
Get Ready for High-Frequency Lawyers - gpresot
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-10/get-ready-for-high-frequency-lawyers
======
rahimnathwani
The linked summary of his work ([https://www.aeaweb.org/about-aea/honors-
awards/bates-clark/y...](https://www.aeaweb.org/about-aea/honors-awards/bates-
clark/yuliy-sannikov)) is far more informative than the Bloomberg article with
the clickbaity headline.

------
vessenes
Obligatory link when automated lawyering comes up:
[http://www.ftrain.com/nanolaw.html](http://www.ftrain.com/nanolaw.html)

Worth the read.

~~~
DogPawHat
Now that's scary.

~~~
vessenes
It seems like you'd get there automatically as soon as you have some sort of
smart-contract enabled judge system. Ethereum's first killer app, maybe.

------
BWStearns
Overall cool article, but it seems to blow by the fact that lawyers aren't
expected, or usually practically able, to write complete contracts for the
solution space (the space being all potential states of the relevant portions
of the universe at time of enforcement).

When they do they're for relatively trivial contracts, or for standardized
contracts (think a commodities future) that purposely limit the relevant
universe to the easily measurable.

I don't think we're going to see HFL compete with human lawyers in the way
that HFT competes with human traders anytime soon. To the extent that
dynamically rewritten contracts become a thing I think we'll largely view them
as an iteration of HFT actually.

On a partially related note I was discussing a law-tech idea with a lawyer
friend who pointed out the (US at least) issue that law firms have to be owned
by attorneys. A lot of potential legal tech ideas then basically are on thin
ice if the tech's behavior is close enough to the line of lawyering. The HFL
described would certainly run into that issue (at least enough for one case to
set precedence).

~~~
eyeJam
Every time I see one of these 'XYZ start-up is going to change the legal
world' I shake my head. There seems to be this misguided idea that lawyers are
essentially programmers, and that legal work can be entirely automated. There
is a huge amount of humanity in law. It is in essence a codified system of
dispute resolution.

Legal work involves a huge input of social capital and human-to-human
communication: negotiating, interviewing, mediating disputes, arguing,
schmoozing clients, networking with lawmakers, smoothing over conflicts with
clients and other lawyers, etc... I don't see computers ever replacing this
aspect of legal work, and no, AI is not the answer for the same reasons that
AI is not a substitute for friends or significant others.

Clients with millions of dollars on the line will never want to place their
fate in the hands of an algorithm. They want a reputable team that they can
talk to and place their trust in. This is why large corporations continue to
use expensive 'name brand' law firms even though much cheaper firms could do
the same work. Same goes for criminal law: do you want to place your liberty
(and life if you're an American citizen) in the hands of an algorithm? Anyone
who has been confronted with the power of the criminal justice system will
tell you that its scary. You need a human you can talk to, who can explain and
reassure and humanize this otherwise cold and harsh system.

I'm not going to name names, but I've seen some start-ups who offer contract
templates and claim that you'll save oodles of money on legal work by using
their contracts. First of all, if you haven't studied contract law, how do you
that what you're paying for is actually useful? Are you going to ask a lawyer
to review it for you? Secondly, if there's ever a dispute over one of these
contracts, you're going to have to hire a lawyer anyway. Finally, judges tend
to frown on template contracts. A custom contract will always come across as
stronger in the mind of a judge or arbitrator.

The law is not binary. It is murky and cloudy and flawed. There is rarely a
'right' answer to legal questions. Judges will frequently make seemingly
arbitrary decisions. At this point in time there is simply far too much
humanity integrated into law for computers to deal with.

However I do see lots of potential for technology to make legal work faster
and more efficient. Programmers are light-years ahead in their work-flow and
tools. Whereas programmers take pride in having the slickest workflow, lawyers
tend to be allergic to software and hate having to learn new systems. They
bang away at buggy old versions of Microsoft Word since they hate having to
learn new versions. They use bizarre and inefficient methods to collaborate
and share documents. In fact, an IDE for legal work that combined version
control, word processing, time accounting for billable hours and access to
research databases would be the killer app imo. Also, encrypted email and chat
that is extremely user-friendly would be a big big hit among lawyers.

~~~
reality_hacker
> Clients with millions of dollars on the line will never want to place their
> fate in the hands of an algorithm.

They will want, if it will unlock multi-billion market opportunities. It
happened multiple times already, e.g. algo trading robots replaced some human
traders.

------
gegtik
Sounds like hell:

In a nutshell, Sannikov’s theories describe how an employer would adjust a
contractor’s compensation in real time, in response to changing performance
and external conditions. Where most previous researchers only allowed
contracts to be updated at regular intervals, Sannikov described what happens
when they can be changed infinitely fast.

~~~
gamblor956
Not just like hell, but illegal to in the context you describe. Contracts
require both parties to agree to the terms--and to subsequent changes to those
terms. Sannikov's proposal is DOA, though based on the article it was probably
intended more as a thought exercise than as an actual proposal for the future
of law.

~~~
Terr_
> Contracts require both parties to agree

So... Next step: Giving power of attorney to a software agent. (What could
possibly go wrong?)

~~~
Bombthecat
Probably the first few times will go wrong.

But the time and money saved is just too appealing

------
mrcactu5

       Business service robots will bring forward 
       the day when we need to think hard about 
       how to spread the massive wealth created by
       the automation of everything.
    

So instead of allocating half of all wealth to the top 1% we'll allocate it to
the top 0.1%?

~~~
Bombthecat
Yup, that's why you should invest in as many automation companies as you can.

Roomba, Intel, ibm etc.

There won't be revolution. There will be just rich and poor.

~~~
norea-armozel
Easier to turn off the power with a few sticks of dynamite or a backhoe. So
much for robotic feudalism when the substation is toast. :)

------
SmellTheGlove
It's a nice thought, but we haven't even yet replaced meatbag lawyers doing
the relative basics like document review.

