4 ms·

Why is it bad that in order to automatically generate binding legal documents, someone involved needs to be educated in the subtleties of legal language? A wal

Why is it bad that in order to automatically generate binding legal documents, someone involved needs to be educated in the subtleties of legal language? A walking, talking lawyer should be personally responsible for the quality of the documents being generated. If there's no such person, you're putting the onus of validation on the client, which I think misses the entire point. In most of these cases, it's not the government protecting existing companies, it's the government protecting the naive population. You won't fire someone after six months of unpaid labor, but someone else will. Your expert system might create air-tight contracts, but someone else will cut corners. These laws do not exist solely to frustrate you. Part of being in a uniformly free society is ensuring that naive people are not at the mercy of the better informed or less scrupulous. Things can't work any other way.

dantheman 18y ago
>>In most of these cases, it's not the government protecting existing companies, it's the government protecting the naive population. You won't fire someone after six months of unpaid labor, but someone else will. Your expert system might create air-tight contracts, but someone else will cut corners. This untrue, throughout history companies get laws to make upstarts more difficult. There is no reason you need to go to law school or even pass the bar, if the buyers don't think it is a good tool they won't use it. In fact things can work the other way, you are protected the few who may be swindled (they're clearly visible), but ignore all those who are harmed by the lack of new products. It's very hard to look at the other side of the equation, but it is normally quite significant.
- prospero 18y ago
  Do you want to back up that assertion? I'm not saying regulatory capture doesn't exist, I'm just saying it's not the primary driving force behind legislation. You don't get to just say I'm wrong and make vague references to historical trends. Unless a company already has lawyers on staff, they have no way of determining whether a legal expert system is a good product or not. For that reason, it cannot be a substitute for a living, breathing lawyer. It could certainly be a tool for lawyers, and streamline the hell out of most legal processes, but to treat it as something more is to give up on any lowest common denominator for legal advice. And while this would certainly harm lawyers, it would also harm a great many other people.
  - ellyagg 18y ago
    But, see, you claim it would harm a great many other people. We claim, on balance, it will help many more people than it hurts. Down with guilds!
  - dantheman 18y ago
    Well there are many cases of regulator capture, the AMA, the railroad industry, the airplane industry (pre-deregulation), the telephone industry (pre-deregulation), and the cable industry. The recent mandates on testing toys for lead, has pretty much outlawed small toy producers. You can't prepare food at your house and legally sell it (even if you say this was cooked at my house). The FDA debacle with juice pasteurization vs more modern UV processes. > And while this would certainly harm lawyers, it would also harm a great many other people. Once again you make a statement that claim to be true with no real backing. Say 1 person is harmed by this newer cheaper law advice, and 10,000 are saved due to the reallocation of resources to medicine -- this is of course a hypothetical example, but it has just as much grounding as yours.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
javert 18y ago
The lesson to learn from your example is: don't work for someone without getting paid, unless you /really/ trust them. Not: we need the government to be our nanny. That results in all kinds of really bad side effects, including those illustrated by the person who started this thread.
- megamark16 18y ago
  I agree. Instead of trying to protect the masses from their own stupidity, why not work harder to educate the masses? I realize that there must be a balance in all things, but I think the scale is tipped heavily in the direction of the government holding our hands and making up our minds for us at the same time. Thanks Mark
tjic 18y ago
> Why is it bad that in order to automatically generate binding legal documents, someone involved needs to be educated in the subtleties of legal language? I wouldn't put up a huge stink if the law was "you must pass the bar exam". However, the law is "you must attend 3 years of law school". > These laws do not exist solely to frustrate you Agreed. They exist to decrease the supply of lawyers, thus increasing the price that lawyers can demand. Frustrating me is just a side effect.
- prospero 18y ago
  I know a fair number of newly-minted laywers, and my understanding is that most of the concrete material tested in the bar exam is taught in the summer following graduation from law school. Law school is largely concerned with abstract concepts that are important, but more difficult to test. I sympathize with your frustration, but the reason for the prerequisites could just as easily be that they don't believe they can create a test which properly encompasses everything a lawyer should know. Also, at least in San Francisco, the job market seems to be saturated with lawyers, even before the economy went south.
- MaysonL 18y ago
  However, the law is "you must attend 3 years of law school". Actually, there are still a few states where you can join the bar after clerking for a number of years and passing the bar exam. See, for example: http://www.wsba.org/lawyers/licensing/faq-rule6.htm http://www.wsba.org/lawyers/licensing/faq-rule6.htm
anamax 18y ago
> Why is it bad that in order to automatically generate binding legal documents One question is why so many things require generating legal documents.

