Legaltech: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{a|technology|}}{{d|Legal tech|/ˈliːgəl//tɛk/|n|}}<br> Information technology that assists in the provision of or, more likely, ''[[Legal services delivery|delivery]..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|technology|}}{{d|Legal tech|/ˈliːgəl//tɛk/|n|}}<br> | {{a|technology|}}{{d|Legal tech|/ˈliːgəl//tɛk/|n|}}<br> | ||
[[Information technology]] that assists in the provision of or, more likely, ''[[Legal services delivery|delivery]]'' of, legal services. In these pages used interchangeably with [[reg tech]]. Both quite disappointing. | 1. [[Information technology]] that assists in the provision of or, more likely, ''[[Legal services delivery|delivery]]'' of, legal services. In these pages used interchangeably with [[reg tech]]. Both quite disappointing. | ||
2. (''Contrarian usage'') ''Not'' [[chat-bot]]s, {{t|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]]'''. | |||
===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. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*{{aiprov|A faster horse}} | |||
*{{br|Code: Version 2.0}} | |||
*[[Plain English]] | |||
*[[Why is reg tech so disappointing?]] | *[[Why is reg tech so disappointing?]] | ||
*[[Software as a service]] | *[[Software as a service]] | ||
Revision as of 11:22, 7 February 2021
|
JC pontificates about technology
An occasional series.
|
Legal tech
/ˈliːgəl//tɛk/ (n.)
1. Information technology that assists in the provision of or, more likely, delivery of, legal services. In these pages used interchangeably with reg tech. Both quite disappointing.
2. (Contrarian usage) 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.
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.