Ari Kaplan recently spoke with Greg Hong, the co-founder and CEO of Steno, a tech-enabled provider of legal support and court reporting services.

They discussed the industry trends driving the need for court reporting and litigation support, creating a competitive advantage in the current market, and the evolution of the legal support market.

Ari Kaplan: Tell us about your background and the genesis of Steno.

Greg Hong: I’ve participated in several two-sided marketplaces. Out of school, I traded stock for hedge funds and went pretty far down the finance path before realizing I’d rather be building businesses than valuing them. From there, I worked in ad tech and ran a restaurant technology company that directly competed with OpenTable. I ultimately sold that business to Resy and American Express. We had some litigation in that sale, and my co-founder at Steno, Dylan Ruga, represented us successfully. We won that case on summary judgment, but I had my deposition taken, so he and I became good friends. Afterward, he proposed starting a court reporting business with me and a third co-founder, Dan Anderson, now our chief technology officer, when we saw an opportunity to add unique technology to a legacy agency model and structure it more like a marketplace.

Ari Kaplan: What trends in the legal industry do you see driving the need for court reporting and litigation services?

Greg Hong: The volume of litigation continues to grow year over year, but the court reporting industry has become a commoditized service market, and our competitors use decades-old playbooks. We are focused on our customers’ needs and use their feedback to design technology and financial options that directly improve their experience and workflows. For law firms, this means that we do the basics very well. We reply to our customers with substantive responses in 10 minutes on average, while others respond in hours or days, and we hardly ever miss covering a job. We pair that with the benefits of unique technology, like Transcript Genius, our new AI offering, or Steno Connect for Zoom, our Zoom app, so we really make it easier for attorneys to take depositions or more thoughtfully consume the post-deposition content that gets delivered to them in their transcripts.

Ari Kaplan: What traditional court reporting and litigation services do you offer, and how do you tech-enable those activities to distinguish Steno’s approach?

Greg Hong: We offer court reporting, videography, interpreters and conference room sourcing. We are also starting to provide service-of-process and e-filing assistance. We want to become a one-stop shop for our clients. Today, court reporting is about staffing. Law firms are looking for a provider, and that is often the end of the transaction. In addition to services, we offer unique technology and a dashboard allowing our customers to search their entire repository of Steno transcripts. We also have unique integrations with case management providers, like Clio and Litify.

Ari Kaplan: How do you stay ahead of the market, given that even traditional court reporting firms are starting to offer broader services?

Greg Hong: We take the best-in-class technology from outside the legal world and bring it to bear within this industry. When we transitioned from in-person depositions being the de facto standard before the pandemic to remote depositions becoming the norm after mid-2020, we built remote deposition offerings to accommodate our clients. We continue quickly bringing new ideas to market because we maintain an in-house technology team. At the same time, our competitors often leverage third-party providers to build their technology solutions or use something off the shelf. We also package our tools, so that attorneys can easily consume them. My co-founder is a practicing attorney running a firm with 11 lawyers, so before we release anything, we pilot it in his office for feedback, rather than simply affixing a label and charging for it. That is not the way to build a long-term customer relationship.

Ari Kaplan: How much human stenography occurs in a typical matter, and how much technology is involved?

Greg Hong: We only offer human court reporters, the de facto gold standard. The technology is supplemental. When we talk about our AI offering, it is applied on a post-deposition basis. A firm expects a court reporting agency to deliver a transcript following a deposition, but we allow the reader to interact with that document more thoughtfully, using the power of a large language model to interrogate that record. For example, our technology can help a lawyer instantly summarize a deposition and highlight the areas that indicate liability, with citations to the supporting testimony. Or if a practitioner is taking a deposition on Zoom and needs to share documents, our proprietary app makes that process as seamless as sliding a file across a conference room table. We are trying to emulate the real-world deposition experience even when virtual.

Ari Kaplan: How do you leverage your success in court reporting into other areas of litigation services?

Greg Hong: We see NPS scores well into the ’80s, indicating that our customers like working with us. They often provide unsolicited positive feedback. Doing an excellent job is the easy starting point for expansion. Once you’ve built that relationship and rapport, customers will trust you with e-filing or service of process tasks. They give us that shot, and we exceed expectations. That is how we have been able to grow.

Ari Kaplan: How do you see the legal support market evolving?

Greg Hong: Over the next few years, there will be consolidation across all of these service offerings. Law firms engaging in litigation today use several different service providers, from medical records support and e-filing to service-of-process and depositions, which can be challenging to manage. Many attorneys would prefer to combine those services, especially when they offer thoughtful integrations into their case management platforms. If all their records could sit magically in a single application, it would offer a much more cohesive experience. Adding unique, best-in-class technologies also transforms legal support, allowing legal teams to more efficiently and thoughtfully litigate their cases.

---

Listen to the complete interview at Reinventing Professionals.

Ari Kaplan regularly interviews leaders in the legal industry and in the broader professional services community to share perspective, highlight transformative change and introduce new technology at his blog and on iTunes.

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. – The Bureau of Land Management proposes to extend a 25-year public land withdrawal for continued military use and training at Fort Irwin National Training Center in San Bernardino County. Federal Register publication of Notice of the Army’s withdrawal extension application initiates a public comment period that will end on Oct. 24.

Fort Irwin National Training Center supports a key area for conducting arms military training, development, and testing of military equipment. The order affects approximately 117,700 acres of public land, which would remain closed to settlement, sale, location, and entry under the general land laws, including the mining laws.

The BLM and the U.S. Army welcome public comments on the proposed order and will host an in-person public meeting, with a virtual option to attend, on Monday, Sept. 9, from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Barstow Field Office, located at 2601 Barstow Road in Barstow, CA 92311. Please register here to attend virtually.

Written comments should be sent to Sarah Naranjo, Realty Specialist at BLM California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way W-1928, Sacramento, CA 95825-1886, or by email at BLM_CA_SO_FortIrwinComments@blm.gov.

The BLM is responsible for administering the Department of the Interior’s land withdrawal program and for processing all withdrawal-related applications or proposals for public lands. For more information, please contact Sarah Naranjo, Realty Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office at snaranjo@blm.gov.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Use of ChatGPT to support fee bid is ‘utterly…

Technology

Use of ChatGPT to support fee bid is ‘utterly and unusually unpersuasive,’ federal judge says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 27, 2024, 8:20 am CST

A federal judge in New York City has reduced a law firm’s fee request by about half after criticizing its use of the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT-4 as a “cross-check” to determine prevailing market rates for attorneys.

U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York said in a Feb. 22 opinion the Cuddy Law Firm’s use of ChatGPT-4 to reinforce its fee bid is “utterly and unusually unpersuasive,” report Reuters and Law360.

The Cuddy Law Firm had sought $113,484 in fees plus interest. Engelmayer granted feels of $53,050 plus interest.

The proper reference, Engelmayer said, would be the rate paid to comparable lawyers in special education law in the Southern District of New York. The Cuddy Law Firm had represented a child seeking a free appropriate education based on his disabilities, which included disorders relating to language, hyperactivity, attention deficit and stress.

The firm had sought hourly fees of $550 to $600 for senior lawyers, $425 for midlevel associates and $375 for junior associates.

“These hourly rates exceed those awarded in this district, for attorneys of comparable experience, and indeed for some of these very attorneys,” Engelmayer said.

Engelmayer said the firm had cited ChatGPT-4 sources as a “cross-check” to support “problematic sources” regarding hourly billing rates that aren’t specific to lawyers in special education litigation.

“As the firm should have appreciated, treating ChatGPT’s conclusions as a useful gauge of the reasonable billing rate for the work of a lawyer with a particular background carrying out a bespoke assignment for a client in a niche practice area was misbegotten at the jump,” Engelmayer wrote.

Engelmayer cited recent cases in which ChatGPT generated fake case citations.

“In claiming here that ChatGPT supports the fee award it urges, the Cuddy Law Firm does not identify the inputs on which ChatGPT relied. It does not reveal whether any of these were similarly imaginary. It does not reveal whether ChatGPT anywhere considered a very real and relevant data point: the uniform bloc of precedent … in which courts in this district and circuit have rejected as excessive the billing rates the Cuddy Law Firm urges for its timekeepers.

“The court therefore rejects out of hand ChatGPT’s conclusions as to the appropriate billing rates here. Barring a paradigm shift in the reliability of this tool, the Cuddy Law Firm is well advised to excise references to ChatGPT from future fee applications.”

Benjamin Kopp of the Cuddy Law Firm told Reuters that he queried ChatGPT-4 about the rates that clients might expect to be charged by attorneys and questions that clients might ask to determine how rates and fees would be affected by various factors in a case.

He addressed that issue in an August 2023 declaration.

“The underlying assertion was not about ChatGPT’s correctness on rates, but rather, what parents would expect as consumers,” Kopp told Reuters in an email.

U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York said in a Feb. 22 opinion the Cuddy Law Firm’s use of ChatGPT-4 to reinforce its fee bid is “utterly and unusually unpersuasive,” report Reuters and Law360.

The Cuddy Law Firm had sought $113,484 in fees plus interest. Engelmayer granted feels of $53,050 plus interest.

The proper reference, Engelmayer said, would be the rate paid to comparable lawyers in special education law in the Southern District of New York. The Cuddy Law Firm had represented a child seeking a free appropriate education based on his disabilities, which included disorders relating to language, hyperactivity, attention deficit and stress.

The firm had sought hourly fees of $550 to $600 for senior lawyers, $425 for midlevel associates and $375 for junior associates.

“These hourly rates exceed those awarded in this district, for attorneys of comparable experience, and indeed for some of these very attorneys,” Engelmayer said.

Engelmayer said the firm had cited ChatGPT-4 sources as a “cross-check” to support “problematic sources” regarding hourly billing rates that aren’t specific to lawyers in special education litigation.

“As the firm should have appreciated, treating ChatGPT’s conclusions as a useful gauge of the reasonable billing rate for the work of a lawyer with a particular background carrying out a bespoke assignment for a client in a niche practice area was misbegotten at the jump,” Engelmayer wrote.

Engelmayer cited recent cases in which ChatGPT generated fake case citations.

“In claiming here that ChatGPT supports the fee award it urges, the Cuddy Law Firm does not identify the inputs on which ChatGPT relied. It does not reveal whether any of these were similarly imaginary. It does not reveal whether ChatGPT anywhere considered a very real and relevant data point: the uniform bloc of precedent … in which courts in this district and circuit have rejected as excessive the billing rates the Cuddy Law Firm urges for its timekeepers.

“The court therefore rejects out of hand ChatGPT’s conclusions as to the appropriate billing rates here. Barring a paradigm shift in the reliability of this tool, the Cuddy Law Firm is well advised to excise references to ChatGPT from future fee applications.”

Benjamin Kopp of the Cuddy Law Firm told Reuters that he queried ChatGPT-4 about the rates that clients might expect to be charged by attorneys and questions that clients might ask to determine how rates and fees would be affected by various factors in a case.

He addressed that issue in an August 2023 declaration.

“The underlying assertion was not about ChatGPT’s correctness on rates, but rather, what parents would expect as consumers,” Kopp told Reuters in an email.

Why should you resolve to support civil legal aid in 2024? Short answer: I work in legal aid. Selfish, huh? There’s a longer answer, which ends with the immense power of your choices. But it begins with choices of mine.

I graduated from college in 1998. Unsure about law school, I enrolled for a year in the Jesuit Volunteer Corps—an AmeriCorps-like program popular with recent graduates of Jesuit colleges. The program scooped me up from an East Coast rowhouse neighborhood and plopped me down in Washington state’s agricultural hub—the Yakima Valley—where sprawling farms with apples, cherries, grapes and hops flourish. In Yakima, I began a one-year term of service with the Northwest Justice Project, a civil legal aid program.

The program, one in a network of nonprofit programs spanning the U.S., delivers free legal advice and representation to people who 1) live in or near poverty and 2) face civil legal problems that threaten essential living needs: an unlawful eviction that could leave a family homeless; an abusive marriage that a survivor must end through divorce; a bureaucratic error depriving a senior of health care benefits. The Northwest Justice Project funds itself through a mix of competitive grants and charitable donations.

My volunteer year was wondrous. I lived with seven housemates in the Pacific Northwest in the music and tech boom of the 1990s. The joke was that if you walked by the Seattle headquarters of Amazon—a growing enterprise that sold books and wares on the World Wide Web!—you got a job offer.

Beyond fun, the year profoundly changed me. I was moved every time I watched a frightened client’s face resolve from panic to placidity as their lawyer assured them that now they had an ally in their corner. And I fell in love with legal aid’s aspiration: ensuring that everybody in America has meaningful access to our civil justice system. That system belongs to all Americans, after all, and not just we who can afford a lawyer.

A lot of life has happened since 1998. What has not wavered—a lodestar guiding my professional course—is my commitment to legal aid’s aspiration. Here is why I hope you’ll support legal aid.

Too many Americans are disconnected from our civil justice system, and this weakens American democracy

The Legal Services Corp. administers federal funds as competitive grants to legal aid providers nationwide. (Disclosure: I work for Legal Aid of Western Michigan, an LSC grantee.) LSC’s ongoing “justice gap” research measures the legal needs of low-income Americans and the response that our legal system provides. That response is failing lower-income Americans and perpetuating a “more money = more justice” system.

A 2021 report found that low-income Americans receive no legal help or inadequate help with their civil legal problems in nine out of 10 cases. Compounding this problem is a shocking consumer-to-legal aid lawyer ratio: for every 10,000 Americans in poverty there are fewer than three(!) legal aid lawyers to serve them in a legal crisis. (The American Bar Association’s 2023 Profile of the Legal Profession report explores this frightening failure of supply to meet demand.)

What’s more, Americans’ disconnection from justice exposes a pillar of democracy to decay. The National Center for State Courts’ annual polling found in 2023 that a yearslong decline in public confidence about our civic institutions has finally halted. But an analysis concludes that “state courts are still in a relatively weak position when it comes to public assessments of their performance” across several measures.

Courts receive “net negative ratings on key attributes such as … providing equal justice to all.” Research exposes a trust gap on race and ethnicity lines too: “Black voters are also considerably less likely to say the courts are protecting rights and treating people with dignity and respect than white or Hispanic voters.”

This trust gap is also wide when measured by income. LSC’s justice gap research finds that people with incomes at least 400% of the federal poverty level “are more likely to believe that they can use the civil legal system to protect and enforce their rights” than those who live in or near poverty (59% vs. 39%).

These data points are pieces in an ugly mosaic forming in the United States. Cynicism and distrust among our fellow citizens breed more cynicism and distrust. They rip our social fabric and endanger democracy. We cannot afford it. And that gets me to:

We are responsible. We lawyers hold a unique and mighty position in making the justice system work. We sustain it through our advocacy. We safeguard it through our ethical conduct. If we stop caring whether Americans who don’t have money still have access to justice, what happens? And anyway, what can be said of a democracy that promises equal justice but imposes a hefty gate fee, with lawyers offering meaningful access only to people who offer meaningful money to lawyers?

Legal aid transcends partisanship. Equal justice matters to:

   • Thirty-seven state and territorial attorneys general who in 2023 urged Congress to “allocate robust funding” for LSC.
   • Federal elected officials across the political spectrum, who know that civil legal aid is vital to their constituents.
   • Corporate America. In a joint letter in May, “208 general counsel and chief legal officers, many of whom represent the largest corporations in America, urge[d] Congress to strengthen its investment in equal justice by increasing funding for” LSC.

