After reading a recent article discussing whether DIY legal tech would replace lawyers, I thought it would be helpful to provide some insight into the difference between lawyers and legal tech. Overall, the question of whether legal tech like LegalZoom or other automated DIY legal tools will replace lawyers or disrupt the legal industry seems to be largely nonsensical, for a variety of reasons. That’s because lawyers and legal tech do completely different things.
Sure, legal technology is changing the way that law will be practiced in the 21st century, but most of these changes tend to augment the work that lawyers already do.
Here Are Four Points That Illustrate The Difference Between Lawyers and Legal Tech
- Law has a large human dimension. The best lawyers know that law has a large human dimension. Whether that means convincing a judge or a jury, or having a productive conversation with the counter-party in a pending transaction, legal practice is largely a human endeavor. Even in the lawyer-client relationship, there needs to be a great amount of trust and an ability for a lawyer to provide a degree of emotional support in situations that can be stressful.
- Law is still about the unknowns. Automated tools allow people to register copyrights, incorporate businesses, and draft wills. This is great. I am all for people being more empowered to manage their own legal affairs. However, this is not where lawyers provide the most value. Lawyers provide the most value in identifying the unknowns that might complicate things now or down the road. So even if a tool allows someone to fill in the blanks on a form and send it in, there will never be assurances that the form that they are filling in is the right form or will serve all of their needs.
- Legal tech cannot offer legal advice. This kind of goes with the previous point. Almost every state has laws prohibiting anyone who is not a lawyer from offering legal advice – doing so generally has criminal penalties. This means that while legal startups can provide legal information, they cannot provide legal advice. What’s the difference? Legal information (such as this blog) can give general information about legal issues, but legal advice is all about how the law applies to specific circumstances (I go into details about this distinction in The Creators’ Legal Guide). Legal information is interesting and informative, and legal advice is actionable.
- Lawyers are champions of legal tech. There is a myth that lawyers are tech-phobic. There is no evidence to support that position, yet still it persists. In truth, the opposite is true: contemporary legal practice has become one of the most tech-centric and data-centric jobs on the planet. Whether that’s case research, electronic discovery, or practice management, technology plays a central role in modern legal practice, and most of the lawyers I know want more, not less legal technology. Legal technology makes us more efficient and allows us to provide better results to our clients. In fact, many lawyers integrate the best legal tech tools into their practices already and advise clients on how best to use them.
The question of whether legal tech will replace lawyers seems as misguided as asking whether WebMD and advanced medical devices will replace doctors. The question tends to arise because many people – and this includes a shockingly high number of legal entrepreneurs – don’t actually understand what lawyers do or know what legal clients expect from their lawyers.
The point: rather than trying quixotically to disrupt the legal industry, many legal entrepreneurs and consumers would be better served by technology that augments and improves the lawyer-client relationship. That’s a win for everybody.
