I came across an interesting Channel News Asia article yesterday about the legal industry in Singapore being reshaped by technological advancements (the rise of Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain technology, etc.) and how lawyers and lawyers-to-be ought to prepare themselves by learning new skills in order to keep up with the times. (N.B. This phenomenon is definitely not confined to Singapore)
The current Chief Justice of the Republic of Singapore, Sundaresh Menon, had much to say at this year's Mass Call, an event where lawyers are admitted to the Bar, and here's a particular excerpt from the same CNA article which captures the situation perfectly:
"Technology is already beginning to displace lawyers from areas of practice, especially those involving the more routine areas which are more susceptible to automation."
Speaking at the annual Mass Call at the Supreme Court auditorium, Chief Justice Menon gave the example of a free online service recently launched by OCBC that can generate a will in less than 10 minutes.
"Such developments can be expected to have a significant impact on demand for wills and probate work, which has long been a mainstay for smaller practices," he said.
"Apart from this, some aspects of due diligence and contract review, which has long formed the bulk of the work performed by junior lawyers, can now be conducted more quickly and accurately by natural language processing and machine learning tools."
There are two ways one can look at this: as a predicament, or as an opportunity.
The ones looking at this as some sort of setback are those ensconced comfortably within the legal profession by virtue of their Bar qualification as such technological advancements ostensibly threaten their job opportunities and the scope of services they provide.
The legal profession has carried with it an air of nobility & prestige throughout history. In the past, people believed that to be educated in the law meant you were a grade above the median citizen for you knew your rights, what you could do and what you couldn't do - or as Jerry Seinfeld would put it:
"... To me a lawyer is basically the person that knows the rules of the country. We're all throwing the dice, playing the game, moving our pieces around the board, but if there's a problem, the lawyer is the only person that has read the inside of the top of the box."
Jerry Seinfeld is right, and of course - such a person who knows the "inside of the top of the box" like the back of his hand should be accorded the respect he deserves, for such a person is gonna be the one saving your hide when your piece or dice lands on an undesirable part of the board.
As society grew to respect lawyers for this reason, many of them in turn - perhaps intoxicated by the privilege of having a special position bestowed unto them by society, developed a fondness for unscrupulous activity such as manipulating their clients by overcharging them or sometimes even outright criminal behaviour such as fraud or forgery for the purposes of cheating, among other things. The reputation of lawyers has, over time, worsened. The typical folk today think of lawyers as spineless and greedy.
Because of this, many countries have governing bodies that strictly regulate the legal profession in order to safeguard its reputation, with all sorts of rules such as the need to attend particular approved schools in order to qualify for the Bar, or Bar exams being made much more difficult to pass in order "to separate the wheat from the chaff", who can and can't dispense legal advice, and so on and so forth. While understandable for this reason as to why regulations are strictly followed to a tee, this also results in the overcentralization of the legal profession which often leads to an insular and parochial attitude and thus complacency.
Decentralization is threatening this in the form of technology.
Apart from Sundaresh Menon CJ's observation in the article above that individuals can easily draft their own will now without the need for an intermediary, the rise of Blockchain technology has also led to the introduction of "Smart contracts", otherwise known as "Self-executing contracts."
As Investopedia defines it:
"Smart contracts permit trusted transactions and agreements to be carried out among disparate, anonymous parties without the need for a central authority, legal system, or external enforcement mechanism. They render transactions traceable, transparent, and irreversible."
In a nutshell, codes are written into the contract and particular provisions are automatically executed by virtue of a performance of an act stipulated in said contract.
This weeds out the need for the middle man (the lawyer) in many cases.
Of course, one could (and should) still seek out a lawyer with regards to the substance of the clauses when drafting a contract, especially more complex ones, but the mere fact that this option, enabled by technology, is now available, is a prime example of the legal industry becoming more and more decentralized - where actions once taken by lawyers for a hefty sum are now replaced by increased accessibility to legal services that can be performed autonomously by laymen utilizing a software at a fraction of the cost that they would ordinarily have to pay a legal professional.
As someone who is part of the Legal Tech industry, I'm absolutely elated that this is happening.
This decentralization aspect reminds me of a Catholic principle known as 'Subsidiarity'.
Subsidiarity simply proposes that "any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be done." The purpose of this principle is to promote efficiency. If something can be accomplished at a smaller or lower level of autonomy, then it only makes sense for it to be accomplished in that manner, in stark contrast to utilizing larger or more centralized means or resources to perform smaller tasks which would be a complete waste of time and energy. Larger resources should handle larger things.
Applying this concept of Subsidiarity to what's happening with the legal industry - the fact that many legal services (will writing, self-executing contracts, etc.) are now available and accessible to laymen can only mean that lawyers are better able to focus their attention on more complex legal matters (the bigger issues, so to speak.)
This is how a legal professional should look at the decentralizing effect of legal technology in a positive light and as being an opportunity rather than a setback.
This also increases job opportunities for individuals who wish to enter the legal industry without necessarily having gone through the traditional route of obtaining a legal education. A group of software engineers, for instance, could be hired by a law firm to assist with the legal research typically performed by junior lawyers, perhaps by helping to implement a software unique to the needs of said law firm, thus giving junior lawyers more time to pursue the deeper aspects of legal practice.
Of course, Sundaresh Menon is right that practising lawyers, especially those in smaller firms that rely mainly on wills and probate matters to put food on the table, should pick up more skills - particularly with regards to technology - if they want to be one step ahead of their peers. This forces the calibre of skills and knowledge among existing legal professionals to expand vastly - benefiting client and practitioner alike, as well as all sorts of other legal professionals or professionals involved within the legal sphere.
It is up to these legal professionals, then, to convince laymen why their services would better suit their needs than relying on say, a software. This is the beauty of the marketplace where competition is rife, and when aided by the decentralizing aspects of technology - it is indeed a glorious thing to behold.
No comments:
Post a Comment