Legal aid works! When we advance fairness in our justice system, we deliver an antidote to distrust. Don’t underestimate legal aid’s life-changing power:

   • “It was a huge part of allowing me to escape a difficult and scary situation. I don’t know what would have happened if I had stayed married. He could have been dangerous. The attorney who was on my case made me feel heard, seen, safe and secure, and I never felt shamed.” Over 30 years ago in Texas, a legal aid attorney helped “Monica” end an abusive marriage. Now, Monica is a businesswoman who donates to legal aid.
   • “I never wanted to be rich, but it’s made my life so I can tolerate it. It’s just made such a difference. … It gave me back some of my pride.” In New Hampshire, a legal aid advocate for “Horace” made sure he got Social Security disability benefits after a back injury sustained during National Guard service effectively ended his career in construction and trucking.

You and your support change lives. You hold that power.

• • •

During my formative Yakima year, a lawyer named Don Kinney ran my legal aid office. I can still see a poem, by Bonaro Overstreet, framed and hanging on his office wall:

You say the little efforts that I make
will do no good: they never will prevail
to tip the hovering scale
where Justice hangs in balance.
I don’t think
I ever thought they would.
But I am prejudiced beyond debate
in favor of my right to choose which side
shall feel the stubborn ounces of my weight.

Your stubborn ounces belong to you. Every day, you exercise power by allocating them. I am asking you to entrust some of your ounces to civil legal aid. Our clients need us, we need you, and we all need each other to level the scales so that equal justice becomes an achievement, not just an aspiration. Your choice.

---

Steve Grumm is director of community engagement for Legal Aid of Western Michigan. He formerly worked on staff with the ABA Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defense and the ABA Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service.

---

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

“Is it possible to both hold a peaceful protest and allow a controversial speaker to speak?” Cassandra Hill, the dean of the Northern Illinois University College of Law, posed this question to me last month, as she moderated a LexCon ’23 panel, which explored how schools can support students and protect First Amendment rights during times of conflict.

Fellow panelists included Mark Cordes, a professor emeritus at the Northern Illinois University College of Law; Michael Schwartz, dean and professor at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law; and Matthew Streb, chief strategy officer and professor of political science at the Northern Illinois University.

Several attendees laughed sympathetically in response to Hill’s question, their reactions reflecting fraught experiences navigating this seeming minefield of competing free speech interests.

“Because I’m an optimist and believe in upholding constitutional rights, the answer must be yes,” I said.

Below are four strategies that I shared that law schools can employ when seeking to uphold the First Amendment, equip students to enter an adversarial profession, and inspire students to lead in a pluralistic society fractured by conflict.

1. Provide students with written policies governing speech-oriented events at the beginning of each academic year

Waiting to disseminate policies until a controversial event is scheduled may lead students to conclude that the policies are motivated by the administration’s views on specific topics, rather than transcendent principles that would be applied evenhandedly, regardless of viewpoint.

Proactively distributing policies as part of the law school’s orientation process allows for a broader discussion of the constitutional and academic principles at stake, separate and apart from any particular ideological issue. The policies should:

  • Affirm all students’ First Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court famously found in the landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District in 1969 that it “can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

  • Outline students’ First Amendment rights as applied to events. Students have the right to host a speaker who expresses controversial ideas, and other students have the right to listen to such a speaker. Dissenting students also have the right to protest the speaker or engage in counterspeech.

  • Demarcate constitutional guardrails and speech/expressive conduct that is unprotected. The Constitution does not protect counterspeech or protests that disrupt the speech/event or prevent other students from hearing it, harassment or threats that are targeted toward people, and incitement—advocacy that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and “is likely to incite or produce such action,” as noted in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.

  • Outline actions that the law school will undertake if students engage in constitutionally unprotected speech/expressive conduct. Notifying students of how the law school will respond to harassment and threats, incitement, violence or disruption of speakers/events will help protect students’ due process interests. This notice should include the process that the law school will utilize to determine whether such speech/behavior has happened and disciplinary actions that may result. Given the ambiguity surrounding some of these issues, presenting these policies in advance of scheduled events will allow for a more constructive and less emotionally charged discussion regarding the parameters of protected/unprotected speech.

