83,106
edits
Why is legaltech so disappointing?: Difference between revisions
Why is legaltech so disappointing? (view source)
Revision as of 10:23, 22 September 2020
, 22 September 2020no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
===Why is [[reg tech]] so disappointing?=== | ===Why is [[reg tech]] so disappointing?=== | ||
[[Document assembly]] has been around for a good 15 years — they thought it was “Lawyer-killing disruptive technology” in 2006,<ref>See Darrel R Mountain’s OUP monograph on the subject from 2006 [https://academic.oup.com/ijlit/article-abstract/15/2/170/683915 “Disrupting Conventional Law Firm Business Models using Document Assembly”]</ref> and, well, the [[Mediocre lawyer|cockroaches]] — ''we'' cockroaches — are still here, | [[Document assembly]] has been around for a good 15 years — they thought it was “Lawyer-killing disruptive technology” in 2006,<ref>See Darrel R Mountain’s OUP monograph on the subject from 2006 [https://academic.oup.com/ijlit/article-abstract/15/2/170/683915 “Disrupting Conventional Law Firm Business Models using Document Assembly”]</ref> and, well, the [[Mediocre lawyer|cockroaches]] — ''we'' cockroaches — are still here, [[lazengem]], and [[document assembly]] technology ''still'' doesn’t work very well. And nor, for all the promise, do many of the other heralded applications in the vanguard of the reg-tech revolution. The things that were supposed to revolutionise legal practice, putting junior lawyers out of work — the [[chatbot]]s; the [[Natural language processing|natural language]] parsing; the data-extraction — still seem to be eluding us. | ||
Why? | ''Why?'' | ||
If advanced technology is magic, then “magic” is in the eye of, and measured from the perspective of, the beholder. When the beholder in question inhabits the [[legal]] or [[compliance]] department the technology doesn’t have to be awfully advanced to seem magical. Especially in a [[proof of concept]].<ref>One could define the [[terms of reference]] of a successful [[POC]] as being extensive enough to show off the clever bits, but limited enough to conceal the rubbish.</ref> Your [[sales]]guy airily drops “[[blockchain]]”, “[[chatbot]]”, “[[natural language processing]]”, “[[algorithm]]” and “[[AI]]” into his patter and he will sail through. | If advanced technology is magic, then “magic” is in the eye of, and measured from the perspective of, the beholder. When the beholder in question inhabits the [[legal]] or [[compliance]] department the technology doesn’t have to be awfully advanced to seem magical. Especially in a [[proof of concept]].<ref>One could define the [[terms of reference]] of a successful [[POC]] as being extensive enough to show off the clever bits, but limited enough to conceal the rubbish.</ref> Your [[sales]]guy airily drops “[[blockchain]]”, “[[chatbot]]”, “[[natural language processing]]”, “[[algorithm]]” and “[[AI]]” into his patter and he will sail through. | ||