82,927
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
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- | 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 classes of agreement which previously could not justify their own existence, let alone legal negotiation, could now be thrashed out and argued about. Far from accelerating negotiations and enhancing productivity this gave lawyers free licence to indulge their yen for pedantry. | ||
I have no data for this — where would you get them? — but I am certain the number, length and textual density of legal {{t|contracts}} exploded after 1990. | I have no data for this — where would you get them? — but I am certain the number, length and textual density of legal {{t|contracts}} ''exploded'' after 1990. | ||
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?]] | ||
Why is this? It is a function of the [[incentive|incentives]] at play. [[Lawyer]]s and [[negotiator]]s are remunerated by time taken. They are rewarded for the complexity and sophistication of their analysis. ''Lawyers don’t want to simplify.'' Lawyers don’t ''want'' to truncate. That isn’t in their nature. It is contrary to their nature. ''This 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 | Why is this? It is a function of the [[incentive|incentives]] at play. [[Lawyer]]s and [[negotiator]]s are remunerated by time taken. They are rewarded for the complexity and sophistication of their analysis. ''Lawyers don’t want to simplify.'' Lawyers don’t ''want'' to truncate. That isn’t in their nature. It is contrary to their nature. ''This 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. But that shore ''is'' [[fractal]]. However close you get, the risks remain. | ||
Technology has ''brilliantly'' enabled lawyers to showcase the sophistication and complexity of their syntax. In a nutshell: We lawyers 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> | |||
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. | |||
The Jolly Contrarian's contrarian advice : {{maxim|to increase efficiency, seek to remove technology from the workplace}}. | The Jolly Contrarian's contrarian advice : {{maxim|to increase efficiency, seek to remove technology from the workplace}}. | ||
Line 42: | Line 28: | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Natural language processing]] | |||
*[[reg tech]] | *[[reg tech]] | ||
{{c|paradox}}. | {{c|paradox}}. | ||
{{ref}} |