  • Commit to viewpoint neutrality. Because regulation of speech cannot be “an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view,” as noted in Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Educators’ Ass’n in 1983, law schools should emphasize that time, place and manner rules regarding hosting of speakers will be uniformly applied, regardless of viewpoint.

  • Define what a successful controversial event on campus looks like. In an age when clips of protesters confronting and preventing controversial people from speaking circulate on social media, schools must define success from the institution’s perspective. Schools should state that if a student organization seeks to host a controversial speaker, the school’s goals will be to ensure that the students can hold the event, students who wish to attend and hear the speaker can do so, and dissenting students can protest and engage in counterspeech, as long as the event is not disrupted. Institutional success is all students being able to exercise their First Amendment rights; institutional failure is any of these groups being prevented from doing so.

2. Equip students with skills to constructively engage in civil discourse

Communicating effectively in contentious environments is neither intuitive nor easy. Rather, it requires emotional intelligence, active listening, analysis of differing perspectives, and sincere attempts to find spheres of mutuality, if possible.

As such, in addition to the negotiation and mediation courses already offered, law schools should provide interactive workshops and training on these “soft skills.”

This will not only equip students to engage in civil discourse in law school but also enhance their efficacy in negotiations, settlement conferences and business transactions once they begin representing clients.

Additionally, law schools should encourage student organizations that represent seemingly opposing perspectives to sponsor joint events on topics of mutual concern.

In the past, the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization, and the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization, have co-hosted events on topics that include criminal justice reform, term limits and hate speech.

But the number of events that they have co-sponsored reportedly has declined in recent years, thereby diminishing opportunities for students to practice the art of disagreeing agreeably.

Encouraging student organizations from disparate perspectives to co-sponsor events on controversial topics will help students refine their negotiation skills, normalize civil communication during conflict, and find common cause—despite deeply held differences.

3. Make the case that civility and free speech are virtues worth upholding

“The freedom to speak and the freedom to hear are inseparable,” then-Justice Thurgood Marshall asserted in his dissent in Kleindienst v. Mandel in 1972. Civility and the First Amendment are therefore inextricably intertwined, as civility is what enables competing First Amendment rights to be given effect in a pluralistic society.

For those who view civility as a weakness, seeking to silence a speaker who expresses objectionable views may seem appealing, while allowing such speech to happen may feel like acquiescence.

But when only the loudest voices can be heard, the First Amendment is rendered inconsequential, and everyone’s free speech rights are more insecure. But civility—rooted in respect for the rights and dignity of all people—preserves everyone’s ability to speak and be heard.

Moreover, choosing to communicate winsomely increases the likelihood that those who initially disagree may be persuaded.

Ironically, civility and compelling counterspeech—not censorship—are the forces most likely to defeat offensive views, for merely silencing such views does not extinguish them.

As then-Justice Louis D. Brandeis concurred in Whitney v. California in 1927, “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech—not enforced silence.”

4. Provide support to students who are negatively impacted by inflammatory speech

That the Constitution protects expressing certain ideas that many people may find detestable does not render such speech easier to hear. Law schools should acknowledge this tension and provide students with support in addressing these emotions.

This may include making counselors available when controversial speakers are scheduled, facilitating group discussions for similarly affected students, or offering workshops on navigating trauma and emotional triggers.

Law schools also should uniformly enforce their harassment and bullying policies if protected speech devolves into constitutionally unprotected harassment, threats or incitement.

While some people may deride these supportive resources, if speech is powerful enough to influence crowds, governments and movements, it is unsurprising that it may also influence some students’ emotions. Acknowledging this impact and providing support only underscores the power of speech.

Embracing the marketplace of ideas

For law students to fully harness their potential as lawyers and future leaders, they must be empowered and equipped to embrace the caldron and crucible that is the marketplace of ideas.

As the Supreme Court found in Keyishian v. Board of Regents in 1967, “The nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas, which discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection.’”

---

Erika N.L. Harold is the executive director of the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism. Harold leads the commission’s extensive educational programming focused on advancing professionalism among the state’s lawyers and judges to build trust and confidence in the justice system.

---

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.