

Like many other professions, lawyers are affected by the digital revolution. Technological tools and artificial intelligence lead to simplified and automated procedures that upset/subvert/shake our traditional ways of working. In addition, lawyers no longer have a monopoly of knowledge, which is now open, free and available to all. By opening up knowledge, the digital revolution with its portability tools is pushing for transparency, responsiveness and collaborative mode.
The profession is now faced with multiple challenges: economic sluggishness, globalized competition, artificial intelligence, the emergence of an increasingly sophisticated outsourcing, transformation of some of its know-how into commodities. It is also competing with other professions, that is why it is now essential to focus our efforts on driving change.

Although the brand „lawyers” carries many guarantees of quality of service (strong ethics, demanding discipline, guaranteed competence), these essential elements are not sufficient to allow the profession to build its attractiveness and profitability model without holding account of the expectations expressed by consumers.

Lawyers must therefore question the value of changing the way they work, interacting with their clients and with their various partners (jurisdictions, administrations, other professionals). Innovation requires to increase the risk culture and also requires phases of implementation and adaptation that are not always compatible with the profitability requirements of firms.

Despite this, digital electroshock must be seen as a real opportunity for lawyers, the challenge being to think about how to take advantage of it.
Indeed, advances in new technologies offer many advantages: saving time, money, quality and efficiency in the collection and pre-processing of legal information, for example.

1.
New tools of work develop as well as predictive justice. With softwares, it is possible to calculate the probabilities of success in court and to predict the amount of compensation that clients are likely to receive. These softwares recover a maximum of rendered decisions and allow a quantification of the legal risk. Predictive justice is a step forward for litigants because they can have an idea of the chances of success of their action, but the software remains only tools.

However, the use of simple technologies makes it possible to increase accessibility without weighing on the lawyer’s agenda, for example by setting up extranets (Internet tools allowing the storage and the sharing of documents: contracts, procedure, company documents, or calendar sharing). Technology can therefore be a source, under certain conditions, of increased proximity and better service (doctrine.be, droitbelge.be).

In addition, new tools that are now financially accessible make it easier to generate simplified legal documents and platforms for linking lawyers and litigants (my-lawer.be). Platforms also appear for mediation or amicable dispute resolution with reasonable stakes in a diversion perspective.
Other tools exist only at a rudimentary stage but should multiply rapidly, like chatbots. It is a program that incorporates an algorithm to establish short conversations between a user and the website. Also known as „conversational agents”, these programs will develop an increasingly sophisticated language and draw on an increasingly rich mass of information (associated with the recurrence of certain frequently asked questions) to allow a first sorting in the questions asked by the litigants: the user asks a question „in natural language” and gets an answer as soon as the machine has identified the question.
Computer programs of artificial intelligence are also developing. The best known in the legal world is Watson, a program developed by the IBM company, which responds to the questions asked in natural language. A specific version of Watson has been developed specifically to answer legal questions: Ross40, which has been „hired” by a dozen law firms. This program is not only able to find among millions of documents a legal answer to a question asked, but also has a system of learning: It self-improves as it works.
These Artificial Intelligence tools will eventually replace the lawyer in his job as a legal technician to extract relevant references to the case. The lawyer will focus on the strategy and the human aspect of the case, which is at the heart of his job.

 

2.
On the other hand, the digital revolution has also changed the requirements of customers who are better informed, Google being their first consultant. They want simple answers in fast deadlines. Clients’ legal needs are evolving into turnkey solutions, which forces us to reinvent our services and the relationship with our clients. Two major implications are to be taken into account:

The first one concerns the standardization of some of our services: Regular products such as general sales conditions, company statutes, a rather simple work contract are now „standardizable”. Faced with the already active presence of online platforms with more standardized services, we can see that the client now accepts the idea of reducing some of his expectations (especially the „tailor-made” dimension) to satisfy an immediate need or constraint budget. The lawyer will have to accept this phenomenon of standardization of some of its services, because of the appearance of the digital.

The second implication relates to the phenomenon of rating benefits: It is not unlikely that in the long run, there will be indications on lawyers in relation to defined criteria as its efficiency or the respect of the budget. This notation can be unfounded, unfair or simply artificial, but it is a phenomenon inherent to the Digital. If we do not accept this phenomenon of „desecration” of certain aspects of our profession, then we will undergo this digital change rather than accompany it.
Customers have become digital consumers and are looking for more agile solutions for communication, pricing, listening and content. They are more and more demanding which has consequences on the valuation of the service, on the prices practiced and on the way the right is approached as product. The client wants to become an actor of his file and the lawyer becomes neither guide nor companion of road.
The challenge is to learn how to serve them the way they want. The need for legal advice is immense in our complex society, and machines can offer us more resources and time to put the human in the center. Too many lawyers today perceive innovation as a threat rather than an opportunity. However, it is by developing a prospective vision of its activity and refocusing on its added value that the lawyer of tomorrow will be the winner of the digital revolution. The client will no longer come to his lawyer to obtain an obscure or abstract legal answer. He will come to share a common experience with his lawyer and together they will work out the best practical solution to adopt.