dantheman 18y ago

>>In most of these cases, it's not the government protecting existing companies, it's the government protecting the naive population. You won't fire someone after six months of unpaid labor, but someone else will. Your expert system might create air-tight contracts, but someone else will cut corners. This untrue, throughout history companies get laws to make upstarts more difficult. There is no reason you need to go to law school or even pass the bar, if the buyers don't think it is a good tool they won't use it. In fact things can work the other way, you are protected the few who may be swindled (they're clearly visible), but ignore all those who are harmed by the lack of new products. It's very hard to look at the other side of the equation, but it is normally quite significant.

prospero 18y ago
Do you want to back up that assertion? I'm not saying regulatory capture doesn't exist, I'm just saying it's not the primary driving force behind legislation. You don't get to just say I'm wrong and make vague references to historical trends. Unless a company already has lawyers on staff, they have no way of determining whether a legal expert system is a good product or not. For that reason, it cannot be a substitute for a living, breathing lawyer. It could certainly be a tool for lawyers, and streamline the hell out of most legal processes, but to treat it as something more is to give up on any lowest common denominator for legal advice. And while this would certainly harm lawyers, it would also harm a great many other people.
- ellyagg 18y ago
  But, see, you claim it would harm a great many other people. We claim, on balance, it will help many more people than it hurts. Down with guilds!
- dantheman 18y ago
  Well there are many cases of regulator capture, the AMA, the railroad industry, the airplane industry (pre-deregulation), the telephone industry (pre-deregulation), and the cable industry. The recent mandates on testing toys for lead, has pretty much outlawed small toy producers. You can't prepare food at your house and legally sell it (even if you say this was cooked at my house). The FDA debacle with juice pasteurization vs more modern UV processes. > And while this would certainly harm lawyers, it would also harm a great many other people. Once again you make a statement that claim to be true with no real backing. Say 1 person is harmed by this newer cheaper law advice, and 10,000 are saved due to the reallocation of resources to medicine -- this is of course a hypothetical example, but it has just as much grounding as yours.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]

javert 18y ago

The lesson to learn from your example is: don't work for someone without getting paid, unless you /really/ trust them. Not: we need the government to be our nanny. That results in all kinds of really bad side effects, including those illustrated by the person who started this thread.

megamark16 18y ago
I agree. Instead of trying to protect the masses from their own stupidity, why not work harder to educate the masses? I realize that there must be a balance in all things, but I think the scale is tipped heavily in the direction of the government holding our hands and making up our minds for us at the same time. Thanks Mark

tjic 18y ago

> Why is it bad that in order to automatically generate binding legal documents, someone involved needs to be educated in the subtleties of legal language? I wouldn't put up a huge stink if the law was "you must pass the bar exam". However, the law is "you must attend 3 years of law school". > These laws do not exist solely to frustrate you Agreed. They exist to decrease the supply of lawyers, thus increasing the price that lawyers can demand. Frustrating me is just a side effect.

prospero 18y ago
I know a fair number of newly-minted laywers, and my understanding is that most of the concrete material tested in the bar exam is taught in the summer following graduation from law school. Law school is largely concerned with abstract concepts that are important, but more difficult to test. I sympathize with your frustration, but the reason for the prerequisites could just as easily be that they don't believe they can create a test which properly encompasses everything a lawyer should know. Also, at least in San Francisco, the job market seems to be saturated with lawyers, even before the economy went south.
MaysonL 18y ago
However, the law is "you must attend 3 years of law school". Actually, there are still a few states where you can join the bar after clerking for a number of years and passing the bar exam. See, for example: http://www.wsba.org/lawyers/licensing/faq-rule6.htm http://www.wsba.org/lawyers/licensing/faq-rule6.htm

anamax 18y ago

> Why is it bad that in order to automatically generate binding legal documents One question is why so many things require generating legal documents.