4 ms·

Another thing which might happen is software engineers automating away a lot of the law profession. Most of thexe exams are just memorizing, a system which is a

Another thing which might happen is software engineers automating away a lot of the law profession. Most of thexe exams are just memorizing, a system which is a remnant of the 1700s and 1800s. Not fit for an age where knowledge is literally at our finger tips.

dctoedt 11y ago
Lawyer here. Memorization alone won't make you a lawyer, just as memorizing language syntax and API specs won't make you a programmer. You have to be able to apply principles in odd ways -- in software terms, edge cases and corner cases. As Justice Holmes famously said, the practice of law is ultimately about predicting what a judge is likely to do. [1] That requires understanding judges' motivations, which include, for example, (A) doing what seems to be the "right" thing; (B) not suffering the professional embarrassment of being reversed on appeal; and, (C) not doing long-term damage to society with a bad decision, a canonical example of which is the Dred Scott Case [2]. Finally, really good lawyers not only try to predict what judges will do, they also grasp the motivations of their clients and of their clients' colleagues, collaborators, and adversaries. I've long thought that the practice of law is like being a weather forecaster: You have to understand how the different atmospheric phenomena are likely to interact, and to make your best guess as to what's going to happen when a high-pressure system collides with an upper-atmosphere disturbance, etc. (I have no idea whether what I just said makes sense meteorologically). [1] http://www.constitution.org/lrev/owh/path_law.htm http://www.constitution.org/lrev/owh/path_law.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
- spronkey 11y ago
  What a cluster.. see kay. IANAL, and find the above description of what makes a good lawyer as repulsive as it is accurate. It's a self-fulfilling system, too, thanks to the learning of case law. Law propagates more law. This is why we have legalese. This is why we can't have nice things!
  - dctoedt 11y ago
    >>> What a cluster.. see kay. ... Law propagates more law. Law is a kind of emergent system. As Justice Holmes famously said, "The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience." [1] >>> That is why we have legalese. The term legalese covers a lot of ground. We need to distinguish between the different genera (TIL that's the plural of genus). Some legalese is simply a compact system of shorthand. Such systems evolve in every field; for example, the shorthand terms edge case and corner case in software. Busy professionals expect their colleagues to know the shorthand. Some legalese, especially the archaic kind, can be used in an attempt to mystify and awe nonlawyers, especially less-educated ones. Good lawyers try to avoid doing that. (Footnote: In bar-association circles there's been a persistent move toward plain language; try a Google search for "plain language vs. legalese.") >>> This is why we can't have nice things! Law evolved as an alternative to the rule of the strongest. On the whole, law is sustainable and scalable, more or less. We imperfect humans actually follow it, mostly, notwithstanding our tendency to pursue our individual desires. If you think you know of a better system, please feel free to run for office and try to persuade the rest of us to implement it. And remember the brute fact that we humans are loss-averse [2]; that's one big reason why persuading people to go along with political reform can be so difficult. (You could always try the Daesh approach [3], but that's likely to get you locked up or killed, and it'd be like trying to rewrite your code from scratch [4] --- you'd lose so much codified knowledge of workable ways of handling edge cases and corner cases.) [1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion [3] http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9734894/daesh-isis-isil http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9734894/daesh-isis-isil [4] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
  - tptacek 11y ago
    That's a weird thing to be alarmed by, because that description of what makes a good lawyer (maybe "effective lawyer" is the better term) rings extremely true. In every formal legal dispute I've been in, the lawyers on both sides seemed essentially to function like professional negotiators. The fine points of the law itself had little to do with the actual work being done in resolving the dispute.
bronson 11y ago
By your logic, if I ace the ground school exam, then I'm ready to be a pilot. It's going to be long time before a computer can write as well as an average lawyer. And, when that day comes, you'll find that just as many programming jobs have been automated away as law jobs.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Erik816 11y ago
Law school exams are about recognizing and discussing ambiguity, not about memorizing rules. The people who think it's about memorizing get Bs, the ones who realize it's about ambiguity (while also decently memorizing the important details) get As.

dctoedt 11y ago

Lawyer here. Memorization alone won't make you a lawyer, just as memorizing language syntax and API specs won't make you a programmer. You have to be able to apply principles in odd ways -- in software terms, edge cases and corner cases. As Justice Holmes famously said, the practice of law is ultimately about predicting what a judge is likely to do. [1] That requires understanding judges' motivations, which include, for example, (A) doing what seems to be the "right" thing; (B) not suffering the professional embarrassment of being reversed on appeal; and, (C) not doing long-term damage to society with a bad decision, a canonical example of which is the Dred Scott Case [2]. Finally, really good lawyers not only try to predict what judges will do, they also grasp the motivations of their clients and of their clients' colleagues, collaborators, and adversaries. I've long thought that the practice of law is like being a weather forecaster: You have to understand how the different atmospheric phenomena are likely to interact, and to make your best guess as to what's going to happen when a high-pressure system collides with an upper-atmosphere disturbance, etc. (I have no idea whether what I just said makes sense meteorologically). [1] http://www.constitution.org/lrev/owh/path_law.htm http://www.constitution.org/lrev/owh/path_law.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

spronkey 11y ago
What a cluster.. see kay. IANAL, and find the above description of what makes a good lawyer as repulsive as it is accurate. It's a self-fulfilling system, too, thanks to the learning of case law. Law propagates more law. This is why we have legalese. This is why we can't have nice things!
- dctoedt 11y ago
  >>> What a cluster.. see kay. ... Law propagates more law. Law is a kind of emergent system. As Justice Holmes famously said, "The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience." [1] >>> That is why we have legalese. The term legalese covers a lot of ground. We need to distinguish between the different genera (TIL that's the plural of genus). Some legalese is simply a compact system of shorthand. Such systems evolve in every field; for example, the shorthand terms edge case and corner case in software. Busy professionals expect their colleagues to know the shorthand. Some legalese, especially the archaic kind, can be used in an attempt to mystify and awe nonlawyers, especially less-educated ones. Good lawyers try to avoid doing that. (Footnote: In bar-association circles there's been a persistent move toward plain language; try a Google search for "plain language vs. legalese.") >>> This is why we can't have nice things! Law evolved as an alternative to the rule of the strongest. On the whole, law is sustainable and scalable, more or less. We imperfect humans actually follow it, mostly, notwithstanding our tendency to pursue our individual desires. If you think you know of a better system, please feel free to run for office and try to persuade the rest of us to implement it. And remember the brute fact that we humans are loss-averse [2]; that's one big reason why persuading people to go along with political reform can be so difficult. (You could always try the Daesh approach [3], but that's likely to get you locked up or killed, and it'd be like trying to rewrite your code from scratch [4] --- you'd lose so much codified knowledge of workable ways of handling edge cases and corner cases.) [1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion [3] http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9734894/daesh-isis-isil http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9734894/daesh-isis-isil [4] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
- tptacek 11y ago
  That's a weird thing to be alarmed by, because that description of what makes a good lawyer (maybe "effective lawyer" is the better term) rings extremely true. In every formal legal dispute I've been in, the lawyers on both sides seemed essentially to function like professional negotiators. The fine points of the law itself had little to do with the actual work being done in resolving the dispute.

bronson 11y ago

By your logic, if I ace the ground school exam, then I'm ready to be a pilot. It's going to be long time before a computer can write as well as an average lawyer. And, when that day comes, you'll find that just as many programming jobs have been automated away as law jobs.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Erik816 11y ago

Law school exams are about recognizing and discussing ambiguity, not about memorizing rules. The people who think it's about memorizing get Bs, the ones who realize it's about ambiguity (while also decently memorizing the important details) get As.