Hmm, you bring up some good points. But there's a spectrum of legal disputes, and a range of outcomes that actors are expecting from adjudication. Obviously an

Hmm, you bring up some good points. But there's a spectrum of legal disputes, and a range of outcomes that actors are expecting from adjudication. Obviously an acquisition is an incredibly complicated transaction, requiring an enormous amount of effort. The stakes are incredibly high. There's plenty of low-stakes commercial endeavors that aren't so complicated, but could still use computerized dispute resolution. Take a ride share. The people involved are looking to mitigate various kinds of risk. The driver wants to make sure you won't puke in his car, that he'll get paid, etc. etc. The rider wants to make sure that the driver has insurance, that he'll show up on time, and other kinds of guarantees. So you can set a flexible system whereby should either party break the terms of the contract, the software provides a path to redress. Each of these guarantees can be modeled in the software, with systems for, say, uploading photos with timestamps if the customer actually does puke in the car. The record, plus the collected history of adjudication results, provides a way for both parties to come to a conclusion about this particular dispute. Then both parties can decide whether to accept it and move on, or escalate. If one chooses to escalate, then the record of the transaction can be pulled by an appointed arbitrator and then he can add the needed human touch to create a resolution. Again, if one party is not satisfied, then he can escalate to an actual lawsuit. Over years of refinement, escalation, arbitration, the system can be tuned to such a degree that lawsuits in that arena become practically non-existent. Profits generated by the system can be re-allocated towards new market-making activities.