Legal technology: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*{{aiprov|A faster horse}} | *{{aiprov|A faster horse}} | ||
*{{ | *{{br|Code: Version 2.0}} | ||
*[[Plain English]] | *[[Plain English]] | ||
{{plainenglish}} | {{plainenglish}} |
Revision as of 14:47, 17 May 2019
JC pontificates about technology
An occasional series.
|
No, not chat-bots, AI, metadata extraction, fuzzy logic or semantic syntactical parsing. That’s reg tech, and it’s easy: the answer is blockchain. 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