5 ms·
“But lawyers know nothing about tech ”
- denton-scratch 3y agoLawyers have the reputation for being tech-ignorant because for a long time they were. Long after everyone else was using word-processors, lawyers relied on typists and shorthand secretaries. That got shaken up with the arrival of knowledge management systems; law firms led that charge. Most politicians are lawyers; and most politicians are tech-ignorant. That sustains the myth.
- kiba 3y agoIt seems to be a kind of overspecialization, especially in a dynamic world that's constantly changing.
- tiahura 3y agoIncorrect. During the mid to late 80s law firms were some of the favorite customers of integrators. Firms moved from a 1:1 lawyer to secretary ratio to 2 or 3:1. IT also transformed the accounting department. Who do you think was buying all those WordPerfect licenses?
- denton-scratch 3y agoI worked as an integrator for city law firms in the late 80s. Yes, they were using WordPerfect and Netware. No - lawyers didn't have computers on their desks. They regarded using computers as clerical work, and beneath them. And these were City firms, working for big corporations. High Street lawyers were way behind. I was never involved with the accounting departments of law firms; but obviously, that's clerical work, from the point of view of a lawyer.
- safddsfds 3y ago[flagged]
- tejtm 3y agoThe best place to get surplus huge computer monitors was the local law school they always needed to be showing off the latest and greatest shiny tech amongst themselves.
- bmitc 3y agoI think it's more accurate to say that lawyers only know about lawyer stuff. They live in their own constructed reality that is quite different from normal logic, intuition, and processes.
- GuB-42 3y agoThe same can be said of the tech world, but with a different constructed reality.
- titanomachy 3y agoAt least we have to step down into the shared reality sometimes, to deal with customers and the real-world problems that they pay us to solve. Lawyers only drag their customers up into a constructed reality. They're paid to solve problems in lawspace, not in the real world.
- snitty 3y ago>They're paid to solve problems in lawspace, not in the real world. Crime, family law, wills, industrial espionage, bankruptcy, insurance disputes, personal injury… Shame there aren't any lawyers who help folks out with the real world situations.
- dontlaugh 3y agoYou could easily say the same about software, if not more so.
- anthonybsd 3y ago>Pretty much every day, I read something to the effect of "lawyers are clueless when it comes to tech lol". <chuckle> Read the article, seems reasonable. Connect with Neil on LinkedIn -> 404 page. All righty then.
- minimaul 3y agoIn this case, that's because he's got rid of his Linkedin account since that article footer was written (I follow Neil via Mastodon, he discussed it there). (edited for missing word!)
- noizejoy 3y ago… and the article footer being constructed, so that it can become outdated would seem to imply a somewhat limited understanding of technology
- lolinder 3y agoDo you take the time to make your blog footers dynamically check if your social media profiles still exist? I sure don't.
- noizejoy 3y agoIf the blog footer is intended to contain links to identity, I'd make that whole footer dynamic and then I'd just keep a single source for that. Alternatively, arguably better: Keep a master domain for each identity and update social media accounts for that identity on a page in the master domain.
- trompetenaccoun 3y agoOf course not all lawyers are the same. There are some that really do get tech. Or more like the niche they specialize in, because the days of being a polymath are over, the tech world is way too large and complex these days to know it all. That said, I thought exactly the same reading the article. If he thinks he's already one of the more tech savvy ones, that only proves the point of the article he's criticizing.
- TX81Z 3y agoAs somebody deploying some very advanced technologies in the litigation space I think this is a reflection of his own docket, not the broader space. There is definitely a need and a market for highly specialized tools in certain segments of the law.
- gnicholas 3y agoThe selling point for tech is often that it makes you more efficient. But law firms don't want to be more efficient because their income is tied to the billable hour. Partners, who run the firm, know that if you make their associates more efficient, they will literally make less money doing the same amount of work. There are some firms that understand the value of efficiency (especially those that do fixed-fee or value-based billing), but most of the largest firms aren't especially interested in increasing efficiency.
- Alupis 3y ago> they will literally make less money doing the same amount of work I call BS on this. Doing more in less time means you can do even more than before and kill your competition. There is nothing but upside in advancing technologically for pretty much every industry.
- sidewndr46 3y agoFrom what I understand a lawyer can't advertise his or her services as better or worse than anyone other lawyers. It's part of the deal of having your law license. You agree that everyone else is up to the same standard, or you bring up a complaint and suggest their license be revoked / suspended / etc.
- tenebrisalietum 3y agoBut you could take on more clients per day and make more money?
- TimPC 3y agoI think a lot of tech companies that spout this nonsense don't understand how law works. Routinely I see products based entirely around reducing lawyer's billable hours. They'll only implement that kicking and screaming if clients force them to bill less. If clients aren't putting pressure on them to be more efficient they will happily bill more hours than are truly needed in discovery rather than using state of the art tools to reduce billable hours. If you don't understand your market is billing hourly and come up with ways to work within that framework you aren't going to be successful.
- xenadu02 3y agoI've worked with software engineers who didn't see the value in DCVSes like git but now that they use it they wouldn't dare go back to non-distributed systems. I would bet most lawyers fall into this camp. They have a process they know works and learning something new is a hassle... but if they used and got used to having history and diffing they wouldn't want to go back. I doubt it involves billable hour calculations for most of them. Remember that software like WordPerfect which was very much not WYSIWYG had a long life with certain audiences like attorneys because they were used to it. If it really is a billable hour problem the auto mechanic industry has already solved it: standard hours. Various services are documented at a given number of hours which is what you get billed by most shops even if it takes the mechanic half the time.
- xenadu02 3y agoCorrection: WordStar, a DOS word processor that used control sequences and was text mode.
- jameson71 3y agoA whole lot easier to take mechanics to court to standardize working hours than to try to take a bunch of lawyers to court
- TimPC 3y agoSure but if your bet is that you're going to drag all of law to a new billing model that's similar to what mechanics have done the fact that you might not be successful is a significant risk point in the profile of your product and substantially affects whether or not someone invests. It's not a trivial solution that's easy to implement as an external vendor. For instance, discovery is a lot more complex than doing a standard operation on a car and the variance in hours worked depends heavily on specific details of the case which lends itself very poorly to charging a standardized price for discovery.
- focusedone 3y ago> If you work with me and think "I wish Neil used [x]" or "this would be so much easier if Neil had a system to do [y]", please let me know. I'm always happy to get feedback, and I certainly don't know everything. This is a rare but wonderful point of view, particularly among non-technical-field professionals.
- electricmonk 3y agoThis blog post was written by a lawyer that writes shell-scripts to automate presumably job related tasks, but it reads like he didn't even read the article he's critiquing (https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/profession-sitting-on-the-fence-with-lawtech-/5116448.article https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/profession-sitting-on-...) because he hates that he’s lumped in with lawyers that don’t embrace technology. Despite being a lawyer that lurks on Hacker News, I can admit that I’ve found the article's point mostly true. The clear thrust of the article Neil is critiquing, right at the top: - "A study of attitudes to lawtech carried out by The University of Manchester, University College London and the Law Society finds that a lack of understanding by, and encouragement from, senior managers is proving a barrier to the uptake of technologies such as artificial intelligence." Neil's framing: - "Pretty much every day, I read something to the effect of 'lawyers are clueless when it comes to tech lol' ... sigh" From the article: - "less than a third (32%) use even basic lawtech, such as legal databases and contract review software." From Neil: - What on earth is "lawtech"? From the article: - "'The legal profession is at a crossroads, with new technologies that promise to transform virtually every aspect of the legal services sector starting to gather pace,' she said. 'However, our report suggests that this transformation might not be as rapid as some would think. It is clear that there is a business case for adopting lawtech, but people are not necessarily equating this to how it will benefit them personallySenior managers and leaders within law firms need to think about creating a clear connection between the benefits to the organisation and the benefits to the individual, if they want to get the buy-in they need from their professional colleagues.'" There are some lawyers that get tech, but many more have only a very surface level understanding, if that. Especially the “senior managers” the article is directed towards. I understand this article is directed at the UK, but my favorite example of this is SCOTUS justices learning that text messages are routed through, and stored on, intermediary servers. Chief Justice John Roberts, during oral argument in Ontario v. Quon (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2009/08-1332.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...): “I thought, you know, you push a button; it goes right to the other thing” followed by Justice Scalia: “You mean it doesn't go right to the other thing?”
