header-logo header-logo

29 July 2016 / Robert Spicer , Polly Lord
Issue: 7709 / Categories: Features , Profession , Technology
printer mail-detail

Man v machine

nlj_7709_spicer_0

Robert Spicer & Polly Lord issue a riposte to the legal industry’s current rush to IT

We are currently experiencing significant pressure by academic lawyers and information technology companies towards the increased computerisation of the English legal system. This rush to IT ignores the reality of everyday legal practice, particularly with reference to vulnerable clients. It can display an astonishing ignorance of human relationships in general and workplace issues in particular. The rush appears to be based on the assumption that clients are computer-literate, that hardware and software function perfectly, that computers have caused them no harm and that the electricity will keep flowing.

The client’s interests

The key question in this context is: “What is in the best interests of the client?”

Of course, it is clearly in the client’s interests to be charged for half an hour’s internet research into relevant statutes and cases, rather than half a day’s hard copy library research. But this is only a very small part of serving the client’s interests.

To take the example of a

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll