New Technology, the Death of the Biglaw Monopoly, and the Evolution of the Computer Professional
New Technology, the Death of the Biglaw Monopoly, and the Evolution of the Computer Professional
复制标题
新技术、大法律垄断的消亡以及计算机专业的演变
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Michael Guihot
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Michael Guihot
最近有很多关于新技术破坏传统律师事务所提供法律的服务模式的文章。Susskind和Susskind预测了包括法律的职业在内的职业的失败，这在很大程度上是由于颠覆性技术的外部压力。然而，将责任集中在技术上是错误的;它指责用于破坏的工具，而不是破坏的根本原因。简而言之，计算机不会杀死律师。这种颠覆也不是针对这一职业本身，而是针对在这一职业主持下发展起来的现代法律的实践的商业模式。法律的职业打着职业的幌子，设置了准入壁垒，使律师得以垄断提供法律的服务。垄断使律师事务所能够开发商业模式，通过这些模式，他们能够对其服务收取高昂的、有时甚至是过高的价格。它还为创新制造了障碍。客户已经开始对大律师事务所的一贯收费过高和效率低下的服务作出反应，这些律师事务所在技术变得越来越强大和有效的同时受益于垄断。与此同时，为律师事务所提供替代商业模式的新兴法律的服务提供商也在利用新技术开放法律渠道，侵蚀垄断。律师们正面临着日益激烈的竞争，这将摧毁大律师事务所的模式。不过，这种破坏不仅限于BigLaw，还将影响较小的律师事务所和个体执业者。随着客户和律师之间的动态变化，下一代律师将被要求履行大量的角色，以满足客户的需求，同时被要求保持他们的专业责任。律师作为人类，将无法或不感兴趣地管理这种多方面角色的需求，而这个角色的专业方面将进一步消退。然而，计算机拥有丰富的技术知识，它们不寻求经济回报，它们可以被编程为不断工作，并将客户的利益置于自己的利益之上。因此，在未来，计算机将比人类更能表现出“专业”的特征。如果有一个法律的专业是可取的，那么让电脑扮演法律的服务提供者的角色是符合我们社会的利益的。有必要将这个职业从自私的人类手中夺走，并发展一个提供法律的服务的技术职业，最初是在律师的帮助下，但随后，就像引入自动驾驶汽车一样，在五个阶段的部署中，发展一个完全自主的法律的职业。这一新的技术职业也将使“个人目标和抱负服从于为.[法律]纪律服务和促进其在社会中的职能”，并开始重新获得今天法律的职业所缺乏的信任。
Much has been written recently about new technology disrupting the traditional law firm model of providing legal services. Susskind and Susskind predicted the failure of professions, including the legal profession, due in large part to the external pressure of disruptive technology. However, concentrating blame on the technology is misguided; it blames the tool used to disrupt rather than the root causes of the disruption. In short, computers do not kill lawyers. Neither is the disruption aimed at the profession as such, but rather at the business models of modern day legal practices that have developed under the auspices of the profession. Under the guise of a profession, the legal profession has established the barriers to entry that have allowed lawyers to hold a monopoly on providing legal services. The monopoly has allowed law firms to develop business models through which they have been able to charge high, sometimes extravagant, prices for their services. It has also produced barriers to innovation. Clients have begun to react to perceived consistent overcharging and inefficient services of the BigLaw firms that benefit from the monopoly at the same time that technologies are becoming more powerful and effective. Meanwhile, new and hungry legal service providers who provide alternative business models to law firms are also using new technologies to open access to law and erode the monopoly. Lawyers are facing increasing competition that is set to destroy the BigLaw firm model. The disruption, though, will not be limited to BigLaw, and will also impact smaller law firms and sole practitioners. As the dynamic between clients and lawyers changes, the next generation of lawyers will be required to perform a vast number of roles to satisfy client demands while all the while being asked to maintain their professional responsibilities. Lawyers, as humans, will be incapable of, or disinterested in, managing the demands of this multi-faceted role, and the professional aspect of the role will further recede. However, computers have vast technical knowledge, they do not seek financial reward, and they can be programmed to work ceaselessly and to put the client’s interests ahead of their own. It is computers, therefore, that will be in a much better position to display ‘professional’ characteristics than humans in the future. If it is desirable to have a legal profession, then it is in the interests of our society to allow computers to take the role of legal services providers. It will be necessary to take the profession out of the hands of self-interested humans and to develop a technological profession that would provide legal services, initially with the assistance of lawyers, but then, as with the introduction of autonomous vehicles, in a five-staged deployment, develop a fully autonomous legal profession. This new technological profession would also subordinate ‘personal aims and ambitions to the service of … [the law] discipline and the promotion of its function in the community’ and begin to regain the trust so lacking in the legal profession today.
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Aletras, Nikolaos;Tsarapatsanis, Dimitrios;Lampos, Vasileios
通讯作者：
Lampos, Vasileios