82,910
edits
Innovation paradox: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
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: [ | 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: [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 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>. Is there more paper? You bet. 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|contracts}} ''exploded'' after 1990. The more technology we have thrown at it, the longer and crappier our contracts have become. | ||
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, 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 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 it is their sacred quest to police. But that shore ''is'' [[fractal]]. However close you get, the risks remain. | Why is this? Is it not obvious? 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> | 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> | ||