Yeah probably. And nobody in the legal profession can be arsed with it anyway so that would be great. Dunno how much labour it would take out of the input part though.
AI will do 90% of reviewing/drafting/negotiating contracts.
Clients just wanting a sensible and fair contract agreeable to 90% of businesses will just get an AI written one that the other party's AI machine will verify as being within those acceptable parameters (and probably autosign).
Legal work will take a fraction of the time and we'll be charging bases on output rather than time input.
But we'll all still be time recording as the profession at large still wont trust that fee earners are doing their jobs instead of farting around on ROF
Are you genuinley excited by the long overdue and rapid advancement in the legal tech space?
surely anything that makes your working life easier and quicker, is a good thing provided it doesn’t impact on positive client outcomes . No end of firms buying interests in legal tech companies or collaborating with them ?
All of the tech stuff I've seen is driven at cost rather than quality. So you get loads of (frequently poorly produced) legal documents / analysis that people don't know how to use and don't have any idea of the shortcomings of. Also a drive for it to be produced by businesses hanging off the side of law firms to dodge the liability issues of providing a load of shit / non-tailored advice.
For some businesses it serves a need, but I think most don't have a real appreciation of what corners they are in fact cutting.
From a "profession" perspective you create a massive down skilling where there isn't the volume of junior work for people to cut their teeth on / to keep the pyramid going. Its a fairly natural progression where the senior people 'need' to keep their PEP up so are happy to cannibalise future business with this stuff - but that doesn't make it a good thing.
I would say litigators would be the winners but we seem intent on wrecking the justice system too so I'm not sure even that is true.
DD why is legal tech bollocks, embrace it , make your life easier, outcomes and speed of execution for clients will be quicker with no fall away in quality of advice and representation, etc, etc
0
0
Litigation will take 5 minutes.
Dorothy (the Court robot) will have online access to all relevant documents and do disclosure herself.
Witness accounts and Counsel’s submissions will be done by retinal scan. Dorothy will cross-examine herself.
Experts will submit their thoughts via mind upload (like of those machines at the hairdressers).
Dorothy will then spit out a ticket with win or lose, a costs order and whether it’s appealable.
0
0
actually that's an interesting point - would algorithms and data make a better judgement of costs?
0
0
Yeah probably. And nobody in the legal profession can be arsed with it anyway so that would be great. Dunno how much labour it would take out of the input part though.
0
0
Professor Susskind will predict the end of lawyers.
The Solicitors roll will increase by 25%
Professor Susskind becomes the HM Govt’s Chief Prognostication Officer.
0
0
AI will do stuff for me like taking the seller’s details from the Land Registry title and inserting it into other documents for me.
0
0
rof will not be improved.
0
0
AI will do 90% of reviewing/drafting/negotiating contracts.
Clients just wanting a sensible and fair contract agreeable to 90% of businesses will just get an AI written one that the other party's AI machine will verify as being within those acceptable parameters (and probably autosign).
Legal work will take a fraction of the time and we'll be charging bases on output rather than time input.
But we'll all still be time recording as the profession at large still wont trust that fee earners are doing their jobs instead of farting around on ROF
0
1
In my unit there is a legal tech hype
it is bollocks
0
0
Like, „a totally different approach to legal work“
err, no?
0
0
Are you genuinley excited by the long overdue and rapid advancement in the legal tech space?
surely anything that makes your working life easier and quicker, is a good thing provided it doesn’t impact on positive client outcomes . No end of firms buying interests in legal tech companies or collaborating with them ?
0
0
It is almost universally bad.
All of the tech stuff I've seen is driven at cost rather than quality. So you get loads of (frequently poorly produced) legal documents / analysis that people don't know how to use and don't have any idea of the shortcomings of. Also a drive for it to be produced by businesses hanging off the side of law firms to dodge the liability issues of providing a load of shit / non-tailored advice.
For some businesses it serves a need, but I think most don't have a real appreciation of what corners they are in fact cutting.
From a "profession" perspective you create a massive down skilling where there isn't the volume of junior work for people to cut their teeth on / to keep the pyramid going. Its a fairly natural progression where the senior people 'need' to keep their PEP up so are happy to cannibalise future business with this stuff - but that doesn't make it a good thing.
I would say litigators would be the winners but we seem intent on wrecking the justice system too so I'm not sure even that is true.
0
0
DD why is legal tech bollocks, embrace it , make your life easier, outcomes and speed of execution for clients will be quicker with no fall away in quality of advice and representation, etc, etc
Join the discussion