Introduction
Technology has automated and standardized labour-intensive tasks such as e-discovery and contract management in law firms. Today, the time available for a legal professional to attend to all clients is limited since the demand for legal practice is high. The nature of work in legal firms has changed due to technological advancement. However, there are various concerns about the use of technology in legal practice, including that some people will be rendered jobless. Available legal software and websites enable individuals to connect to and access legal resources. The paper aims to illustrate the application of technology in law. The research revolves around historical analysis, e-discovery, lawsuits involving technology, constraints on the adoption of legal technology, and the future of legal technology.
Historical context of legal technology
The invention of the red “UBIQ” terminal by Lexis in 1973 was a starting point for the use of computers in law (Paliwala, 2010). There was a shift in the search for law cases to an online avenue. Initially, all searches were conducted through books, which was laborious. The revolution rapidly evolved from document searching to document creation in 1979. The first technology in document processing was the Wang machine. The American Lawyer was the first to publish documents using the Wang machine. Adventurous lawyers utilized personal computers when IBM released the technology in 1981. The lawyers used Excel spreadsheets to analyze securities trading trends, negotiate settlements, and calculate damages. There were specific applications tailored for lawyers in the 1980s. The introduction of databases simplified the retrieval and copying of relevant documents. Legal assistants could easily access a record in the database through the use of a search engine (Hadden, S. E., & Brophy, A. L, 2013).
There were two primary problems resulting from the inability of PCs to connect to a network. The first concern was difficulty in sharing files between PCs, and the second was the inability of PCs to connect to expensive printers. In 1985, the connection problem was solved through the use of the local area network. It also became possible for many PCs to connect to a printer. E-mail was another benefit that resulted from the introduction of LAN. In the 1990s, law firms utilized e-mail internally. Conversely, contemporary lawyers use the internet and e-mail.
The introduction of Windows occurred in 1992 and replaced DOS. However, it was more expensive than DOS. Therefore, migration in the legal market was minimal. Despite the extensive use of Windows applications, legal vendors concentrated on DOS advancements. Windows was easy to use since “task switching” was possible, the printed document was a replica of the one on the screen, and a graphical interface was available (Hadden, S. E., & In Brophy, A. L, 2013). Nevertheless, it was hard to add specialized servers, upgrade software, configure personal PCs, and set up networks. Law firms decided to employ trainers, desktop specialists, and network engineers (Hagelin, 2015).
Many lawyers agreed to use PCs since they had become standard tools for them. In 1995, legal applications such as docketing, case management, and collections of specialized tools that are vital in intellectual property and real estate were available. The development of Mosaic software in 1996 enabled individuals to search the “World Wide Web.” Microsoft eventually developed Internet Explorer (Schwabach, A., & Dawsonera, 2006). Law firms in the United States were reluctant to use the Internet, but the demands of clients forced them to change their position. Immediately after adopting the internet, many law corporations began to create websites. The websites highlighted the main activities of the firms.
The ubiquitous BlackBerry was a new technology in law corporations that was adopted in late 2001. It became possible for lawyers to receive and send messages anywhere through the use of the BlackBerry. Moreover, law companies provided notebooks to staff since they were comparatively cheap. Many advancements in software took place in the 2000s. For instance, current browser-based interfaces can aggregate information. Extranets enable lawyers to share contacts, calendars, and documents with counsel as well as clients.
E-Discovery Law
E-discovery deals with the laws governing the acquisition of electronically stored information and the use of that information during a lawsuit in the proceedings’ investigative phase, known as discovery. Each side is permitted to obtain and request information from witnesses or outside entities as well as from the other party during discovery. The historical meaning of discovery refers to the exchange of tangible evidence and various documents, as well as interviews with witnesses. E-discovery differs from traditional discovery because of the use of electronic evidence, although some features are the same. Electronically stored information (ESI) refers to any website, video, accounting database, instant-message transcript, e-mail, image, or document that can be used in a lawsuit as relevant evidence.
Meta-Data
Meta-data refers to information showing who revised a file, who accessed it, when it occurred, and even copies of the file’s previous versions. The various data coded in files in the form of meta-data have increased the range of investigations in e-discovery. Meta-data contained in files increase the relevance of electronically stored data, hence making them more useful in lawsuits. Attorneys have encountered interesting new challenges as a result of meta-data. It can give investigators new insight into the persons who have worked on a file, the changes they made, and when those changes occurred. As a result, it will be possible to determine which party engaged in evidence tampering and to solve cases in which one party accuses the other of evidence spoliation (Wall, D. S., & Johnstone, J, 1997). Law firms can help businesses establish policies for retaining or handling materials that may later be used for e-discovery, especially regarding the disclosure or creation of potentially harmful meta-data.
The federal rule of e-discovery
The e-discovery process should comply with the Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure amendments. The FRE and FRCP apply to the process of producing and preparing ESI. Some of the FRCP provisions are illustrated as follows. FRCP 26 protects parties from e-discovery requests that are expensive and excessive, except when the protection is not warranted. FRCP 26(a)(1)(C) provides that the required period for initial disclosure is fourteen days after the Rule 26(f) meeting and conference, unless a court order or stipulation sets another time. Rule 26(f) is referred to as the meet-and-confer rule, which requires all parties involved to meet no later than 99 days after the filing of the lawsuit. FRCP 33 gives the requesting party access to business records that are kept or created in electronic format by defining them as discoverable. FRCP 45 protects a person who is a nonparty to e-discovery from costs that the parties are expected to bear (Wall, D. S., & Johnstone, J, 1997).
Constraints on the Adoption of Legal Technology
Technical Constraints: The implementation of legal technology is limited by some technical barriers, especially in artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, according to Simon Chester. Constructing algorithms that properly capture all useful aspects of law is difficult due to the complexity of the law. For instance, differences among jurisdictions make the answers to legal questions vary greatly. Only a small number of legal problems require yes-or-no answers. The complexity of legal reasoning creates a barrier to useful legal technology implementation (McKamey, 2017). Some critics argue that legal reasoning is a parallel process because the answer to a question may change the potential question to be asked subsequently. Therefore, this difficulty may disrupt a computer’s ability to deliver the required answers to legal questions.
Economic Constraints: Economic constraints have been identified as another barrier to the application of technology in law. This is because of the small number of investors in legal technology. Legal service providers may find it challenging to acquire technologically innovative developers since they tend to concentrate on larger markets, such as financial services, that have high profit potential. The fragmented nature of the legal services market makes proper technology implementation difficult. Most of the big players in the legal services market are not willing to implement and develop new legal technologies. Therefore, the impact of technology on legal practice is hindered by economic forces. However, the economic barriers that have been identified may have only a short-term effect on legal technology development. If new legal technologies can lower the cost of legal services, then the size of the legal market will increase and become more lucrative for technology developers (McKamey, 2017).
Technology Law Cases
Apple v. FBI: Apple had a technology that encrypted data on smartphones by default. The technology led to a lawsuit. The federal government requested that a magistrate issue a search warrant that would allow it to decrypt the iPhone 5s of a drug-crime suspect. Conversely, the federal magistrate hesitated to issue a search warrant. A similar technology case in a California court concerning the 14 people who were murdered in San Bernardino required the magistrate to issue an ex parte order to Apple. The law compelled Apple to develop custom firmware. The software aimed to circumvent security measures on the attackers’ iPhones. Apple objected to the order, which led to the intervention of the FBI. An undisclosed third party was contracted to decrypt the passcode. The All Writs Act was the basis of the FBI’s claim.
Microsoft v. the United States: Microsoft refused to execute a government warrant that was issued under the Stored Communications Act. Nevertheless, Microsoft filed an appeal with a district court. Microsoft was supposed to produce all the e-mail content and, at the same time, provide access to the account. The federal government believed the e-mail was used as an avenue to facilitate narcotics trafficking. Later, Microsoft found that it needed to import the data from Ireland since all the information was stored and maintained there. Microsoft’s lawyers argued that it was contrary to the law to infringe personal privacy, especially regarding communications stored outside the United States. Congress has addressed the creation and storage of digital information; therefore, Congress needs to update the ancient laws on technology (Glenn, 2016).
Oracle v. Google: Two questions arise from the long-running lawsuit that Oracle filed against Google over the implementation of Java code in the Android OS. The first question is whether it is possible to copyright application programming interfaces (APIs). The second question is whether a developer may repurpose portions of APIs under the fair-use doctrine without a license if they are copyrightable. The court ruled in the first trial in 2012 that the Java portions that Google had copied were ordinary APIs; hence, copyright law did not protect them. However, the decision was reversed by the Federal Circuit in 2014 on the basis that copyright can be used to protect the organization, sequence, and structure of an API. The court ruled in the second trial that fair use protected the API used by Google and that unauthorized use was permissible since it served the public interest, hence making Google the winner of the lawsuit.
Future of legal technology
The legal profession has undergone numerous technological transformations in the recent past, from courtroom and office layouts and communication methods to the way lawyers present cases and prepare for trial. Present and future legal professionals must process and handle a large volume of information and, at the same time, communicate with geographically dispersed clients and colleagues (Susskind, 2010). Most law firms are currently using platforms for online knowledge sharing, such as SharePoint, to make virtual interaction with geographically dispersed clients and colleagues easier. Software as a Service (SaaS) has made it easier for legal professionals to access and share information. SaaS is a cloud-based service that the general public can access, such as Google Docs. Law firms will use secure SaaS tools to store and back up documents electronically and to manage general accounting functions (Juetten, 2016). Lawyers in the United States use SaaS applications to send encrypted messages, develop secure online portals for clients, and remotely access case files from any device. Legal professionals will be able to access data and information at all times due to the growing use of tablet computers, smartphones, and cloud-based tools.
Personal opinion
I am convinced that the ability to identify a specific area where technology can work efficiently in legal services is a crucial aspect of the future success of law firms. Law companies that utilize artificial intelligence in some aspect of legal practice will deliver high-quality services to clients. Technology should be expanded to provide an online portal where citizens can get legal forms and documents. Examples of legal forms that should be available online include bankruptcy filings, business formation documents, wills, and contract documents. Artificial intelligence is an option for providing such services. Technology in law should be advanced further to reduce paperwork and deliver efficient services. Today, most cases such as fraud revolve around technology; thus, technology is an integral part of law.
Conclusion
Change in the field of law has been enabled and driven by technological advances. Technologies used in information sharing have facilitated flexible, continuous, and instantaneous modes of communication between lawyers and their clients. Technology has also made significant contributions to e-discovery, although several challenges are encountered. Even though the legal field is not at the forefront of technological advancement, it is catching up with other fields, such as the financial and medical fields. Legal professionals will be motivated to adopt innovations due to the benefits of recent technological tools.
References
Glenn, B. (2016). The 5 Top Technology Law Cases In 2016. ParadigmShift Law LLP. Retrieved from https://paradigmshift.manishin.com/?p=3565
Hagelin, T. (2015). Technology innovation law and practice: Cases and materials. New York: LexisNexis.
In Hadden, S. E., & In Brophy, A. L. (2013). A companion to American legal history. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Juetten, M. E. (2016). The Future of Legal Technology: Beyond Saving Time and Money. Am. J. Trial Advoc, 40, 507.
McKamey, M. (2017). Legal Technology: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Law Practice. Appeal: Rev. Current L. & L. Reform, 22, 45.
Paliwala, A. (2010). A History of legal informatics. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza.
Schwabach, A., & Dawsonera. (2006). Internet and the law: Technology, society, and compromises. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.
Susskind, R. E. (2010). The end of lawyers?: Rethinking the nature of legal services. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wall, D. S., & Johnstone, J. (1997). Lawyers, Information Technology and Legal Practice: The Use of Information Technology 1 by Provincial Lawyers. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 11(1), 118-125.
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
