Lawyers Beware! Blockchain Disruption in the Legal Industry has Arrived

[wkane236]

Lawyers Beware! Blockchain Disruption in the Legal Industry has Arrived
How the times have changed!

A little over ten years ago, very few people knew about a blockchain, but in our time, the technology has become a force to reckon with and even have the potential to displace the most feared professionals (lawyers) if they don’t embrace it.

https://www.addisonchurchill.io/lawyers-beware-blockchain-disruption-in-the-legal-industry-has-arrived/

[avikz]

Lawyers have started worrying since thew time IBM watson came into picture. However, even if legal contract governance can be managed by both Watson and blockchain technology without the need of a lawyer, machine will never be able to reason like a human. I sincerely hope it remains that way only otherwise we will loose our job to the machines. That is not at all desirable for the greater good!

[gentlemand]

Lawyers have started worrying since thew time IBM watson came into picture. However, even if legal contract governance can be managed by both Watson and blockchain technology without the need of a lawyer, machine will never be able to reason like a human. I sincerely hope it remains that way only otherwise we will loose our job to the machines. That is not at all desirable for the greater good!

What I've found deeply pathetic about the 'code is law' crew is that they are completely at the mercy of other humans who decide whether something is law or not.

You can have all the wanky tech you like. It's 100% meaningless if lawmakers and legal profession choose to ignore it.

[joniboini]

Blockchain might reduce lawyer contributions to people cases, but for sure it won't replace them. The article made some nice point in regards to how a decentralized contract decrease the amount of time when two parties want to create some sort of legal contract and executing it, but that's it. It will still require human to help them design a contract (what rules should be added, and so on). When we put this on a criminal case, things got way different.

This blockchain & lawyer thing is being hyperbolized I believe. In fact, the article quoted on that link gave a different perspective on how lawyers should react to blockchain development.[1] Even if the demand for lawyers will decrease, society will still need them.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/markcohen1/2019/01/14/what-does-it-say-when-a-legal-blockchain-ebook-has-1-7m-views/amp/

[HeRetiK]

I doubt we'll see a future like this any time soon, as I doubt that a blockchain (whatever it may mean in this context) is the right tool for this.

Instead of hiring legal firms to act as a third party to transactions, two transacting companies can digitally define their roles in a smart contract. As soon as each party fulfills its part of the deal, the contract is signed off.

Even now the problem is rarely defining the role of each party in a contract. It's fulfillment where things can get nasty. How can a smart-contract trustlessly know that a contract, enacted in the real world, has been fulfilled? Trivial cases can be handled of course (eg. "if paid x release y"), but those are not the cases where you'd need a lawyer in the first place. Anything more complex and you require a trusted oracle of sorts, so essentially you're back where you started just with extra steps. Additionally some legal systems have a concept of intent (ie. what a law intends to achieve is in some cases more important than following the law to the dot), good luck with coding that into your smart contract.

The challenge of requiring trust is already mentioned in the article:

There will also likely be a need of tech-savvy lawyers who will serve as arbitrators on a blockchain network built with a proof-of-stake model. For instance, service providers and hiring companies brought together on a blockchain platform may have issues with the quality of job delivered.

Lawyers existing as arbitrators on the network will have greater human intelligence on how to handle the issue involving the two parties and what the best consensus would be

Which makes me wonder even more what beneficial role a blockchain would play in this scenario.


Because for this:

Finally, blockchain technology can facilitate the storage of data by law firms around the world, thus, allowing court decisions to be made quickly based on early precedents that can easily be accessed from any internet-connected device.

...you don't need a blockchain. You only need a well organized, easily searchable database -- a use case for which a blockchain is one of the least adequate technologies.

Also the assumption that this would allow for quick court decisions around the world based on early precedents is an incredibly naive one. Laws and their applications differ wildly from country to country, not to mention that many countries don't even have case law.

[Harlot]

I won't call this a disruption but at least an improvement of the system. If they use this kind of blockchain technology I think lawyers are expected to be happy rather than fear that they will be losing their jobs. A contract is  still a contract even if it involves the blockchain tech in the future lawyers from both firms should be a part of it legally, the thing here now is this tech would only make their jobs a little bit easier with some more transparency in the process. The news has a very misleading headline by the way, I really thought that lawyers will someday ran out of jobs.

[palle11]

I won't call this a disruption but at least an improvement of the system. If they use this kind of blockchain technology I think lawyers are expected to be happy rather than fear that they will be losing their jobs. A contract is  still a contract even if it involves the blockchain tech in the future lawyers from both firms should be a part of it legally, the thing here now is this tech would only make their jobs a little bit easier with some more transparency in the process. The news has a very misleading headline by the way, I really thought that lawyers will someday ran out of jobs.

You have a point there you said it could make the work for lawyers easier.  I think the law profession is not even an endangered job for now compared to other profession, tech generally makes human jobs easier.

However, it is law when there are deliberation, arguments for facts and usually in a court room. And, I don't think tech has anything to do with court room. So, it is not here to replace the legal profession likewise  

[vit05]

The great challenge of the platforms that offer smart contracts is not the scalability. It's the challenge of a decentralized oracle. The middleman of trust. As long as there is no consensus of an oracle that can actually serve as a middleman in most contracts, and recognized by governments, the figure of the Judge and the lawyers will still be much needed.