Legal technology: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
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.
{{a|Technology|}}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.


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''.
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}}
{{itstrategy}}
===Addressing the barnacle risk===
===Addressing the barnacle risk===

Revision as of 15:30, 7 December 2018

JC pontificates about technology
An occasional series.
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

No, not chat-bots, 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.

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. See: IT strategy

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.

See also

Plain English Anatomy™ Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Preposition | Conjunction | Latin | Germany | Flannel | Legal triplicate | Nominalisation | Murder your darlings