A RETREAT FOR LEGALTECH REFLECTION AND INNOVATION SOUL-SEARCHING
the home of longer thought-pieces
Featured
What would happen if instead of focusing on the oppositional interests of vendors and firms, we examined the “faultlines”, the liminal space where these interests rub up against one another? Could we crack open a dialogue that complicates the vendor-law firm relationship and adds value to it? By consciously tearing apart the binary and engaging in active discourse at the point of contact, could we not find a new way to characterize this dynamic?
If I were a global law firm looking to provide data driven legal services to clients who don’t care about the tech but do care about the outcomes I’d be confused right now, trying to work out how I ‘evenly’ provide a consistent legal service to clients wanting an international experience.
Why is legal difficult … because lawyers don’t actually use their own languages, they use legal versions of own language.
I don’t think this is just a legaltech problem or just an AI problem – if you think about it, it’s actually a legal problem full-stop. Language is a problem with law and the development of law more generally. It’s true that humans can learn to speak multiple languages but you still have to overcome the friction of switching from one language to another.
Much has been written recently about the need to consolidate legaltech vendors and tools. It would be remiss of us within those discussions to forget culture and language as another cause of problematic proliferation, and indeed another target for future clean-up.