3.
Therefore, the lawyer will have to change his practice. He will have to have the tools of Artificial Intelligence while remaining focused on his primary role, that of consulting. Also, measuring risks, listening, empathy, pedagogy, ethics, deontology and creativity will remain constant. Explaining the issues to the client, diagnose, and find solutions cannot be done only through a machine, the lawyer will always use his skills to know whether it is advisable to follow or not the opinion of the machine given as an indication.

Artificial Intelligence should not be seen as competing with human intelligence, but as complementary. It will always take humans to think the rules, to elaborate them, to do justice and to apply the law. Even though people have access to information, they do not have the skills to understand it. The lawyer will always be indispensable to interpret the rules of law. He also has an increasingly important role to play regarding the psychological, social and human support of his clients. An innovative lawyer does not see justice as an end but as a way to do his job better. He uses technology to rethink and improve the key elements of his business and his added value.

In France, the process of change is already well underway. Lawyers expand their field of action: they collaborate with other regulated professions, manage transversal projects, and develop innovative tools.
Emmanuel Macron initiated the movement by passing a bill in 2015 that opens the door to interprofessionality, external financing and authorization to market related goods and services on an ancillary basis. „These adaptations are at the origin of a remarkable dynamic of creation of new structures and new technological solutions „. (Stanislas van Wassenhove, Lawyer And Initiator Of The Digital Electro-Choc Conference)
In Belgium, the Bars (Avocats.be and the OVB) have created in 2016 a digital platform to put lawyers in touch with the courts and tribunals. A year later, young lawyers launched the Incubateur.legal to educate lawyers about new technologies and innovation;
In addition, the European Incubator of the Brussels Bar (INCUEBRUX), which aims to complement the incubator of the O.B.F.G, has just been created. This incubator, which wanted to be mixed and international, has for mission to ensure the training and the information of the lawyers of the bar of Brussels on the technological developments which concern them, to be a place of exchanges and debates on the modernization and the reform of the legal profession, to act to ensure that the bar is committed to the digital revolution in accordance with its values and to federate European initiatives on technological innovation and its implications for the profession. Several projects are already in preparation (http://www.incubateur.brussels).

4.
In conclusion, the developments in artificial intelligence offer the lawyer new perspectives to manage knowledge, organize data, and anticipate the outcome of litigation through predictive tools and thus free up time to accentuate its advisory role.

Beyond certain prerequisites (finance, IT, communication, project management), the lawyer will open by developing his human and relational skills: listening, empathy, acceptance of failure, creativity, agility, adaptability, management of emotions, letting go and sharing experience. Emphasis will be on well-being rather than know-how.

For lawyers, being interested in innovation, not only technological but also economic, managerial and societal is a prerequisite for the necessary transformation to ensure the sustainability of the essence of the legal profession: to defend and advise the human.

Some people think that the technique is neutral and that everything depends on the way users control it. Others, highlight the dangers of any technical progress, including digital. Without wanting to be able to decide this debate, we can highlight the following certainties:

o Digital technology can make people aware of their legal needs and contribute to the knowledge of the law, which is an essential element of the rule of law.

o For professionals, the eruption of digital is a threat because the benefits become interchangeable, and are judged by customers only in terms of price, which becomes the main criterion of choice.

o Digital represents a world of opportunities: by breaking down the barrier of inaccessibility, it makes it possible to come into contact with non-consumers and thus gain a lot in productivity. Similarly, getting rid of tedious, non-value-added tasks also increases productivity.

As an indication, here are the digital proposals from the report by Kami Haeri, a lawyer at the Paris Bar, on „the future of the legal profession”:
o Develop a culture of innovation, integrating the concept of entrepreneurial risk into the lawyer’s learning;
o Sensitize law firms to new offers for their clients, including the provision of „intelligent forms”, general legal information („freemium” offers);
o Sensitize law firms to develop a branding strategy that goes beyond the name of the founders and ensures the firm’s outreach through other forms of brand expression;
o Introduce in the management of firms, new practices and new tools borrowed from the world of business: develop work in project mode, assign assignments to younger employees in the development of the firm, set regular interviews and, in any event bi-annual;
o Professionalize the management of firms, favoring the management of non-lawyer firms, such as secretaries general.
In short, lawyers are experts at controlling the risks of their clients and they have developed sharp specializations. The skills of excellence must today be coupled with the skills identified as those of the future by the last Davos Economic Forum: an entrepreneurial attitude, a listening posture, open to project management and multidisciplinarity as well as collaborative methods.

Patrick Conrads

Partner

Key Legal Law Firm

English version developed in collaboration with prof. Philipp Zurkinden and Olivier Raynaud

Electrochoc Numérique version francophone format pdf [1]

INTERNET SOURCES :
http://www.justice.gouv.fr/publication/rapport_kami_haeri.pdf https://www.lecho.be/actualite/archive/L-avocat-3-0-augmente-par-la-technologie-libere-descarcans-du-passe-et-forme-a-l-humain/9961894 https://revuedesjuristesdesciencespo.com/2017/03/07/lavenir-de-la-profession-davocat-entretienavec-maitre-kami-haeri/
http://www.lalibre.be/economie/digital/la-french-tech-veut-rayonner-a-bruxelles588e24bacd70e747fb663703

Home

http://openlaw.fr/index.php?title=Open_Law,_le_Droit_Ouvert https://blockchainfrance.net/2016/01/28/applications‐smart‐contracts/ http://www.coindesk.com/ipo‐and‐insurance‐projects‐win2000‐at‐blockchain‐hackathon/ http://www.rossintelligence.com/
http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2016/05/27/une-intelligence-artificielle-fait-son-entree-dansun-cabinet-davocats_4927806_4408996.html
http://www.dayone-consulting.com/fr-actualites-paris/etude-lpo-lexternalisation-des-prestationsjuridiques-2/

The European Commission has adopted on December 20, 2017 a proposal for a new Directive for more transparent and predictable working conditions across the EU. This proposal will complete and modify the current Directive 91/533/EEC. The Commission’s proposal complements and modernises existing obligations to inform each worker of his or her working conditions and creates new minimum standards to ensure that all workers,benefit from more predictability and clarity as regards their working conditions.

More concretely, the Commission aims to reduce the risk of insufficient protection of workers by:
• Aligning the notion of worker to the case-law of the European Court of Justice. Consequently, this Directive would ensure that the same broad categories of workers will be covered.
• Bringing within the scope of the Directive forms of employment that are now often excluded. This includes domestic workers, marginal part-time workers or workers on very short contracts, and extends to new forms of employment, such as on-demand workers, voucher-based workers and platform workers.
• Ensuring that workers are provided with an updated and extended information package directly at the start of employment from day one.
• Creating new minimum rights, such as the right to greater predictability of work for those working mostly with a variable schedule, the possibility to request transition to a more stable form of employment and receive a reply in writing, or the right to mandatory training without deduction from salary.
• Reinforcing the means of enforcement and redress as a last resort to resolve possible disagreements, should dialogue not be sufficient.
The proposed Directive would need to adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, and be implemented by the Member States, either through legislation or by social partners’ collective agreements.

The European Commission has informed Anheuser – Bush InBev on November 30, 2017 of its preliminary view that the company has abused its dominant position on the Belgian beer market, by hindering cheaper imports of its Jupiler and Leffe beers from the Netherlands and France into Belgium.
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA (AB InBev) is the world’s biggest beer brewer, with a very strong position on the Belgian beer market. Its most popular beer brands in Belgium are Jupiler and Leffe. AB InBev also sells these last two brands in the Netherlands and France. The Commission’s investigation has shown that in these two countries AB InBev sells Jupiler and Leffe at lower prices than in Belgium due to the increased competition it faces there. The Commission’s preliminary view, outlined in its Statement of Objections, is that AB InBev is dominant on the Belgian beer market.
In particular, the Commission is concerned by a number of AB InBev business practices, which have been in place since at least 2009 :
• AB InBev changed the packaging of Jupiler and Leffe beer cans in the Netherlands and France to make it harder to sell them in Belgium ;
• AB InBev limited access of Dutch retailers to key products and promotions, in order to prevent them from bringing less expensive beer products to Belgium ;
The Commission’s preliminary view is that these practices have created anti-competitive obstacles to trade and partitioned the EU’s Single Market along national borders. If confirmed, this would infringe Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) that prohibits the abuse of a dominant market position.
The sending of a Statement of Objections does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation