A look at the Global Legal Hackathon from the judge’s seat

Judges share what they looked for — and what they learned — in the latest round of the Global Legal Hackathon

Last week, it was announced that 14 teams would be going to New York City to compete in the final round of the Global Legal Hackathon. This is six more than originally planned, explained GLH co-founder Aileen Schultz, because the judges “had an incredibly difficult time deciding who their chosen top teams were. This speaks volumes as to the quality and energy of the GLH teams.”

Indeed, we heard from two of the second-round judges about what made the finalists’ submissions stand out and what they learned from this inspiring group of hackers.

GLH judge and global technology leader Peter Becke said he saw passionate, determined, and diverse team leaders, and looked for a “good, simple idea that could scale” while judging the second round of submissions. Becke said the successful teams had “a believable plan” with a tangible market and customer interest, and an “added bonus if it can disrupt.”

Becke is the CEO of Venturing Hills Corporation with more than three decades of experience as an executive in the tech sector. He said he “sees startups all the time,” but that the judging round proved “a fun and insightful exercise.”

“Law reflects so much of the world, both the commonality, and the differences in the society and community we live in. We saw that in the cohort of companies, their ideas and the diversity of participants. That said, there were some common themes, such as accessibility [and] privacy.”

GLH judge Minghui Xiong agreed that there were some common elements in the second-round submissions. A professor of logic and legal theory at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, China, Xiong has been tracking the development of AI and law for fifteen years with a particular focus on translating the classic works of pioneers in the field (including Henry Prakken’s Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument, Bart Verheij’s Virtual Argument and Thomas Gordon’s The Pleadings Games).

Xiong said he observed “little difference in user validity and design” among the submissions, but that the teams’ proposed business models set the finalists’ apart.

“In my opinion, not only is almost every proposal urgently needed in society, but also technically implementable,” said Xiong of all the second-round submissions, adding that he thought each was “very smart.”

And “smart” is an important element for Xiong, who was impressed by the implementation of smart contracts in the GLH submissions, saying “a smart contract is really important for any organization or individual.”

While the finalists are technically competing against each other, they all share the same objective: to improve legal processes by leveraging technology. Becke observed, “to see the world come together like this [is] a real pleasure.”

Becke even says that he plans to stay in touch with his fellow Ottawa judging panel, which included among others the Dean of the University of Ottawa Law School, the Executive Director of the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, and a director general of the Department of Justice Canada.

“Interesting that most of the group had never met each other,” said Becke, “and now we plan to keep the cluster fertile, and to provide the continued leadership and framework to support legal tech in Ottawa.”

Watch this space to learn more about the finalists and their projects. To watch the final teams pitch to a panel of judges in New York City on April 21, join the GLH community for a formal gala. For more information and to purchase tickets, visit https://globallegalhackathon.com/glh2018-final-round-gala-tickets/

To learn more about the Global Legal Hackathon, visit our website.