In particular, the article examines the ways in which electronic legal products, which have been made increasingly accessible by the Internet, are changing the nature through which legal advice is disseminated and the interactions between professionals and their clients. An example of this in practice is the use of expert systems (also discussed in Steve Kempler’s blog post), which work like decision trees form conclusions and solutions based on a series of linked questions. One such expert system that has been used by Blake Dawson Waldron is “Virtual Lawyer – Advertising”, a system which assesses whether advertising copy breaches trade practices or other legislation based on a series of questions posed to the user.

Furthermore, electronic services which are used to simplify and streamline mundane legal work have also been embraced by both practitioners and clients. As clients are becoming increasingly reluctant to pay exorbitant fees for what appear to be repetitive tasks, the advent of online products enabling the average non lawyers to draft documents such as wills, prenuptial agreements and less complex agreements, allows firms to service their clients in a more cost effective manner.

However, with such reliance on automated systems, the question of whether these products can truly replace the expertise and judgement of an experienced lawyer is debatable. Furthermore, there is always the risk that electronic products will impinge upon the services traditionally provided by lawyers, leading to what is referred to in the article as the “cannibalisation” of the legal profession.

In my view, these advances in technology should be used in a complementary manner to improve existing processes, rather than being perceived as supplanting traditional legal services. In doing so, professionals and clients can derive great benefit from the increase in efficiency, whilst enabling clients to become actively involved in relatively simple legal tasks. Additionally, there will still be room for lawyers to contribute their skills and knowledge when dealing with more technical and advanced legal issues that cannot be resolved through the use of electronic systems alone. In this way, lawyers can still justify their existence (and fees) whilst contributing to a more integrated and efficient practice of law.

Legal professionals are encouraged to contribute to LegalWiki, which aims to provide the community with a quick and accessible source of information that would otherwise be difficult to find and comprehend. The creation of LegalWiki will hopefully prove to be an effective solution to the challenge of simplifying legal information and research to those who do not possess specialist legal knowledge, a dilemma recently addressed by lopj.

However, despite attempts by the creators to classify the content of the wiki as commentary rather than “legal advice”, I ponder whether such a disclaimer will be upheld by the courts in the hypothetical situation that one suffers loss as a result of relying on LegalWiki. Given that the wiki is dependent on the profession to contribute and continually monitor the accuracy of the information published, will the possibility of liability (however remote) deter lawyers and other legal specialists from contributing valuable knowledge and expertise? 

In any case, I myself am very enthusiastic and hope to see this wiki succeed. It is yet another step towards making the law more accessible and user-friendly for the benefit of the community.

Be sure to have a browse and contribute (click here).  Refer also to Susan’s blog post on LegalWiki (click here).

No where are these issues more prominent than in the computer game “Second Life”, an internet based virtual community in which players or “avatars” custom build their own personas, jobs, and other facets of everyday living. It is a replica of the physical world translated into bits and gigabytes of data, where avatars can build careers selling virtual self-designed goods, trade virtual real estate, form intimate relationships with other avatars and engage in endless possibilities that imitate real life.

My curiosity as it pertains to this virtual world led me to research further. With the help of Google, I discovered an interesting article by Four Corners (see here) which explores the legal intricacies arising from Second Life and its growing popularity.

Like any community, Second Life will ultimately require definitive boundaries to govern and protect its inhabitants. The growth of Second Life poses a legal challenge for Linden Lab, the creators of the game, as well as jurisdictions globally. How will the law be enforced in this virtual world if a crime is committed, and in which jurisdiction? Alternatively, how will the virtual community deal with copyright and trademark infringements if one avatar decides to copy and re-sell the designer goods of another? Can contracts for the sale of virtual real estate be legally enforced, and if so, in which court?

The advent of this new community poses many difficult questions. Perhaps what is required is co-operation between Linden Lab and the respective countries that have particular vested interests in the game’s development both from a legal and financial perspective. In any case, this virtual world surely provides a unique and diverse platform for legal debate and development.

The company is no stranger to litigation, and most recently has become the target of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in claims of misleading and deceptive conduct over ambiguity relating to its “Sponsored Link” results and key-words search functions (see ACCC targets Google in the US).  Undoubtedly, such a case has the potential to set a devastating precedent for Google, which would translate to a tremendous impact on the company’s profitability.  It isn’t a wonder then that Google is so actively litigious and takes such a keen interest in fighting even relatively trivial cases (see The name is Google. So sue us). 

However, I am unashamedly a Google addict.  I “google” everything – so much so that I even use “google” as a verb to describe my research techniques.  Consequently, for me, the question of whether Google’s primary aim of making information universally accessible to the world should triumph over proprietary rights and consumer protection, is not one which I can answer without a slight sense of bias.  Nevertheless, I shall remain a spectator, pensively observing the way Google will shape our technological and legal future in the years to come. 

While the Australian legal industry is known to be conservative, law firms and organisations are being warned to embrace such technologies or risk being less competitive and effective than the organisations which do. As seen from my previous post, Blake Dawson Waldron appears to be leading the charge in Australia by trialing the use of a wiki in the firm’s intellectual property, communications and technology group.

When I started reading the article, I noticed that the phrase “Web 2.0” was mentioned not only in the title, but also in the very first line. Intrigued by this unfamiliar phrase, I decided to look this phrase up on old faithful, Wikipedia, to find out exactly what “Web 2.0” meant (it’s written in Wikipedia, so it MUST be true):

Web 2.0, refers to a perceived second generation of web-based communities and hosted services — such as social-networking sites, wikis and folksonomies — which aim to facilitate collaboration and sharing between users.

Focusing then on social networking tools, is it a good idea to have such tools (such as Facebook) in the workplace to “facilitate collaboration and sharing between users”?

On the one hand, social networking tools in the workplace can help to build a sense of community amongst employees and build relationships with clients if used appropriately. They are an incredibly efficient way for employees to share information and communicate. They also enable employees who work long hours to do some organising of their personal lives at work.

On the other hand, employees are likely to be wasting too much time “socially networking” and not enough time working, especially those working long hours who do not otherwise get the opportunity to use such tools outside of work. The cost in lost productivity to firms would be significant and there is a concern that use of such technology creates security issues for a firm’s computer systems.

Then again, those who opposed the introduction of email in the workplace would have argued the same thing.

Maybe the time has come for Australian firms to jump on the bandwagon and embrace social networking tools sooner rather than later?

However, I got to thinking about the more traditional and relatively conservative legal, consulting and accounting firms and practice groups. Is it realistic to expect the partners and senior management of these firms to contribute meaningful to something as technologically advanced as a wiki? How widely can such a mechanism be implemented? Frankly speaking, many partners and senior management personnel have not experienced the same exposure to the internet, to the gadgets and gizmos as younger generations in this day and age.

I fondly recall being in the same room as two partners as they tried in vain to access the Google website with their one-letter per minute typing. Yes, it took two partners of a major firm to find and access Google in the space of around 15 minutes – a very costly 15 minutes for the client involved. This, combined with their heavy reliance on personal assistants, paralegals, aides, etc…, it isn’t a wonder that most partners and senior personnel are completely lost when it comes to technology.

How then do we tap into the wealth of knowledge possessed by colleagues and leaders, if time always seems to be limited and technology is not always user friendly for some? Perhaps the answer is simple – a quick, snappy, face to face chat may do the trick after all. Although a wiki does sound very savvy indeed.