- Journal Archives
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
The term ‘hacker’ is being used in a growing numbers of circles, and not in reference to some sort of scene from a movie about a coder (or group of coders) accessing data without authorization. This new connotation of hacker involves someone who pushes the boundaries of what is and is not possible in a clever or playful way. Taken broadly, many lawyers are hackers. They revel in cleverly navigating to a successful victory, and, especially in front of the Supreme Court, they probe the boundaries of what is and is not law. But community-defined parameters have constrained the boundaries of legal practice to a very distinct space, which has remained (mostly) untested until recently. In case you haven’t noticed, the giants in the legal technology world are racing to make their interfaces more user friendly. But as this article noted, the user interface is not the only problem; there is a fundamental issue with the search function and the way some of the data is presented. It doesn’t stop there. Big law firms have also been looking for ways to alter basic tenets of their structure, like fees, personnel, pay, and leadership. To date, these changes are small and have very little effect on the traditional confines of practice.
Today, however, hackers are breaking free from the framework that have limited lawyerly innovation. The legal profession is being ‘hacked.’ By integrating law into a technological structure, instead of integrating a technological structure into law, companies are redefining the boundaries of legal practice. This is vital in the post-recession legal market, where clients demand leaner and more cost-effective legal service with the same standard of quality.
Take, for example, a Y Combinator-backed startup called Clerky, which was featured in TechCunch when it launched last march. Clerky’s customers can easily file all the legal paperwork needed to get a startup off the ground. The ‘hack’ here is in how easy–and inexpensive–the founders Chris Field and Darby Wong have made the process. Users only need to enter the email address of the people required to sign the paperwork, as well as some basic information about the company. Clerky takes care of the rest by emailing the people involved and allowing them to electronically sign and date the documents. For about $400, a user can complete the incorporation process in Delaware, and, for $300 more, the standard post-incorporation documents are included as well (e.g., Action of Incorporator, Bylaws, Initial Board Consent, Restricted Stock Purchase Agreement, Notice of Stock Issuance, pre-filled 83(b) Election and Filing Instructions, and Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement).
Another standout hack is best described as the ‘Wikipedia of law.’ The startup, Casetext, allows users to access legal documents and help with the annotation process, essentially, crowdsourcing legal research and analysis in an attempt to take on Lexis and Westlaw on cost–and maybe even on quality. This could be a gold mine if the legal community uses it as a tool to advance legal knowledge; but it might be a disaster if no one uses it, or worse: it resembles the haphazard, wild-west-style collaboration process for which Wikipedia has been criticized. Either way, this idea is functionally a ‘hack’ and is helping redefine the relationship between technology and the law.
Traditional legal fees and the billable hour are not going to be safe (to the extent that they still are) for much longer, especially as innovators build on the accomplishments of startups like SimpleLegal. There, founders Nathan Wenzel and Patrik Outericky are working to make the legal billing process more transparent by giving users a platform for analyzing a firm’s bill in search of errors and overbilling. The ‘hack’ is that the data collected allows SimpleLegal to anonymously aggregate bills across customers in order to more effectively standardize the process.
So the hackers have started to arrive. What will you do? Run? Hide? Or join them? Whatever you choose, let us know in the comments or on Twitter @VandyJETLaw!
Recent Blog Posts
- The Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law Jumps Thirty-One Spots to Highest Ranking Ever
- Hiding Behind the Computer Screen: James Woods Files Defamation Lawsuit Against a Twitter User
- Let’s Enjoy Fantasy Football…While We Can
- Guest Post: Tweeting Away Patient Privacy
- Naturally Occurring or Mind-made?
- Does China’s 2022 Winter Olympics Song Intentionally Plagiarized ‘Frozen’s’ ‘Let It Go’?
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution