He basically argues that the legal profession is going to face a technological change in the next future thank to improved capability by computers to process legal issues and deliver advices. After all, giving advices is what law firm are about, isn't it?
The fact is how we need to come to such landscape? Is computer-generated-advices an inevitable future?
Surely there is a trend to more and more processes become streamlined. Every time an act is been performed and repeated, the intelligent lawyer can design a set of rules and procedures to make it a "commodity" process. That trend lead to a competition at the bottom of the law profession pyramid, where mundane tasks can be delegated to outsourced firm or - that's Susskind's point - to computer programs.
Another way law is going through change is in the structure of law firms. It has long been stated that firms cannot raise money from the public. The subdued principle is that the subsequent duty to shareholders could be in conflict with lawyer's primary duty of loyalty to clients. But, now even this barrier has been overcome, having Australia allowed since 2007 law firms to be listed in the stock market.
I think the legal profession will keep to have a strong link to reputation, knowledgeable and trusted professionals. I don't think giving non-lawyers financial stakes can improve quality and efficiency. It might increase the chance of ethical conflicts and distress.
On the other hand, I believe technological improvement can arise for legal professions. Software that can read documents and find legal flaws, algorithm to design a strategy or a array of them, research tools. I am eager to see what will come.
No comments:
Post a Comment