TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Four Areas of Legal Ripe for Disruption by Smart Startups

88 点作者 krambs超过 10 年前

13 条评论

rayiner超过 10 年前
The article mentions some interesting things, but I have a few quibbles:<p>&gt; But even with today’s modern communication tools, both customer experience and lawyer workflow have remained stagnant.<p>At a large firm, legal practice is unrecognizable compared to even 10-15 years ago. Everything is electronic: filing and docketing, document collection&#x2F;scanning&#x2F;OCR, legal research, document management (DMS + version control). Everyone communicates almost exclusively via e-mail, and remote work facilities are ubiquitous.<p>To the extent that technology is available that&#x27;s not getting adopted, it&#x27;s because it&#x27;s not good enough. Predictive coding can be very helpful, but it also has a fixed setup and training overhead that makes it less efficient for smaller matters. That&#x27;s why arguably the biggest shift in discovery in the last 15 years hasn&#x27;t been to automating it, but outsourcing it to contract lawyers.<p>In the area of research, Westlaw and Lexis still rule because of their completeness and accuracy. If I need a copy of some statute enacted in 1873 I can not only find it, but I can get original scans so I can verify the text is free of OCR errors.<p>Moreover, things that are easy on the rest of the web are not easy when it comes to legal (or scientific) research. PageRank, for example, works great when everyone searching for &quot;skiing near Tahoe&quot; is looking for the same popular pages. But when you&#x27;re doing legal research, a lower-court case that directly addresses your issue but isn&#x27;t widely cited is much more valuable than a highly-cited Supreme Court case that doesn&#x27;t address your issue. And computers still don&#x27;t really understand either what issue you&#x27;re looking for or what issue a case is about. So ancient technology (search for this word near that word) still rules the day.<p>&gt; There are good reasons for this, as law firms tend to be cost agonistic (since they pass costs directly to their client)<p>This is oft-stated, but economically fallacious. Price is a function of supply and demand. The client cares about total cost for a particular legal service; she doesn&#x27;t care about how that cost is broken down. If the client&#x27;s budget for a matter is $300,000, every dollar that goes to costs is a dollar that doesn&#x27;t go to the law firm. This is true even if you&#x27;re billing by the hour, because in the long run, a firm will raise rates until hours x rate = client budget.
评论 #8760358 未加载
评论 #8758878 未加载
评论 #8759889 未加载
评论 #8758793 未加载
评论 #8758896 未加载
tdaltonc超过 10 年前
Four Areas of Legal Ripe for <i>Automation</i><p>Automating these aspects of legal practice wouldn&#x27;t disrupt the way that industry functions. It would just make a lot of paralegals and young lawyers obsolete (and make legal services a lot cheaper).
评论 #8758919 未加载
Skywing超过 10 年前
I currently write software for an e-discovery company. Most tasks that our software is expected to be able to perform are simple-sounding tasks, at first glance, such as ...<p>1. extracting documents from within other documents (attachments out of an email, files out of a zip, embedded excels out of a word doc, images out of a powerpoint, etc)<p>2. convert all said documents to some kind of standard media format so that the native viewing applications are not needed (all said document types to png, or pdf, or tif)<p>3. allow full-text searching across all electronic files<p>With these kinds of tasks available as an automated feature, the real product would just allow a bunch of attorneys to review the documents and apply tags or labels to them. Once they&#x27;ve gone through all the documents, there is generally an output from the system that summarizes their work and provides the relevant documents, notes, etc.<p>Over the years of writing this kind of software, we&#x27;ve encountered a never-ending amount of complicates with file types, feature requests, etc. The real complexities with this kind of software is making your software work for a large number of customers. Every customer probably has a different idea about what they want this kind of tool to do for them.
评论 #8760646 未加载
评论 #8760510 未加载
评论 #8760301 未加载
vowelless超过 10 年前
I am quite interested to know more about Judicata. It was cofounded by Blake Masters (coauthor of Zero to One). Anyone have any info on it?
评论 #8758766 未加载
评论 #8760307 未加载
tootie超过 10 年前
This paralegal I know told me 2 years ago &quot;I wish someone would automate discovery because it sucks right now&quot;. I wish I knew absolutely anything about it.
评论 #8758535 未加载
评论 #8758514 未加载
评论 #8758784 未加载
brighton36超过 10 年前
No mention of Smart Contracts?
评论 #8758411 未加载
评论 #8758586 未加载
评论 #8758428 未加载
slatercity超过 10 年前
I hear <a href="http://thoughtly.co" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;thoughtly.co</a> moved into e-discovery for visualization and summarization. Are there any other machine learning startups in the space right now?
评论 #8760538 未加载
vqc超过 10 年前
I&#x27;d be interested in seeing an IDE for contract drafting. Or something like an Excel mapper that can show me how all the provisions and definitions in a contract are interrelated.
评论 #8759789 未加载
评论 #8759101 未加载
评论 #8759019 未加载
评论 #8760213 未加载
jonstewart超过 10 年前
eDiscovery is <i>not</i> ripe for disruption. That ship has sailed.<p>eDiscovery has largely been solved for most corporate environments. There are tools to collect data in a defensible manner, to &quot;process&quot; (i.e., index) it, and to review it. There are even some products that aggregate these functions together, however, it must be well-noted that each of these functions has a different user&#x2F;customer and occurs at a different timeframe in the discovery process.<p>Many of the dominant tools do have their warts. But the money that was once in this space--the eDiscovery collection product I wrote sold for a couple million to its first customer--is no longer there. Prices have dropped dramatically and its now a commoditized market. So you&#x27;d have to work very hard for very little gain to displace any of the dominant players.<p>Note that TFA was written by investors in a new eDiscovery startup and TFA seems mostly like latent marketing for them. I don&#x27;t know anything about them--good luck and all that--but I&#x27;m very familiar with the space and I don&#x27;t envy them.
ryanb超过 10 年前
It&#x27;s hard to get excited about software for lawyers, and I think that&#x27;s why Disco has flown under the radar a bit, but I think these guys are going to be huge. They&#x27;ve made exponential improvements in e-discovery software.
评论 #8758323 未加载
评论 #8758883 未加载
评论 #8760888 未加载
thinkcomp超过 10 年前
PlainSite (<a href="http://www.plainsite.org" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.plainsite.org</a>), which I run, is tackling the research end of things.
GFK_of_xmaspast超过 10 年前
How many people are going to be put out of work by this.
curiously超过 10 年前
Still seems quite a challenging disruption here. For one, you&#x27;d need to know some aspect of the lawyer&#x27;s daily job and two you&#x27;d have to know how to sell to lawyers. The thing that scares me most is that these people also hold a trigger to suing the crap out of you because they can. It&#x27;s exciting and scary at the same time.