The legal profession has always been under attack. There is not a pub, forum or family without a negative view of lawyers, often with the classic denouement of “the only people who will do well out of this are the lawyers”. Despite the brickbats, we’re still here.
So perhaps the profession should have scant regard for the latest attempts to apply technology to reduce, or even remove, the role of lawyers. Then again, maybe we should be considering alternative careers, as the robots continue their march. The reality is, as per usual, most likely somewhere in between the two ends of spectrum.
A number of City firms have begun integrating forms of artificial intelligence into their practice and it is likely that other firms are doing the same. The most recent announcement was Slaughter and May’s pilot of software developed by Luminance. The programme aims to cut through weighty due diligence reviews by applying algorithms to the contents of a data room.
Clients and lawyers alike will surely rejoice at the prospect of employing a technological solution to a lawyer-hours problem. Software does not get tired, it does not look depressingly at the mountain of documents before it and it should, in theory, get it right every time. Of course the success of the technology is dependent on how it is written. A programme will do exactly what you tell it to. So the trick is in telling it the right thing.
The second piece of good news for lawyers is that the technology does some of the job, but not all of it. Once the technology has been applied to search, collate and filter, it still needs a legal mind to make the judgements. Furthermore, lawyers can spend less time turning pages and more time applying brainpower to the analysis and assessment. In other words, there should be greater value for our clients.
Another claim is that evolution in technology will remove the need for lawyers altogether. Numerous futurists predict that smart contracts, using the developing technologies of blockchain and less strict coding languages, will result in contracts being written as immutable code on private blockchains, humming along harmoniously and self-executing and self-regulating. All of a sudden, the disruption we have seen in other sectors is knocking at our own doors. But, we need not panic. At least, not yet.
If we assume that smart contracts will play a role in legal relationships, a lawyer is still required to drafts those contracts. Then we must consider what sorts of contracts or legal processes can be usefully and realistically reduced to self-execution. Current examples include payment of dividends on share certificates created and stored on a blockchain, and the execution of financial instruments and trades when, say, certain stock market conditions have been satisfied.
Creating greater execution certainty and efficiency in these processes would presumably be welcomed. Yet those functions are not material areas of business for law firms. And of course, there is also the small matter of contractual disputes, which will inevitably arise and which require critical legal minds to analyse the information and formulate a strategy.
Lawyers and their clients welcome innovations which create efficiencies and enhance certainty. If technology can do so without creating risk, then it would be a valuable tool for any firm. In time technology may well continue to reduce the functions of lawyers but the two will need to co-exist.
A computer programme is not capable of replacing the role of the lawyer in the formulation, operation or resolution of complex legal relationships and litigation. We’re not consigned to the recycle bin just yet.
Sam Pearse, corporate and securities partner, Pillsbury
The post Do lawyers have a future? appeared first on The Lawyer | Legal News and Jobs | Advancing the business of law.