 You're welcome back to think tech. I'm J. Fidel. It's 10 o'clock in the morning on a given Tuesday And we're doing life in the law with David Larson from St. Paul Minnesota. Good morning, David. Nice to see you Morning although here it's afternoon Wish one of us is right then Online dispute resolution, you know, it's something that I've always wondered about I've been waiting for this discussion for maybe 30 years Because I believe that technology can, you know, get you much further and technology for the law is It's an intersection is what it is and the further down the path we go the more helpful Technology will be and I suppose Ultimately, there'll be a little black justice box and you put all the facts and all the law in the little black justice box and Outcomes a decision that we're not there yet I know but we can begin with the online resolution of arbitration mediation alternative dispute resolution, I suppose And you are in the ABA Section on are you the chair? Okay, so it's an honor to have you here and so you must think about this all the time But why are you a an online dispute resolution person? You use it in your practice. Have you been developing it over the years? Yeah, well, I started getting involved with ODR back in 1999 I was teaching at Craig University Law School at the time and I had gotten the technology fellowship So I had reduced teaching load I spent a year working with software and hardware being introduced to technology applications And as that was going on I was thinking about dispute resolution in some way You could you could bring technology into dispute resolution processes. So yeah, I've been thinking about it for over 20 years now No, you've been doing it though. I've only been thinking about it And I've have been doing it in September of 20s in October of 2016 I got involved as the American Bar Association liaison to the New York State Unified Court system And they had decided at that time that they wanted to try online dispute resolution To address a real problem they were having with credit card debt collection And all those cases were going to default 94% of them were never filing the answer So they wanted to increase access to justice engagement and participation They thought maybe if we go online that'll do it So when I started working with them in October of 2016 I never thought I would still be working with them but I still am and I'm meeting with them every week So yes, I am actively involved So I have I know I'm going to have many questions for you But can you tell us how it works how it works for the plaintiff the defendant He or she who determines the facts and the law and how does it pop out the other side? Yeah, a couple of things is that one thing that Is true about online dispute resolution is that it's an opportunity to reimagine justice So I don't think the goal is merely to move the offline processes online That the question becomes is there something we can do that's more suitable to the online Environment to something that might be even more efficient or productive than the court system today There's a lot of opportunities here So we spent a lot of time designing two platforms in New York We started as I said with a credit card debt collection platform When I first met with them in October I said don't do that I said it's too complicated I go debt collection is heavily regulated at the federal state county and city level There's no way people are going to be satisfied that what you're doing online Captures all the consumer protections that we have But they thought that well, we do have a real crisis and let's take a shot to see if we can help this default crisis by getting people engaged So we developed a really detailed program with several different levels There's an introductory level with all kinds of modules about what small claims But financial education hyperlinks the legal services And so people would work through this first stage and then they'd get to the second stage where they'd have an opportunity To engage in kind of what we call a structured negotiation where it wasn't just free open, but it was more a kind of structured options to pick replies And answers and questions And the hope was that they could reach some kind of a solution that way And then there was always an online mediation option. So that was kind of the credit card debt collection platform It in the end it wasn't well received There were legal advocates who felt that it would be a disaster to put debtors into virtual spaces with debt holders And they fought the program pretty vehemently. One of the problems was that because we had to bid it out Because New York was going to build their own software platform They didn't want to release the whole program the whole software because the feeling was that if we give it to the Critics of the what they what they're hearing about the program and we show them everything That will tank the request for a proposal process because somebody will have gotten it early Who knows what they gave it to so when it's released publicly some people will say well I never got that chance to look at it back three months ago. So I'm at a real disadvantage So New York determined it wasn't appropriate to give it to a few people Because a few people didn't see it. They didn't really understand all the consumer protections that were built into it So they just said this is this is a nightmare. It's going to be terrible. Let's fight it Let's fight it and they did and you know in the face of that opposition New York decided Let's let's pivot and let's do small claims So that's kind of what I've been working on now Too bad too bad because it's so closely related. Yeah, you know, I think it is too bad And here's why it's too bad because the the the opposition of the legal advocates was that When we represent a debtor they always we always win And I think there's some truth to that because if you're in most debt collection cases It's not the initial debt holder that's bringing the action. It's somebody that bought the debt Excuse me later on If technically if you're going to bring that case you should be able to establish that chain of custody pretty clearly Should be on us have good evidence of maybe even testimony from every previous debt holder You got a $500 debt $1,000 debt and you're the fourth debt holder. You're not going to do that So they show up the court without that chain of custody They have some documentation The debtor doesn't show up at all. So they do so they typically the debtor the debt holder wins But if they show up with an attorney that says, okay, show me the evidence of the chain of custody Like the case gets dismissed. So it's true. They usually win The problem is the one of the groups that who was who was objecting to this proposition to go online was claro And they represented maybe I think on their website. They said 7 000 people over the last 10 years Well, we're talking about 100 000 people a year So that that's really a false comparison to say that oh the ODR system Would isn't as good as when we represent people because the fact is you almost never represent people There aren't enough legal advocates to go around So the actual comparison should be between the ODR system and what is happening right now in small claims court And what's happening now in small claims court is that debtors go to court if they show up at all And usually they don't vast majority cases. They don't and get the false judgments But even if they do show up they show up when we're unrepresented The debt holder approaches them in the hallway says, I got a deal for you Now I'll give you 50 cents on the dollar if you sign this agreement now debtor says 50 cents on the dollar That's a great deal. Um, so they sign it without really reading it understanding it in that in that agreement They signed as an acceleration clause that says that if you're late on a payment you miss a payment Then the full debt becomes immediately due so they go back in the court that it's their case Turn the case is called They say judge, you don't have to hear the case. We already got an agreement to settle it We're all ready to go judge says great now. I got a hundred cases to look at today So I'll accept your settlement and make it a court order. So now it's a court order So now when somebody doesn't miss a payment or they're late, it's easy to get a judgment to attach Property to garnish wages That's what's happening now And and then people's credit report is destroyed So whatever that a fair deal They got 50 cents on the dollar That has to be consideration flowing both ways If they're promising to pay then they should play and if they don't pay there should be an acceleration I'm I'm a kind of debt collector person myself, you know Well, I'm just saying that well my the concern for me is they that they don't get they don't understand it You know, it happens very quickly, you know shortly before the case is called. They think that this is this is a settlement Forever for 50 cents on the dollar. They don't appreciate the fact that there's this acceleration clause So so I think that's the problem with what's happening And it's because they are underrepresented and they never will be represented because there's never be enough money To frighten attorney for every debtor that goes to court. So that's the reality. So the question is Okay, since that's what's happening is an ODR process that has several stages one being kind of introduction to small claims court An introduction as to Kind of financial education as to what you should think about as to what you can afford There was a section about legal defenses, you know, if you're only income is social security, maybe that isn't collectible There are some absolute defenses when it's a credit card collection situation So some education about absolute defenses, none of which when you're in the hallway show up by yourself, you know about So you you get a lot of education before you can begin the online dispute resolution process Then you begin that so I'd submit that That's better than the reality right now. So is it perfect? Sure, and there's no time There's no time in the hallway and there's no time with the judge To explain these things that was it would take forever to get through the docket Yeah, so this is a real benefit for for really everyone It's a benefit for the debtor because arguably he understands and it's a benefit for the credit because arguably There's proof that he understands or at least some proof Right, plus it's plus there's there's a time period. It's not it's not synchronous So you can actually take a little time to absorb it to read about it to think about it Isn't like, you know, our case will be called in 20 minutes. You know, what are you what are you going to do? You're on the spot. So you make the decision to sign the agreement now you got time to actually reflect on it to think about What can I afford? Um, I shouldn't promise to pay more than I can afford or at least I have to get a payment plan that's based out Over a system over a time period that I actually can manage Those things can happen in an asynchronous online process That aren't happening in person right now. Well, let me ask you this What about what about automating the whole thing? In other words, the debtor the creditor they get on there They make a settlement for example And there's a judge all right, but he's in his chambers. He's not in court And he's just going through the records in this database and saying this is okay. This is okay. This is okay He can he can turn out hundreds of them every hour And make a judicial imprimatur on it Make a judicial determination Everybody agrees that that his determination is you know final or whatever weight of law it has And nobody has to stand up and go to court and the judge doesn't have to spend his time with all the niceties in court Yeah, so that credit card debt collection system. I've been talking about didn't happen So we pivoted to small claims and we did that a few years ago and that went live January of this year so or January of 2021 and That system now it's a little different than what we did with the credit card debt collection You start out and there we created some videos So they're animated that tell people about small claims court Tell them about online dispute resolution, which was fun to do. We could do a storyboard and you know build these animated characters and then And you can start the process either in person or online But once the parties are engaged now we start with a blind bidding process so which is fully automated and the The claimant would make three requests for payment. It's like what do you want to get? What are you willing to receive? And you do three successive bids each being a little more gracious in terms of the of the debtor and the debtor makes three Offers saying okay. Here's what I would like to pay Here's what I'm willing to pay and then again does it three times and so we go through the process That's all automated of trying to match it up If there's an overlap then we have to make some strategic decisions. Do you want to just split the overlap? Do you want the overlap to be from what they want to pay? Do you want the overlap to be from what they would be willing to pay? We decided to look at the overlap if there's any Overlap on what would you be willing to pay? We decided to just split it down. You could argue about whether it should be a straight split But if you get that straight split on the amount, that's all automated now. You've got an amount Okay, you're willing to pay this amount and both sides are happy about that So then the next step is a structured settlement negotiation where the parties get options as to Number of payments when the payments start, uh, how long will the payments be made? What happens upon default? Are you just going to be liable for the settlement amount? You'll be liable for the original bet So all of that you can work through back and forth and it's all again asynchronous all structured If you agree to an amount Or let's say you can't agree to an amount those two things Or you agree the amount and you're going through all the terms and you just can't agree on The length of time That holder says I got to have a new year that that or says I got to be two years So at that point there's a opportunity to do an actual direct Exchange communication called the last chance option to say, okay, we've closed this deal this far You know the reason I keep asking for two years is because I have this obligation I'm going to be for whatever reason it's got to be two years to put it out there See if the other side is is amenable to that suggestion. So that's the It's a person or by email So that's it's all happening. Um, I'll buy nothing nothing Nothing synchronous yet. It's all asynchronous. There's no video component to it So you do you kind of type out your last chance option, which is okay Because you have some time to reflect on really worded the way you want to word it Other side can decide whether they want to accept that last offer So what might have happened? So you might have Option number one you settle on the amount you agree on all the terms If that happens then all of that auto populates into a settlement agreement That basically mirrors the settlement agreement that you'd get in court And and that just goes to the court and the judge looks over and signs it. So that that's fully automated So the judge never appears in court Do you never appear in court? No, what's interesting. Let me throw a thought at you and that is this sometimes When you're negotiating a settlement of a dollar amount The structure payment feeds into the dollar amount. What I mean is so I'll pay you $100 But if you give me terms that I like I'll pay you $150 because I really care about those terms If if we follow the sequence you're talking about you never get to the structured Payment amount until after you settle on the dollar amount. So you lose the benefit of You know integrating all of those issues in one decision, no Well, I don't necessarily lose it The reason I say that is because so let's say You can't agree on the amount because of the considerations that you've just articulated At that up at that moment there would be an opportunity to go straight to online mediation Where at that point you really do have much more of a free flowing conversation with an online neutral again Generally, it'll be asynchronous But it could be synchronous depending on what that online mediator wants to do in new york We're working with two community mediation centers the new york peace institute and the long island dispute resolution center They've worked with the small claims court for a long time. They're very experienced So so you don't so let's say you suspend those concerns. You don't necessarily lose them So so version number one you you You agree on the amount through blind bidding you actually have successful Typing all the terms you get the terms you want they all auto populate into a settlement agreement goes to court Nobody ever appears a court that's fully automated Option number two you just can't agree on the amount or you agree on an amount They can't agree on the terms Then you get this thing called this option called the last chance settlement option Or at that point then it is more of free flowing Negotiation where you could say the reason I'm you know, I'm willing to pay you more Or if you give me the terms I want or whatever Whatever contingencies in play that you have not been able to reach in the structured part you can now express that So that's going to be that's going to be captured there um So you don't necessarily lose it but you can't bring it in Initially, I guess would be the way to Okay, let's let's go to the situation where uh, you say that I owe you $200 But I say, uh, I don't think I owe you anything I think you're out of you're out of school on this you have no claim against me or you treated me unfairly Or I never received the goods or whatever it might be Um, sort of an uh, you know an absolute defense Um, okay. This has to be decided now. This does this is the system you're describing Wrap around for that. We're not talking about structured payments We're not even talking about a settlement. We're talking about either zero or the whole thing. I suppose Yeah, I mean if if the parties can't come together either through the automated part or through the mediator Then the case goes back to court so, you know And that actually through the pandemic was a little That actually was a challenging part of the whole equation during the pandemic because One thing with online processes. You always have a question of engagement and if you're a defendant It's like, why would I engage? You know, if I engage if I never engage you can't find me I don't have to pay so why would I ever want to answer this? Why would I want to engage? I mean some people want to get it off their backs so they will engage But many people would say I don't want to do this Uh, you know, what's in it for me the longer I run away the better off I am Well, as well as long as we were assigning court dates We could say that well, here's why you should engage This is going to be a lot easier on you than having to go down in the Manhattan find a parking place Take a day off work find childcare Do it because this is easier for you because if you don't you're going to court in six weeks So people say, okay, I'll try it. I don't want to have to go to court But when you but during the pandemic they weren't having Court dates they weren't having hearings. So it's now it's like, oh man, what are we going to do? So we thought well, we'll Create what we call the online settlement date and we'll say, okay We'll give you two months to kind of work it out But the problem is there's no lever at the end of it to say that well, if you don't here's the consequence So during the pandemic it's been a lot harder to get people To be engaged because there is no Threat at the end of the session that if you don't do this, you're going to have a worse alternative We're just getting to the point where court dates are starting to be scheduled again And I think that's going to help with engagement because people will understand that if I don't do the process I'm going to have to go to court. I'm going to take a day off work I'm going to have to show my face. I'm going to have to get chained I'm going to have to do all those things I can avoid by staying online So but but is it um, this is the whole thing is an option, right? I can opt out. I don't want to I don't want to be troubled Leave me alone. I'm not signing anything. I'm not going to a website. Yeah, yeah, I mean you definitely I mean just right you can just You can make offers that no one's going to accept I mean, I mean, you know, we hope you do it a good thing But again, if you're not motivated to avoid going to court You can kind of Ignore the system. Um, well, do you do you tell them? I mean, how do you reach them? To say, you know, the really simple message if you don't want to participate Either in court or by this online system Um, this is what's going to happen to you. You know, there'll be a default judgment Debt collectors will be chasing you around In all 50 states you'll be subject to that and it will follow you all the days of your life Or at least for the period in which the judgment is valid because it's the court system You know, they're uncomfortable sending that Specific message of the consequences. I mean, there is a message pretty aggressive saying now It wasn't this aggressive until relatively recently saying that So We still do service the process the clerk's court still does So they do do a physical service a process letter and with that letter They also have the information about the online dispute resolution process and explains what it is and how you started Again, it's like any other settlement. You don't have to settle You can always go through court if that's what you ultimately want to do We're hoping you'll try it because Hopefully you can reach some kind of agreement that maybe you'll be surprised It's something that you actually can manage and it's acceptable to you But if you're adamant that, you know, you got the wrong person, I don't even know why you're chasing me You can't be forced to settle You will end up going to court where you then will have to make your defense that you got the wrong person but But the process doesn't force you in any kind of a settlement Or if you don't go to court, you could wind up with a default judgment So is this the law in the state of new york Well, it's quite officially part of the court system now. It's it's a step in the small claims process So I don't I don't know if you call it the law, but I guess it is the law Because it is part of the small claims court process now again with the understanding That there is no binding consequence if you can't reach a solution voluntarily So the only consequence is you will end up back in court I'm really curious as to the what happens if you don't agree, but you submit to Mediation or arbitration arbitration is arbitration included in this discipline. It's not arbitration It's just the opportunity for mediation Okay, so who who does the mediation? Volunteer lawyers perhaps Yeah, well those two mediators has that work those two community community mediation centers Which is our experience mediators the new york peace institute and the long island dispute resolution center and There's so many issues and questions to talk about New york doesn't have staff who are doing media. Some court systems do and it's all kind of more of a closed system It's not there Which means that we had to do a little more work to build a platform for now two independent community mediation centers But to build a dashboard for them a case management system for them Train them on it. So it was another step And in what actually has been many years now in terms of trying to build a system Well, do you find a a small percentage or maybe a larger percent of cases are resolved by the mediation in lieu of just a You know offer counteroffer arrangement. Well, we don't have you know, we just don't have the numbers yet One another challenge has been when you do an online dispute resolution process You have to make a decision Do you want to build the software and platform yourself or do you want to go and use an outside vendor? Be very expensive to build it yourself You have to maintain it. You got to make sure that you have a staff that isn't going to turn over So you got to have a succession order. So it's always operational So most court systems are saying with the exception of utah I think it's the only one that built their own everybody else is saying, okay, we use an outside vendor So there are two that have been kind of dominant to the united states Tyler technologies bought a system called modria That had been independent and then there's matter horn also knows core innovations. So we decided to go with matter horn But again, now you're working with an entity that's outside of your control a little bit. They're an outside vendor and uh New york has been very careful about Building and protections. We didn't mention this just but we have hard opt-outs and soft opt-outs earlier You mentioned opt-outs. So if you're represented by an attorney If there's a history of domestic violence, if there's a protection order There are a certain a few handful of situations that are they're just hard opt-out We you can't use the online dispute resolution system If these things apply your case is over $10,000 So there's a handful of those and then we also have a series of soft opt-outs where Do you have difficulty communicating in english? Do you have difficulty using a computer and accessing the internet You have a five or six soft opt-out questions And I say soft opt-out opt-out because if you say yes We don't unlike the hard opt-out, which means if you say yes on these you're out We give you the opportunity to say that even though you've said yes Would you still like to continue because it may be that even though you might have difficulty Representing yourself in english your spouse or partner or your friend helps you all the time And you just you can do fine that way and even though you might have some Disabilities or impairments that make it difficult for you to work on a computer You might have assisted devices that help you you might have some other person that can help you So we give people the option to say that even though I have answered yes to this question I'd like to stay in the process What about other states? What about you know, here you are in st. Paul And and what the ABA is in chicago Um, and there's new york. What about you know the 49 other states? Are you working with them? Do they have similar systems? Uh, there are systems under the ABA or otherwise They're sprouting up all around the country right now. I mean we're right in the in this whole embryonic period where people are First debating whether or not they want to try it and then debating how Sophisticated they want to get I'd say I would say that what we've done in New York is is infinitely more sophisticated than other systems which are much more simple just come on You know exchange some bids and we'll see what happens. I mean we do we do all this preliminary education We're doing all these screening questions. Um, you know, we have multi levels of blind bidding and Structure negotiations and last chance and online mediation sounds like a game show Yeah, it's not a game But um, but the funny you'd use that word because as we think about engagement. Um, we did think about Um, contacting gamers gave the gaming industry You know, you've got world of warcraft and all these games where people will sit there for 48 hours I keep played so what is so attractive about those games that we might be able to borrow to keep Like games at our dispute Really sounds it sounds like this that's an essential element going forward But you know, I wanted I wanted to take a minute here and talk to you about the future that david Um, so talk about my little black box on the hill Uh, where you put, you know data in you put facts in hopefully you can settle on facts sometimes that's hard And then of course, uh, there's applying the laws such as it is And having somebody apply the judgment And come up with a decision and the dollar amount and who knows what? You know, and it seems to me that if you you know, I know there as you said there are some organizations that are programming sort of You know national potentially national online systems But suppose I'm a young programmer just out of school took computer science Know a little about the law and courts and the like And I take it upon myself to write up a whole big kind of wizard And it asked me a lot it asked each side A lot of questions It calculates the credibility of the questions because sometimes the questions repeat themselves Sometimes the questions are calculated to see if the answer to the earlier question was correct And so forth and and then when it gets a handle on the facts It applies the law because you know, it can go into the legal reference services online and it can pull out some law And then it goes to I guess a either a person or maybe Maybe not even a person Maybe the thing could have artificial intelligence And it could make a presumptive decision And maybe you can appeal that if you don't like it But at least you have a presumptive decision all pretty quickly and as you say asymmetrical So that it's back and forth law facts decision And judgment but with the right of appeal Sure, that's I'm thinking in the future. That's got to be coming down the pike. Yeah, sure it is. Um, yeah, I mean Uh, you know the only concern about that it's you know data, you know bad data in bad data out So to the degree that there's any possibility that any of those prior cases have involved in Um any element of bias in terms of conscious or implicit When you you're going to perpetuate whatever problems that have existed before if that's all you're doing So yes, I think that's inevitable that that kind of thing is going to happen But I think we have to be vigilant To look to see what kind of databases we're building And whether or not we're building in some biases that maybe we we would like to avoid And maybe you know in real-time world We're actually getting our arms around a little bit And understanding and maybe we would end up backtracking if we just start building these these databases built based on earlier precedent Very exciting. So you'd have to find a system to identify implicit bias Which I think could be done these days with the tools that we have So would you be there David would you be there following this? Will the online dispute resolution committee of the ABA Be looking for solutions looking for I'm pretty sure I'll be following it just because I never thought I'd be following new york for six years. I still am Of now, I guess if new york finally Sheds their system down. I'll have nothing else to do So I guess I'll just move on to the next one I think it's very exciting. What about what about lawyers in general? This is my last question to you Um, are they are they comfortable? You mentioned there was a certain amount of opposition in new york to the credit card credit card vendor situation Um, but you know, what what do you get? What's what's the feedback? Do they like it? Do they not like it and after all it may be eating their lunch in some ways? Um, and maybe they have resistance to it Is that so and how do you deal with it? Well, you know one thing that um, you know, one of the concerns with the credit card debt collection was putting You know unrepresented debtors in with experience debt holders in the small claim system. No attorneys are allowed So that concern is taken away. The other concern is not insignificant the idea that The more we automate that means some work's going away. I think that's going to happen There is going to be when you think about you think about turbo tax Basically, that's taking tax work away from tax attorneys because you're doing this these threaded Kind of knowledge engineering where you ask one question. You get certain answers that leads you down these decision trees Think about a state plan. You think about lots of law where that's going to be possible So we're going to see more of that and what I tell my students is that Prepare for that and start thinking about how you can position yourself that you won't become obsolete in five or ten years um, you've got to think about what are the I mean, there's a lot of things that depend upon Human engagement and dispute resolution sometimes is not always because you can automate some but not all There's times of which you're really going to need some kind of human engagement some compassion some empathy There's going to be places where attorneys are going to be necessary and also in terms of any system you build is going to have to be updated You know the the law changes the law has to be monitored You want to see the data that you're building on somebody's going to have to do that? So there's going to be places for attorneys and legal educated individuals But it may look different and you have to think about where I fit in All that's such a valuable such a valuable piece of advice really for law students Or lawyers who are trying to find a way in the profession and in the society It just speaks of one more question Let me let me just ask you one more question And that is from what you've seen now from the point of view of the ada And a point of view of um, you know the profession in general And I guess the the the process the You know The experience of it Do we need legislation? To perfect this sort of approach what you're talking about to make this change worthy to To you know complete the process so to speak or as it exists now Do we need a new legislation on the on the state side the federal side or both? I think I think we definitely need something You know even right now it'd be helpful to have some Got some clearly articulated guidance I'm actually co-chair of an ABA task force to write standards for online dispute resolution and we're working on that now Because the fact is when you bring in technology there's a possibility for For tremendous abuse years ago a colleague of mine wrote an article about the mediators dirty secret And the fact that a mediator in a face-to-face interactive session can do a lot to influence going on just by your expression by your timing By the way, you could have recesses by your reframing You can do a lot in terms of changing the course of that when you throw technology into there and your ability to Use a voice synthesizer to change your tone And there's all kinds of things you can do if you're not monitoring it So I think that yes, we definitely are going to need sometimes a guidance Maybe it'll have to be in the form of legislation We are debating right now whether to call it guidance or standards and if standards Sounds a little more formal a little more enforceable Then the question becomes should that be legislative standards should just be Standards of an association like the american bar association. Should it be ethical principles? But the kind of bottom line is I think yes the idea of just Freeform anybody doing what they want is really dangerous and we do need some kind of standards guidance and maybe legislation Would it be better if this was made consistent or around the country or do you think that can vary from state to state and still be effective? I think at this time we definitely the idea of variation is good because We need to look at a lot of different models and see what seems to work best So I think that Decentralizing at this early stage and letting court systems kind of tailor their dispute resolution systems To what they consider their own needs are is a good idea Well, thank you david david larson professor at mitral hamlin school of law And the chair of the aba committee on online dispute resolution. Thank you so much I think this is a very important function Um of the bar and of the aba. Thank you so much david. Yeah, thanks jay. Thanks for inviting me Aloha Thank you so much for watching think tech hawaii If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on youtube and the follow button on vimeo You can also follow us on facebook instagram twitter and linkedin and donate to us at thinktech hawaii dot com Mahalo