undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrayiner13y ago0 comments

I think the danger is when it comes to automation/rigid rules. People want to feel like their problems are unique and being considered in all their unique complexity. That makes achieving transparency or automation hard, because a system of hard and fast rules is more amenable to transparency than a system of fuzzy fact-specific inquiries.

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

ramanujan13y ago· 1 in thread

But at what cost? There is a tremendous opportunity for pretty-good, bargain-basement, automated legal services.

rayinerOP13y ago

Is there?

There are two kinds of clients in the legal field: rich ones and poor ones. Rich clients don't seek the cheapest legal services in the way they don't look for the cheapest office space or the cheapest office furniture. No board member wants some guy in India poring through his e-mails to do an investigation or diligence for a transaction. For rich clients, saving money and hiring "pretty good" isn't such a great thing if their opposing party spends more money and hires "pretty great."

Poor clients are different. Poor clients do want the lowest possible price for the given result. But poor clients tend to have problems that are hard to outsource. How is an attorney sitting in India supposed to represent you in your divorce, or help you get out of a traffic ticket?

igurari13y ago

Correct - and that is why I think that automation will not get us all the way there. (At least not in the 20-50 year range; I have no idea what the world will look like in 1000 years.)

And I think your point suggests that lawyers will continue to be valuable for many years to come, as well. There are so many rules that can be applied in a given case - including seemingly contradictory ones - that there is room for reasonable disagreement about which rule should be applied. A skillful lawyer can make a compelling (but not obvious) argument that rule A should be applied and not rule B.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse