Why are lawyers so irrational in rejecting thechnology? Very good question asked by Susskind today in Rotterdam. Lawyers should understand their work is no longer needed if they don’t change the way they work. Concentrate for instance on risk-management in stead of trying to focus on disputes. I hear Jon Bing’s words in this speech and am very pleased by it. http://www.scandinavianlaw.se/pdf/49-20.pdf
It would be useful if Dutch lawmakers might try to understand the meaning of this. Espacially the part on law in case technical failures prevent people to send in their documents or opinions on time. We will have them. All of us. Why do you even want to know if the technical failure is to blame the person itself, the provider or the server of the courts? Why not try to prevent new disputes by building tolerance for technical failures in the law. Do you want justice for the legal merits of the case? Or do you want to invent new legal thresholds? And for what reason?
Very disrupting to see that the audience not knows what/who Watson is!! They probably think it is a about Sherlock Holmes! It makes me wonder: should we tell them that they can use a magnificent searching tool to find out what Watson is?