14 ms·

Should lawyers learn to code? Arguments for and against

115 points by lawtomated 7y ago

howard941 7y ago
This is a good piece. I don't believe (I'm probably mistaken) it's a US take. But it's still good. I came through it from the other side and used software royalties to pay my way through law school. I didn't have a CS or engineering degree and that ruled out practicing before the Federal patent bar: Make sure you realize this if you start taking law school classes, you need the undergrad engrg or CS degree in the US to sit for that exam and practice before the bar in that specialty. My geekdom precedes most CS major offerings and all but a handful of computer engineering offerings. Other observations- - Engineers make fucking excellent lawyers. Statutes construed alongside caselaw is sort of like data sheets alongside a schematic and code. You'll blow past everyone else in school and research will be a snap. When you get out to the real world don't spend too much on electronic research. Two services are there to service white shoe firms. You can't afford them if you're not one of the people I reference in the YMMV, infra - Good engineer attys are efficient and effective and don't hold back the truth. Your clients will come back to you and trust you. You will be a rainmaker on merit. But schmoozing, man, learn it if you don't do it. I can't: It hurt. YMMV if you practice for a large firm and are expected to book 8K billable hours per year. At that point you're doing something exceptional (not a judgment) - US judges are a mixed bag, elected or appointees. I preferred elected judges but wound up practicing 90% of the time before Federal appointees. Until early noughts the appointees were great. The statutes and binding caselaw in front of them may not make a difference. Unfortunately they're not like compilers or circuitry. You became an atty/engrnr because you're brilliant. But you need to schmooze or latch on to a partner to bring clients in and take the schmoozing bit on for you. Seek them out in law school and hang up your shingle with them. Don't go solo if you neither schmooze nor practice well. Don't go into law if you lie, please. If you don't schmooze, and if you forget to suppress your brilliance in arguments your client will get fucked. You'll get fucked if you have a temper and cross the contempt line (but that's really hard to do if you're sane enough to get through law school without a thorazine drip) Bottom line: Go for it. My 2.5 years at law school were the most fun I had in my life. My 10 years practicing were stressful and not worth doing (I didn't have the schmoozer partner) but the education and my law license carries me forward in my engineering career, hopefully will get me into a corner office when geeking tires me. And it breaks the ice with my geeky colleagues who always need advice. Copyedits for slightly improved readability. AMA here or by email if you wanna dig deeper
- walterbell 7y ago
  Any legaltech startups that you like?
  - howard941 7y ago
    One posted here on HN about to offer bankruptcy services. One of the problems with that besides them not having Florida counsel is that the consumer bankruptcy market's been in a race to the bottom after BAPCPA passed (something like 2007 or 8 I forget). Between petition prepares acting as pseudo attorneys and actual law firms bifurcating their services in what used to be an impermissible way (small amount pre-filing, more "optionally" on installments after filing but immediately before meeting of creditors) the only feasible bankruptcy practice is one that's willing to litigate creditors in bankruptcy court on non-bankruptcy matters, one that has the stick toitiveness to seek appointment by the court to recover exemplary damages for the estate - provided there's a cut for the client - and there aren't bankruptcy courts everywhere. The firm has to be < 15 minutes from the courthouse or the clerk will so screw up your schedule you'll never be able to attend creditor meetings, hearings, and meet with clients. Were there other startups you had in mind, or could link me to?
    - walterbell 7y ago
      Atrium (ex-Twitch founder): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20239883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20239883 DoNotPay evolving ..? https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609418/this-chatbot-will-help-you-sue-anyone/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609418/this-chatbot-will-... Here are some reviews of Stanford's FutureLaw 2019: http://www.legalexecutiveinstitute.com/futurelaw-2019/ http://www.legalexecutiveinstitute.com/futurelaw-2019/ https://www.lawzam.com/blog/a-retrospective-on-the-codex-futurelaw-conference-2019/ https://www.lawzam.com/blog/a-retrospective-on-the-codex-fut...
  - lawtomated 7y ago
    This is a really good overview of the legaltech start-up ecosystem as it is today. Slightly European focus, but increasingly global: https://www.legalgeek.co/startup-map/ https://www.legalgeek.co/startup-map/ It's produced by one of the major legaltech meet-up / events groups, legalgeek, in conjunction with Thomson Reuters, who are also a major legaltech provider.
a_c 7y ago
Should anyone not learn to code?
- ashleyn 7y ago
  When I was growing up the general assumption was that you'd have to program the computer in order to use it. Learning BASIC was touted as a new household skill like setting the time on the VCR. That never really happened because of advancements in usability and design. Tl;dr no
- ghaff 7y ago
  It's probably a useful skill even at a relatively superficial level for a lot of people. But there are an awful lot of useful skills out there and people have differing interests, aptitudes, and needs. So I don't buy the idea that everyone should learn to code.
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    You learn a lot of mental skills from coding. I believe we should teach it really young, at least a simple scripting language. Sometime around Junior High, it can even be an elective, like band. I thought I didn't have any creative skills because I couldn't draw or play music, but I have the most creative skill of all, being able to build useful tools out of thin air. It affects how you structure your thoughts, think through scenarios, gives you perspectives. There's so many perks, and kids would able to pick it up easily. You just need basic math and English skills to start. I taught myself in the 6th grade or so. I believe it made a large impact early on in my life, and it makes programming very natural to me. I know the 10x developer term is controversial, but I believe that's one way to become one.
  - a_c 7y ago
    I think one would benefit from coding regardless what one perceive "coding" is. On one end of the spectrum, it can be treated as a vehicle for abstract thinking. On the other end as getting things done quickly. Well.. just like math
- jcranmer 7y ago
dotancohen 7y ago
I'm really waiting for the corollary. Should coders learn law? I'm of the opinion that engineers most certainly should.
- unixhero 7y ago
  International legal frameworks for business And business law And contract law Has helped me immensely in understanding the world, and avoiding being manipulated by legal tactics. I am not a coder nor a lawyer.
  - afarrell 7y ago
    Any recommended reading?
    - unixhero 7y ago
      Besides the international frameworks, it depends on the legal system in your country. My recommendations might be a little bland from right here on the treadmill; but pick up introductory college textbooks on the three subjects. They will go into the overall topics and important legal principles. Also read case law as the books suggest, some are really kind of funny. At least to me. I actually found law surprisingly useful and enjoyed those courses at uni. Maybe because I studied so little of it, or maybe because I should have gone all the way into that profession. Protip: As an individual, drop a few legal paragraphs into a well written complaint when you've been wronged, and in my experience 9 times out of 10 the business will relent, instead of going further into legal matters.
    - lawtomated 7y ago
      We'd recommend anything you can find re: 1) Contract law - if you're building software, make sure you understand how to licence it and not give away too much IP 2) Related to (1), understand Intellectual Property (IP) law - again, helps you understand what you own and what others own re the software or systems built 3) Tied to (1) and (2) increasingly, anything re data ownership and data privacy (incl. GDPR, an EU regulation re data privacy). Super important for anyone building tech that touches data, whether analytics, machine learning, deep learning, or any simple database backed product (i.e. most things). Perhaps as an aside, relevant advertising / marketing restrictions to make sure a product doesn't fall foul of any laws re what can / can't be claimed about a product. Naturally the laws are different in different countries / states, so make sure you anything you read relates to where you're doing business. A good tip is to google for law firm client alerts re these topics - law firms often produce free one or two pager guides summarising "all you need to know" basic info to encourage their services. These can be a good starting point.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
a3n 7y ago
Yes, so they can automate 90% of their function.
beeschlenker 7y ago
Obama rapes & kills 2 boys. DeBlasio 5, Buttgieg 5, Cuomo 4, Murray 3, Dorsey 3, Thiel 3. Trump $4 billion to cover. Pelosi $3 billion to help bring the boys over the border Having trouble getting traction. Getting censored. Billion in bribes paid to Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, Harris to enable a Soros funded child raping ring to operate in the USA. Please listen to the links below. Turn up the volume and put headphones on. You will hear these people, and many other high profile people, incriminate themselves in unbelievable fashion. Full 71 page document filled with red handed evidence like this at the bottom. Go to pages 18-23 of this document and you will hear Dorsey and Thiel raping children. You will hear their screams. They both rape and kill three. Also at the "rape party" of note: Bill DeBlasio, Andrew Cuomo, Bill Murray, Peter Buttgieg, George Soros, Barack Obama. Please copy and paste this post and repost it. I keep getting censored by these people. Peter Thiel and Jack Dorsey raping and killing three boys each. Turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_100-200.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mzZrjobxhNIEf38M3xk-IeA5SeF4aUtB/view?usp=sharing Obama admits to raping and killing boys he{re, with commentary from Peter Thiel, George Soros, Matt Porter: https://s3.wasabisys.com/out2/Out2/15JanCh3_0545.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LCDoc1kT7cfSeKQ1vniP_sx32_bRsHau/view?usp=sharing Trump demands $4 billion to "take a blind eye" at 1015+ (link missing from report, unsure how). Here's pieces of dialogue: 1015 The President requests four billion and henry Porter agrees to it. Some dialogue below. 1017 Donald Trump: Why don't you think about it. 1017 Henry Porter: I don't need to think about it. I'm ready for you to find out what we're really about. 1017 Gigi Hadid: I don't think it's a good idea Henry. 1017 Henry Porter: ...no shit. Jelena just stop talking about it. 1018 Gigi Hadid: About what? 1018 Henry Porter: The child raping. 1018 Donald Trump: What the fuck are you talking about? 1018 Gigi Hadid: Mr. President we are child rapists. 1018 Donald Trump: You cannot be serious. 1018 Donald Trump: You're gonna need $4 billion for me to take a blind eye. 1019 ?: People are laughing because they think four billion is too much. I think it's not a problem when you have $35 billion. 1022 Donald Trump: You better have that $4 billion or you can kiss this shit goodbye. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv2/3Jan/3JanCh3_900-1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77YG0Vr/view?usp=sharing Trump wants $138 million to ensure smooth outcome for false judgment for a court case: https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/10JanCh3/10JanCh3_951-1033.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iSeGHDToFRoRdIht50Wii0i30mlw9INp/view?usp=sharing Obama explains the Illuminati with Jack Dorsey: https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_200-347.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ok1-9IvANULzKBOwADFgaiYCFi6yszfj/view?usp=sharing At 230 a conversation is occurring on the embedded Porter camera system with Jack Dorsey, Peter Thiel, Barack Obama, Bill M^urray, and the Porter's. Jack Dorsey provides a statement defining who their group is: "The Illum%inati is an underground organization of child rapists and homosexuals." Matthew Porter: "We have to thin the herd, so Barack is going to explain a few things." At 232 Barack Obama says the following: "You people have to realize we are child rapi'sts. The Illuminati are child rapists. As soon as you figure that out, you can decide what to do. Everybody is freaking out about what just happened [child raping event still going on]. This is who ^we are." Full 71 page document: https://s3.wasabisys.com/aviewmefirst/FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dXNjPQdQ8c-hFFLt9LT0GiSY5Vud0TzL/view?usp=sharing Please post this anywhere you can! Each google drive link is a backup to the wasabi link just in case one is "down". A word about the "faggot" usage: it was a necessary tool. It showed three things: they were not in control, if they were the usage would have be stopped. Everyone out there needed to see t%his. Two, it made it unpleasant for them to be in the headspace, which has obvious advantages. Three, it pointed out impersonators of BS because they would not call each other faggot, thus helping to mitigate the spread of false information. Apologies for those unintentionally offended. Of special interest to the LGBT community, I give you Barack Obama in a foursome with Peter Thiel, Jack Dorsey, and Matthew Porter. It is on page 12 of the document where you can download the video containing audio footage of the "event". Link is just above under "Full 71 page document".
lbarrow 7y ago
Holy crap, what is wrong with the scrolling on this site? It makes it super hard to read the article.
- unstatusthequo 7y ago
  Maybe it’s his code. :)
- sampleinajar 7y ago
  I'm guessing it's related to the hummingbird plugin they used.
austinhutch 7y ago
The combination of headers, ripped images, scroll jacking, and that it is posted from the source give this article a very blog spammy feel, optimized for that exact google search.
- lawtomated 7y ago
  Thanks for the feedback. Honestly not optimised for anything other than trying to attempt a complete answer to a question we often get asked and see asked time and time again in the press, albeit usually answered in hyperbolic terms, i.e. "lawyers should never code" or "all lawyers should code", neither of which we agree with. Scroll jacking is unintentional - not sure what you mean in regards to the article specifically. Be great to understand this better and fix? Is it the lazy loading of the images? If so, that's an attempt to boost the page loading speed.
  - PieUser 7y ago
    Scrolling is horrible when using a trackpad like on a Macbook
    - lawtomated 7y ago
      This is good to know. We use mac and PC, plus a bunch of different mobile devices. Will do some debugging and UX testing! Thanks
    - checktheorder 7y ago
      You could have cut that sentence down to the first three words and I still would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. There is no justification for that design choice, in any circumstance.
CobrastanJorji 7y ago
Even if lawyers don't learn to code, I think they'd find source control to be a significant boon.
- twothamendment 7y ago
  I wish our laws were in source control, even the bills that don't pass. I'd love to see who added the pork, who watered it down, etc. With a 2,000 page bill, it would make it easier to keep up with the changes, even if you don't yet know what is in every page at the start.
  - petetnt 7y ago
    This article was pretty neat (How I Changed The Law With A GitHub pull request) https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/how-i-changed-the-law-with-a-github-pull-request/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/how-i-changed-th...
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    The amendments and such are generally public, right? Presumably someone could put that into Git. It would be an interesting project. Particularly if you could also wrap up the git in an interface that's accessible to non-programmers.
    - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
      Is there a regularly updated copy of the U.S. Code available for download? Or a feed of individual passed bills? This seems tractable but I'm somewhat worried that the "free" version is bound volumes in the Library of Congress and the digital version belongs to some quasi-private agency out there that might sue me for attempting to republish the laws.
      - pnw_hazor 7y ago
        All US Federal statutes and agency rules are online. The amendment and rule making process is transparent. As far as the US goes, the Federal Register is a good place to start to see things as they happen. https://www.federalregister.gov/ https://www.federalregister.gov/
rudyfink 7y ago
Speaking as a software engineer who became an attorney, I would say that most attorneys could benefit from basic programming knowledge (e.g., simple scripts, macros, and SQL). I say this because the bulk of work for many types of legal practice is information filtering/search/organization/and presentation, both in wrangling evidence and in exploring the law itself. Basic programming knowledge can do great magic in terms of making these processes more efficient, such as by programmatically manipulating the hundreds or millions of files that can be produced in legal cases. In terms of more in-depth knowledge of programming, there is a definite place for it in the law (it has worked to my benefit), but I think that role is specialized/limited. I think improved software tools will, generally, fill the profession's need rather than every attorney attempting to specialize in another field enough to roll their own apps.
- ohaideredevs 7y ago
  Would you say a lawyer can make more / be more employable than the average lawyer if they can take software-related cases?
  - rudyfink 7y ago
    That is more complicated than you might think. In a lot of ways the legal profession is only a semi-functioning market--at least compared to software. On one hand, there are fairly amazing and very longstanding restrictions on how attorneys can market their services. This makes it harder (or outright impossible) for an attorney to market, so that diminishes (but does not eliminate) comparative technical advantage. On the other hand, salaries for most starting attorneys (i.e, associates) are fixed nationwide and proceed, generally, in lockstep, so almost all firms will pay the same, regardless of technical skill. So, the attorney is likely more "employable," but the market signals are substantially muted.
    - joshAg 7y ago
      Doesn't the lockstep go away after only a promotion or two when the attorneys get promoted beyond senior associate? I guess that's still the better part of a decade, though.
crazy_monkey 7y ago
They should all be super hacx0rs because that is super legal...
bitL 7y ago
I am thinking about doing JD after MBA (with CS & ML degrees already). The environment got really bad for developers, all kinds of fraudsters zeroed in as tech is making more money than finance these days and startups weaponize legal illiteracy against their own early employees. I woke up from the "all will be good" illusion and realized one has to be well-versed in legal matters these days in addition to be a top tech person. I guess it's going to be valuable for a JD to have some algorithmic skills as their own field is now changing and resembles early badly run algorithms in a need of bugfixes.
- howard941 7y ago
  Do you enjoy history? Your first year classes will be like taking history lessons from caselaw. If it's remotely close to "yes I like it" and if you can do it without going into debt then go for it.
  - bitL 7y ago
    Yeah, I am aware of that :-/ OTOH it could be refreshing to focus on something completely different than hunting the latest Deep Learning papers and figuring out if they work on the problems I am trying to solve... I still hope there will be some accredited online JD program by the time I get to do that to save time and money.
    - howard941 7y ago
      There's nothing more remote from those papers than reading about the Rule in Shelley's Case and various archaic English Court opinions dealing with pirates, matey. You won't like years 1-2.5 if you don't like English history. OTOH if you're in the English speaking world you'll learn stuff you'll never use in a law practice that you'll never forget and cherish the rest of your life. Enjoy! But FFS do not I repeat do not go into debt for it. Marrying rich is an option for some.
      - pnw_hazor 7y ago
        Ditto on not going into debt for law school! I went to LS after several years of programming at various startups that failed. I wouldn't go now since LS tuition has almost doubled since then.
macspoofing 7y ago
NO. They should have a good mental model of computing and they probably should learn tools that would aid them in data analysis (Excel is phenomenal for that). Apart from that, there is little benefit in knowing how to program in C# or Java or Python.
TheLastPass 7y ago
Unrelated to the point of the article, but since we're discussing lawyers and their knowledge of coding in a Silicon Valley audience: has anyone else noticed that many of the lawyers who specialize in software licensing actually have a very shallow understanding of common open-source licenses? I think I've worked with at least 3 firms now at my current employer, a medium-size (>2000 person) software company. When I've had meetings with them about compliance with open-source licenses, they seem to be unaware of really basic aspects of the licenses. I've had one that thought the ASL 2.0 left you wide-open to patent trolls because you gave up all of your patent rights. I've had another that thought we could simply stop redistributing GPL software and have no further obligation to provide a way to get our modifications to the source. Especially for someone who went to law school, it seems as thought most of the lawyers I've worked with haven't read the license text, but simply heard this and that about the licenses. Is this common among Silicon Valley lawyers, or have I just had bad lawyers? I'm sure there's a lot more to law in Silicon Valley than this, but this is even with the person they refer me to for open source license questions.
- james_in_the_uk 7y ago
  Not excusing shoddy lawyering but here are some thoughts: 1.Many of these lawyers probably don't actually specialise in open source. Especially if they work for companies as project or product lawyers. They've probably been allocated it as part of their remit, along with issues like contract and data privacy. 2. Open source is a niche within a niche (IP law). It requires a nuanced understanding of copyright and patent law but also requires strong understanding of software development practices. Concepts like GPL linking are really tricky to grok even if you are a knowledgeable IP lawyer. 3. Several popular open source licenses weren't written by lawyers and so can be a little ambiguous when read against the relevant jurisprudence. Most are not well tested in court and so it's hard to give definitive advice on how they work.
CalRobert 7y ago
An old roommate of mine who has knowledge in both created https://free.law/ https://free.law/ to help address the lack of availability of public court records for free (apparently the fees charged by the gov't may be illegal). Not mine but definitely an interesting resource for lawyers/coders.
burritofanatic 7y ago
It depends on the situation. If one is a lawyer who wants new skill sets and perhaps even a career change, an absolute yes. I did this transition seven years ago and left law entirely. I've met a handful of other interesting ex-lawyers who have made the switch from law to software and have been satisfied with the choice. At the beginning of this year, after trying to explore what I wanted to do for the next stage in my life, I decided to get back into the profession as a solo practitioner and transition away from software development. I'm officially back to practice, and I'm surprisingly happy with my professional life - something I never thought would really be possible. If you're a practicing lawyer who wants to give yourself an edge as a lawyer, I think it's more important to understand the concepts and principles as opposed inventing or finding the barely existent job of coder/lawyer for a firm - I don't know the name of the role, and I've seen it touted by legal tech folks - but these are elusive. Understanding what's possible, I believe, is by far way more important. For example, I've worked with countless non-coding project/product managers, and they've been great contributors to the process in software development. My recommendation for lawyers? Do the Python track on Codecademy over a summer and read Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software.
- james_in_the_uk 7y ago
  I've thought about moving from law to software more than a few times. I like being a lawyer but software is an unscratched itch. I've noticed that many people who leave law eventually come back. What made you return?
  - burritofanatic 7y ago
    It has a bit to do with the type of work arrangement I want for this phase in my life -- nearing 40 and splitting my time between two geographic locations where active computer time all the time becomes challenging. I also wanted to move away from working for corporations to working for/with people instead. If you have an itch, I say go for it unless you're on a track you absolutely don't want off of ever.
    - 7y ago
rolltiide 7y ago
A lot of lawyers would quit being lawyers if they could code
dkersten 7y ago
I think everyone would benefit from learning a little bit of code and maybe databases. Not necessarily for practical purposes, but rather to expose them to it since so much of the modern world runs on software. The same way as we are thought the basics of chemistry, biology, physics, history, geography etc in school, I think kids should be thought the basics of software too. Give them some exposure, show them a little behind the curtains and.. then let them decide if they want to do more or not, same as the other sciences and subjects we teach kids and teens in school.
pnw_hazor 7y ago
Probably better to just get better at using office products. I do use "programmer skills" in my law practice, but I was a SW developer for 15 years before going to law school. I use emacs for initial editing and I have made some crude "lint" tools that help me proof my documents. Learning a bit of javascript, perl, python, etc. isn't going to be much use for a neophyte coder in an office full of Word, PPT, PDF, or visio documents.
tw1010 7y ago
Whatever happened to division of labour?
kemiller2002 7y ago
I'm not saying that lawyers shouldn't learn to code, but I don't think it would be wise of them to heavily rely on it in practice. 1. They have a specialized skill set, and they can offload a lot of this to other people in the firm. Billing someone several hundred dollars an hour so that you can spend time fiddling with SQL is kinda unethical. This could be considered gray, but it's akin to charging someone the full billing rate to use a copier. Maybe this will ultimately end up billing less and saving the client money, but then maybe not. It all depends on the person. 2. The more important reason in my opinion is that programming is a specialized skill. You have to learn and really understand how it all works. It's easy to say "Well, just learn some Bash, and SQL" and you'll totally be able to get information faster. The question of whether or not it runs is an easy one to answer. Did it return information, yes or no? The real question and where it is tricky, is was it actually correct? Did you search all the files, etc.? Hiring a professional developer to aggregate information and have the knowledge to understand edge cases is why developers make the money they do. Think about the flip side. Should all programmers become lawyers, because after you are one it's easier to understand the legal system. No, that's silly. Should programmers learn something about law? Of course, everyone should, but that doesn't mean that everyone should practice it. Now you could be saying, "Well, but going to law school takes years. That's a ridiculous statement to begin with." How long do you think it takes to be a really competent programmer?
- james_in_the_uk 7y ago
  I agree with most of this, but as a lawyer who has used SQL and PHP to automate work that I'd have otherwise been billing $600/hour to do manually I do find fault with your point on ethics. Yes I could have delegated that work to do manually by a junior lawyer ($300/hr) or had the dev work done by an IT analyst ($800/day) but in both cases I'd have then had the check the output very carefully (junior lawyer) or gone through the cost and delay of onboarding a dev. Doing it myself was the best overall value for the client. There is an ethical issue if the lawyer is not properly qualified to do dev work. You can get into hot water that way. I avoid it by working closely with my client's IT teams, so they can vouch for what I've done.
  - 7y ago
vslira 7y ago
In Composing Contracts[0], Peyton Jones, Eber and Seward describe a framework for "programming" financial contracts, even allowing for external events[1] to influence the result (for example, actual stock prices) of the contract. As a though exercise, could actual law (or, more specifically, Penal Law, Contract Laws, etc) be formalized in an analogous manner? I know contracts are not law per se, but the comparisons are easy to spot. [0] https://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/cs257/archive/simon-peyton-jones/contracts.pdf https://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/cs257/archive/simon-peyton-jone... [1] In the case of laws, external events could be the judge's opinion, for example
padobson 7y ago
Does anyone have any thoughts on heterodox ways to go the other direction? I'm a software engineer with an interest in the law and I always wondered what sorts of opportunities there were for someone like me. What's a good way for an consultant engineer to pick up a law firm as a client? What kind of open source community is there for legal software?
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  Some big firms have electronic discovery departments (and there are vendors in that space too). Though, if you are interested in law tech, law firms are not the place to be. Seek out law-tech companies that are building tools that enterprises may use to manage their contracts or licenses. Also, compliance management (SOX2, etc.) is a growing field.
tsumnia 7y ago
I disagree* to lawyers learning to code. With the asterisk because I think there are aspects of Computer Science they would benefit from. 1) Workflow Creation - Obviously, much of the legalities start from a boilerplate template that are expanded upon. However, this skill is not exclusive to CS and so there are other domains where a lawyer could learn this (from, say, business) 2) Natural Language Processing - This is more a CS concept and where some coding may be necessary, but not really. The more focused work would be from argumentation mining [1] and properly building strong arguments. The link I include is to my PhD lab's project on "Augmented Graph Grammars", that look to quantify the aspects of argumentation into a graph structure. While CS researchers could mine the graph structures to report better arguments, using a process such as this for lawyers would be beneficial. [1] https://research.csc.ncsu.edu/arglab/projects/augmented-graph-grammars.html https://research.csc.ncsu.edu/arglab/projects/augmented-grap...
hugocbp 7y ago
As a corporate lawyer that transitioned to software engineering, I'd say lawyers need to learn to code about just as much as everyone else. Coding is clearly really useful for repetitive stuff and to deal with lots of data, but from my own 10 years of experience practicing law I honestly do not see anything in particular that would make a lawyer benefit more than other professions from coding. Looking back at my time, maybe having an app that had contract clauses and allowed me to quickly set up a base one from the templates would be helpful and save some time. Nothing huge. Managing lawsuits is a great candidate, but there are already dozens of "spreadsheet apps" that do that, as are there apps to keep track of contracts (expiry, increases, thresholds and so on). A lot of research is already taken care by Google and other apps (consider Brazilian law practice here, which is based on Civil Law so a little different than Common Law in US, UK, Canada). In summary, learning to code is not really that huge of a deal for a lawyer. It is still helpful like it is for most professions, but I honestly do not see a lawyer that codes having that great advantage over one that doesn't.
snek 7y ago
Real question: should they be trained in formal logic? Should everyone be trained in formal logic? (I think so, anyway)
- thatsJustBadUX 7y ago
  Lawyers are generally trained in formal logic and in Canada is necessary knowledge for them to enter law school. Source: Sister was studying the Canadian LSAT.
  - pnw_hazor 7y ago
    Unfortunately there is little use for formal logic in the practice of law.
macmac 7y ago
> General Intelligence > Lawyers are generally very bright. Law is a tough degree > and a tougher profession. It rewards intellectualism, > continual learning, and adaptability. These are all > traits necessary for learning to code. This does not match my experience. I have worked in law for 20 years and hired (and fired) many lawyers for top tier companies. I saw some variant of an IQ tests for every one of them. As general rule they were not impressive and significantly below the scores we saw for programmers. The verbal comprehension was generally solid or better, the others not so much.
mlwhiz 7y ago
In my view everyone should learn to code let alone lawyers.
deckiedan 7y ago
My grandmother passed away a few years ago, and some of her express wishes were not correctly stipulated in her will - so when things were being sorted out it got messy. Thankfully all the family were really chill and we could sort it out amicably - but I had the idea at the time: If legal documents have to be parsed and understood almost like source code, could we also have a testing framework? So I could stipulate things I want to happen as tests (user stories) and then run it against the contract / legal document and confirm that it does actually allow what I want to happen? You'd be restricted to a subset of legal language - and possibly you'd have to actually write documents in some kind of meta-language (probaby lisp...) and then turn it into English or whatever as an output format in the end... But would this work?
- whiddershins 7y ago
  What a great idea. I feel like there are a dozen variations in this that might be effective. How about running a bunch of documents through ML and teach it what contentious contracts look like?
- pron 7y ago
  Take a look at this: Formal Methods and the Law https://youtu.be/EshxZVMURt4 https://youtu.be/EshxZVMURt4
- jaredklewis 7y ago
  It wouldn't work because specifying requirements isn't the difficult part of law or really a problem now. The problem is reconciling those requirements with reality. If contracts become functions, we don't make anything more neutral or unbiased. Same as today, the person who supplies the arguments to the function gets to control the output. For example, earlier this year there was an interesting lawsuit [1]. An insurance contract excluded "acts of war." There was no dispute that that was a requirement. The dispute was on whether or not a given action was an "act of war." Mondelez claimed that the NotPetya cyber attack was an act of war as the US government said it was the work of the Russian military. Zurich disagreed. https://www.zdnet.com/article/notpetya-an-act-of-war-cyber-insurance-firm-taken-to-task-for-refusing-to-pay-out/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/notpetya-an-act-of-war-cyber-i...
bnjms 7y ago
This is probably the best place to ask with talk of macros for generating documents. Does anyone have a preferred method for generating Word documents that is better than mailmerge?
- james_in_the_uk 7y ago
  Most legal doc generation tools spit out Word's mangled version of HTML, but with a .doc file extension. OpenXML or OpenDocument is the more robust way to go.
crimsonalucard 7y ago
I feel it's unfair that we have to jump through all kinds of cartel like processes to get accreditation to lawyer it up while lawyers only need google to learn how to code. We need something like the AMA for software engineers. Or get rid of of these arbitrary cartel blocks that prevent an ordinary joe from taking an online course to become a lawyer. Do you have a licence to practice software engineering? No well then you need to go to jail like doctors and lawyers who also practice without a licence.
ohaideredevs 7y ago
Some other questions, and a purely subjective ones at that: 1. Do you feel software or law is harder / more stressful? 2. Do you feel that devs or lawyers are "smarter" on average? Specifically at same pay scales - so partner vs architect / senior dev vs senior associate, etc. 3. Do you feel significant culture differences? Any other notable positives and negatives that are significantly different between the two?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  Compared to getting an engineering degree, law school was easy (time consuming but otherwise untaxing). The hardest part for some people was learning to think like a lawyer. Also, some people seemed to have a lot of trouble analyzing fact patterns from different points of view. Where it may be easy for some to argue vigorously in support of an issue they agree with but difficult to form arguments for the other side. Profs would listen to students argue from their preferred position (often the good guy position) and then ask them to argue why the other side is right. Some people just couldn't do it (future prosecutors?). I found LS fascinating -- it was like learning a new kind of physics. One that described how society works rather the describing how nature works. And, like real physics, "legal physics" works whether you understand what is going on or not. E.g., previously I had a small business and entered into many contracts even though LS taught me that I had no idea how a contract really worked. On the other hand, in my experience, the practice of law is much harder -- taking far more concentration and mental energy than SW development. Good lawyers are as nerdy and as smart good devs.
- howard941 7y ago
  1. Law is far more stressful from a business standpoint. Because of the business pressures I'd only go back into practice as corporate counsel or now that I've learned about it, as a patent litigator, but I'm too late for that game maybe 2. No opinion 3. Yes but I don't know how to express them, they're so subjective. Lawyering is like boxing coupled with research and writing. Tech work is engineering. Interpersonal skills, stamina, a go for the jugular instinct are far more important to successful lawyering than to tech work after you've established yourself as a developer and become sought after. For lawyering, selling yourself, reading people, keeping a poker face, negotiations, all of these skills yes you still need these for the every endeavor's business side but they'll be tapped constantly both the biz aspect and the job throughout your legal career, and you have to be in top form. Also when you start out if you don't come from a name school your employment options are nearly as bad as if you had no graduate degree. You may not have much choice in what kind of work you do if you generalize: Whatever walks in the door is your next task. Law positives: I did mostly consumer collections defense and I loved it. The people I helped really needed help. It wasn't financially rewarding but it was immensely satisfying to help people out of situations usually not totally of their own making. The matters almost always have a definite ending point so there's not much worrying after its done and the relevant time periods run. I had no problems going to sleep every night. I kept 9-5 hours and had Federal holidays (unpaid though). The ageism in software is inverted in law. Software positives: The money. Geographical flexibility if you don't need to be in SV. Being in demand all the time. Performing at the top of your field without having to schmooze with scumbags you'd avoid if you could (on the net excepted). Taking a concept from idea to market, and being recognized for it. Ageism. Working for The Man if you're not into roll of the dice contracting. Did I mention the money?
Yaa101 7y ago
Should they? Wouldn't they legalese the profession the same way that politicians would politicise it?
ganonm 7y ago
I feel like Software Eningeering and Contract Law have many parallels and similarities. What does a contract and a codebase have in common? 90% of the content is covering bizarre edge cases and eventualities.
equivocates 7y ago
I'm a lawyer who can code. Here's how I have used that skill: * MS VB Macros for automating how my documents look and what they do * Basic sync scripts that sync folders locally > server and vice versa * An app to keep track of the my frequently used rules: trial rules dot com * A website to keep track of various developments in my area law [internal to my firm] * A PDF app that automates basic tasks [batestamping, adding exhibit stickers, etc] Edit for spelling/formatting.
paultopia 7y ago
I'm a law professor who has taught some basic coding (along with stats) to law students[1], I have a slightly different perspective on the lawyers learning to code thing than a lot of what has been expressed here (though it's similar to the "Dr. Doolittle" idea in the post). For me the key goal is flexibility and uncertainty management. Lawyers have traditionally been extreme generalists across non-law domains (consider the fact that lawyers think of themselves as qualified to question expert witnesses from all kinds of hard sciences in a courtroom) who have exercised a consistent social function in the face of all kinds of social, political, economic, and technological changes, and the lawyers who have been best able to insert themselves at the joints of those changes are the ones who have succeeded. Having some understanding of the ontology of the various systems that are likely to be important in the domains where the law operates is pretty much a general good. And right now, code plays such a huge role in the economy that lawyers who have some clue what's going on are better positioned to adapt to changes in the economy as their careers move forward. (It's for similar reasons, I think that Harvard Law School recommends students take a class in accounting, or at least used to do so back in my day.) With a minimum base of skill in slinging around code, it expands my students possible options. They might never use it again, relying on legal tech/document management/whatever vendors for any of the things noted elsewhere in this discussion. Or they might see a need and builds something that becomes one of these legal tech/document management/whatever companies. Or they might win a client a decade down the road by being the only lawyer in the vicinity who speaks their language. Or they might be working for a nonprofit who doesn't have the resources to buy solutions, and build something in-house that increases their capacity for service delivery to people who really need it. TL;DR: lawyers have their hands in a lot of stuff by the very nature of the profession; it behooves them on general principles to become conversant with anything that occupies a large amount of territory in said stuff. [1] version 0.1 of the course: https://sociologicalgobbledygook.com https://sociologicalgobbledygook.com
timwaagh 7y ago
Against: in my romantic view after watching way too much 'Suits', being a lawyer is mostly about convincing the other party to settle. By becoming a coder instead you may end up becoming nerdified and hence less capable of making the other side settle. The lawyer I used is a very bald old man who wears suits and is generally speaking a little bit intimidating. He knows a bit about law and a bit about humanity. He doesn't use computers other than to check his email and write documents in word. And he did his thing and convinced my boss that he'd better pay up if he wants to get rid of me. That's worth the 200E per hour I paid. I really don't need someone to do coding for 200E per hour (my own wage is more like E18) and I certainly don't need another 'me' to represent me.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Software is full of almost lawyers who left law because they couldn't handle how irrational the law is.
  - pnw_hazor 7y ago
    A few of us lawyers left the tech-grind because they couldn't handle how irrational software development is.
smnplk 7y ago
No, because none of their conditionals would be truthy.
citeright 7y ago
As a lawyer who codes (though I don’t currently work as either a lawyer or a coder) I thought this article does a great job of explaining where coding fits into law. At least in my experience, coding is a “legal-adjacent” skill: coding is neither necessary nor sufficient for good lawyering. But there are deep conceptual similarities between coding and lawyering, and knowing how to do one job well can certainly make some parts of the other job easier. For example: redrafting a contract is a lot like refactoring code. (Make sure that terms are only defined in one place; consider and account for edge cases; be aware of how changes in one area affect dependencies elsewhere, etc.). If, like me, you’re allergic to repetitive, time-consuming tasks, coding is a way to potentially make your lawyering job go faster. I know lawyers who’ve used a combination of Python scripts and Zapier steps to fully automate client intake, for example. HOWEVER! I’m pretty confident that coding will never become a core legal competency. Coding and lawyering are different roles, with different outputs, serving different stakeholders. Instead what’s more likely to happen is that coding will gradually eliminate a whole swath of tasks that we once assumed only lawyers could do — until we realized that those tasks were just algorithms in disguise, and therefore automate-able. Like most other knowledge workers, lawyers are going to be responsible for managing — and applying wisdom and discernment — to the outputs that algorithms/software generates. And that’s a good thing! It’ll mean that lawyers are doing more of what they do best.

115 points by lawtomated 7y ago

This is a good piece. I don't believe (I'm probably mistaken) it's a US take. But it's still good. I came through it from the other side and used software royalties to pay my way through law school. I didn't have a CS or engineering degree and that ruled out practicing before the Federal patent bar: Make sure you realize this if you start taking law school classes, you need the undergrad engrg or CS degree in the US to sit for that exam and practice before the bar in that specialty. My geekdom precedes most CS major offerings and all but a handful of computer engineering offerings. Other observations- - Engineers make fucking excellent lawyers. Statutes construed alongside caselaw is sort of like data sheets alongside a schematic and code. You'll blow past everyone else in school and research will be a snap. When you get out to the real world don't spend too much on electronic research. Two services are there to service white shoe firms. You can't afford them if you're not one of the people I reference in the YMMV, infra - Good engineer attys are efficient and effective and don't hold back the truth. Your clients will come back to you and trust you. You will be a rainmaker on merit. But schmoozing, man, learn it if you don't do it. I can't: It hurt. YMMV if you practice for a large firm and are expected to book 8K billable hours per year. At that point you're doing something exceptional (not a judgment) - US judges are a mixed bag, elected or appointees. I preferred elected judges but wound up practicing 90% of the time before Federal appointees. Until early noughts the appointees were great. The statutes and binding caselaw in front of them may not make a difference. Unfortunately they're not like compilers or circuitry. You became an atty/engrnr because you're brilliant. But you need to schmooze or latch on to a partner to bring clients in and take the schmoozing bit on for you. Seek them out in law school and hang up your shingle with them. Don't go solo if you neither schmooze nor practice well. Don't go into law if you lie, please. If you don't schmooze, and if you forget to suppress your brilliance in arguments your client will get fucked. You'll get fucked if you have a temper and cross the contempt line (but that's really hard to do if you're sane enough to get through law school without a thorazine drip) Bottom line: Go for it. My 2.5 years at law school were the most fun I had in my life. My 10 years practicing were stressful and not worth doing (I didn't have the schmoozer partner) but the education and my law license carries me forward in my engineering career, hopefully will get me into a corner office when geeking tires me. And it breaks the ice with my geeky colleagues who always need advice. Copyedits for slightly improved readability. AMA here or by email if you wanna dig deeper

walterbell 7y ago
Any legaltech startups that you like?
- howard941 7y ago
  One posted here on HN about to offer bankruptcy services. One of the problems with that besides them not having Florida counsel is that the consumer bankruptcy market's been in a race to the bottom after BAPCPA passed (something like 2007 or 8 I forget). Between petition prepares acting as pseudo attorneys and actual law firms bifurcating their services in what used to be an impermissible way (small amount pre-filing, more "optionally" on installments after filing but immediately before meeting of creditors) the only feasible bankruptcy practice is one that's willing to litigate creditors in bankruptcy court on non-bankruptcy matters, one that has the stick toitiveness to seek appointment by the court to recover exemplary damages for the estate - provided there's a cut for the client - and there aren't bankruptcy courts everywhere. The firm has to be < 15 minutes from the courthouse or the clerk will so screw up your schedule you'll never be able to attend creditor meetings, hearings, and meet with clients. Were there other startups you had in mind, or could link me to?
  - walterbell 7y ago
    Atrium (ex-Twitch founder): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20239883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20239883 DoNotPay evolving ..? https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609418/this-chatbot-will-help-you-sue-anyone/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609418/this-chatbot-will-... Here are some reviews of Stanford's FutureLaw 2019: http://www.legalexecutiveinstitute.com/futurelaw-2019/ http://www.legalexecutiveinstitute.com/futurelaw-2019/ https://www.lawzam.com/blog/a-retrospective-on-the-codex-futurelaw-conference-2019/ https://www.lawzam.com/blog/a-retrospective-on-the-codex-fut...
- lawtomated 7y ago
  This is a really good overview of the legaltech start-up ecosystem as it is today. Slightly European focus, but increasingly global: https://www.legalgeek.co/startup-map/ https://www.legalgeek.co/startup-map/ It's produced by one of the major legaltech meet-up / events groups, legalgeek, in conjunction with Thomson Reuters, who are also a major legaltech provider.

a_c 7y ago

Should anyone not learn to code?

ashleyn 7y ago
When I was growing up the general assumption was that you'd have to program the computer in order to use it. Learning BASIC was touted as a new household skill like setting the time on the VCR. That never really happened because of advancements in usability and design. Tl;dr no
ghaff 7y ago
It's probably a useful skill even at a relatively superficial level for a lot of people. But there are an awful lot of useful skills out there and people have differing interests, aptitudes, and needs. So I don't buy the idea that everyone should learn to code.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  You learn a lot of mental skills from coding. I believe we should teach it really young, at least a simple scripting language. Sometime around Junior High, it can even be an elective, like band. I thought I didn't have any creative skills because I couldn't draw or play music, but I have the most creative skill of all, being able to build useful tools out of thin air. It affects how you structure your thoughts, think through scenarios, gives you perspectives. There's so many perks, and kids would able to pick it up easily. You just need basic math and English skills to start. I taught myself in the 6th grade or so. I believe it made a large impact early on in my life, and it makes programming very natural to me. I know the 10x developer term is controversial, but I believe that's one way to become one.
- a_c 7y ago
  I think one would benefit from coding regardless what one perceive "coding" is. On one end of the spectrum, it can be treated as a vehicle for abstract thinking. On the other end as getting things done quickly. Well.. just like math
jcranmer 7y ago

dotancohen 7y ago

I'm really waiting for the corollary. Should coders learn law? I'm of the opinion that engineers most certainly should.

unixhero 7y ago
International legal frameworks for business And business law And contract law Has helped me immensely in understanding the world, and avoiding being manipulated by legal tactics. I am not a coder nor a lawyer.
- afarrell 7y ago
  Any recommended reading?
  - unixhero 7y ago
    Besides the international frameworks, it depends on the legal system in your country. My recommendations might be a little bland from right here on the treadmill; but pick up introductory college textbooks on the three subjects. They will go into the overall topics and important legal principles. Also read case law as the books suggest, some are really kind of funny. At least to me. I actually found law surprisingly useful and enjoyed those courses at uni. Maybe because I studied so little of it, or maybe because I should have gone all the way into that profession. Protip: As an individual, drop a few legal paragraphs into a well written complaint when you've been wronged, and in my experience 9 times out of 10 the business will relent, instead of going further into legal matters.
  - lawtomated 7y ago
    We'd recommend anything you can find re: 1) Contract law - if you're building software, make sure you understand how to licence it and not give away too much IP 2) Related to (1), understand Intellectual Property (IP) law - again, helps you understand what you own and what others own re the software or systems built 3) Tied to (1) and (2) increasingly, anything re data ownership and data privacy (incl. GDPR, an EU regulation re data privacy). Super important for anyone building tech that touches data, whether analytics, machine learning, deep learning, or any simple database backed product (i.e. most things). Perhaps as an aside, relevant advertising / marketing restrictions to make sure a product doesn't fall foul of any laws re what can / can't be claimed about a product. Naturally the laws are different in different countries / states, so make sure you anything you read relates to where you're doing business. A good tip is to google for law firm client alerts re these topics - law firms often produce free one or two pager guides summarising "all you need to know" basic info to encourage their services. These can be a good starting point.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

a3n 7y ago

Yes, so they can automate 90% of their function.

