82,910
edits
Innovation paradox: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
By 1995 lawyers had computers on their desks, and the traditional refrain<ref>I actually had an office manager say this to me, as a young attorney. True story</ref> "we don't pay lawyers to type, son" was beginning to lose its force. | By 1995 lawyers had computers on their desks, and the traditional refrain<ref>I actually had an office manager say this to me, as a young attorney. True story</ref> "we don't pay lawyers to type, son" was beginning to lose its force. | ||
Suddenly, it was easy to re-spawn documents, to tweak clauses, shove in [[rider|riders]] — to futz around with words. Generating and sending documents was free and instantaneous. Negotiations quickly became convoluted and elongated. You argued about trifles because you could. It also lowered the bar: certain | Suddenly, it was easy to re-spawn documents, to tweak clauses, shove in [[rider|riders]] — to futz around with words. Generating and sending documents was free and instantaneous. Negotiations quickly became convoluted and elongated. You argued about trifles because you ''could''. It also lowered the bar: certain types of contract, which previously could not justify their own existence, let alone legal negotiation, could now be thrashed out and argued about. | ||
I have no data for this — where would you get them? — but I am certain the | Far from accelerating negotiations or enhancing productivity, [[technology]] gave us free rein to indulge our yen for pedantry. Are there any fewer lawyers today? No<ref>There are more than ever: [The number of practising solicitors in England and Wales has reached another all-time high https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/warning-as-number-of-solicitors-tops-140000/5063349.article] — ''Law Gazette''.</ref>. Are there more deals being done? No<ref>The number of M&A deals peaked in — you guessed it - 2007: [https://imaa-institute.org/mergers-and-acquisitions-statistics/ Number & value of M&A deals worldwide since 2000] — ''The Institute for Mergers, Acquisitions and Alliances''.</ref>. Is there more paper? You bet. Now, to be sure, I have no data for this — where would you get them? — but I am certain the variety, length and textual density of legal {{t|contracts}} ''exploded'' after 1990. The more technology we have thrown at it, the longer and crappier our documents have become. | ||
That was then; is it any different now? No. Why should it be? | |||
Yet, yet yet: many painful artefacts of the analogue era — the gremlins and hair-balls you would expect technology to remove — persist to this day. We still have [[side letter]]s. We still have separate [[amendment agreement]]s. We still, solemnly, write: “[[this page is intentionally left blank]]”. We still say “[[this clause is reserved]]”, as if we haven’t noticed [[Microsoft Word]] has an automatic numbering system. Not only has [[reg tech|regtech]] failed to remove expected complexities, ''it has created entirely new ones.'' | Yet, yet yet: many painful artefacts of the analogue era — the gremlins and hair-balls you would expect technology to remove — persist to this day. We still have [[side letter]]s. We still have separate [[amendment agreement]]s. We still, solemnly, write: “[[this page is intentionally left blank]]”. We still say “[[this clause is reserved]]”, as if we haven’t noticed [[Microsoft Word]] has an automatic numbering system. Not only has [[reg tech|regtech]] failed to remove expected complexities, ''it has created entirely new ones.'' | ||
[[File:Fractal.jpg|300px|thumb|right|A [[fractal]] yesterday. Can you see the [[lawyer]] descending towards it in his extra-vehicular lander?]] | [[File:Fractal.jpg|300px|thumb|right|A [[fractal]] yesterday. Can you see the [[lawyer]] descending towards it in his extra-vehicular lander?]] | ||