82,853
edits
Innovation paradox: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|tech| | {{a|tech|{{image|2cv ad|jpg|{{maxim|To increase efficiency, seek to remove technology from the workplace}}}} }}{{quote| | ||
{{frog and scorpion}} | {{frog and scorpion}} | ||
:—Folk tale}} | :—Folk tale}} | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
::— The [[JC]]’s maxims for a happy life.}} | ::— The [[JC]]’s maxims for a happy life.}} | ||
Behold, the [[Innovation paradox]]: Why does [[ | Behold, the [[Innovation paradox]]: Why does [[legaltech]] promise so much but deliver so little? | ||
''Is'' it a {{tag|paradox}}, though? | ''Is'' it a {{tag|paradox}}, though? | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
''That’s what lawyers do. [[It is not in my nature|It is in our nature]]''. | ''That’s what lawyers do. [[It is not in my nature|It is in our nature]]''. | ||
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 and [[amendment agreement]]s. We ''still'' write: “[[this page is intentionally left blank]]”. We ''still'' say “[[this clause is reserved]]” | 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 and [[amendment agreement]]s. We ''still'' write: “[[this page is intentionally left blank]]”. We — well, our [[US Attorney|American]] friends, at any rate — ''still'' say “[[this clause is reserved]],” as if we haven’t noticed [[Microsoft Word]] has an automatic paragraph numbering system.<ref>Albeit one that almost no-one knows how to use. 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 [[legaltech]] ''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 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> | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
*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 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> | *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 [[contract]]s have become. A curious | The more [[technology]] we have thrown at “[[the legal problem]]”, the longer and crappier our [[contract]]s have become. A curious type 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. [[A World Without Work: Technology, Automation, and How We Should Respond - Book Review|A world without work]]? Fat chance.</ref> | ||
Why isn’t technology helping? | Why isn’t technology helping? | ||
Let me hazard a guess. To be sure, Andy has given | Let me hazard a guess. To be sure, Andy has given, but it wasn’t Bill who took away.<ref>Let me [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_and_Bill%27s_law Google that cultural reference for you].</ref> So who was it? ''All of us''. You and me, readers: we [[legal eagle|nit-picky, care-worn, pedantic attorneys]]. It is a function of the [[Agency problem|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''. | That means, we ''fiddle''. | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[e-discovery]] | |||
*[[Boilerplate]] | *[[Boilerplate]] | ||
*[[ClauseHub]] | *[[ClauseHub]] | ||
*[[Innovation]] | *[[Innovation]] | ||
*[[Natural language processing]] | *[[Natural language processing]] | ||
*[[ | *[[Legaltech]] | ||
{{c|paradox}} | {{c|paradox}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||