I think it’s great that technology is disrupting the legal industry and I definitely think it will give more people access to justice.
It makes sense that law firms wouldn’t necessarily be pushing for this since it not only threatens billable hours but also would have to be coming out of the pockets of partners (retirement packages) who have no incentive to invest millions of their retirement in new tech as they’re on their way out.
I also wonder how the rules of professional conduct tie in here. It seems like there would be some huge issues with the unauthorized practice of law, etc.
I think these types of advancements are great for the profession. Although some of the technology will eliminate the need for certain legal jobs (e.g., drafting generic wills), I think new jobs will also be created. It will be important for lawyers to embrace the new technologies and learn how to incorporate it into their practice. I think new companies, such as casetext, are interesting as they work to make access to the law more affordable.
I think the idea of technology making the law more efficient is a great idea; however, there are problems that come with it. What happens when documents are missed or research is inadequate because the new technology failed? Does the lawyer get sued for malpractice or does the technology company get sued? There is no business judgment rule or exculpation provision for lawyers like most corporations enjoy, so relying on this technology could be troublesome. I agree with Alix about issues of professional conduct as well. On a separate note, it makes sense why law firms as a group would resist technology that reduces billable hours. If technology is to succeed in this sector, a move more towards payment for job completion rather than billable hours is probably necessary.
I think it’s great that technology is disrupting the legal industry and I definitely think it will give more people access to justice.
It makes sense that law firms wouldn’t necessarily be pushing for this since it not only threatens billable hours but also would have to be coming out of the pockets of partners (retirement packages) who have no incentive to invest millions of their retirement in new tech as they’re on their way out.
I also wonder how the rules of professional conduct tie in here. It seems like there would be some huge issues with the unauthorized practice of law, etc.
I think these types of advancements are great for the profession. Although some of the technology will eliminate the need for certain legal jobs (e.g., drafting generic wills), I think new jobs will also be created. It will be important for lawyers to embrace the new technologies and learn how to incorporate it into their practice. I think new companies, such as casetext, are interesting as they work to make access to the law more affordable.
I think the idea of technology making the law more efficient is a great idea; however, there are problems that come with it. What happens when documents are missed or research is inadequate because the new technology failed? Does the lawyer get sued for malpractice or does the technology company get sued? There is no business judgment rule or exculpation provision for lawyers like most corporations enjoy, so relying on this technology could be troublesome. I agree with Alix about issues of professional conduct as well. On a separate note, it makes sense why law firms as a group would resist technology that reduces billable hours. If technology is to succeed in this sector, a move more towards payment for job completion rather than billable hours is probably necessary.