A more measured article than what we have seen lately regarding the so called ‘Robot Lawyers Thesis.’ I find it pretty funny that the NY Times Facebook link leads to the Click-Bait title but the final online version has the more measured title (see image above).
The article certainly has an Enterprise Law / Big Law undertone. If we focus on this subset of the market for legal services, there are a number of collective trends which together are transforming the market. It is the combined cocktail that is potent …
Here are five of them:
(1) Legal Outsourcing
(2) Insourcing and the Growth of Corporate Legal Departments
(3) Process Improvement (Lean / Six Sigma)
(4) Automation of Legal Tasks using A.I. (a.k.a. robot lawyers)
(5) Financialization of the Law aka #Fin(Legal)Tech
Plenty has been written about legal outsourcing, insourcing, and the growth of corporate legal departments and the application of process improvement methods (Lean / Six Sigma).
With respect to automation, it is curious to see the Times cite the Remus / Levy paper. At best, this paper is only relevant to the automation of the fraction of the work that is undertaken in Big Law (drawing from data from several years ago). They suggest an ‘automation rate’ of 2.5% per year. If that were to continue – this implies a rate for the decade of 25% just in Big Law alone. Again, this does not focus upon the other market dynamics highlighted above.
It is worth noting their data comes from a period before the implementation of #MLaaS (Machine Learning as a Service). Since its inception, #MLaaS has made A.I. tools far cheaper to custom build to problems. I have said recently that the best in legal tech has yet to be built (see slide 260).
So thanks to the NY Times for shedding light on this field. But lets remember the #RobotLawyers Thesis is only a small part of the puzzle.
As a matter of strategy, some element of the #LegalInnovation agenda should be part of the strategic portfolio of every legal organization (law firm, law school, corporate legal dept, etc.) Why? Because those who do so can increase their standing in the relevant market in question. Only those who use the newest and best tools available will thrive in an ever-changing market.
An Updated Version of Artificial Intelligence and Law :
A Six Part Primer
Join us at Skadden during ABA Techshow Week. We will begin at 5:00 p.m. with networking and kick off the program at 5:30 p.m.
Dan Linna (@DanLinna) & Dan Katz (@computational) kick off the program
How To Find North: Navigating the New Disruption – Eddie Hartman, Co-founder, LegalZoom (@EddieRHartman)
The Dirtiest Word in Legal – Dan Lear, Director of Industry Relations, Avvo (@rightbrainlaw)
Networking through the Internet: Taking Lawyers Where They’ve Never Gone Before – Kevin O’Keefe, CEO & Founder, LexBlog (@kevinokeefe)
Talk Title TBD – Amani Smathers, Legal Solutions Architect, Davis Wright Tremaine De Novo (@R_Amani)
I am pleased to serve as a Program Chair and Speaker at the Plenary Presidential Summit @ New York State Bar Association Annual Meeting. Today’s topic will be Artificial Intelligence and its Impact on the Legal Profession. Joining me on the panel are the following panelists covering the following topics:
What is Artificial Intelligence? What is Machine Learning?
Dera J. Nevin, eDiscovery Counsel, Proskauer
What are Some Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Predictive Analytics in Law?
Andrew M.J. Arruda, CEO & Co-Founder, Ross Intelligence
Daniel Martin Katz, J.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Law, Illinois Tech – Chicago Kent Law
What are the Labor Market Impacts? More Jobs, Less Jobs, Different Forms of Legal Jobs and Legal Work?
Noah Waisberg, J.D., Co-founder & CEO, Kira Systems
From the article: “The prevalence of noise has been demonstrated in several studies. Academic researchers have repeatedly confirmed that professionals often contradict their own prior judgments when given the same data on different occasions. For instance, when software developers were asked on two separate days to estimate the completion time for a given task, the hours they projected differed by 71%, on average. When pathologists made two assessments of the severity of biopsy results, the correlation between their ratings was only .61 (out of a perfect 1.0), indicating that they made inconsistent diagnoses quite frequently. Judgments made by different people are even more likely to diverge. Research has confirmed that in many tasks, experts’ decisions are highly variable: valuing stocks, appraising real estate,sentencing criminals, evaluating job performance, auditing financial statements, and more. The unavoidable conclusion is that professionals often make decisions that deviate significantly from those of their peers, from their own prior decisions, and from rules that they themselves claim to follow.”
Suffice to say we at LexPredict agree. Indeed, building from our work on Fantasy SCOTUS where our expert crowd outperforms any known single alternative (including the highest ranked Fantasy SCOTUS player), we have recently launched LexSemble (our configurable crowdsourcing platform) in order to help legal and other related organizations make better decisions (in transactions, litigation, regulatory matters, etc.).
We are working to pilot with a number of industry partners interested in applying underwriting techniques to more rigorously support their decision making. This is also an example of what we have been calling Fin(Legal)Tech (the financialization of law). If you want to learn more please sign up for our Fin(Legal)Tech conference coming on November 4th in Chicago) (tickets are free but space is limited).
Above is my keynote address at the Janders Dean Legal Horizon Conference in Sydney. It is a mixture of some earlier talks I have given – together with some new materials.
Today is day one of the two day Janders Dean Legal Horizon Conference here in Sydney – I look forward to kicking off Day 2 tomorrow with my address to the 200+ delegates!