For those interested in understanding the underlying case law that AB5 codifies (a decision called Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court), my company, Judicata, published a visual (and tech-enabled) explanation of the decision when it was first published: https://blog.judicata.com/understanding-dynamex-the-californ...
Whether or not Uber drivers are employees or contractors under Dynamex and the ABC test is an open question, but the Uber explanation of the bill's impact is more or less correct.
One of the tests is: “that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact”
Since Uber rates drivers, does background checks, sets the routes, leases cars, etc., how does Uber plan to avoid this check? Do ratings sort drivers, or is Uber effectively creating a credential that governs the driver? What does the distribution of driver activity look like?
It’s hard to believe an all-or-nothing determination will hold. Surely some fraction of most-active drivers will end up getting called employees.
It’s one thing to explain the law (and case law) and yet another to provide an explanation with evidence. The latter is what we need (especially as voters), yet the former is what lawyers like to peddle because it makes them money. Uber’s post is almost 100% legalese. CEO Dara had an opportunity to make a grounded statement here, but didn’t.
Although I have no experience in immigration law, as a former lawyer and software engineer (and the CEO and co-founder of a legal tech startup), I'd caution against moving into law (or at least taking a long hard look and talking to people who have made the transition).
I left a PhD program in CS to go to law school based on ideals around having a positive impact through the legal system. Ultimately, the law is a slow, difficult, and painful system to work through and with. The work is mostly tedious (relative to software development) and most of the time you're not really having a significant or positive impact. It's generally not very rewarding.
I'd be happy to chat if you're interested in hearing more about my take. (itai [at] judicata [.com])
I'm not plugging this school but Northeastern University School of Law is a progressive coop law school so you could gain a lot of experience in public interest law while pursuing your degree, including working with asylees.
A lot of the errors you'll see in lawyer work product is not just from being overworked, but also comes from poor quality control mechanisms and insufficient use of technology in law firms.
On the litigation side we regularly see significant typos, misquotes, and even misspellings of the judge's name - and those are just the more basic types of errors we see.
By building the technology they're using Atrium will be able to not just drive efficiency but also improvements in the quality of the legal work product they sell.
> Software developers build abstractions, write tests, refactor and simplify older code, yet no such trend seems to be occurring for law. Why not?
Actually, the Common Law[1] (which the US, England, Canada, and other English-speaking countries) very much have a legal system that includes building abstractions, refactoring, and simplifying (though there are no tests). Judicial decisions are precedential and over time rules and tests are discarded or re-written to be easier to use and more applicable.
I think the parent comment is discussing legislation (which politicians enact), but the process by which judge made law develops and improves is very similar to how code evolves and improves.
That is simply not true (in California). If the underlying lawsuit is based on employment Discrimination or Harassment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, firing the employee because they filed the lawsuit itself subjects the company to liability. It's called a "Tameny Claim" -- a "Discharge in Violation of Public Policy." [1]
Of course, proving that the reason for the firing was Retaliation isn't easy, but that doesn't make your statement true.
It's not true in the US at all; retaliation (which includes any adverse job treatment, which termination is a textbook example of) for reports, internal or external, of sexual harassment or discrimination, even if legally unfounded so long as made in good faith, are themselves prohibited acts of discrimination under federal law, in addition to protections that may exist (as in California) under state law.
You'd have to prove that she was let go in direct relation to reporting the harassment, and given the at-will employment clause most assuredly included in her employment contract, they (Tesla) wouldn't have to give a reason for letting her go.
That's an uphill battle, and one that only the lawyers and court can really decide.
That is also not true (except that it is an up-hill battle -- I agree with that). A "Tameny Claim" is an exception to at-will employment, and the rules around discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and discharges in violation of public policy are different. California follows the "McDonnell Douglas" burden shifting process at the summary judgment stage for identifying where the presumption is, and who has to show/prove what.[1][2]
Ultimately, at trial the burden of proof is on the employee, but the standard of proof is low -- more likely than not, which is basically 50.1%. If the employee survives summary judgment, their chances of winning (or settling favorably) are probably pretty good.
"When a plaintiff alleges retaliatory employment termination ... as a claim for wrongful employment termination in violation of public policy, and the defendant seeks summary judgment, California follows the burden shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 [36 L.Ed.2d 668, 93 S.Ct. 1817] to determine whether there are triable issues of fact for resolution by a jury. [Citation.] In the first stage, the `plaintiff must show (1) he or she engaged in a "protected activity," (2) the employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link existed between the protected activity and the employer's action.' [Citation.] If the employee successfully establishes these elements and thereby shows a prima facie case exists, the burden shifts to the employer to provide evidence that there was a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. [Citation.] If the employer produces evidence showing a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action, `the presumption of retaliation "`"drops out of the picture,"'"' [citation], and the burden shifts back to the employee to provide `substantial responsive evidence' that the employer's proffered reasons were untrue or pretextual."
Datanyze (https://www.datanyze.com/) has built a nice business doing this. You can learn a lot from understanding what software a company is using on their website. It's especially useful for generating sales leads.
Some time ago Rob Walling, on Startups for the Rest of Us, mentioned that Datanyze is closer to real time than BuiltWith. So real time, in fact, that you can get a list of sites that have just (yesterday?) started a trial of your competitor's product, and approach them during the buying cycle.
The premise of this blog post is a little off base. (Though I think Open Law Library is doing good work.) The difficulty in building a high quality legal search engine is not in parsing the links between the documents. High quality links matter, but they only get you about 25% of the way there. The more important thing is to have a highly accurate and structured understanding of the law. (Think of Google's Knowledge Graph, or the maps they use for their driverless cars.)
Disclaimer: I worked on Google Scholar and am the CEO of Judicata.
A recent evaluation of various legal search engines [1] found: "The oldest database providers, Westlaw and Lexis, had the highest percentages of relevant results, at 67% and 57%, respectively. The newer legal database providers, Fastcase, Google Scholar, Casetext, and Ravel, were also clustered together at a lower relevance rate, returning approximately 40% relevant results."
Westlaw, Lexis and Google Scholar all have high quality citation parsing (i.e., links). And Scholar relies very heavily on PageRank (as [1] demonstrates). But it is Westlaw and Lexis that are the better search engines. That's because they have invested more into going beyond just links; they've invested a lot into understanding what it is happening with the law.
At Judicata our own findings are that the average legal search query is significantly more complex than the average Google query -- having more terms and more concepts. Moreover, whereas only 15% of Google queries are unique, the inverse is true in legal research: more than 85% of queries are unique. What that means is that in order to return a good result, you need to understand a lot more about the query and the documents you've indexed. You can't rely on links between documents and past searches and clicks to power a quality search engine (the way that Google.com can).
As has been mentioned in other comments here, the real challenge for legal research is extracting structure out of the law (Shepardization, Procedural Postures, Causes of Actions, Dispositions, Legal Principles, Arguments, Facts, etc.). That is what will get legal search engines closer to where Google really shines -- results that are powered by the Google Knowledge Graph.
Thank you for your perspective. It's quite helpful. However, I wouldn't even a plain text searchable database be better than nothing? And I don't understand how this can be monopolized by Westlaw when law should be public domain…
Getting free or low cost access to a plain text searchable database is no longer a problem for lawyers. It was 8-10 years ago, but since the entry of Google Scholar (and Casetext, Ravel, and a half dozen or so other providers) getting access to the law is no longer difficult. To echo the original post, the law today is in a place like the "deep, dark, early days of the Web, using search engines like Lycos and Alta Vista". We do need a "Google for the law," but Google isn't good enough to be that. It's a very hard problem to create a good search engine for the law, but legal search engines will eventually get there.
The law is public domain. At least in the federal system, and increasingly in most state systems, everything is published as PDFs on courts' websites.
But being public domain doesn't mean someone is required to OCR and host it for you. And it doesn't mean someone needs to go and OCR all the hundreds of years of old cases and OCR and host those.
Ben doesn't share that backstory, but it's irrelevant to his point. He is suggesting that he might have gone to jail by association with her and having done something illegal at his own company. Hence his statement:
"Since we had the same head of finance, we almost certainly would have been investigated.... The whole thing was a case of the old saying: “When the paddy wagon pulls up to the house of ill repute, it doesn’t matter what you are doing. Everybody goes to jail.” Once the SEC decided that most technology company stock option procedures were not as desired, the jail sentences were handed out arbitrarily."
So even if she did much worse things at her old company, the SEC could have decided that he broke the law too (even if in a less major way), and should go to jail too.
One possibility is that this is because you're working/programming late at night, basically up until the time you're going to bed (or within an hour or two of it).
I've found over the last 10 years that if I'm programming late (and really only programming, other types of work don't do this to me), and don't give myself 2-3 hours of down time before bed, my sleep is exactly as you described. My brain is running on work, it takes me a long time to fall asleep, and my night is spent drifting in and out of light sleep and work related thinking. It's pretty bad and can screw me up for days and weeks at a time.
Usually this happens because my focus is very high with late night programming (to keep me going longer), and I don't give my brain the time it needs to finish working through problems after I'm done coding. (You may be able to relate to thinking up a solution to a problem after closing your laptop, or waking up realizing there is a bug in your code. It's this type of thinking that your brain needs to finish.)
I'd suggest that if you are programming late at night, stopping 2-3 hours before you usually go to bed and do some reading or watch a movie. A few nights of that is all that it takes for my sleep to get back to normal.
Judicata is building the most advanced legal research, analytics and artificial intelligence tools in the world. Ours is a highly collaborative environment that fuses engineering, law, product and design. Building an ontology of the law requires a deep understanding of natural and legal language.
Requirements:
We’re looking for software engineers with 2+ years of experience, including significant backend development, and a passion for organizing one of the most complex logical systems in the world. Having a B.S./B.A. in Computer Science or a related field is required, along with strong communication skills for collaborating, not just within our engineering team but with our legal team as well.
Candidates should be excited about transitioning between applying NLP and graph theory techniques to writing frontend code and optimizing database queries.
Our stack includes Python, Django, JavaScript, Java, PostgreSQL, AWS, git and gerrit. Experience in each of these is a plus but not required.
Whether or not Uber drivers are employees or contractors under Dynamex and the ABC test is an open question, but the Uber explanation of the bill's impact is more or less correct.