beeschlenker 7y ago

Obama rapes & kills 2 boys. DeBlasio 5, Buttgieg 5, Cuomo 4, Murray 3, Dorsey 3, Thiel 3. Trump $4 billion to cover. Pelosi $3 billion to help bring the boys over the border Having trouble getting traction. Getting censored. Billion in bribes paid to Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, Harris to enable a Soros funded child raping ring to operate in the USA. Please listen to the links below. Turn up the volume and put headphones on. You will hear these people, and many other high profile people, incriminate themselves in unbelievable fashion. Full 71 page document filled with red handed evidence like this at the bottom. Go to pages 18-23 of this document and you will hear Dorsey and Thiel raping children. You will hear their screams. They both rape and kill three. Also at the "rape party" of note: Bill DeBlasio, Andrew Cuomo, Bill Murray, Peter Buttgieg, George Soros, Barack Obama. Please copy and paste this post and repost it. I keep getting censored by these people. Peter Thiel and Jack Dorsey raping and killing three boys each. Turn the volume all the way up and put head phones on. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_100-200.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mzZrjobxhNIEf38M3xk-IeA5SeF4aUtB/view?usp=sharing Obama admits to raping and killing boys he{re, with commentary from Peter Thiel, George Soros, Matt Porter: https://s3.wasabisys.com/out2/Out2/15JanCh3_0545.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LCDoc1kT7cfSeKQ1vniP_sx32_bRsHau/view?usp=sharing Trump demands $4 billion to "take a blind eye" at 1015+ (link missing from report, unsure how). Here's pieces of dialogue: 1015 The President requests four billion and henry Porter agrees to it. Some dialogue below. 1017 Donald Trump: Why don't you think about it. 1017 Henry Porter: I don't need to think about it. I'm ready for you to find out what we're really about. 1017 Gigi Hadid: I don't think it's a good idea Henry. 1017 Henry Porter: ...no shit. Jelena just stop talking about it. 1018 Gigi Hadid: About what? 1018 Henry Porter: The child raping. 1018 Donald Trump: What the fuck are you talking about? 1018 Gigi Hadid: Mr. President we are child rapists. 1018 Donald Trump: You cannot be serious. 1018 Donald Trump: You're gonna need $4 billion for me to take a blind eye. 1019 ?: People are laughing because they think four billion is too much. I think it's not a problem when you have $35 billion. 1022 Donald Trump: You better have that $4 billion or you can kiss this shit goodbye. https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv2/3Jan/3JanCh3_900-1100.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77YG0Vr/view?usp=sharing Trump wants $138 million to ensure smooth outcome for false judgment for a court case: https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/10JanCh3/10JanCh3_951-1033.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iSeGHDToFRoRdIht50Wii0i30mlw9INp/view?usp=sharing Obama explains the Illuminati with Jack Dorsey: https://s3.wasabisys.com/conv1/Overnight_14-17Jan/15JanCh3_200-347.avi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ok1-9IvANULzKBOwADFgaiYCFi6yszfj/view?usp=sharing At 230 a conversation is occurring on the embedded Porter camera system with Jack Dorsey, Peter Thiel, Barack Obama, Bill M^urray, and the Porter's. Jack Dorsey provides a statement defining who their group is: "The Illum%inati is an underground organization of child rapists and homosexuals." Matthew Porter: "We have to thin the herd, so Barack is going to explain a few things." At 232 Barack Obama says the following: "You people have to realize we are child rapi'sts. The Illuminati are child rapists. As soon as you figure that out, you can decide what to do. Everybody is freaking out about what just happened [child raping event still going on]. This is who ^we are." Full 71 page document: https://s3.wasabisys.com/aviewmefirst/FBI_FinalDraft_26Jul2019_BSchlenker.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dXNjPQdQ8c-hFFLt9LT0GiSY5Vud0TzL/view?usp=sharing Please post this anywhere you can! Each google drive link is a backup to the wasabi link just in case one is "down". A word about the "faggot" usage: it was a necessary tool. It showed three things: they were not in control, if they were the usage would have be stopped. Everyone out there needed to see t%his. Two, it made it unpleasant for them to be in the headspace, which has obvious advantages. Three, it pointed out impersonators of BS because they would not call each other faggot, thus helping to mitigate the spread of false information. Apologies for those unintentionally offended. Of special interest to the LGBT community, I give you Barack Obama in a foursome with Peter Thiel, Jack Dorsey, and Matthew Porter. It is on page 12 of the document where you can download the video containing audio footage of the "event". Link is just above under "Full 71 page document".

lbarrow 7y ago

Holy crap, what is wrong with the scrolling on this site? It makes it super hard to read the article.

unstatusthequo 7y ago
Maybe it’s his code. :)
sampleinajar 7y ago
I'm guessing it's related to the hummingbird plugin they used.

austinhutch 7y ago

The combination of headers, ripped images, scroll jacking, and that it is posted from the source give this article a very blog spammy feel, optimized for that exact google search.

lawtomated 7y ago
Thanks for the feedback. Honestly not optimised for anything other than trying to attempt a complete answer to a question we often get asked and see asked time and time again in the press, albeit usually answered in hyperbolic terms, i.e. "lawyers should never code" or "all lawyers should code", neither of which we agree with. Scroll jacking is unintentional - not sure what you mean in regards to the article specifically. Be great to understand this better and fix? Is it the lazy loading of the images? If so, that's an attempt to boost the page loading speed.
- PieUser 7y ago
  Scrolling is horrible when using a trackpad like on a Macbook
  - lawtomated 7y ago
    This is good to know. We use mac and PC, plus a bunch of different mobile devices. Will do some debugging and UX testing! Thanks
  - checktheorder 7y ago
    You could have cut that sentence down to the first three words and I still would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. There is no justification for that design choice, in any circumstance.

CobrastanJorji 7y ago

Even if lawyers don't learn to code, I think they'd find source control to be a significant boon.

twothamendment 7y ago
I wish our laws were in source control, even the bills that don't pass. I'd love to see who added the pork, who watered it down, etc. With a 2,000 page bill, it would make it easier to keep up with the changes, even if you don't yet know what is in every page at the start.
- petetnt 7y ago
  This article was pretty neat (How I Changed The Law With A GitHub pull request) https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/how-i-changed-the-law-with-a-github-pull-request/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/how-i-changed-th...
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  The amendments and such are generally public, right? Presumably someone could put that into Git. It would be an interesting project. Particularly if you could also wrap up the git in an interface that's accessible to non-programmers.
  - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
    Is there a regularly updated copy of the U.S. Code available for download? Or a feed of individual passed bills? This seems tractable but I'm somewhat worried that the "free" version is bound volumes in the Library of Congress and the digital version belongs to some quasi-private agency out there that might sue me for attempting to republish the laws.
    - pnw_hazor 7y ago
      All US Federal statutes and agency rules are online. The amendment and rule making process is transparent. As far as the US goes, the Federal Register is a good place to start to see things as they happen. https://www.federalregister.gov/ https://www.federalregister.gov/

rudyfink 7y ago

Speaking as a software engineer who became an attorney, I would say that most attorneys could benefit from basic programming knowledge (e.g., simple scripts, macros, and SQL). I say this because the bulk of work for many types of legal practice is information filtering/search/organization/and presentation, both in wrangling evidence and in exploring the law itself. Basic programming knowledge can do great magic in terms of making these processes more efficient, such as by programmatically manipulating the hundreds or millions of files that can be produced in legal cases. In terms of more in-depth knowledge of programming, there is a definite place for it in the law (it has worked to my benefit), but I think that role is specialized/limited. I think improved software tools will, generally, fill the profession's need rather than every attorney attempting to specialize in another field enough to roll their own apps.

ohaideredevs 7y ago
Would you say a lawyer can make more / be more employable than the average lawyer if they can take software-related cases?
- rudyfink 7y ago
  That is more complicated than you might think. In a lot of ways the legal profession is only a semi-functioning market--at least compared to software. On one hand, there are fairly amazing and very longstanding restrictions on how attorneys can market their services. This makes it harder (or outright impossible) for an attorney to market, so that diminishes (but does not eliminate) comparative technical advantage. On the other hand, salaries for most starting attorneys (i.e, associates) are fixed nationwide and proceed, generally, in lockstep, so almost all firms will pay the same, regardless of technical skill. So, the attorney is likely more "employable," but the market signals are substantially muted.
  - joshAg 7y ago
    Doesn't the lockstep go away after only a promotion or two when the attorneys get promoted beyond senior associate? I guess that's still the better part of a decade, though.

crazy_monkey 7y ago

They should all be super hacx0rs because that is super legal...

bitL 7y ago

I am thinking about doing JD after MBA (with CS & ML degrees already). The environment got really bad for developers, all kinds of fraudsters zeroed in as tech is making more money than finance these days and startups weaponize legal illiteracy against their own early employees. I woke up from the "all will be good" illusion and realized one has to be well-versed in legal matters these days in addition to be a top tech person. I guess it's going to be valuable for a JD to have some algorithmic skills as their own field is now changing and resembles early badly run algorithms in a need of bugfixes.

howard941 7y ago
Do you enjoy history? Your first year classes will be like taking history lessons from caselaw. If it's remotely close to "yes I like it" and if you can do it without going into debt then go for it.
- bitL 7y ago
  Yeah, I am aware of that :-/ OTOH it could be refreshing to focus on something completely different than hunting the latest Deep Learning papers and figuring out if they work on the problems I am trying to solve... I still hope there will be some accredited online JD program by the time I get to do that to save time and money.
  - howard941 7y ago
    There's nothing more remote from those papers than reading about the Rule in Shelley's Case and various archaic English Court opinions dealing with pirates, matey. You won't like years 1-2.5 if you don't like English history. OTOH if you're in the English speaking world you'll learn stuff you'll never use in a law practice that you'll never forget and cherish the rest of your life. Enjoy! But FFS do not I repeat do not go into debt for it. Marrying rich is an option for some.
    - pnw_hazor 7y ago
      Ditto on not going into debt for law school! I went to LS after several years of programming at various startups that failed. I wouldn't go now since LS tuition has almost doubled since then.

macspoofing 7y ago

NO. They should have a good mental model of computing and they probably should learn tools that would aid them in data analysis (Excel is phenomenal for that). Apart from that, there is little benefit in knowing how to program in C# or Java or Python.

TheLastPass 7y ago

Unrelated to the point of the article, but since we're discussing lawyers and their knowledge of coding in a Silicon Valley audience: has anyone else noticed that many of the lawyers who specialize in software licensing actually have a very shallow understanding of common open-source licenses? I think I've worked with at least 3 firms now at my current employer, a medium-size (>2000 person) software company. When I've had meetings with them about compliance with open-source licenses, they seem to be unaware of really basic aspects of the licenses. I've had one that thought the ASL 2.0 left you wide-open to patent trolls because you gave up all of your patent rights. I've had another that thought we could simply stop redistributing GPL software and have no further obligation to provide a way to get our modifications to the source. Especially for someone who went to law school, it seems as thought most of the lawyers I've worked with haven't read the license text, but simply heard this and that about the licenses. Is this common among Silicon Valley lawyers, or have I just had bad lawyers? I'm sure there's a lot more to law in Silicon Valley than this, but this is even with the person they refer me to for open source license questions.

james_in_the_uk 7y ago
Not excusing shoddy lawyering but here are some thoughts: 1.Many of these lawyers probably don't actually specialise in open source. Especially if they work for companies as project or product lawyers. They've probably been allocated it as part of their remit, along with issues like contract and data privacy. 2. Open source is a niche within a niche (IP law). It requires a nuanced understanding of copyright and patent law but also requires strong understanding of software development practices. Concepts like GPL linking are really tricky to grok even if you are a knowledgeable IP lawyer. 3. Several popular open source licenses weren't written by lawyers and so can be a little ambiguous when read against the relevant jurisprudence. Most are not well tested in court and so it's hard to give definitive advice on how they work.

CalRobert 7y ago

An old roommate of mine who has knowledge in both created https://free.law/ https://free.law/ to help address the lack of availability of public court records for free (apparently the fees charged by the gov't may be illegal). Not mine but definitely an interesting resource for lawyers/coders.

burritofanatic 7y ago

It depends on the situation. If one is a lawyer who wants new skill sets and perhaps even a career change, an absolute yes. I did this transition seven years ago and left law entirely. I've met a handful of other interesting ex-lawyers who have made the switch from law to software and have been satisfied with the choice. At the beginning of this year, after trying to explore what I wanted to do for the next stage in my life, I decided to get back into the profession as a solo practitioner and transition away from software development. I'm officially back to practice, and I'm surprisingly happy with my professional life - something I never thought would really be possible. If you're a practicing lawyer who wants to give yourself an edge as a lawyer, I think it's more important to understand the concepts and principles as opposed inventing or finding the barely existent job of coder/lawyer for a firm - I don't know the name of the role, and I've seen it touted by legal tech folks - but these are elusive. Understanding what's possible, I believe, is by far way more important. For example, I've worked with countless non-coding project/product managers, and they've been great contributors to the process in software development. My recommendation for lawyers? Do the Python track on Codecademy over a summer and read Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software.

james_in_the_uk 7y ago
I've thought about moving from law to software more than a few times. I like being a lawyer but software is an unscratched itch. I've noticed that many people who leave law eventually come back. What made you return?
- burritofanatic 7y ago
  It has a bit to do with the type of work arrangement I want for this phase in my life -- nearing 40 and splitting my time between two geographic locations where active computer time all the time becomes challenging. I also wanted to move away from working for corporations to working for/with people instead. If you have an itch, I say go for it unless you're on a track you absolutely don't want off of ever.
  - 7y ago

rolltiide 7y ago

A lot of lawyers would quit being lawyers if they could code

dkersten 7y ago

I think everyone would benefit from learning a little bit of code and maybe databases. Not necessarily for practical purposes, but rather to expose them to it since so much of the modern world runs on software. The same way as we are thought the basics of chemistry, biology, physics, history, geography etc in school, I think kids should be thought the basics of software too. Give them some exposure, show them a little behind the curtains and.. then let them decide if they want to do more or not, same as the other sciences and subjects we teach kids and teens in school.

pnw_hazor 7y ago

Probably better to just get better at using office products. I do use "programmer skills" in my law practice, but I was a SW developer for 15 years before going to law school. I use emacs for initial editing and I have made some crude "lint" tools that help me proof my documents. Learning a bit of javascript, perl, python, etc. isn't going to be much use for a neophyte coder in an office full of Word, PPT, PDF, or visio documents.

tw1010 7y ago

Whatever happened to division of labour?

kemiller2002 7y ago

I'm not saying that lawyers shouldn't learn to code, but I don't think it would be wise of them to heavily rely on it in practice. 1. They have a specialized skill set, and they can offload a lot of this to other people in the firm. Billing someone several hundred dollars an hour so that you can spend time fiddling with SQL is kinda unethical. This could be considered gray, but it's akin to charging someone the full billing rate to use a copier. Maybe this will ultimately end up billing less and saving the client money, but then maybe not. It all depends on the person. 2. The more important reason in my opinion is that programming is a specialized skill. You have to learn and really understand how it all works. It's easy to say "Well, just learn some Bash, and SQL" and you'll totally be able to get information faster. The question of whether or not it runs is an easy one to answer. Did it return information, yes or no? The real question and where it is tricky, is was it actually correct? Did you search all the files, etc.? Hiring a professional developer to aggregate information and have the knowledge to understand edge cases is why developers make the money they do. Think about the flip side. Should all programmers become lawyers, because after you are one it's easier to understand the legal system. No, that's silly. Should programmers learn something about law? Of course, everyone should, but that doesn't mean that everyone should practice it. Now you could be saying, "Well, but going to law school takes years. That's a ridiculous statement to begin with." How long do you think it takes to be a really competent programmer?

james_in_the_uk 7y ago
I agree with most of this, but as a lawyer who has used SQL and PHP to automate work that I'd have otherwise been billing $600/hour to do manually I do find fault with your point on ethics. Yes I could have delegated that work to do manually by a junior lawyer ($300/hr) or had the dev work done by an IT analyst ($800/day) but in both cases I'd have then had the check the output very carefully (junior lawyer) or gone through the cost and delay of onboarding a dev. Doing it myself was the best overall value for the client. There is an ethical issue if the lawyer is not properly qualified to do dev work. You can get into hot water that way. I avoid it by working closely with my client's IT teams, so they can vouch for what I've done.
- 7y ago

vslira 7y ago

In Composing Contracts[0], Peyton Jones, Eber and Seward describe a framework for "programming" financial contracts, even allowing for external events[1] to influence the result (for example, actual stock prices) of the contract. As a though exercise, could actual law (or, more specifically, Penal Law, Contract Laws, etc) be formalized in an analogous manner? I know contracts are not law per se, but the comparisons are easy to spot. [0] https://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/cs257/archive/simon-peyton-jones/contracts.pdf https://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/cs257/archive/simon-peyton-jone... [1] In the case of laws, external events could be the judge's opinion, for example

padobson 7y ago

Does anyone have any thoughts on heterodox ways to go the other direction? I'm a software engineer with an interest in the law and I always wondered what sorts of opportunities there were for someone like me. What's a good way for an consultant engineer to pick up a law firm as a client? What kind of open source community is there for legal software?

pnw_hazor 7y ago
Some big firms have electronic discovery departments (and there are vendors in that space too). Though, if you are interested in law tech, law firms are not the place to be. Seek out law-tech companies that are building tools that enterprises may use to manage their contracts or licenses. Also, compliance management (SOX2, etc.) is a growing field.

tsumnia 7y ago

I disagree* to lawyers learning to code. With the asterisk because I think there are aspects of Computer Science they would benefit from. 1) Workflow Creation - Obviously, much of the legalities start from a boilerplate template that are expanded upon. However, this skill is not exclusive to CS and so there are other domains where a lawyer could learn this (from, say, business) 2) Natural Language Processing - This is more a CS concept and where some coding may be necessary, but not really. The more focused work would be from argumentation mining [1] and properly building strong arguments. The link I include is to my PhD lab's project on "Augmented Graph Grammars", that look to quantify the aspects of argumentation into a graph structure. While CS researchers could mine the graph structures to report better arguments, using a process such as this for lawyers would be beneficial. [1] https://research.csc.ncsu.edu/arglab/projects/augmented-graph-grammars.html https://research.csc.ncsu.edu/arglab/projects/augmented-grap...

hugocbp 7y ago

As a corporate lawyer that transitioned to software engineering, I'd say lawyers need to learn to code about just as much as everyone else. Coding is clearly really useful for repetitive stuff and to deal with lots of data, but from my own 10 years of experience practicing law I honestly do not see anything in particular that would make a lawyer benefit more than other professions from coding. Looking back at my time, maybe having an app that had contract clauses and allowed me to quickly set up a base one from the templates would be helpful and save some time. Nothing huge. Managing lawsuits is a great candidate, but there are already dozens of "spreadsheet apps" that do that, as are there apps to keep track of contracts (expiry, increases, thresholds and so on). A lot of research is already taken care by Google and other apps (consider Brazilian law practice here, which is based on Civil Law so a little different than Common Law in US, UK, Canada). In summary, learning to code is not really that huge of a deal for a lawyer. It is still helpful like it is for most professions, but I honestly do not see a lawyer that codes having that great advantage over one that doesn't.

snek 7y ago

Real question: should they be trained in formal logic? Should everyone be trained in formal logic? (I think so, anyway)

thatsJustBadUX 7y ago
Lawyers are generally trained in formal logic and in Canada is necessary knowledge for them to enter law school. Source: Sister was studying the Canadian LSAT.
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  Unfortunately there is little use for formal logic in the practice of law.

macmac 7y ago

> General Intelligence > Lawyers are generally very bright. Law is a tough degree > and a tougher profession. It rewards intellectualism, > continual learning, and adaptability. These are all > traits necessary for learning to code. This does not match my experience. I have worked in law for 20 years and hired (and fired) many lawyers for top tier companies. I saw some variant of an IQ tests for every one of them. As general rule they were not impressive and significantly below the scores we saw for programmers. The verbal comprehension was generally solid or better, the others not so much.

mlwhiz 7y ago

In my view everyone should learn to code let alone lawyers.

deckiedan 7y ago

My grandmother passed away a few years ago, and some of her express wishes were not correctly stipulated in her will - so when things were being sorted out it got messy. Thankfully all the family were really chill and we could sort it out amicably - but I had the idea at the time: If legal documents have to be parsed and understood almost like source code, could we also have a testing framework? So I could stipulate things I want to happen as tests (user stories) and then run it against the contract / legal document and confirm that it does actually allow what I want to happen? You'd be restricted to a subset of legal language - and possibly you'd have to actually write documents in some kind of meta-language (probaby lisp...) and then turn it into English or whatever as an output format in the end... But would this work?

