Hello lovely readers, change-makers and trailblazers. Quddus here 😊
I wanted to ask a favor. If you have been enjoying this content, I’d love for you to click on the love heart next to the post and use this button to share it via email or Social.
I’m looking at trying some new ways of connecting with you through this Lab in the coming weeks so keep an eye out 🤓 (short podcasts, video interactions)
As always, I love feedback and learning from different people and experiences - so if you’d like to strike up a conversation with me just hit reply in your inbox or reach out on LinkedIn.
Now, let’s continue our journey into the #futureoflaw…
The words “Legal Tech” have been used more and more in the last few years with no sign of slowing up. We all read it, we all have some form of definition in it. When I authored the Future Framework for Legal Practice last year, I mentioned:
“To some extent, it is a growing definition as developments and exploration create more and more implications and capacities, expanding what legal tech is and therefore the possibilities of what it can be. For the context of this series of articles, Legal tech is broadly defined as the application of technology to the practice and structure of law.”
To a large extent, this is still true. But i’ve had a chance to think about this since and wanted to share a few points about how important this definition can be for the #futureoflaw.
At the moment, any technology from Contract Management, to Triage to Machine learning and Automation holds the moniker “Legal Tech” so long as it’s applied to the Legal Industry. Anything from technology applied internally to a legal service provider, to applications between legal service providers and their clients, or between the Public and Court systems, or as a marketplace platform between a myriad of stakeholders in the Legal Industry also falls under the same definition.
It’s important to realise that this expanding pool of categories seem to grow somewhat as a result of “solutions looking for a home”. I believe we need to start looking at the outcomes “Legal Tech” produces instead. This is one of the definitions of Legal Tech I would put forward: “Technology that works directly with the legal functions of our society”.
Why?
Let’s look at how “Legal Tech” will develop in three waves:
In the first wave, we are developing tools that lawyers play with. The decisions (whether automated or not) will be designed, developed and approved by lawyers.
In the second wave, some of these decisions may become “standardised” and form part of the core code of the software, which is hidden to the typical user in the spirit of great UX/UI, convenience and efficiency.
The third wave, we will have decision trees or algorithms analysing, deciding and implementing legal decisions which are carried out or enforced by hardware.
Legal Tech therefore, plays a unique role in society as opposed to other types of “tech” (e.g. fintech, regtech, etc. All of which also hold a “solutions looking for a home posture” to some degree). Legal Tech needs special attention - that I believe is becoming more of a conversation with Regulators - because of these two main aspects:
The technology is more directly involved with the execution, enforcement or operation of law in society.
The people in and around the domain are lawyers, who are equipped with the tools to write, interpret and advocate the law.
There is a rising need for a unique category of institutions and groups that maintain the balance of technology that directly impacts (through enforcement or operation) the law and its use.
The emergent challenge will be that no one current system of governance can support the discourse necessary to decide and understand what constitutes a balanced and just use of Legal Tech that more directly operates on the law. Left unchecked, the ramifications are far worse than what typical Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) products have generated by way of unsustainable practices or "loopholes" in our current environment.
Technology is now approaching direct contact with the law rather than a 2nd order effect and it requires a coming together of multiple disciplines, social roles and responsibilities in order that Legal Tech is developed in a way that truly benefits the system it perpetuates.
That system itself needs a re-design and so we have this fluid, emergent phenomena where the most valuable thing we can do is engage in its process live, rather than solely focus on a product that is essentially capturing a moment in time.
On this fluid process, this journey, we need to keep the following in mind:
Lawyers ability to read, write and understand code.
Rights enshrined in the human, or Human Rights as a counter or balance against automated decision making.
In 2018, I put one of my first short articles together - I want to share it as the theme is relevant in this article:
“In 2015, South Australia was the first state in Australia to enact legislation allowing driver-less vehicles to operate on our roads.
Recently I was treated to a substantial overview of the legal implications and questions that have arisen as we head towards level 5 autonomy.
Across the broad areas outlined, one point in particular stood out: the expectations of society of the safety of autonomous vehicles.
Are we expecting autonomous vehicles to be 100% safe, 100% of the time knowing that 93% of vehicle accidents are caused by human error? Wouldn’t even a slight improvement of the odds be welcomed or is there something else that makes us feel uncomfortable about concept that we can’t quite pinpoint?
I believe it comes down to the nature of humans. We are the only species that has the capacity to bend the laws of nature to our will. We have the capacity to curate and create our lives and the core of the inherent nobility of humanity is manifest in our essential freedom, our autonomy.
So what’s the difference between an autonomous vehicle and one driven by the human? It is the human. The cause of the errors are also largely human, but we have fashioned the constructs in which we live. The issue then ultimately lies in human perception around substituting or ceding human autonomy, our free will, our right to make mistakes and be held accountable for them through our civil structures, to the autonomy of artificial intelligence — something we have not yet accepted as equal, or appropriate in status.
To the extent we define the relationship between the Human and Artificial Intelligence and reach consensus on the fundamental differences, is the extent to which we will agree to cede our autonomy to Artificial Intelligence.”
Interesting stuff right? I’ve learnt much more since then, but the theme of ceding our autonomy to Artificial Intelligence (in any primitive or advanced form it may take) is something that will continue to be a fundamental driver in the progress and unique place “Legal Tech” and more broadly Technology has in the world.
It also is very possible to expect that with the growth and maturation of Legal Tech, Courts, Regulators and Governments are able to better equip themselves as to the intricate relationship law and technology have. From a more empowered vantage point (rather than the way we witness technology being challenged by Congress today) may arise comprehensive standards, and as mentioned above, better inform other aspects of law as a result of welcoming technology to our industry.
We may just get ourselves on the front foot.
Finally, I want to leave you with a few questions to reflect with your team whether you are building Legal Tech or using it:
Make a list of Legal Tech products/features you are working on or considering to implement.
What decisions made by these technologies affect tangible outcomes?
What would you consider the “value” of these outcomes?
What is the impact of these outcomes if 100 people used it?
What about 100,000 or 1,000,000 people?
How clear are the ethical or flow on effects this outcomes generates?
How does a summary of the above inform the next milestone (whether number of users, revenue, product development, etc.)
Reach out if you’d like to discuss your results.
Hopefully you realised from this post that truly, the future of law is in our hands 🔥
Q.
Photo by Andy Kelly on Unsplash