Allowed to be wrong sometimes

For years now, the question has been discussed again and again in relevant formats whether lawyers will need programming skills in the future. I have always denied this - to acquire and maintain good legal knowledge is enough to fill an evening, there is no room for another discipline (apart from exceptions).

Today I say: that was too short-sighted. Just as marketing professionals need to have a deep understanding of the processes around digital advertising, lawyers of the future need to have a good understanding of the relevant digital technologies.

They don't have to be the ones writing lines of code for e-discovery suites. But they do need to be able to assess what to expect from the various technologies that are usually grouped under the umbrella term "artificial intelligence." Lawyers and notaries, corporate lawyers, judges, prosecutors and administrative lawyers - all of them will, in the course of their very own work, be facing the question of the use of technology for certain process or procedural steps and will have to assess for themselves what they can expect from it and what the risks are. By this I don't mean the eternal data protection issues, but issues such as bias, training sets, confidentiality, and most especially error calculus.

This also creates a whole new set of challenges for legal academia, but even more so for continuing legal education. For a long time, lawyers have seen time constraints as their central problem. The tension will only be resolved if ... but that is another story.

The darker side of digitization

Last week, New York City hosted this year's LegalWeek - an annual, multi-day congress on the digitization of the legal industry. After two years of absence due to the pandemic, many sessions revolved around the question of what impact COVID-19 has had on digital development. This question is as difficult to answer after the pandemic as the prophecies in this regard were before. I would like to share two interesting aspects from the event reports here.

First, in his article published on law.com, Rhy Dipshan argues that the demands on judges are increasing as the use of technology in the courts increases. The panel was not at all concerned with fancy understanding of the mechanisms of artificial intelligence. Rather, the focus is on ostensibly trivial mechanisms such as the questioning of witnesses via video call (zoom, etc.). Judges should pay more attention to the setting and the possibilities it offers to parties and party representatives.

Concern was caused by the thesis that the  digitization of the judiciary does not actually improve access to justice, but rather restricts it. Often, it is a matter of simple things like access to basic technology. There was mention of a family court that had entered into a cooperation with a local church, where litigants were given access to the Internet in digital kiosks in the first place. This would be a surprising symbiosis of state and church, which is worth reflecting on further - which brings us back to Lent.

Justice as a gamechanger

Today I was interviewed by the agile Nerds of Law Katharina Bisset und Michael Lanzinger for their podcast. As often, the question was, will legal tech become more widespread? What will that mean for the legal profession?

For the most part, there are fairly balancing answers to that question. For once, I'd like to spin a polarizing thought:

"The gamechanger" par excellence in Austria was the justice system. It began deep in the 20th century with the introduction of the form-based dunning action and the digitization of the land register, and a little later the company register. Mandatory electronic legal transactions with the courts gave Austria a decades-long head start. What if the justice system were once again the driving force, and what might that look like?

A thought experiment: laws would be written in machine-readable German, i.e., with clear logical relationships and well-defined terms. There would even be room for discretionary leeway, but we would have to dispense with undefined legal terms and systematic loopholes. The jurisprudence of all courts would be analyzed in depth by machine and connected to the new laws by means of connectors. THAT would be a game changer, but one that would not please many of those involved in the legal system (lawyers, judges, even experts), because many court proceedings could be automated or simply eliminated.

Is the idea absurd? No, research on legal language is plentiful. The bigger issue would certainly be the connection of the jurisdiction, but at least it would not fail today because of the computing power.

Not to be misunderstood: This is not a proposal, but a thought experiment. But the underlying thesis is a fact: Digitization in Austria runs through the justice system!

Digitization of the judiciary: Now!

In Austria, an obligation to be vaccinated against COVID-19 is to be stipulated by law. Needless to say, this plan is polarizing opinion. Recently, the professional association of judges and public prosecutors expressed its position on this issue. In addition to constitutional concerns, the issue is the immense additional burden on the courts resulting from the expected appeals against penal decisions. There is talk of a 6-digit number of additional proceedings "threatening" the administrative courts and supreme courts. 

The concern is certainly justified. One does not have to be a prophet to foresee that this wave of complaints will be steered on the one hand by certain political parties, but also by the legal profession. And there the question of resources does not arise? No, because these complaints will certainly be handled with a high level of technological support. Just as in the case of flight delays or fines for speeding.

These resources must also be available to the authorities! The cases will resemble each other or can be typified, the arguments will be repeated. If lawyers manage to build up the necessary infrastructure - why should the judiciary not be able to do so?

It is certainly not a financial question. Probably a legal one, but the lawyers on the other side are also obliged to personally authorize each and every appeal, and the relevant case law of the Administrative Court is well known. But of course, it also requires the willingness of judges (and politicians) to accept technological support. If compulsory vaccination actually becomes law, typical mass proceedings must be expected. The timing for a digitization push in the judiciary could not be better.

Digitization of the judiciary?

The highly esteemed Markus Hartung quotes the German Federal Bar Association on Twitter: "BRAK has already made a decisive contribution to this process [i.e. to the digitization] by setting up and operating the (... beA)". He leaves the quote uncommented - but I would like to take it up briefly:

In wide legal circles, the opinion still prevails that the use of word processing and e-mail as well as the use of legal databases is already "the" digitization. If one assumes this, the establishment and operation of a secure document transmission system is undoubtedly a step forward. But it is also only a beginning.

A further digitization of court proceedings will inevitably affect established principles. The immediacy of proceedings, for example, the decision by judges as persons at every stage of the proceedings, the performance-based remuneration of lawyers, and - yes, even the new idol called data protection. None of this will happen today or tomorrow, and of course it will require constitutional amendments - but digitization is more than just remote access to files, even if much has already been gained with the latter.

"The 'robojudge' is technologically impossible."

With this clear statement, the Executive Director of the Center for Legal Technology and Data Science at Bucerius Law School in Hamburg, Dirk Hartung, tried to direct the discussions about the digitalization of law into more realistic channels.  "We tend to be concerned with the social impact of technologies, the use of which is far beyond any meaningful period of consideration," Hartung said.

The occasion for his lecture was the 30th EDV-Gerichtstag (EDP Court Day), which for well-known reasons was again held virtually rather than in Saarbücken.  Prior to this, Florian Matthes, professor of computer science at the Technical University of Munich, had given a highly interesting talk in which he screened the main technologies that are currently shaping the development of legal informatics. Matthes did not hesitate to address controversial topics. When he describes Natural Language Processing (NLP) for legal texts as an essential field of research, hardly anyone will disagree with him; his appeal to rely (again) more on rule-based expert systems, on the other hand, is likely to meet with headwind.

The topic of NLP also reveals a topic that ran through the entire event. One might agree that "computer scientists and lawyers must become friends" (Maximilian Herberger) if one is concerned about the digitalization of law. However, the very mention of "understanding" legal texts as a link between the processing of existing texts and the generation of new ones triggers fundamentally different associations in lawyers and technicians: the linguistic-logical understanding of a legal issue literally collides with the mathematical approximation analysis that is meant by "understanding" from a technical point of view.

Also of direct interest to Austria is the issue of anonymizing court decisions as a prerequisite for their publication. Work on automating this labor-intensive process has been going on for some time in both Germany and Austria. It is interesting to note a thesis of the judge Isabelle Biallaß: Anonymization not only has to be humanly controlled, it also has to be scaled, depending on whether the anonymized text is to be made available to science or industry.

That could still take some time.