- zerocrates 3y agoThe concept of less than a third of lawyers using legal databases kind of beggars belief. Lexis and West, to say nothing of newer upstarts, were pretty much totally widespread in my view. How much the situation is different in the UK though, I don't have any idea.
- dugmartin 3y agoEvery real estate transaction I've done has involved two sets of lawyers mailing Word docs to each other with me cc'ed with names like "Purchase and Sale (2) - Copy - Latest". I actually mentioned to my last lawyer that there is established and well used technology that can show changes between documents. She seemed uninterested and a couple of days later I had to email her about a clause that got dropped in one of the Word doc email tornados the day before. I see no mention of any kind of version control in this article. It seems crazy to me but I guess that would drive down billable hours.
- rcme 3y agoI don’t think lawyers want version control of contracts. They want what is outlined in the contract to be the final agreement. An agreement with a bunch of history attached seems like it would be worse.
- jagraff 3y agoBut you could still use version control for drafting. You don't include version control history in your shipped binary but it's still very useful for coding.
- rtkwe 3y agoI'm not sure what that would change legally, the contract signed is still the contract agreed to. Most of the time you either sign on paper or e-Sign a pdf neither of which will communicate the history so it would just help keep track of changes.
- renewiltord 3y agoYou want it for the process of drafting. In fact, it is quite common in the SF startup world (and probably elsewhere) while redlining to send back and forth a Word document with Track Changes turned on. One time, someone turned it off and then pasted over a different document, and then turned it back on and made some edits so only a few changes were made. It's really quite shady but you have to deal with all sorts so we just fixed it up. Ultimately, a tool like Juro would be pretty cool, but if you're the guy trying to get the contract done you're not going to introduce a new thing to the workflow. Everyone will object. While negotiating over a contract, seeing the changes is very useful. It's very common. Talk to someone who is in procurement or who is in sales.
- awill 3y agomaybe we need a new title. Just like we have PM and TPM, we need T-Lawyer :)
- ajkjk 3y agoAside: the quip "when people go to a DIY store, they might buy a drill, but what they really want is a hole in their wall." is such a bad take. No, what they want is a drill. If they wanted a hole they would borrow their friend's drill. But they just moved into an apartment or house, or they're starting their life of collecting DIY items, and one of the things they're going to need to own is a drill. The person that follows this adage and tries to figure out a way to trick them into buying a hole is an asshole. The person who directs them to a good, durable, versatile, high-quality drill is in the right. If both sides of the transaction could clearly see who is doing that and who isn't, everyone would be better off --- but in tech they usually can't.
- seanhunter 3y agoThere are for sure lawyers who know nothing about tech, but there are definitely some who are very strong on tech. Two examples from my personal experience: 1. I know a lawyer who did comp sci at Stanford before doing his law degree at either Yale or Harvard I forget which. He was very knowledgeable about all the licensing, IP protection issues etc relevant to software. 2. I work regularly with an ex-dev who is now a lawyer who specializing in infosec and data privacy issues. He runs packet captures on sites and checks for unintentional data leakage/gdpr violations when sites somewhere call out to google tag manager or put 3rd-party trackers somewhere. In an enterprise context there are a bajillion places this can happen so it's great to have a lawyer who understands what's ok and not but also is technical enough to use curl against a rest api or can run (and understand) packet captures when different web actions occur.
- thessa 3y agoThey know enough to stay away from it. I created software to expedite discovery analysis of labor disputes, and when pitching it to lawyers I was literally told “you’re saying you created something that will take milliseconds to do what would take me weeks? Why would I want that? I get paid by the hour.”
- ldehaan 3y ago[dead]