I'm a lawyer and this is what's gonna happen :

I'm a lawyer and this is what's gonna happen :
>person A : let's make a smart contract so we can get rid of those fucking lawyers
>person B : you're right, they're morons, we don't need them !
>fast forward 1 week
>smart contract does its thing
>person A : wait, i didn't expect the contract to do that
>person B : well, the code was open
>person A : give me back my money
>person B : no
>person A : I'll call my lawyer, you scammed me with an unclear code
>person B : I'll call mine so I can btfo you in court
>lawyers get even more money

Attached: 1533661451662.jpg (1200x1200, 763K)

Do people fuck up often when they plagiarize contracts off the internet in order to 'cut cost' by not hiring lawyers?

Is

Yeah maybe at first and then over time bugs will be ironed out and new agreements will be made to account for this. 1/10 fud

People are monumentally stupid. Anything you can imagine being done, has been done. There’s lots of “legal zoom” lawyers out there that find out the hard way their Google J.D. isn’t worth dick in court.

He wasn't saying bugs are the issue
Normies not understanding the contract code and agreeing to it is.

so lawyers, as we know them now, will be replaced with smart contract interpreters.

I sign potential clients for personal injury firms and probably make more money than u unless ur a trial lawyer

You're not a finance lawyer, that's for sure.

yes.
It's just that there will only be room for 1/10th of the manpower in this new market and the whole thing will end up 100x more efficient.

anyone who's betting his future on smart contract is mentally retarded, there's way more promising cryptos to be invested in right now, cryptos working on improving user expériences to reach mass adoption

lawyers are scum

That's why I'm 80% LINK, 20% NIMIQ

this misunderstands how legal smart contracts will work. there's still a legalese contract, and it will be what's used for disputes. the smart contract will just be coded to perform the terms of the contract outlined in the usual legal contract.

a person could already be duped into a contract they don't understand. absolutely nothing changes when its a smart contract, but people are dumb if they think normal contracts disappear with smart contracts. they don't. they just become smart. it won't eliminate all lawyers, but it will render many of their jobs useless while lawyers can take on more cases by having most of their terms automated. lawyers will be the first white collar job to be automated and OP is just a deluded faggot who's going to be on the unemployment line within a decade. laywers are just glorified paper pushers, but soon the computers will be pushing those papers which will either crash salaries or cull the laborforce of the dead weight.

consortium of toplaw says "our plain language equivalents on blockchain are legally enforcable"
bellweather case of shit tier JD goes against all the big boys at once
B
T
F
O

and the winners keep on winning
all the pittance state school contract lawyers go back to serving me coffee where they belong

> lawyers are just glorified paper pushers

Ehhhhhhhh not quite. A lot of legal work is document processing and whatnot, and I agree that automation will eliminate many lower legal jobs. There will still be a need for LRW and Litigation though. Lawyers won’t bear the brunt of automation, paralegals and clerks will.

lawyers themselves will as well. most lawyers aren't dealing with the kind of law that requires any form of subjectivity, they're dealing with your basic contract law. many lawyers will still have jobs for the kinds of law that isn't so easily automated, but something I've learned as a developer that lawyers will soon come to realize is that once things start becoming open sourced, you have those things in perpetuity to fork/build with/build on top of and it makes things that seem impossible now become turnkey within a few short years. smart contracts will be crude to start, but over time more and more lawyers will find themselves obsoleted. well over half of lawyers won't be able to find work once enough of the core frameworks are established.

read oblad's medium post about smart contracts

Meh It depends on the field. Like I said, litigation and Legal Research and Writing (judicial clerks for example) will still be very important and probably won’t be hit too hard by automation. I agree that contract law, and especially estate planning could be severely disrupted though.

Also, there may be many new areas of law in the future. While right now it looks limited, who knows what blockchain/crypto/smart contracts could do.

I browsed it. Good article, but not inconsistent with my previous posts.

Document processing WILL be affected, no doubt about it. But when people say “Lawyers are fucked”, they have to realize that Contract law and estate planning are not the entire legal system. Document processing and performing contracts ARE an integral part of most every aspect of the legal system, but they are not the entire system. There will always be a need for Litigators, Judges, and any other legal work that is inherently human (legal theory, briefing etc...)

And like I said above, who knows what other fields smart contracts/crypto/blockchain will open up. There’s bound to be legal jobs created in those sectors as well

iyo, how much of the current work in contract law could be eliminated with mature implementation of smart contracts? also, thanks for your perspective lawyeranon

Most law is low-level litigation like personal injury and family law. I wouldn’t expect average people to realize this but the % of lawyers drafting contracts isn’t all that high. The % making a living solely off drafting contracts is even lower.

>substitute lawyer with programmer
ftfy, future NEET.

>hire lawyer
>check my smart contract
>worst case lawyer hires dev to review code or just some quantstamp
>economy continues to grow
K

Right, but as a developer perhaps you should focus less on how law currently works and how the tech industry has developed and evolved since as law adopts tech more centrally it'll begin go follow the same trends. What used to be done by many different people (DBA, systems architect, development, quality assurance, sysadmin, network admin, etc) are now all boiled down into a single role in a lot of places. As the tooling improves and removes recurring/repetitive work, the roles change and obsolete any specialists who weren't adequately keeping up with the other aspects of the industry. The same sort of "full stack lawyer" will still be able to get by for a while, but they're going to be handling the work of what used to take 10 lawyers, while those 9 other lawyers are now stuck jobless or working for a fraction of what they used to make sticking to small time legal work that has lagged behind the curve. Meanwhile even now "full stack developers" are at risk of being obsoleted as tooling for non-developers has improved enough to let average people build out rather complex systems with their mouse. The same will eventually be true of many types of law as well, though we still have the interim to get through where the work for lawyers that can still get work is easier, but the ease of that work has made redundant anyone who offers nothing more than what the tooling can already do.

Unfortunately I don’t have enough legal experience to give you an informed answer, but the answer is probably a good amount. As someone pointed out in the other law thread, Smart Contracts help with “execution” of the contracts, but you will still need lawyers for most other aspects of contracting. However, most legal jobs that are basically document filing/processing are succeptible to disruption.

fuck off kike, your days are numbered

Thanks just sold 100k

Maybe I’m misunderstanding but are you suggesting that the legal field will shift back towards multi-discipline lawyers rather than the specialized/niche lawyers we have now? If so, I disagree. The law is too cumbersome and versitile for a lawyer to hang their shingle and take on any client that walks in.

I do agree that there is a lot of chafe and inefficiencies in the legal field that will be reduced. For instance, you won’t need a team of runners or paralegals anymore, but you’ll still need your criminal/PI/business law etc... specialists

Right, and back in the day technology used to be too cumbersome and versatile too, and every specialist thought they were safe. This is why I know lawyers pretending their world isn't going to be turned upside down are ill informed. You haven't had to live through mass transformation of your industry yet. Meanwhile my industry has transformed the world, and at the same time obsoleted a lot of our own positions in the process to the point that nothing about software development looks like what it did 10, 20, 30 years ago, nor does anything about the world look like it did then either. We're coming for your industry soon and I guarantee most lawyers will lose in the end if they're sticking their heads in the sand and assuming most jobs are safe.

Most of those "cumbersome and versatile" elements will inevitably be handled by machine learning paired with management systems made to boil the entire legal process down into its bare essence. The law is admittedly a disgusting mess. If it were code we would have already thrown it out and started fresh. But as these systems develop, the disgustingness of the underlying law will become more polished, and the processes will become more streamlined to the point that nothing about the industry looks the same anymore.

you are clueless dude

kek. a NEET calling a developer who's known about BTC since before it reached parity with USD clueless on a crypto board is jokes

If we have AI in charge of subjective interpretations and litigation then there will be much bigger problems. Again, there’s a lot of inefficiencies and areas in the legal field that can and will be vastly improved by technology in the future, no doubt. There’s no head in the sand here, but I disagree that field-specialization will be a casualty of the technical advancements.

>There’s no head in the sand here, but I disagree that field-specialization will be a casualty of the technical advancements.


This is fair, so I guess I'll qualify since I'm painting in broad strokes. Some specialists in my industry are definitely better off. If you were a DBA, you could be learning on the side to lean more into Big Data, and Data Scientists are where the money is now so those specialists will have work forever. But the other specialists, the syadminds, network admins, quality assurance devs, grunt developers, etc, those specialties have all become folded under a single role, and the tooling every year pulls more and more roles into that "full stack developer" position. Even with ML we're at the point that if you understand stats, and also understand code, its a few lines to hack together some crude ML models using TensorFlow. That used to require an insane amount of specialization but its now been made turnkey enough that its within reach of basically any developer who's used to working with data.

So I'll concede that SOME specialists are going to not only continue to exist, but will end up making more. If you're a lawyer who can also code you're set for life. But the problem is that every specialist loves to assume they're special, and time is going to prove that most "specialists" are only specialists because of the cumbersome nature of the environment around their job, not the job itself. If you're leaning into the right specializations in law you'll have work and potentially see your wages rise. But most lawyers who don't understand the full reach technology will end up having will end up specializing in types of law that seem safe right now but don't really require all that many unknowns to be solved before computers can outperform them or at least keep up for a fraction of the cost. The less in tune a lawyer is with the power of modern technology, the more likely they are to watch their entire practice disappear.

I will also add that the subjective nature of Law, for reasons you mentioned (the law being an absolute mess for example), is precisely why machine learning systems will not entirely disrupt the legal system. Interpretations of words and laws change over time and can be incredibly subjective. For instance, how would a machine help determine what a “chicken” is in the famous Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S, or, when both parties have a contract to sell “chickens” but have a completely different interpretation of what “chicken” means contextually. Machine learning might be able to help, but it won’t replace the humanasitic aspects

Smart contracts are a meme. They’re fucking dumb if you think about it. Let’s say you buy a house, you need an agent, lawyer, escrow agency, etc... sounds wasteful right? “Muh smart contracts” instead, right?

No, because each layer actually serves a purpose. The escrow agency serves as an experienced mediator and insurance Incase the money gets miswired. The agent (theoretically) helps you find critical flaws in the house and negotiate, the lawyer makes sure you have recourse, etc.

Using smart contracts removes protections and levels of verification for both parties. It’s fucking dumb and basically a high school science fair project.

If you can’t shell out a few grand for a 800k house then you shouldn’t fucking be buying property. I hate you stupid crypto faggots

They are obviously deluded. 90% of this board are chainlink holdlers and will obviously worship smart contracts

of course smart contracts will still be subject to legal redress/court action. but that isnt the point. SCs will make high volume contractual executions faster, more efficient and cheaper. and these kinds of contracts rarely end up having to be challenged in court anyway.

for a lawyer you sure have missed the point about smart contracts. def would not hire you.

this is fair, but I think ultimately doesn't change anything. you'd define your contracts, attach them to smart contracts, and those would include terms for arbitration, and if the terms are contested then it bubbles up to the lawyer managing the contract. each lawyer will still end up capable of managing a shitload more cases with smart contracts than they could without them, which means that the number of lawyers will still shrink either way.

look at manufacturing as an example of what's coming to the legal industry. line techs aren't completely gone. and the number of robot programmers has increased. but a significant enough portion of the line tech's jobs have been automated enough that the job market for manufacturing is in decline regardless of the fact that there's still manufacturing/technician jobs around. you'll still need people for those edge cases, but you'll need way less people overall since anything that doesn't trigger an edge case will end up automated.

Those are all substantive aspects of contracts. Smart contracts aim to make contract execution easier.

You’ll still need lawyers to negotiate and interpret terms, you’ll still need agents to make sure the house is up to code etc... those are substantive portions of the contract. Smart Contracts aim to improve the efficiency of the execution of said contracts.

> for a lawyer you sure have missed the point about smart contracts. def would not hire you

ooooooooooooo

t. fiat bagholder

If you were involved in software before LINK you've known for years lawyers time as a high paying job is shrinking. You've definitely known its coming to an end longer than Chainlink has been around.

You can pretend that people are now talking about the legal industry getting fucked because of smart contracts/chainlink, but the truth is that we've been discussing how this eventuality will come for decades. You're putting the cart before the horse because you're a NEET.

Increased efficiency/automation will lead to less work, that’s literally what it means. In that respect, I agree that the general # of jobs will decrease just by the nature of there being less work available.

Here’s a question though.

Why do we assume that the legal field will be one of the first to adopt smart contracts? Shit, why do we assume that the legal field WONT be one of the last fields to adopt smart contracts? The law is notorious for being very slow moving, and their adoption of technology is no different.