From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
Tag: Redirect target changed |
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| No, not [[chat-bot]]s, {{t|AI}}, [[metadata extraction]], fuzzy logic or semantic syntactical parsing. [[Legal technology]] is the real-life code that lawyers generate day in and day out: words.
| | #redirect[[legaltech]] |
| | |
| Should lawyers learn to code? My oath they should. Because for the best paid professional writers on the planet, lawyers can't write for ''shit''.
| |
| {{itstrategy}}
| |
| ===Addressing the barnacle risk===
| |
| '''[[Strategic over tactical]]''': When drafting and updating templates *always* prioritise [[strategic over tactical]]. Say a new regulation has been introduced (I mean, just imagine!) which poses the question whether an existing form should be updated:
| |
| *really, does it? Challenge whether any change is necessary
| |
| **on economic grounds (could we lose money? How much? Realistically, how likely?)
| |
| **on regulatory grounds (could we be in breach of the law? What are the consequences?)
| |
| **on reputational grounds (could this affect the firm's franchise? How?)
| |
| *If the issue is important look to do so in a way that shortens and simplifies:
| |
| **take out specifics and render them as general statements
| |
| **remove optionality and complexity – this is a tech and management imperative.
| |
| {{seealso}}
| |
| *[[Code is law]]
| |
| *[[Plain English]]
| |
| | |
| {{plainenglish}}
| |
| | |
| | |
| {{C|Technology}}
| |
Latest revision as of 16:26, 9 October 2021