Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by electricmonk 1093 days ago
This 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-...) 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_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?”

1 comments

The 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.
Is it really surprising? Solos can't always afford what more established firms can. Also, this: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/27/business/chat-gpt-avianca-mat.... The lawyer asked ChatGPT if the case was real, but did NOT check any legal databases. Also consider, many lawyers are not litigators. They handle the same types of matters all the time, and likely lean heavily on one or a few treatises, in addition to their own experience.
Even those guys had Fastcase.
I can't find stats one way or another on this point. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