Written by: Marc Lauritsen
Will AI make law better?
Yes.
For whom?
For many on both sides of the legal profession’s moat.
I’ll be brief.
(If you’re looking for verbosity, see my other writings. Links to some decorate this one.)
Tag: computational law Page 1 of 2
Reading time: 4 minutes
Reading time: 5 minutes
Written by: Alexis Sudrajat and Alexis N. Chun
The inaugural Computational Law Conference (“CLAWCON“) ran from 12 to 14 July 2023. Hosted in the Singapore Management University (“SMU“), the event saw speakers and attendees from private, public, regulatory, and academic organisations, some of whom had flown in from all over the world. They had come together to discuss the issues surrounding computational law from a multi- and interdisciplinary perspective. It was organised by SMU’s Centre for Computational Law (“CCLAW“), Singapore’s first and only research centre focused on applied research in the intersection between law and technology.[1]
Two distinguished speakers, Professor Lee Pey Woan, Dean of Yong Pung How School of Law (“YPHSL“), and Mr Yeong Zee Kin, Chief Executive of Singapore Academy of Law (“SAL“), delivered the opening keynote addresses of CLAWCON 2023. This article summarises both of these keynote speeches.
Reading time: 4 minutes
Written by Alexis N. Chun
In the first part of this 3-part series, we spoke about the status quo in law and how we at Legalese and the Computational Law Centre (CCLAW) at Singapore Management University are working together to make Computational Law a reality. Last week, we painted you a picture of what a computational law driven future might look like, and assured you that the approach of building a DSL is a rather well-honed tradition one in software that has transformed professional domains like accounting, architecture, and digital photography. This article is the final part of a 3-part series.
Reading time: 5 minutes
Written by Alexis N. Chun
Last week we spoke about the status quo in law and how we at Legalese and the Computational Law Centre (CCLAW) at Singapore Management University are working together to make Computational Law a reality. This is part 2 of this 3-part series.
If you recall, we discussed the (natural) language problem of law and how perhaps a domain-specific language (DSL) for law might be the foundational technological innovation to fix it. Because a DSL gives “Law” (which term we use to collectively refer to statutes, regulations, contracts, guidelines, business process logic, rules, quasi-legal documentation, you name it) a common denominator, the disparate bits can now “talk” to each other. This is what makes “Law” computable and computational. And in our vision, this foundational technology gets us from pseudocode to real code. That’s what we suspect a contract wants to be when it grows up: a program. And the marvellous thing about programs is that Law can graduate from simply expressing syntax (i.e. words on a page, legalistic expressions) that are essentially pseudocode to semantics (i.e. what does it mean in an objective or clearly defined fashion), to pragmatics (i.e. what does it mean for me). Semantics and pragmatics are the traditional demesnes of lawyers; these are things you’d pay and ask for a lawyer’s advice on. But lawyers’ service of semantics and pragmatics may be too much like a priesthood (and too expensive) for most end users: go forth with this blessed document, but don’t break your back carving out the laundry list of assumptions, professional indemnities, and deciphering what exactly it means for you. Take faith. This just might not cut it anymore for the increasingly tech-savvy and knowledge-driven common man on the Clapham omnibus who reviews and background checks everything including their drivers, romantic dates, and restaurants.
Reading time: 5 minutes
Written by Alexis N. Chun
In 2011, Marc Andreessen said “software is eating the world”. And with that in mind, a computer scientist and a lawyer decided to do just that. Legalese.com was born, and 5 years later, Singapore Management University’s Centre for Computational Law.
The Status Quo
Commas alone have cost one million (Canadian) dollars, millions in taxpayers’ dollars, and even gotten someone out of a parking ticket. Richard Susskind OBE has written about The End of Lawyers and the law firm’s business model has been described as “risking obsolescence”, “rigged to fail”, and trapped “in a death spiral”. The Atlantic said the legal profession was “the only job with an industry devoted to helping people quit”. That’s all rather grim, but probably not news. You get it, the status quo sucks.