Skip to main content

LAWTECH

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our T&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.
https://www.ft.com/content/5d96dd72-83eb-11e6-8897-2359a58ac7a5The Financial Times Limited 2017.

Artificial intelligence disrupting the business of law Firms are recognising that failure to invest in technology will hinder ability to compete in today’s legal market Read next FT Europe Innovative Lawyers open for entry © Anna Gordon Share on Twitter (opens new window) Share on Facebook (opens new window) Share on LinkedIn (opens new window) 6 Save OCTOBER 6, 2016 by: Jane Croft Its traditional aversion to risk has meant the legal profession has not been in the vanguard of new technology. But it is seen as ripe for disruption — a view that is based not least on pressure from tech-savvy corporate clients questioning the size of their legal bills and wanting to reduce risk. Sample the FT’s top stories for a week You select the topic, we deliver the news. Select topic Enter email addressInvalid email Sign up By signing up you confirm that you have read and agree to the terms and conditions, cookie policy and privacy policy. As more law firms become familiar with terms such as machine learning and data mining, they are creating tech-focused jobs like “head of research and development” or hiring coders or artificial intelligence (AI) experts. Change is being driven not only by demand from clients but also by competition from accounting firms, which have begun to offer legal services and to use technology to do routine work. “Lawtech” start-ups, often set up by ex-lawyers and so-called because they use technology to streamline or automate routine aspects of legal work, are a threat too. Lawtech has been compared to fintech, where small, nimble tech companies are trying to disrupt the business models of established banks. A study by Deloitte has suggested that technology is already leading to job losses in the UK legal sector, and some 114,000 jobs could be automated within 20 years. Professor Richard Susskind, a technology consultant and co-author of The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts, predicts unprecedented upheaval in a profession where the working practices of some lawyers and judges have changed little since the time of Charles Dickens. “One question lurking in all this is whether someone can come in and do to law what Amazon did to bookselling,” he says. “We won’t see anything as dramatic, but we will see incremental transformations in areas like the way documents are reviewed and the way legal risk is assessed.” Big law firms are pouring money into AI as a way of automating tasks traditionally undertaken by junior lawyers. Many believe AI will allow lawyers to focus on complex, higher-value work. An example is Pinsent Masons, whose TermFrame system emulates the decision-making process of a human. It was developed by Orlando Conetta, the firm’s head of R&D, who has degrees in law and computer science and did an LLM in legal reasoning and AI. TermFrame guides lawyers through different types of work while connecting them to relevant templates, documents and precedents at the right moments. He says AI will not make lawyers extinct but “is just another category of technology which helps to solve the problem”. “Clients are aware of [AI] and how it will benefit them and they are asking the tough questions of us. In the past year we have gone from being in start-up mode to having the rest of the firm banging on our door asking about this,” says David Halliwell, a litigation lawyer and director of knowledge and innovation delivery at Pinsent Masons. Legal Geek In a sign of its potential success, lawtech has its own social scene. London-based serial entrepreneur Jimmy Vestbirk has launched Legal Geek, which organises events and meet-ups for lawtech start-ups, as well as hackathons and interactive talks. Mr Vestbirk researched legal start-ups in San Francisco before setting up F-Lex, an on-demand paralegal agency in London. He is not a trained lawyer, but confidently describes the law as ready for disruption. “Artificial intelligence is a big component of that,” he says. “There is definitely a buzz now in the legal profession.” As Professor Richard Susskind puts it: “In 10 years’ time if you were to look at the top 20 legal providers by revenue, half will be non-lawyers.” Another AI application is Linklaters’ Verifi program, which can sift through 14 UK and European regulatory registers to check client names for banks and process thousands of names overnight. A junior lawyer would take an average of 12 minutes to search each customer name. Meanwhile, Allen & Overy, along with Big Four accountancy firm Deloitte, has created a service to help banks cope with tough post-financial crisis regulations. MarginMatrix codifies the law in various jurisdictions and automates drafting of certain documents. The time to draft a document will fall from three hours by a lawyer to three minutes. Other firms are using AI for discovery exercises in litigation, which can involve laborious hours of document word searches. US law firm Cooley recently used AI in a litigation dispute in which the technology identified relevant word concepts and clusters of words in 29m documents. This led to lawyers receiving a smaller subset of data where the program “machine-learnt” through predictive coding according to how it was classified. Mark Deem, a partner at Cooley, says the firm is open to using AI partly because of its client base. “Some of our bigger clients are in the tech world and therefore the lawyers are willing to embrace technology, and get it.” One worry is that the “Big Law” business model, with its billable hours and partnerships, is not suited to incubating tech start-ups where experimentation is vital and potentially expensive. Tim Pullan, founder of ThoughtRiver, a lawtech start-up, is typical of the new breed of innovator, although he says: “I guess we’re somewhat older than the kids down in Shoreditch.” He was a partner at London law firm Lawrence Graham until 2006 when he decided to work in Asia for Experian, the credit-checking agency. But later he set up ThoughtRiver, based at law firm Taylor Vinters in Cambridge, to address “core productivity issues” at the heart of the law. Related article FT Europe Innovative Lawyers 2017 open for submissions We are looking for examples of innovation in law and the business of law for the 2017 report and awards “I thought about it for years and homed in on one particular problem we thought we could solve,” he says. That area was legal contracts: some corporate clients might minimise risk by focusing on higher-value contracts and ignoring contracts under a certain value. ThoughtRiver’s software uses AI to scan and interpret information from all written contracts used in commercial risk assessments and presents it in a central online dashboard that enables clients to assess risk more easily. Another firm, Riverview Law, is in partnership with the computer science department at the University of Liverpool. It has launched Kim, a virtual assistant designed to help legal teams make quicker and better decisions. Karl Chapman, Riverview’s chief executive, says Kim’s features include being able to suggest the best order in which to renegotiate a series of corporate contracts.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

台灣建築獎 PRIZE OF ARCHITECTURE

  土建築師打敗普立茲克獎大師 橫山書法館奪台灣建築獎 2022-11-03 01:22   聯合報 坐落於桃園大園、由新世代建築師潘天壹設計的橫山書法藝術館,奪得2022台灣建築獎首獎。圖/潘天壹建築師事務所提供 2022台灣 建築 獎昨公布得主。新世代建築師潘天壹設計的橫山書法藝術館奪得首獎。普立茲克獎得主庫哈斯與姚仁喜合作的北藝中心、普立茲克獎得主坂茂與石昭永合作的南美館,則與德光教會、巨大集團全球營運總部並列佳作。本土建築師打敗兩位普立茲克獎得主,評審形容,台灣建築獎得主潘天壹年紀雖輕,作品卻能同時展現「隽永中有淡淡驚喜」的兩種張力,為喧囂的時代帶來安定的力量,奪得今年建築獎首獎。 橫山書法館與埤塘為鄰,潘天壹以篆刻硯石為意象,將五個硯石內斂而分散地放置於埤塘旁,形成流動的書寫地景。評審認為本案利用東方的合院概念,塑造現代園林遊園式觀瞻,將書法的意境用建築表現。整體呈現安靜、平和、穩健,有驚奇但不吵雜,節奏疏密拿捏得宜。 評審團召集人劉培森指出,潘天壹將建築物拆散成尺度小的院落式組織,空間處理切合主題。他把內部空間的氛圍處理得非常好,讓人感到心靈的沉澱,節奏上又出現不同的層次。當訪客從外界進入內部,層次的處理非常精彩,感受水平空間的寧靜之時,看到天花板的結構,又能感受到趣味性。潘天壹年紀輕、卻有相當成熟的表現,「30年前覺得台灣建築水準差國際一大截,30年後覺得有許多年輕建築師慢慢冒出、令人欣喜。」 橫山書法藝術館從設計到完成花費四年。潘天壹透露,四年過程中「經歷很大的逆轉過程」,到現在都還覺得有一些「未完成」,希望透過獎項啟動學習和陪伴。他認為,建築作品並非完工之後便停止,「每個案子都是孩子、屬於這個地方、擁有自己的生命力」。迄今他每個月都會去看橫山書法館,「看地景如何陪伴民眾、繼續它的旅程」,也希望在建築的發展過程中,學習如何回應社會責任。 潘天壹是新世代建築師中,罕見從未出國留學的「土建築師」。問他心中的「台灣建築」是什麼?他形容是「只有在台灣才看得到的台灣建築」,從中可以找到社會、文化與產業脈動的浮現。他認為,台灣的大環境比較少談書法、台灣文化,因為資訊都是「和洋混合」的強勢文化衝擊,在這種衝擊之下,大家習慣浸泡在張力之中,失去對自己文化內在的表述。他認為,如果將台灣建築獎歷屆的建築師連起來,他們都在串連台灣的DNA,「只要串得下去...

都市脈絡 與 公共建築間的互動

  打造一座偉大的棒球場並非如此簡單:金鶯公園與台北大巨蛋 丁桀   25 Aug, 2022 金鶯公園與台北大巨蛋。 圖/美聯社、聯合報系資料照 本月初,巴爾的摩金鶯隊(Baltimore Orioles)於主場金鶯公園(Oriole Park at Camden Yards) 慶祝 這座廣受 媒體 讚譽的「復古經典式球場(Retro-classic Ball Park)」啟用滿三十週年。金鶯公園的啟用,不但改變1990年代後 美國 職業 棒球 場的設計概念,也讓運動一躍成為美國在談論市中心再生時的關鍵詞。金鶯公園作為美國都市再生的標竿案例,自然也受到美國其他城市,如克里夫蘭、亞特蘭大、聖地牙哥、匹茲堡等,仿效其棒球場設計與規劃模式。 看似只適合美國都市脈絡的規劃設計手法,竟也被台北挪用至 大巨蛋 一案選址合理性的理由。即便從尺度、歷史、文化、甚至是運動發展進程而言,巴爾的摩與台北是完全不同的城市。更何況,一座是營運三十年的金鶯球場,另一座是興建超過三十年的台北大巨蛋。兩座八竿子打不著邊的棒球場,如何在雙城扮演關鍵的發展角色呢? 本文選擇金鶯球場及台北大巨蛋的選址、規劃、設計三個面向,提供大家重新思考,所謂「永遠改變」棒球的棒球場,具體改變了什麼?這些改變對於都市發展是好是壞?對未來棒球場興建規劃的影響為何? 棒球場館選址:一成不變的政治遊戲 1980年代,巴爾的摩能在康登車場(Camden Yards)興建金鶯公園的主因有三。首先,曾任巴爾的摩市長(1971-1987)及馬里蘭州州長(1987-1995)的民主黨人威廉・雪弗(William Schaefer)為防止金鶯離開巴爾的摩,獲得馬里蘭州議會共255億美元支持(球場興建與土地取得費用)。 其次,康登車場雙球場計畫(金鶯公園與 M&T銀行球場 )共計約502億美元的計畫,能呼應1970年代規劃的內港主要計畫(Inner Harbor Master Plan)——一舉翻新市中心衰頹樣貌。其三,反對陣營雖獲得大眾支持,但公民投票的 連署 請求並未受到洲議會及法院青睞,反而大幅削弱反對陣營的聲音。 巴爾的摩金鶯隊(Baltimore Orioles)的主場金鶯公園。 圖/美聯社 同時期,台北市雖在1980年代左右就啟動評估在關渡或七號公園(現大安森林公園)興建一座五萬人座的室內體育場,但...

業界對抑制房價手段 的 反映

  不動產聯盟總會林正雄:高房價政府也是推手 應停止重稅 2023-01-16 22:02   經濟日報/  中華民國不動產聯盟總會理事長林正雄今(16)日指出,這波房價高漲主因惡性通膨所致,尤其政府重稅也是推手之一。他呼籲,政府要「解決缺工」、「停止重稅」等,才能促進房市發展健康化。中華民國不動產聯盟總會提供。 中華民國不動產聯盟總會理事長林正雄今(16)日指出,這波 房價 高漲主因惡性 通膨 所致,尤其政府重稅也是推手之一,政府接連打房只會讓台灣經濟出現破口。他呼籲,政府要「解決缺工」、「停止重稅」等才能促進房市發展健康化。 他指出,近年房價高漲係因通貨膨脹,使各項原物料大幅上漲,全國缺工已經不只是民間 營建業 的大問題,連政府的公共工程都面臨人力短缺的難解課題,尤其營建署在2020年發布的營造業經濟調查報告顯示,全國營建業已缺工近12萬人,2022年以來,營建業的缺工的數字更是呈倍數成長。 他表示,營建業缺工問題亦使工資不斷墊高,在工料雙漲情況下,業者只能反映成本,這也是目前房價居高不下的原因;然而營造物價高漲是國際貿易問題,不易緩解,但「缺工」問題,政府可以透過制度適度鬆綁,修正外籍移工引進規定來解決,如此才能根本解決高房價問題,才是各黨能否獲得「執政」的關鍵! 另外,林正雄強調,政府歷次打房政策與金融限縮,以及大環境通膨,使得業者經營成本增加,諸多限制與稅制閉鎖期違反市場自然運作,連帶使消費者選擇減少。經過兩年多來的強力打房,民眾們應該要清醒了,政府以加徵重稅來打房,其實無助平抑房價,反而重重傷害了眾多相關從業人員的生計。 林正雄呼籲,政府要「解決缺工」、「停止重稅」,不要再以重稅打房,尊重市場機制,才是房市健康化的開始。