Innovation paradox: Difference between revisions

Yet, yet yet: many painful artefacts of the analogue era — the gremlins and hair-balls you would expect [[technology]] to remove — persisted. To this day we still have [[side letter]]s and [[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]] now has an automatic numbering system.<ref>It is a truth universally acknowledged that no [[lawyer]] on God’s earth can competently format a document in [[Microsoft Word]].</ref> Not only has [[reg tech|regtech]] ''failed'' to remove legacy [[Complication|complications]], ''it has created entirely new ones.''

Are there any fewer lawyers today? No.<ref>There are more than ever: [https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/warning-as-number-of-solicitors-tops-140000/5063349.article The number of practising solicitors in England and Wales has reached another all-time high] — ''Law Gazette''.</ref>  

Are more deals being done? No.<ref>The number of M&A deals peaked in — you guessed it - [[Global financial crisis|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>  

Are there more words? My oath there are.<ref>Now, to be sure, I have no data for this last assertion — where would you get them? — but there is no doubt the variety, length and textual density of legal {{t|contract}}s ''exploded'' after 1990.</ref>  

The more [[technology]] we have thrown at “[[the legal problem]]”, the longer and crappier our contracts have become. A curious fellow might pause to wonder ''why''. Surprisingly few have.<ref>Not even those professionally motivated to do so: futurologists of the law have forged whole academic careers by predicting a [[The Singularity is Near - Book Review|legal dystopia]] which seems, in thirty years, only sclerotically to have got any nearer.</ref> Let me hazard a guess. Why is it that technology isn’t helping? To be sure, Andy has given; it isn’t Bill this time, so who is it that is taking away?<ref>Let me [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_and_Bill%27s_law Google that cultural reference for you].</ref> ''We all are''. We [[Mediocre lawyer|nit-picky, care-worn, pedantic attorneys]]. It is a function of the [[incentive|incentives]] at play. We [[lawyer]]s and [[negotiator]]s are remunerated by the time we take and the value we add. We add value in the shape of words. We put them in and we take them out. We are rewarded for the complexity and sophistication of our analysis. That means, we ''fiddle''.

''Lawyers don’t want to simplify.'' Lawyers don’t ''want'' to truncate. ''That is not their nature''. It is ''contrary'' to their nature. ''That is not what lawyers will use technology for.'' Lawyers will use technology to find ''new'' complexities. To eliminate ''further'' risks. To descend closer to the [[fractal]] shore of [[risk]] that it is their sacred quest to police.  

If your principle goal is to simplify, [[technology]] will help. But if your goal is livelihood preservation through confusion, obfuscation and distraction, [[technology]] is your ''weapon''. Thus has it ''brilliantly'' enabled lawyers to showcase the sophistication and complexity of their syntax. In a nutshell: We use [[technology]] to ''indulge'' ourselves.<ref>There is a serious point here for people (like me) who argue that technology implementations should be driven as far as possible by users at the coalface. And that is to bear in mind that the interests of users at the coalface are not necessarily aligned with those of the organisation for which they are working.</ref>