whiddershins 7y ago
What a great idea. I feel like there are a dozen variations in this that might be effective. How about running a bunch of documents through ML and teach it what contentious contracts look like?
pron 7y ago
Take a look at this: Formal Methods and the Law https://youtu.be/EshxZVMURt4 https://youtu.be/EshxZVMURt4
jaredklewis 7y ago
It wouldn't work because specifying requirements isn't the difficult part of law or really a problem now. The problem is reconciling those requirements with reality. If contracts become functions, we don't make anything more neutral or unbiased. Same as today, the person who supplies the arguments to the function gets to control the output. For example, earlier this year there was an interesting lawsuit [1]. An insurance contract excluded "acts of war." There was no dispute that that was a requirement. The dispute was on whether or not a given action was an "act of war." Mondelez claimed that the NotPetya cyber attack was an act of war as the US government said it was the work of the Russian military. Zurich disagreed. https://www.zdnet.com/article/notpetya-an-act-of-war-cyber-insurance-firm-taken-to-task-for-refusing-to-pay-out/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/notpetya-an-act-of-war-cyber-i...

bnjms 7y ago

This is probably the best place to ask with talk of macros for generating documents. Does anyone have a preferred method for generating Word documents that is better than mailmerge?

james_in_the_uk 7y ago
Most legal doc generation tools spit out Word's mangled version of HTML, but with a .doc file extension. OpenXML or OpenDocument is the more robust way to go.

crimsonalucard 7y ago

I feel it's unfair that we have to jump through all kinds of cartel like processes to get accreditation to lawyer it up while lawyers only need google to learn how to code. We need something like the AMA for software engineers. Or get rid of of these arbitrary cartel blocks that prevent an ordinary joe from taking an online course to become a lawyer. Do you have a licence to practice software engineering? No well then you need to go to jail like doctors and lawyers who also practice without a licence.

ohaideredevs 7y ago

Some other questions, and a purely subjective ones at that: 1. Do you feel software or law is harder / more stressful? 2. Do you feel that devs or lawyers are "smarter" on average? Specifically at same pay scales - so partner vs architect / senior dev vs senior associate, etc. 3. Do you feel significant culture differences? Any other notable positives and negatives that are significantly different between the two?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pnw_hazor 7y ago
Compared to getting an engineering degree, law school was easy (time consuming but otherwise untaxing). The hardest part for some people was learning to think like a lawyer. Also, some people seemed to have a lot of trouble analyzing fact patterns from different points of view. Where it may be easy for some to argue vigorously in support of an issue they agree with but difficult to form arguments for the other side. Profs would listen to students argue from their preferred position (often the good guy position) and then ask them to argue why the other side is right. Some people just couldn't do it (future prosecutors?). I found LS fascinating -- it was like learning a new kind of physics. One that described how society works rather the describing how nature works. And, like real physics, "legal physics" works whether you understand what is going on or not. E.g., previously I had a small business and entered into many contracts even though LS taught me that I had no idea how a contract really worked. On the other hand, in my experience, the practice of law is much harder -- taking far more concentration and mental energy than SW development. Good lawyers are as nerdy and as smart good devs.
howard941 7y ago
1. Law is far more stressful from a business standpoint. Because of the business pressures I'd only go back into practice as corporate counsel or now that I've learned about it, as a patent litigator, but I'm too late for that game maybe 2. No opinion 3. Yes but I don't know how to express them, they're so subjective. Lawyering is like boxing coupled with research and writing. Tech work is engineering. Interpersonal skills, stamina, a go for the jugular instinct are far more important to successful lawyering than to tech work after you've established yourself as a developer and become sought after. For lawyering, selling yourself, reading people, keeping a poker face, negotiations, all of these skills yes you still need these for the every endeavor's business side but they'll be tapped constantly both the biz aspect and the job throughout your legal career, and you have to be in top form. Also when you start out if you don't come from a name school your employment options are nearly as bad as if you had no graduate degree. You may not have much choice in what kind of work you do if you generalize: Whatever walks in the door is your next task. Law positives: I did mostly consumer collections defense and I loved it. The people I helped really needed help. It wasn't financially rewarding but it was immensely satisfying to help people out of situations usually not totally of their own making. The matters almost always have a definite ending point so there's not much worrying after its done and the relevant time periods run. I had no problems going to sleep every night. I kept 9-5 hours and had Federal holidays (unpaid though). The ageism in software is inverted in law. Software positives: The money. Geographical flexibility if you don't need to be in SV. Being in demand all the time. Performing at the top of your field without having to schmooze with scumbags you'd avoid if you could (on the net excepted). Taking a concept from idea to market, and being recognized for it. Ageism. Working for The Man if you're not into roll of the dice contracting. Did I mention the money?

Yaa101 7y ago

Should they? Wouldn't they legalese the profession the same way that politicians would politicise it?

ganonm 7y ago

I feel like Software Eningeering and Contract Law have many parallels and similarities. What does a contract and a codebase have in common? 90% of the content is covering bizarre edge cases and eventualities.

equivocates 7y ago

I'm a lawyer who can code. Here's how I have used that skill: * MS VB Macros for automating how my documents look and what they do * Basic sync scripts that sync folders locally > server and vice versa * An app to keep track of the my frequently used rules: trial rules dot com * A website to keep track of various developments in my area law [internal to my firm] * A PDF app that automates basic tasks [batestamping, adding exhibit stickers, etc] Edit for spelling/formatting.

paultopia 7y ago

I'm a law professor who has taught some basic coding (along with stats) to law students[1], I have a slightly different perspective on the lawyers learning to code thing than a lot of what has been expressed here (though it's similar to the "Dr. Doolittle" idea in the post). For me the key goal is flexibility and uncertainty management. Lawyers have traditionally been extreme generalists across non-law domains (consider the fact that lawyers think of themselves as qualified to question expert witnesses from all kinds of hard sciences in a courtroom) who have exercised a consistent social function in the face of all kinds of social, political, economic, and technological changes, and the lawyers who have been best able to insert themselves at the joints of those changes are the ones who have succeeded. Having some understanding of the ontology of the various systems that are likely to be important in the domains where the law operates is pretty much a general good. And right now, code plays such a huge role in the economy that lawyers who have some clue what's going on are better positioned to adapt to changes in the economy as their careers move forward. (It's for similar reasons, I think that Harvard Law School recommends students take a class in accounting, or at least used to do so back in my day.) With a minimum base of skill in slinging around code, it expands my students possible options. They might never use it again, relying on legal tech/document management/whatever vendors for any of the things noted elsewhere in this discussion. Or they might see a need and builds something that becomes one of these legal tech/document management/whatever companies. Or they might win a client a decade down the road by being the only lawyer in the vicinity who speaks their language. Or they might be working for a nonprofit who doesn't have the resources to buy solutions, and build something in-house that increases their capacity for service delivery to people who really need it. TL;DR: lawyers have their hands in a lot of stuff by the very nature of the profession; it behooves them on general principles to become conversant with anything that occupies a large amount of territory in said stuff. [1] version 0.1 of the course: https://sociologicalgobbledygook.com https://sociologicalgobbledygook.com

timwaagh 7y ago

Against: in my romantic view after watching way too much 'Suits', being a lawyer is mostly about convincing the other party to settle. By becoming a coder instead you may end up becoming nerdified and hence less capable of making the other side settle. The lawyer I used is a very bald old man who wears suits and is generally speaking a little bit intimidating. He knows a bit about law and a bit about humanity. He doesn't use computers other than to check his email and write documents in word. And he did his thing and convinced my boss that he'd better pay up if he wants to get rid of me. That's worth the 200E per hour I paid. I really don't need someone to do coding for 200E per hour (my own wage is more like E18) and I certainly don't need another 'me' to represent me.

lonelappde 7y ago
Software is full of almost lawyers who left law because they couldn't handle how irrational the law is.
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  A few of us lawyers left the tech-grind because they couldn't handle how irrational software development is.

smnplk 7y ago

No, because none of their conditionals would be truthy.

citeright 7y ago

As a lawyer who codes (though I don’t currently work as either a lawyer or a coder) I thought this article does a great job of explaining where coding fits into law. At least in my experience, coding is a “legal-adjacent” skill: coding is neither necessary nor sufficient for good lawyering. But there are deep conceptual similarities between coding and lawyering, and knowing how to do one job well can certainly make some parts of the other job easier. For example: redrafting a contract is a lot like refactoring code. (Make sure that terms are only defined in one place; consider and account for edge cases; be aware of how changes in one area affect dependencies elsewhere, etc.). If, like me, you’re allergic to repetitive, time-consuming tasks, coding is a way to potentially make your lawyering job go faster. I know lawyers who’ve used a combination of Python scripts and Zapier steps to fully automate client intake, for example. HOWEVER! I’m pretty confident that coding will never become a core legal competency. Coding and lawyering are different roles, with different outputs, serving different stakeholders. Instead what’s more likely to happen is that coding will gradually eliminate a whole swath of tasks that we once assumed only lawyers could do — until we realized that those tasks were just algorithms in disguise, and therefore automate-able. Like most other knowledge workers, lawyers are going to be responsible for managing — and applying wisdom and discernment — to the outputs that algorithms/software generates. And that’s a good thing! It’ll mean that lawyers are doing more of what they do best.