Lexpert Magazine

64 LEXPERT MAGAZINE | JULY/AUGUST 2016 TECHNOLOGY | COLUMNS | George Takach is a senior partner at McCarthy Tétrault LLP and the author of Computer Law. In 1961, in Canada, there were 12,068 law- yers for a population of 18.2 million peo- ple. In 2013 (the latest figures available), this figure had increased to about 90,000 lawyers for a population of about 35 mil- lion. So, the population between 1961 and 2013 roughly doubled, while the number of lawyers grew exponentially. Two factors account for this increase. First, while the work of "finding the law" has been increasingly automated, as illus- trated by the anecdote above, the exercise of applying the law to specific facts has not been computerized. And second, the fact patterns that lawyers are wrestling with are becoming ever more complicated, and also they are becoming more numerous. is is not surprising, partly because the Canadian economy has also grown im- mensely since 1961. In that year, Canada had a $40-billion economy; in 2013, Can- ada had a $1.8-trillion economy. So, even controlling for inflation, as a nation we are many times richer than 50 years ago; there- fore, it is not surprising that we require many more lawyers to help manage the multifaceted legal issues kicked up by the expanded economy (and civil society, etc.) is point can also be made with regards to accountants. In a very interesting study regarding the impact of information tech- nology on employment generally, Deloitte recently pointed out that in the UK, in 1981, there were about 100,000 accoun- tants, while in 2011 the number had grown to just over 215,000. erefore, in those 30 years, the IT revolution did not cause a loss of accounting employment — it partly drove the explosion in such jobs. EXERCISING JUDGMENT at the demand for professionals in this country has grown over the past three decades does not surprise me. Laws have multiplied, businesses have gotten more numerous, the complexities of our society have grown alongisde all of this. A country that prides itself as governed by the rule of law needs a lot of lawyers. Moreover, consider what the essence of lawyering is — in my view, it has to do with exercising judgment under intense time constraints. Whether one is undertak- ing advocacy in real time in a courtroom, or advising on a transaction that closes at month end, or imparting wise counsel to a board of directors, time is typically of the essence. us, it's great news that some of the more mundane elements of "finding the law" has been automated, and acceler- ated through IT support (coupled with smart research lawyers and librarians mak- ing sure the right questions are asked of the legal databases). Expediting this research function al- lows lawyers more time to exercise judg- ment. at is not to say that IT will not impact lawyering judgment activities as well. ere is a point where the law finding function morphs into legal judgement, as when there are conflicting cases in diverse jurisdictions. In such circumstances, intel- ligent IT systems will become ever more helpful — witness the recent legal research computer built by Ross Intelligence on top of the IBM Watson platform. is system, referred to by some com- mentators as a "legal robot," has been implemented by (among others) the bank- ruptcy group at Baker & Hostetler, a large law firm in the US. But I wouldn't call this a robot — it is simply a next-generation research tool that is even more efficient at finding the relevant law. It still does not, however, apply the law — that remains the exclusive preserve of the human lawyers who use this tool. ADVICE TO STAY EFFECTIVE IT and computer systems are, of course, getting smarter and faster every day, and so perhaps one day they will start to crimp onto the judgment function. So what's a lawyer (and especially today's younger law- yers) to do? Put succinctly, there's much they can do to improve their "judgment under intense time constraint" skill set. I would make two suggestions. Learn to sell. Whether you are a legal ad- vocate or a negotiator, you need to be able to sell. And an important subset of selling is negotiation. Being able to understand the "needs and greeds" of the relevant parties (your client for sure, but also the other side, and all other relevant parties) is a key first step, and then being able to engage with all of them in a negotiation that results in win-win (or multiple win) solutions. is is a significant part of what successful lawyers do, and effective negotiation techniques – which can definitely be learned – will be difficult for silicon chips and soware to emulate in the foreseeable future. Finally, collaboration. Law school should begin the process of making the lawyer a collaborator par excellence. Cur- rently, business schools are much better at this; law schools need to catch up. e key is that a project with a legal dimension of any meaningful size or importance today requires multiple members of a team to work together to bring the effort to frui- tion. is includes working with a legal robot, for sure, but also with other people in a wide array of circumstances. Learn this skill – along with selling and negotiation – and you'll never be replaced by a computer. THE IT REVOLUTION has already affected a number of processes that support what lawyers do. But IT has not replaced lawyers — far from it. Between 1961 and 2013, the population roughly doubled, while the number of lawyers grew exponentially

• cover
• front
• big
• back