Mandatory vaccination as a prototype for digital legislation?

Recently, I reflected here on possibilities to (partially) automate the legal system by using machine-readable language. As chance would have it, just in these days the current work of a Viennese doctoral student of law became known, who has set an initiative in this direction:

Since the beginning of February, the so-called "vaccination obligation" against COVID-19 has been in effect in Austria. But what does "in effect" mean. The associated law and the implementing ordinance issued on the basis of the law comprise a total of 35 paragraphs with countless subdivisions (paragraph, numbers) - not a text from which one can see at a glance how a particular circumstance is to be classified.

On his Website impfpflichterfüllt.at Paul Eberstaller leads the questioners with few, simple questions by the topic and offers at the end a clear answer: the inoculation status is valid or not valid. According to his own information, he needed only four hours for the development.

And now I wonder: compulsory vaccination is one of the most hotly debated topics in Austria because it deeply interferes with people's right to self-determination. If it is possible, even in this highly sensitive area, to formulate legal regulations so clearly that specific facts can be measured against them mechanically - why does this exception not become the rule? This would serve everyone!

About the child and the bath

Since it recently became known how great the influence of politics is on the appointment of top judges (and all top administrative posts) in Austria, the Republic has outdone itself in cries of horror and suggestions for improvement.

The undermining of the separation of powers through massive party-political influence on the appointment of higher-ranking judges is, of course, to be condemned. Nevertheless, the general outrage is unjustified. This system has existed at least since the Second World War; it is even partly stipulated in the constitution. What is new, at most, is that "evidence" is on the table for the first time. In any case, many of those who are raising their voices today have themselves come to their top function in precisely this way. Presumably, they are also too young to still remember the clarification of the AKH scandal.

It is also exciting that only coalition parties and members of the federal government are ever mentioned. Yet it is precisely the Federal President who, as an elected politician, has the last word according to the B-VG - and highly respected former Federal Presidents knew how to make extensive use of this possibility by a simple trick: they perfected the art of not signing.

So now, according to one proposal, judges and prosecutors should only be able to be appointed by judicial nomination during their entire career path. At first glance, this sounds tempting, but it overlooks two key facts:

First, judges are human beings, too, and thus not free of political persuasion. Influence, which will certainly continue to be desired by politicians, then shifts to another level.

Secondly, with all due respect and completely disregarding the specific individuals currently acting, the following should also be considered: Systems, which complete themselves exclusively from themselves, tend generally to petrification. Not every passing over of a line-up proposal has to be politically motivated, there can also be solid reasons for it. In any case, quite abstractly, and again emphasized, without looking at any concrete persons, it cannot be assumed that change agents make it into those positions in the judiciary and the administration of justice that enable them to have such an effect even if the "system" itself decides on its supplementation.

So much for the cause and for the sake of the cause. There are certainly ways to unite both goals in a meaningful and objective way.

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.

The power of money

Austrian industry magazine Horizont recently reported on the unexpected economic success of news service Substack in the US. After a slow start in 2017, the scale recently rose to more than 1 million paid subscriptions.

Paid newsletter subscriptions??

The business concept is amazing: Substack collects the best and most prominent authors by offering them 2 advantages over the traditional media world: 1. no content control by publishers, editor-in-chief or the like, and 2. a 90% share of the revenue generated.

The business concept could be transferred easily also to legal contents: one looks for the most prominent, shrillest specialists and offers to them a weekly column against absolute maximum fee. The authors take over the marketing through their mere availability.

The catch: the business concept inevitably leads to exaggeration and selective reporting. - In the past, this would have been called puffery. Now, I am not an enemy of the boulevard; it rightly has its place in the media world. But specialist information for experts must remain objective and predictable.

USA: COVID-19 does not increase cloud usage among lawyers

An interesting article on law.com recently addressed the question of whether the pandemic has led to increased use of cloud technology among lawers. A survey by the American Bar Association of several hundred members from law firms of all sizes paints rather the opposite picture. A fairly stable 40% of American lawyers continued to reject cloud technology.

The reasons given are not new. On the one hand, there is the cost risk involved in a transition from on-premise to cloud during the changeover phase.  More important, however, are security concerns. These can be roughly divided into two categories. One set of concerns is factually based. The fear that cloud providers could install spy software under pressure from public authorities and thus gain access to confidential information is usually cited. These reservations probably cannot be definitively dispelled for the USA.

It is more difficult to deal with dogma, such as the following. "Data storage in the cloud carries a higher security risk than on premise." Once you internalize this, it will be hard to convince you otherwise. So ultimately, it will be the clients who motivate their advocates to use contemporary technology. Or everything will remain as it is.

Parallels to current discussions are coincidental, but not necessarily wrong.

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.