America is a nation founded on justice and the rule of law. But our laws are too complex, and legal advice too expensive, for poor and even middle-class Americans to get help and vindicate their rights. Criminal defendants facing jail time may receive an appointed lawyer who is juggling hundreds of cases and immediately urges them to plead guilty. Civil litigants are even worse off; usually, they get no help at all navigating the maze of technical procedures and rules. The same is true of those seeking legal advice, like planning a will or negotiating an employment contract. Rebooting Justice presents a novel response to longstanding problems. The answer is to use technology and procedural innovation to simplify and change the process itself. In the civil and criminal courts where ordinary Americans appear the most, we should streamline complex procedures and assume that parties will not have a lawyer, rather than the other way around. We need a cheaper, simpler, faster justice system to control costs. We cannot untie the Gordian knot by adding more strands of rope; we need to cut it, to simplify it.

Through a set of vibrant case studies, this collection investigates rebooting as a practice that seeks to remake an entire film series or franchise, with ambitions that are at once respectful and revisionary.

Virtually all American judges are former lawyers. This book argues that these lawyer-judges instinctively favor the legal profession in their decisions and that this bias has far-reaching and deleterious effects on American law. There are many reasons for this bias, some obvious and some subtle. Fundamentally, it occurs because - regardless of political affiliation, race, or gender - every American judge shares a single characteristic: a career as a lawyer. This shared background results in the lawyer-judge bias. The book begins with a theoretical explanation of why judges naturally favor the interests of the legal profession and follows with case law examples from diverse areas, including legal ethics, criminal procedure, constitutional law, torts, evidence, and the business of law. The book closes with a case study of the Enron fiasco, an argument that the lawyer-judge bias has contributed to the overweening complexity of American law, and suggests some possible solutions.

A timely call to reshape government through technology, from Nandan Nilekani and Viral Shah, two leading experts in the field. For many aspects of how our countries are run - from social security and fair elections to communication, infrastructure and the rule of law - technology can play an increasingly positive, revolutionary role. In India, for example, where many underprivileged citizens are invisible to the state, a unique national identity system is being implemented for the first time, which will help strengthen social security. And throughout the world, technology is essential in the transition to clean energy. This book, based on the authors' collective experiences working with government, argues that technology can reshape our lives, in both the developing and developed world, and shows how this can be achieved. Praise for Nandan Nilekani: 'A pioneer . . . one of India's most celebrated technology entrepreneurs' Financial Times 'There is a bracing optimism about Nilekani's analysis . . . which can only be welcome in this age of doom and gloom' Telegraph 'The Bill Gates of Bangalore . . . Nilekani achieves an impressive breadth' Time Nandan Nilekani is a software entrepreneur, Co-founder of Infosys Technologies, and the head of the Government of India's Technology Committee. He was named one of the '100 Most Influential People in the World' by TIME magazine and Forbes' 'Business Leader of the Year', and he is a member of the World Economic Forum Board. Viral B. Shah is a software expert who has created various systems for governments and businesses worldwide.

An urgent plea for much needed reforms to legal education The period from 2008 to 2018 was a lost decade for American law schools. Employment results were terrible. Applications and enrollment cratered. Revenue dropped precipitously and several law schools closed. Almost all law schools shrank in terms of students, faculty, and staff. A handful of schools even closed. Despite these dismal results, law school tuition outran inflation and student indebtedness exploded, creating a truly toxic brew of higher costs for worse results. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 and the subsequent role of hero-lawyers in the “resistance” has made law school relevant again and applications have increased. However, despite the strong early returns, we still have no idea whether law schools are out of the woods or not. If the Trump Bump is temporary or does not result in steady enrollment increases, more schools will close. But if it does last, we face another danger. We tend to hope that crises bring about a process of creative destruction, where a downturn causes some businesses to fail and other businesses to adapt. And some of the reforms needed at law schools are obvious: tuition fees need to come down, teaching practices need to change, there should be greater regulations on law schools that fail to deliver on employment and bar passage. Ironically, the opposite has happened for law schools: they suffered a harrowing, near-death experience and the survivors look like they’re going to exhale gratefully and then go back to doing exactly what led them into the crisis in the first place. The urgency of this book is to convince law school stakeholders (faculty, students, applicants, graduates, and regulators) not to just return to business as usual if the Trump Bump proves to be permanent. We have come too far, through too much, to just shrug our shoulders and move on.

This is a review essay of Benjamin Barton and Stephanos Bibas's new book, Rebooting Justice: More Technology, Fewer Lawyers, and the Future of Law. Rebooting Justice is an eloquent exemplar of the growing literature that focuses on expanding access to justice via legal market deregulation. What sets the book apart from other works in the genre is that Barton and Bibas do not treat deregulation as a panacea. Their starting point is that Americans are not well served by lawyers' monopoly over the legal services market, but they do not envision a world in which every legal problem is resolved ably and efficiently. Their goal is much more modest: a less complex legal system in which lawyer assistance is not as vital, and public resources are used primarily to improve the quality of felony defense.Part I of this Review examines Rebooting Justice's unabashed call for triaging Americans' legal needs and its focus on alternative modes of delivering legal services. Part II observes that, just as lawyers and judges have consciously or unconsciously sought to maintain the legal system's complexity, legal technology companies and alternative legal service providers may stand in the way of simplification and common sense reforms of the legal system. As set out in Part III, Rebooting Justice may also misdiagnose lack of access to justice by viewing the problem largely as a function of the high cost of legal services and overregulation. People do not seek out legal assistance for a number of reasons, and complex social and cultural barriers deter people from even considering obtaining legal assistance. There is also more variance in regulatory structures in the United States than Barton and Bibas acknowledge, and jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom that have liberalized their legal markets have thus far not seen the access gains that some commentators expected.

The Crisis in America’s Criminal Courts highlights a variety of problems that judges, prosecutors, and public defenders face within a criminal justice system that is ineffective, unfair, and extraordinarily expensive. While many argue, and author, William R. Kelly, agrees, that crushing caseloads and court dockets certainly qualify as a crisis, Kelly suggests there is a much greater crisis in the courts that results in profound downstream effects on criminal justice performance and outcomes. It sounds simple, but the greatest risk faced by the justice system is the lack of time, expertise, and resources for effective decision-making. In this book, Kelly proposes a variety of evidence-based reforms that, as a start, provide the key decision-makers with professional clinical experts to accurately assess and advice regarding mitigating the circumstances that bring individuals into the courts. We must rebalance. We need incarceration for those who are too dangerous or violent or who are habitual offenders. For most of the rest, we need to manage risk, but very importantly, it is time to get serious about behavioral change. We need to change the culture of the courthouse and reorient how we think about crime and punishment.