2014: The Year of New Law, No Hashtag
In May of 2014, Jordan Furlong published a comprehensive list of the universe of NewLaw business models – some that increase lawyers’ efficiencies, others that marginalize or eliminate the need for lawyers. But even though 2014 may have been a watershed for #newlaw, it was an even bigger year for new law, no hashtag.
What I mean by new law, no hashtag is law uninvented. Precedent not yet written. The kind of law where an old fogey like me doesn’t have any inherent substantive advantage over a newbie just out of school.
In all of my years of blogging, I can hardly recall a year with so many emerging issues on the horizon. Some arise out of new technology developments – like the legal issues associated with wearable tech or drones (which also raise ethics issues ) for lawyers. Others have resulted from policy changes, such as liberalized marijuana law or legalization of same sex marriage.
There have been zeitgeist changes too such that we’re more comfortable with the sharing and crowdsourcing. The freelance economy raises a whole new set of employment issues – and as Uber has disrupted traditional regulated taxi services, it’s become a veritable first year issue spotting exam on criminal law and liability, insurance law, price gauging and regulation.
This is law at the inception – a place where big data can show trends but there’s still room for judgment and passion and creativity in filling the gaps or minimizing uncertainty. As a bit coin (another new law area that exploded this year) market participant observed:
Because of the legal uncertainties surrounding bitcoin, companies in this space will need to use attorneys more intensively than if they were in a more conventional line of business – for a while.”
As lawyers, new law calls on all our skills. Today’s lawyers need analytical abilities to figure out how to put these round pegs into existing square holes. They need first rate contract skills, to figure out how to draft agreements that can minimize regulatory uncertainty as laws change over time. Lawyers must to understand the legislative process and lobbying and the Administrative Procedure Act and rule making in the event that they’re called upon to write and implement new laws and regulations. Do we really need T-shaped lawyers – bean counters who can manage projects and use tech to design systems? Well, sure – they can implement the systems that new lawyers create. Which would you rather be?
Very thought-provoking. I am a relatively new attorney, and 51 year old middle corporate manager with 30 year career in information technology. Trying to figure out a way to leverage these things together to have a solo and rewarding work life outside corporate confines. Ideas welcome.
Oh boy, I’m glad that I’m not the only one skeptical of things like the MSU Reinvent Law lab. Yes, lawyers should be human and knowing more than one technical niche of law is nice (aka, it gives one the ability to recognize other issues and talk with other humans) but as an experienced attorney, formerly a sales and marketing rep, with some side creative work, I don’t buy the “analytics/law/design” triad. Not one bit. Especially when the design shown on the MSU site is so bad half of the time (white letters on a black background? Isn’t that textbook “hard to read” bad design?). I have clients – they are not asking me for design and predictive coding. They are asking me for help with whatever the legal hassle of the day turns out to be. Bonus points for a cool idea (that probably created law school jobs and funding and may get the insiders tenure) but I don’t see it.