 Thank you very much, Madam Chair, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. My name is Hilda Hardeman. I am the Director General of the Publications Office of the European Union. I would like to thank the organisers. It's a true honour to be here with you today. The EU Publications Office, which I lead, plays a systemic role in the decision-making processes of the European Union and thereby for the rule of law in the Union and beyond. Why? Because it's the Publications Office that authenticates and publishes EU law to give it legally thanked. The rule of law, which will be at the centre of your discussions tomorrow, is at the very core of the values on which the European Union and our societies are based. All of us present here today are contributing in one way or another to turning the rule of law into practice. This work, our work, is never finished. It affects everything and everybody, everywhere in our societies, anytime. And, as our Chairwoman pointed out, developments in the world around us make it even more tangible how important this really is. So, how we shape our legal practice in all its emanations is crucial for every individual, our societies, economy, our way of life. And I'm delighted to present to you today three distinguished professionals who work every day to see how visualisation and design thinking can help optimise legal practice and thereby the rule of law. Let me introduce them to you. Friedrich Allemont is researcher in law at the Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance of the University of Luxembourg and researcher at the Polytechnic University of Valenciennes. He lectures on European Economic Law, Public Finance, EU Legislative Procedures at Sciences for Paris and Traine, at the Institut National du Service public and University of Lille. Friedrich has also worked at the ECB's legal department in the French Secretary General for European Affairs, the French Senate and several think tanks. He's a graduate of Sciences for Paris and holds a PhD in Public Law and his Editor-in-Chief of the Revue Neurot. Philipp Lulic is a member of the Legal Knowledge Management Team of the ECB Legal Services where he works on bridging the gap between law and IT. He holds a master of laws from the University of Rijeka in Croatia. Previously he worked for the private sector. He specialises in managing legal tech and artificial intelligence analytics of legal content, is a keen practitioner of legal design thinking and visualisation techniques, publishes on legal design and facilitates a community of practice on legal design know-how. And Marie-Potel Saville finally is the founder of Amurabi, a legal innovation by design agency. Earlier she worked in private practice in Europe and served as General Counsel Europe Middle East and Africa for a US listed group. She holds a master's degree in innovation by design from the Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Création industrielle and she has worked on dark patterns for the European Data Protection Board. She's involved in pro bono access to access initiatives and teaches innovation by design at Singapore Management University and Sciences Port. A truly distinguished panel. Frederic, Philippe and Marie will share their insights, experience and recommendations on legal design thinking and legal practice, each from their perspective. And the Phil Rouge for our discussion will be the following questions. First, what is legal design thinking? What are its main advantages and pitfalls? And how can it help transform legal practice? Second, in which way can legal design thinking contribute to a better understanding of the law by wide diversity of uses without altering legal substance or legal scope? And then finally, which practical advice do our speakers have for you, our audience, where to start on legal design and what to bear in mind? So that you know what will be coming here is our plan for the panel. Frederic, Philippe and Marie will each give a concise presentation. We will then have a short panel discussion on key points that they brought up and then it is your turn, you, the audience to come with questions. But now the floor is to our panelists. Frederic, the floor is yours. Over to you. Thank you very much, Hilde, for this introduction. And I would like also to thank the organizer for their very kind invitation. And today, I will try to present you what is my personal experience with legal design as a legal scholar. I would like to present you my views with a great humility and humbleness. I'm not a legal designer. I'm an ordinary lawyer with average skills on legal design. But now what I would like to do is to see how legal legal design could change my own practice the way I do legal research. And this is what I would like to share with you. Next slide, please. First of all, a little short definition because I know that Philippe and Marie will also give you some definitions about legal design. I just took the two main definitions which are commonly accepted by legal designers. One is given by Margaret again, who is the head of the Stanford legal design lab. And the other is given by one of my colleagues, Ariana Rossi, who works also at the University of Luxembourg, and the two are quite similar. But the second one definition put the focus also not only on the purposes of legal design, but also on the methodology. And this is what I will prefer here to focus on the second definition. I also to give you a clear idea about what is legal design and how it could match with legal research. So I will present also some key concepts which you could find in the Leda manifesto, which is the legal design alliance manifesto. First of all, legal design is defined by a specific attitude. I mean that that legal design is a human centered technology process. The end users is really considered as people to which there is a need to add and support in their contact with the law. There is also interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity is a strong word in that field because legal design is not just the result of the work of a data scientist or designer, but it also involves lawyers. What are some of the purposes of legal design? Applicability. It aims to foster the application of legal concept right and no in everyday use rather than just proposing legal argument. This is maybe a difference with my own legal research and the work done by legal scholars. Value add also. It focuses on aspects that generate value rather than just manage risk. So I guess that Marie will certainly speak and come back on this aspect. There are also some peculiarities when we talk about legal design. This is approaches. This is a problem based process technology. It focus on real life needs and problem. This is also maybe a difference with the work I do daily. Empirical evaluation. It measures the impact of the current design of the system and new intervention and visual first. This is maybe the most important words that we need to take into consideration because it's proposed a total change with what we normally know as lawyers. This is words, words, words. Here, things are quite different. This is visual first and not word first. And prototyping. The objective is to develop solution through quick rounds of iteration and experimentation. This is something that we are not used to when we do legal research. When I've wrote an article, I don't write a prototype. I will draft immediately more or less the final version. It could evolve over time. But normally once it has been accepted by the editor, it won't change. Next slide, please. One of my question is to what extent are legal scholars, even my colleagues aware of legal design? I don't know if there are any survey available. I could not find any. So the following comments are more based on my general feelings and on my exchanges with colleagues. Clearly, they have a very vague idea of what legal design is. Some of them never heard about legal data visualization. For sure, legal design is still a young discipline and we know the debate about the quality of discipline of legal design. I invite you to read Michael Doherty on this point. Legal designers and legal scholars are deeply involved in legal design, but they're still minorities, they're still pioneers. And you have two of them here, Marie and Philippe, and there are not so many, unfortunately. And also, I went through the main legal database. So it's a fine year of the European Commission, solo of Oxford University, Westlaw and so on. And honestly, I could not find more than 10 papers dealing, 10 articles dealing with legal design when I enter the word legal design in the title. So we could consider that there is a clear lack of awareness. However, it does not mean that legal scholars don't apply legal design in their daily research. They don't know that this is legal design. Next slide please. So I spend sometimes to see if my feeling was right. So this is the result of my findings when I analyze the legal database. You can see how many results there are, especially when you are looking for articles dealing specifically on legal design. Not so many. Please next slide. And in this network, so you can see that I try also to be a legal designer and to work on legal data. And here this is a mapping of the members of the profile of the members of the legal design alliance and what appears clearly is that most of the members are working in legal design agencies. You have several people who are also legal scholars. But what is very interesting is that most of them are experts in the field of private law. Why? Certainly Marie will explain us because this is people who are used to work to draft contract to manage contract and private law is clearly more sensitive than public law. You could find only two people coming from the public area and some of them are coming from courts or social benefit corporations. Next slide please. So now to what extent do legal scholars show interest in legal design? It depends clearly on their activities. There is quite a high interest in teaching. So I won't develop that point. It's very obvious in any presentation. No, you will find some visuals which make their explanation on the core very easier to understand for the students. In outreach activities also more and more colleagues use visuals. However, this is not on average. Some prefer to have very boring PowerPoint with only words. And finally, in research, in pure research activities when you have to write a paper for a peer reviewed journal or for a book chapter in a book. Here, I try to see how many articles published in four major peer reviewed law journals include hard visuals. So have a look at the common market review. Gaye droit européen, register del diritto commerciale, and the register espagnola de Direction Internationale. So the outcome is a result. It's not very surprising. I spend more or less six hours to search for policies and I was not surprised on more than 300 articles, less than five contained visuals. So when I talk with my colleagues, what was apparent is that they use digital tools. They use mind mapping tools. They use also database. However, when they have to draft to think about their drafting, totally forget they don't use anymore all these tools. It's just for the preparatory works. Next slide, please. Also why the returns delay to use legal design tools in legal research activities. This is some possible assumptions. Again, we need a survey to confirm this assumption to see if they are true or not. First one may be an attitude problem. Priority is clearly in legal research priority is clearly given to the point of view of the author. I won't develop this point. There is also the prevalence of the internal perspective, especially in the French doctrine where I come from, where there is very few interlinkages with other disciplines. Even me, I don't speak so much with my colleagues from private look. So from this perspective, we know that it will be quite difficult to include into your own work. So legal design, because people feel that it's so complex that they won't have the appropriate skills. Maybe there is another issue with purposes. We are participating. We consider as legal lawyers that we are participating in the lawmaking process. And it's not only just to support people to have a better access to the rule of law, to have a better knowledge of their duties and rights. As legal lawyer, we try to see what are the inconsistencies of the legal order and to propose correction. We have a more theoretical perspective on legal problems. Approaches also, as I said, this is a word-first approach and not a visual-first approach. As of now, maybe it could change. We know that lawyers are mocking birds. And once they have seen that some evolution in other disciplines has proved their efficiency, they will adapt them. So maybe it will happen today. And also, last point, there is a clear insufficient personal legal design skills among legal scholars and lack of technical support from their own organization. Last next slide, please. I try to analyze my own situation. And I have a very small tech background. I know a little bit coding. I've created my first website. I developed, I had a designer when I have created a digital platform. But I'm first of all a lawyer, not a rock star in my field. I'm an average lawyer, I would say. However, I ask myself, do I use legal design in my legal practice? I mean, when I do legal research, the answer is no. So I ask myself, why this result? Why I'm not able? Why this paradox? Next slide, please. There is a lack of honesty from my part. And I try to convince you about the need and interest of legal design if I don't apply this position to me in my legal practice. Next slide. So I've decided for this presentation, but also because I have to do it, I have to update the Euro section in the repertoire. It was formally published by Professor Jean-Luc Victor. So I have to update all the references of the legal acts which are mentioned in this paper, but also to highlight and there's some changes to the content of the Lex monetel. And my main research question is to what extent do visualization tools provided by your like support my research will support my research and facilitate the identification of new insight. So I try to to use the decision tools made available on your legs and also activate the experimental features. So next slide, please. I won't develop this because my time is more or less over. And so I invite you and my presentation will be shared with the audience. So I invite you to have a look at it. So next slide. This is several visuals which are made available and see the way to navigate in the database, especially in the ECB legal act. So some were more interesting for me, especially those dealing with the banknot legal regime. Next slide, please. So this is how we could navigate. So we are quite a traditional way to navigate if you click on the menu and you have also the possibility to click directly on some visuals. There are some tricks. It's not totally intuitive. But the way to navigate works very well. Next slide, please. My feedback about the use of these visualization tools. It gives me the opportunity to get a better access and a quicker access to the ECB legal act. Not all the legal acts dealing with the euro. So for example, regulation 974 on regulation 975 were not included into this subdomain because they have been adopted by the council and not by the ECB. So I have to check other subdomain. The only point that I had is maybe could I find any new research topic when I see this kind of visuals. This is one that I've made that on the basis of the data made available by your legs. So does it give rise to new insight to new research topic. So especially when we look at the number of guidelines or decisions adopted by the ECB in addition to banknotes, we can see that there are sometimes more guidelines and decisions or why. As of now, it's not possible to know more on the basis only as the visuals made available. We need to process some data which are available, but it means also that a huge work has to be done and I did not yet done this work. Next slide, please. Another feedback that I could share is that I want to share with you is about the difficulty to visualize the recent shifts between documents. And I've made already this comment some time ago when I was invited to join users groups established by your legs. And fortunately, they have implemented a new way to visualize recent recent shifts between documents. And this works perfectly, we can see for each documents, if you activate experimental features, what documents have amended the main document, which one is cited and so on. However, this positive is still experimental and could be improved because my point is that I could have an overall view about all the legal acts which are relevant for me, especially those dealing with banknotes. So next slide, please. I developed also I tried to figure out what way to navigate could look like if we include all the documents to create a kind of genealogy. And this is a suggestion that I made today. So we can continue the discussion about it, but the idea is to be able to follow the life of a legal act from its adoption until his repeal. Next slide, please. And also the possibility to have a look at the consolidated vision of a text. However, my point as legal scholar is that I would like to compare immediately to different vision. It's still not possible today it's possible to compare to different vision in French or in German or even three different vision, but it's not possible when you try to see over time how the text has evolved. So maybe this is also somewhere where to where some improvement could be done. And next slide, please. So this is how it could look like. So on the basis on the systems already available for the multilingual display. Next slide. So my presentation was not a critic against your legs new features. Honestly, it's very great and they make my work easier. It's quite user friendly. It's highly with a high usability. I appreciate very much the network graph and those among you who don't know this feature, I strongly suggest to have a look at it. I won't come back to the mental digital display, which is great to especially for us, you know that all the legalization are into force and of the same. Thank you. However, legal material remains clearly dispersed and the vision tools have been deep have been developed mainly for the citizen so it does not totally correspond with my own to my own expectation and it's not a bad thing. So basically we could continue to work and to see how to improve this or to propose specific dedicated tools for legal skills. So this is what I wanted to share with you. I stay at your disposal if you have any question about this presentation. Thank you very much. Thank you for the advisor as the person in charge of the service that provides your legs. We will definitely follow up and thank you for being an active user of our systems. Now I would like to give the floor to Philip Lulic. Philip over to you. Thank you very much. I hope everyone can hear me. I would like to say to everyone in the audience and following online, I would just kindly like to invite the organizers if they can share the present role with me so I can put the slides up on the screen. Great. So also thank you to Frederick for his interesting research and showing us a bit how the research legal scholar world is currently approaching this topic and for me the most striking information was that only five of the articles if I understood correctly from all of the ones he found contained visuals. That corresponds to what we know, which is that the legal profession is very text heavy. And I will try in my presentation to explain why you should care for legal design and what it can do for you. Also, I mentioned here as you can see in the title legal knowledge visualization. So, yeah, let's let's get into it. Basically, the quick overview of the presentation, it will be divided in for distinct part. I also start with a couple of definitions and then move on to the context which is actually trying to set the stage and look into the environment. In which the legal products and legal profession is currently in and in which it communicates its messages to the society in general and why here legal design or legal knowledge visualization can be of assistance. Then we will look into a couple of examples from the practice and conclude in the end. Okay, so the definitions like good lawyers that we are, we should start with defining the terms and yeah, here Margaret Hagen, the same Margaret that Frederick mentioned. Basically, what you need to know is that legal design is the application of something that is fairly established, a design thinking process on the legal domain. And basically, the key, key definition here or key part of the definition is that it's human centered. The five classical steps of the design thinking process here. I suppose some of you already know that our empathize defined ideate prototype and test. I don't think in this presentation, we should go into the details, but if you are interested in designing process, there are a lot of tools online. I'm presenting from the perspective of a practitioner. So, also, since this is something that Frederick and I'm sure Maria will mention as well, maybe we can discuss further in the panel discussion afterwards. In the interest of time, let's move on to the little less known aspect, legal knowledge visualization. So it's something that is similar to legal design. But whereas with legal design is more focused on the products that communicate legal messages and to the end user, legal knowledge visualization is more concerned with hardcore legal knowledge and doctrine. And this is something that combines legal expertise with data science statistics and allows you to create visuals that can help you inquire and analyze legal knowledge. So it can be pretty much anything from charts, graphs, diagrams, infographics, sketches, illustrations, you know, it's a fairly up to the person doing it to define the best formats. So it has many useful applications we find in our practice. Basically, it's a whole mindset that allows us to generate insights through visuals and then spot different patterns, look for trends and then point us in the direction for further research. And that those things normally you don't really notice unless they are put together in a visual way. And that has a very useful application in the field of legal knowledge management, which is the team I work in. And it has been proven in practice that it shows movement of knowledge from the tacit, the implicit one that is in our heads to more explicit one that you can store and then share and build on. Also, it helps move knowledge from the individual knowledge to the collective knowledge. On the visual here you can see different levels of legal visualization starting with the data visualization basically using symbols or quantifiable entities that you can put together. So that would be the first level of complexity and here the visual symbol for that that we use is a simple table or basic numerical chart. Moving on to the next level when you take data and you put it into context and interpret it, then you have information. And then that's something that already has a bit more meat around the bone to say and here an example of visualizing information would be infographic. And then finally the most complex one is knowledge and why well because it's multi dimensional and it actually is information that is put to action through human cognition. And it combines many layers of information and this represents the final step in this in this evolution of legislative visualization. I know the images are kind of small they're here just to represent the symbolize. But the final one the knowledge visual here is a sun key diagram that I believe deserves a bit of a detailed look so just wanted to show one example of knowledge visualization and how it can help so here we are looking at the ECB opinions on draft EU legislation and in one visual we managed to put together three vertical layers so the type of draft EU legislation the institution that is requesting an opinion from the ECB and then the type of ECB output. Anyway, that's that's kind of definition of the field and the scope of this presentation. So let's move on to the context. Okay, so we are living in the information age digitalization revolution is upon us and like Chiara Zilioli said in her opening speech. The pandemic has really accelerated the move to work in a hybrid or remote setting like this conference is a good example of that. But even in about 10 years ago, see then CEO Google Eric Schmidt recognized that the information that we are creating in in modern times is absolutely unfathomable. He calculated that there was about five exabytes of information created between the dawn of time and 2003. And but even 10 years ago we would double that every two days. So it's it's really difficult to put our minds around all this information that is being produced and he has totally recognized that people aren't really ready for this. And I think 10 years later or a decade afterwards we we can really see the value in his words, because what we are really witnessing all around us is information overload. And let me look into that bit. I mean, even though we're all living it, we might not be fully aware of the effects of it. Information overload or information fatigue syndrome also informally known as infobicity is established psychological situation that basically leads to a bunch of negative consequences. We are just evolved in a way that our prefrontal cortex is taking all the information that is available to us in order to, first of all, make a decision of what information is relevant and then make certain decisions and basis of actions for this. But if the the amount of information that is reaching our prefrontal cortex every day is so huge like it is today, then it really can cause a number of negative effects. And we all live that we know that the attention span is short. You can just imagine your average day you know you wake up in the morning the phone is ringing with notifications work emails start coming in social media news portals internet portals, then family chat might be active and maybe you need to go and buy stuff after work. And then you go to the supermarket and then you have to make a decision which toothpaste you buy and then you have almost limitless number of factors to take into consideration like you know whether you want the one for whitening your teeth or the one that has recommendations from this local dental association and the one for smokers one for non smokers. You know what I mean. So all that is just a quick snapshot of a series of decisions we are faced to make every day based on an endless stream of information. Your phone is a that you have in your pocket is a is a endless source of prompts and it really causes us to have a very short attention span. And we are basically spending very early in the day all the neural energy so very concrete biological resource that we can devote to our brains to process all this information. So for a better part of the day, we are struggling to have let's call it fresh mind to make good decisions. And how is this concept of our information overload related to the legal profession. Well, like, like we just said, legal documents are traditionally very complex and text heavy and require high cognitive effort. So they are costing us a lot of this neural energy to properly process and interact with and then use as a basis for action informed action. We just made the point that the end users the people who are reading the legal documents that we produce, they'd have very short attention span some research shows that currently we are down to six, seven seconds of the attention span of average person. And that means their cognitive capacity is scattered and there is a lot of competition for attention nowadays, pretty much everywhere. I found a couple of interesting statistics for instance that each person is exposed to several thousand advertisement every day, both in virtual online world and the physical world around us. Just one example. So if we as lawyers and legal professionals don't really recognize this environment and this consequences of the information age that we are living in, which brought a lot of benefits don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be overly negative. But still we need to account for the effects on human brains and ability to process information. If we don't do that, well, then our desired impact of all our hard work is really threatened. Why? Well, because we have not accounted for the way users want to or need to or are able to process information, including legal information. And of course, you can say, well, it's to their own peril if they cannot master the cognitive capacity to interpret legal important legal information that then all the negative effects will fall onto them and deserve it. So, but that's a bit just too strict of a stance in my opinion. And it is. I don't think it's a choice. I think legal professional has to evolve with the times. So, yeah, but if you don't do so, of course, that's something that creates a serious risks. And basically the main one is flowing short of the objective of legal work in broader terms, which is to mitigate risks for our clients and also to maintain legal certainty. So how can legal design and legal knowledge visualization help in this regard? Well, the main point here is that by utilizing some of these, let's say pointers or guidelines that legal design practitioners are trying to communicate with their work is that the end product will be of lower cognitive efforts for the end users. So basically making the main information more accessible and visible in the document. So that requires also to find out what user exactly need and which legal information is of most relevance for the action that we want to communicate. Design principles here can help because you can decide on the appropriate information architecture, use the appropriate color coding and font choices also very selective with the way you use language. So plain language is a big trend in legal design and legal in general. And for instance, use of a proper iconography to help non legal experts understand complex legal topics. So yeah, that doesn't really mean that we should dumb down the legal work. It just means that you still have to do all the legal hardcore work in the background. You just select the key information and make it more easy for people that are not lawyers and legal experts are legally educated to properly comprehend. You still avail all this additional information on demand. And that's part of the information architecture that I just mentioned. And of course legal design also introduces something that lawyers by default are rarely doing which is testing different concepts with the user. So if you want to make it easier for a user to understand your work then it's very much advisable to have a prototype and to test it and then improve the prototype based on the feedback you get. But all this relies on the on the fact that while designing the document user is placed at the center. Okay, so let's quickly illustrate how our brains work. Basically, the text on the left side of the screen is telling you how much of our cortex or our brain is devoted to processing visual information. Not going to go into details. It's a lot on the right hand side. We see a visual interpretation of how much so percentage wise of information is retained. And it's distributed over the way you get exposed to this information, whether you see it, whether you read it or whether you hear it. And if I quickly move away from this slide and I tried to invite you to recall what you've seen in the paragraph on the left. And what you remember from the visual on the right, fairly certain that most of you can repeat the information that I laid out in the visual. So what is the percentage of retention versus the details of the text on the left. Again, our brains have evolved to process visual information. They devote large majority of resources in our brain to do so. And another point that combining text with visuals has the higher chance of information retention and proper understanding from our end user than just insisting on text alone. Okay, that brings us to the case study. I will just quickly show a couple of examples from our practice. One would be creation of info guides or how to guides. So what is the problem here? The problem is that you need to know how to manage certain things. So, okay, you have to as a knowledge manager here in DCB, you have to write a certain instruction and the traditional answer to this problem is write a textual manual, right? But that has been shown that it's not obviously very useful because people interact with computers in a different way than they interact with texts. That's why we try to keep it short. One page limits, easy recognizable steps, use of screenshots and visual cues with highlighted aspects and what to click. It still has some text that mainly explains which parts of the screen you should click. But basically, information architecture is made much, much simpler for users to quickly go through steps one to eight and accomplish the desired effect. And then of course, it has a concrete help, positive effect of retrieval of references currently this is what's on the screen is an example for your legs functionality but generally you can you can imagine it applied on a by number of how to guides. Here it's an example of a tube map. So it's an indication of how we can use a known visual metaphors. So all of us have seen this metro maps or a tube map. In a way, we know what to expect from it and they will know what we know what they communicate they communicate topical distribution and stations on a journey on chapters within the topic. And here it this case it was had the double function of allowing the end user to quickly find and see what topics are covered in certain doctrinal research. And then if you make it a digital product as a PDF, then you can also create links so clicking on each of the station would directly take you to a to a full article on the topic. Another case study. Again from moving from a lot of textual sources of guides and manuals to one pager that really shows in essence the key information for the user and this is done by the colleagues in the legislation division and it's on request the legal acts. You can see on the right part of the screen that it starts with a definition. So, first of all, let's understand what the request is as a tool. Then there's a link to the template so if you need to actually fill in a request request and then there is a whole decision here to help you decide whether you need to request or not, which has been proven to be a useful question before you start the whole procedure. And at the bottom you have further information so all these guides are like I said are still useful still contain detailed rules and guides. So we do not replace the product we enhance it. That has already been quickly shown by Frederick as well I would like to just also mentioned that this is a good example of data and knowledge visualization it combines legal data with on ECB legislation, but also it required legal knowledge to create topics to create and imagine questions that you can show on this graph so for instance, what are the binding ECB legal acts per topic over time with some because some user research show that this might be interesting to the frequent visitors of the ECB's page. But this has also been covered in great detail in the ECB conference of 2020 in a panel where this was more central focus point of that panel so some of you might remember it from there. Then I will not. I just wanted to remind and then also say that this this work really benefits this type of communication for let's say legislating institutions, institutions that need to communicate with the public. And finally, to conclude, just one slide to bring it all together the combination of legal and design. Those are not mutually exclusive skills. I would argue that everyone is capable of noticing good design or bad design or good information architecture and bad information architecture we have been evolutionary evolution brought us to the point where we can spot harm visual harmony, you know, even beauty and find find the truth in it in a way. So these two aspects here show that in my belief, legal and design really work together in a loop where internally in the process of creation using visuals allows you to be co creative so for collective work it augments thinking and helps systemic change. Whereas on the end user design externally it's if it's more user centric more according to the principles of neuroscience and use of plain language, then we can all help each other progress as a society and let's say counteract to some of the threats to democracy that we are seeing that one can argue are consequence of the information age and the information overload since it's becoming more and more difficult to find out what's really true in all that information and that really people from the institutions in the way because they cannot really find what's true in the sea of information in this gap really needs to be bridged and I do believe that legal design and then legal knowledge visualization can help and be one of the things in that regard. And with this I would like to also thank to my colleagues who are also part of this journey that we are undergoing here in the knowledge management team of the ECB and broader sense in legal services. So you see the name of Valerij Santou on the screen as a main pioneer of legal design in the ECB and also my colleagues in the knowledge management team. Thank you very much for all the work that we are doing daily on this. And with this, yes, came to an end and thank you for your attention. Thank you very much, Philippe. I'll be moved right away to Marie, who is every day in real life with legal design. We are running a bit late, but I am sure that we will manage to have time for questions. Marie, over to you. Thank you. Thank you so much, Hilde. And thank you for having me today. It's a true honor. And Hilde, don't hesitate to tell me if you need my presentation to be shorter than 15 minutes. I can totally do that if it helps at all to have a rich and dense conversation, which is the point, obviously. So my talk, as you can see on the screen, is going to focus on the rule of law. And if we move to the next slides, of course, I don't need to remind you how important the rule of law is for the EU. This was absolutely clear in Ciaran Zilioli's opening speech. It was also reminded to us by you, Hilde. Thank you for that. And basically, the latest rule of law report reminds us that challenges to the rule of law anywhere affect actually the legal order and the functioning of the EU as a whole. The point, if we move to the next slide, the question then we can ask ourselves is what is left of the rule of law when even experts struggle to understand legal documents. And to Philip's point earlier, this is really, you know, it speaks about, we can totally stay on this one, it really speaks about how every human being processes information. And as Philip kindly reminded us, information overload has drastic negative effects on everyone's brain, even experts. So let alone, you know, non-lawyers and laymen. So now moving to the next slide, we have an example with, if we move to the next, thank you. For example, Elizabeth Warren, who's a professor of law but also ran for US presidency later on, she admitted that even as a law professor, she just couldn't understand her credit card contract because it wasn't designed to be read. So that's obviously a huge issue then for laypeople as well. Moving on, we can also have a different type of example with judges. We're heavily involved in litigation design. I'll come to that in the practical examples. And we've interviewed a number of judges and profiled created user profiles on judges in 19 jurisdictions across Europe. We've picked a random example in Spain, but that could be pretty much in any jurisdiction in the EU. So this judge, he's pretty senior. He has on average 300 cases at the same time, I mean over a year, not at the same time, but over a year, about 1,000 pages per case. And also there's a huge variety in terms of the topics he deals with. So it could be literally divorces and car accidents in the morning and econometrics analysis in the afternoon, on which he knows very little because he's not a specialist in competition law. So just to give you an example, moving on to the next slide, this is where design is so powerful. So I won't go over the definitions which were very clear thanks to Fred Riggs presentation and also Philip's presentation so you can see the references here. Maybe two points to be added. In our view, neurosciences have to be an integral part of the multidisciplinary approach in legal design, precisely for the reason that was very well explained by Philip. The way the human brain absorbs information or is unable to absorb it and rejects it is absolutely instrumental in the purpose of law, which is basically to be implemented. So in our view, the multidisciplinary approach really has to include neurosciences, which is why we're lucky to have two neuroscience experts with us at the agency. And maybe to Fred Riggs point about the fact that few scholars know about legal design, it's a minority, I agree, definitely it is true. However, we see signs of hope. For example, a colleague of Arianna Rossi that you mentioned, Fred Riggs, a colleague of her, Rosanna Ducato at the University of Aberdeen. She got some funding from the European Commission to create the first legal design course in the EU. So I think that's a sign also as to the credibility of the approach and a bit further away, but Northeastern University in the US just created a graduate certificate in legal design for this academic year, not in 10 years, just right now. So we believe this is encouraging at least. Moving on to the next slide. I think it's really important at this point to clarify what user centricity is, what human centricity brings. As Philip explained, the whole methodology is to put the user at the center. But why do we do that? What's the point really of putting the user at the center? Well, the point is to solve the real issue. What's the real problem with legal documents, legal processes, compliance programs that no one can read? What's the true issue we're solving? And putting the user at the center will enable us to find the right solution which will also be easily adopted by the users themselves because they will have co-created, they will have participated to the solution. Instead of pushing legal documents saying you people, you citizens have to do that because I tell you so, you onboard them, you co-create with users and therefore it's much easier for them to apply whatever is required by the law simply because they've participated in that. And I'm sure that you're wondering at this point, okay, how realistic is that and we'll come to practice right afterwards in a couple of minutes. Moving on to the next slide. Again, Philip explained extremely well how important it is to take into account the way our brain captures information or not. Because otherwise, you know, we could be the best experts in the world. No one will know what we're trying to do, what we're trying to say. And the rule of law will obviously be affected. So one of the terrible negative effects on top of everything that Philip's explained very well, another terrible negative effect of information overload is actually that it shuts down our ability to learn. So imagine right when our brain needs all its ability, all its cognitive energy to learn complex legal concepts, for example, this is where information overload shuts the learning process. So the practical way of dealing with that is first to be aware of it. So every lawyer should have basic neuroscience knowledge. That's for sure. But once you know that, once you're aware of that, always think that small is beautiful. It's simple to, you know, it's easy to remember. Small portions of information. I know that lawyers tend to love, you know, putting tons of information to be extensive. Small information at the right time. It doesn't mean that you suppress information. It just means that you provide the right doses of information at the right time of the user journey. The second practical tip would be to always link information and action. So if you want citizens to behave in a certain way, as regards a specific issue, there's no need to, you know, explain like 10 different rules because after that they won't remember what to do. Just the one rule that they need to implement at a given point in time. And all of that will be easily assimilated for the brain in the long term memory. Moving on to the next slide. Basically what we're saying is that legal design bridges the gap that Philip mentioned between the law and its users. So at this point you might wonder, fair enough, but how do we know whether it works? And that leads us to the next slide. Well, we asked ourselves this very question. Sorry, next slide please. Thank you. So we asked ourselves this very question and this is why we developed a user testing lab leveraging international standards and your listing principles. I'm not sure whether my screen is frozen or whether we're on. Oh, thank you. Thank you so much. Thanks for your help. So as I said, we developed a user testing lab where we leveraged international standards because the good news about behavioral sciences and cognitive sciences is that there's years and decades of research. So we leveraged those principles and models which are scientifically widely accepted, such as the acceptability model by Nielsen, the temporality of acceptance and many others, which enables us actually to, moving to the next slide, implement a number of tests, very precise tests on each of our deliverables to be sure about what works, but also what doesn't work. Because as Frederick and Phillips explained, legal design and human centricity is also about prototyping early, seeing what works, testing with users and improving so that you're absolutely sure that the end result will resonate. Moving to the next slide, I'm conscious of the time, what are the proven advantages then based on all of that? Well, you have different levels. The most obvious level is sheer efficiency, like you could save two and a half hours per lawyer per week, for example. We've documented that in a given project. One step further would be user empowerment. So, for example, we were able to improve adoption rate of a legal search engine in natural language by 95%. So that's what user centricity brings. Then you can also enable better decision making, and I think this speaks a lot about Philip's work and his team at the ECB. How do you make better decisions? We worked on that with, namely, the French government, how to empower collectivities to make better autonomous decisions on open innovation, for example. But ultimately, the goal is systemic impact. And if we're thinking about the rule of law, it also has to do with litigation, of course, and access to justice. And here, we've been seeing in our work that we can actually improve the reading rate of written submissions. Moving to the next slide. And Hilda, feel free to stop me at any time if you think that's too long. So, of course, we also need to be aware of any pitfalls. And I think that one of the classic mistake is precisely to mistake design for decoration and to mistake design for sheer visualization, when it's a whole process of human centricity. The other pitfall, in my view, would be to try to design without designers. It's a job. And the whole point about legal design is the multidisciplinary approach where lawyers collaborate with designers, with scientists, with experts in neurosciences, psychologists when needed. And the other pitfall would be to skip user research or user testing. So this is really key. Moving to the next slide, I think we can show a number of examples, especially how does legal design translate into reality for a wide variety of users, which you might wonder. So moving on to the user research. I told you earlier that we are heavily involved in litigation design in 19 jurisdictions across the EU. So our user research phase started with, you know, the classics, creating user profiles for judges. It's not a caricature. It's really based on data. It's based on research and facts. And the main tool you need to do that is empathy. So moving to the next slide, we can see here, we've picked four different user profiles for judges and we can see the main differences. So for example, as I said in Spain, they are dealing with a very wide variety of topics that are not specialized in competition or which is our topic in this litigation. And at the other end of the spectrum, we've got a panel of three judges in the UK in the competition appeal tribunal who are absolute experts, top notch economists, for example, XRBB. So this is really to give you the variety of users. So how do you deal with that if we move to the next slide? We also do user journeys because it's really important to understand the doses of information they are facing, but also when they do so and what's their reaction with so much information. What is their emotional curve? We go that far wondering what are the emotions of the judges simply because emotions guide our brain into reading or not. So that's really important to know whether they're irritated, desperate, annoyed or happy or excited. That's really key. And just in a couple of minutes left, I'm going to be really quick. The following slide, please, will show you this. So this is an anonymized version, of course, of an econometric model in this very wide litigation across EU and we've tried to visualize how the econometric analysis was performed with a number of dummy information and without dummy information because there were several sets of data and the impact of the data on the results. So this is a fairly complex issue which in writing is enshrined in the 300 page economic expert report. And so we've tried to do what Philip was explaining actually earlier. All the complexity is at the back end. It's in your mind, it's in your reasoning. So you keep all the complexity in as if you were a website, you keep that complexity in your back end. But what you show is your front end like a website, which is something that's easily digestible and visually appealing. If we move to the next slide for the following, the next example, this is where we compare data sets in a very simple way. By the way, this is the anonymized version. So you see boxes, but actually it had the shape of the actual products we're dealing with in that litigation. It was too easily recognizable. So you see, this is a very complex concept of the type of costs that were taken into account in the econometric report. And on the one hand, we had average cost and let's say product level cost. So I'm going to stop there because my speaking time is up, but I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to discuss those examples, unless you give me two more minutes, but I don't think it's necessary. Up to you. Thanks a lot, Marie. Well, indeed, we're a little bit advanced but time wise. I think that you have between the three of you already generated some sort of internal discussion. I think that we will need to turn to questions and answers for our audience now. But I think in short, you together demonstrated very well from different perspectives how legal design is a human centered user centered multi disciplinary approach that against a background of information overload really helps to bridge the gap between law and users with all sorts of positive results in terms of impact in terms of access to justice in terms of empowerment in terms of efficiency. I think with your example, Marie, you indicated that this is you help to show that this is relevant for simple citizens but also for judges who are probably at the top of the legal food chain, the legal pyramid. So I think that the presentation showed how legal design is really central to the rule of law in real life to the rule of law in practice. And with this, I would be very happy to take a number of questions from the audience. Thank you. Thank you. So thank you for the first of all thank you for the invitation to one more addiction of this conference with a track record of excellence. So thank you very much. And specifically specifically today, thank you for bringing here this innovative approach to the application of law. I would say to the conceptualization of an observable trend. For example, in teaching. So this, this seems to be a reply to the demand of the context. In my experience, I noticed that 30 years ago I was teaching with the speeches and now I need to be teaching with slides power power PowerPoint presentation. So this is a trend that we are observing in the legal field in several, several areas. It's about application of law. It's about teaching. It's, it's about many things. It's human centered. I agree. But I also noticed that is it's a lot technology imposed trend. So if we need to to harvest the gains from the use of artificial intelligence, we need to take this approach. It's true that the span of attention is decreasing and we cannot keep the user on the point for a long time. But this is a lot about technology imposed a trend. It's useful. I see it's useful. And it brings a lot of challenges and my question is the following. How legal design coordinates or can coordinate the visualization with fairness. So legal certainty. I see, for example, Philip pointed some some ways forward and mahi as well. But about fairness, that is also a very important part of the legal speech. So where the legal legal arguments are paramount, how we we coordinate the two, the two needs, the need for visualization and the need for fairness. So to know the arguments in detail. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Maybe I ask Marie to answer this question given that you work in the practice every day. Thank you, Claudia, for this question. You know, this is so interesting because precisely fairness is at the core of of what we do because of user centricity. You know, it all comes down to this methodology where if you truly empathize with your users, then fairness is a given. Because you're not, you know, if you're caring about their needs and their fears and their constraints and, you know, once you've done their emotional curve, for example, what you do in legal design is to solve the user's pain points. And of course, you know, presenting information in a way that would not be fair would only would not solve their pain points but would also create additional ones. One very practical example of fairness in our work would be our work against dark patterns. We probably don't have time to go into any details, but basically dark patterns are a way to structure information online, which manipulates people, which plays on their cognitive biases. So it makes you do things you wouldn't do normally. And precisely, we create fair patterns, information structures that empower users to understand by themselves and to make their own enlightened choices. I'm stopping there. First of all, thank you very much for this panel. It was very interesting, especially for a person that tries to work with legal design almost every day or as much as possible. I would like to make a very small comment which is not the criticism to the presentation of Marie. There was one point where you explained the fact that the beauty of the design is not part of the journey. And this is very much true. And I would add just one little one little thing that in my experience, the fact of designing is more important than the design itself. So, so the visualizing exercise is more important than the outcome of the exercise because it also helps you to think. And we decided I would have just one question for the for the people in the in the audience that maybe are not used to legal design which is how can one start with legal design and this is for the old panel like which which would be the starting point. If somebody has never approached legal design before. Thank you so much. Maybe we asked Philip to start and then the other colleagues to come in we have little time left, but you will be concise I'm sure. I'll try to keep it very short, even though there is no one path into legal design and I think we are all visual creatures by definition so we all can recognize and appreciate, you know, good design and bad design. It's a little bit about learning the backgrounds like any new skill. I would recommend a couple of books in the field in the last two years we have seen a bit of activity in the publishing of legal design with good experiences and examples. Maria's work here is also very good to highlight that but also I would say you just start thinking about your product in a way of how can this be understood better by my user even ask your user like how do you understand this memo this contract. And then just try to implement some changes like we explained before in key actionable info clear and visible and understand understandable on top, and then everything flows from there and maybe even the point of Claudia's question. You don't renounce legal arguments and details and you just make sure they don't obscure and make it impossible for for the person to properly assess. What's the primary level of information was the secondary level of information, but so much for me. Thank you. Thank you, Philip. Maybe ask Friedrich to come in and then Marie. Thank you very much for Jean-Yu for this excellent question because this is a question that all my colleagues asked me how to start with legal design. This is maybe a field where learning by doing is quite essential. However, if you want to have an in this knowledge of legal design you can do everything yourself. You need to see the key words to collaborate with people who have this knowledge who have a clear understanding about the other constraints. Marie talked about presenter and also Philip, the neurosciences. I know absolutely nothing about this. And if you don't collaborate, you will have a design which looks great. However, it will mean absolutely nothing like mine in my own presentation today. Thank you, Philip. The last word to you, Marie. Thanks a lot. I'll be very brief. Actually, there's a slide in my presentation which will be shared to everyone, precisely on how to start. And three points there. Know your users and always ask yourself before writing anything, who are your users? What do they know about the topic at stake? What are they going to do with that information? Is it for cascading? Is it for deciding? Just spend five minutes to think about your users. Oh, thank you so much for bringing the slides. Thank you. And also a very simple question, a quick wind. Quick wind, do your users read on screen? And if so, is it a desktop or a mobile or is it a printout? And this will guide you to presenting information differently. Then the second piece of advice, find the why. Do not draft anything without having found the true purpose of a legal document. Contracts are not made to sit on a database. It's not the reason why we draft contracts. Neither act, actually, and that's unfortunately often what happens. It's there, but it's just sitting there and not implemented. And the third piece of advice is something that we touched upon, Philippe and I. Be the front end of a website. Keep all your expertise and all your technical knowledge as your backbone. It's there. It's not going to disappear. It's yours. But people don't necessarily need to see it. It's there. Use it as your back end. But what you produce is your front end. Something which is as simple and pleasant to see and easy to navigate as the front end of a website. I hope that makes sense. That's it for me. Thanks so much, Marie, Frédéric and Philippe. I promised the organizers that we would conclude on time. So I think that I can keep that promise. We ended with something very practical. Thank you all. Thank you to the audience. Thank you so much to the organizers for the invitation for putting this crucial topic on the agenda of this important conference. And of course, a million thanks to the panel for their work day to day and for their excellent sharing of a field that is really crucial to making the rule of law happen in real life. Thank you all and enjoy your lunch.