Is the use of technology beneficial or a great risk for law firms? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is the use of technology beneficial or a great risk for law firms?
in Technology

A few years ago, there was news that like all other industries, law firms would also see significant changes. Here is the link https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/17/lawyers-could-be-replaced-by-artificial-intelligence.html. Even lawyers could be replaced by robots/AI etc. Though lawyers are already using legal practice software like https://www.smartadvocate.com/, private cloud-based private systems and eDiscovery tools but don't you think a small mistake or security lap could cause a big blender and can reveal secrets of clients? Panama Papers leak is a big scandal that just comes into the eyes of the public. It just happened because of 11.5 million files of the world’s fourth-biggest off-shore law company leaked from its severe. I don't want to discuss the pros and cons of Panama Leaks just mentioned it to give an example. 

So, what do you think what are the pros and cons of using technology for law firms? What are their plans to avoid security breaches? Investing money for case management systems and tracking systems is enough? 




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • piloteerpiloteer 368 Pts
    edited June 2
    I
  • piloteerpiloteer 368 Pts
    Perhaps the cost of legal representation will go down dramatically. Maybe in the future, legal representation will be as simple and cheap as buying an app, because that's all it will be. Interesting topic by the way.
    BonitaVanhooser
  • piloteer said:
    Perhaps the cost of legal representation will go down dramatically. Maybe in the future, legal representation will be as simple and cheap as buying an app, because that's all it will be. Interesting topic by the way.
    Interesting topic but the community here is not interested in participating. 
  • Interesting topic but the community here is not interested in participating. 
    It doesn't involve politics, religion or sex so not a big seller... ;)

    But that said, we may indeed see a market opening for virtual lawyers or Legal Advisory apps... With good algorithms and comprehensive legal databases, who knows... Could be useful in civil cases but I think criminal cases tried before a jury, an actual lawyer will always be needed...

    Now, regarding data leaks risks, I think that no data is full-proofed against hackers, even traditional firms (no computer use) are not secured from inside leakers or robbery...  
    BonitaVanhooser
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • piloteerpiloteer 368 Pts
    edited June 6
    @BonitaVanhooser If it's not a topic where people get to try and offend others, and demean them, then they don't wanna be involved. 

    My G, @Plaffelvohfen makes a good point. No law firm is perfectly safe from being hacked. Also, if there's a fear that a law firm is trying to get information about your case so they can possibly get an upperhand, let me put those fears to rest. Both the plaintiff(Or prosecution), and the defense, are required by law to share all information that they have before the trial begins, so all sides involved know how the opposing party will argue their case before it even goes to trial. It's not really like anybody can slip in any "surprise" arguments. Maybe on law and order that happens, but in real life, a judge wouldn't allow that. So any leaked information will not give anybody else an advantage in court, because the other party will already know all the information anyway.


    http://rickacker.blogspot.com/2009/03/legal-stuff-are-surprise-witnesses-real.html
    PlaffelvohfenBonitaVanhooser
  • @Plaffelvohfen I agree to sort out classic white colour criminal cases, human intelligence would still be required, but technology is also proving itself a great tool in all of this scenario. Yes, law firms are not enough safe from hackers attack but can be saved with improved software and systems. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @BonitaVanhooser

    Oh, I do agree... I meant that it's not the "technology" that put them at greater risk, it's the nature of the information they need to keep safe that may, put them at risk... 

    As in any other domain, technology can be either beneficial or detrimental depending on how and who uses it as well as to what purpose... 
    BonitaVanhooser
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    @BonitaVanhooser ;

    A computer server is not a volt. Never was. To answer the question law firm's are at risk though not necessarily for the reason of information security alone. The need to built a computer to keep a valuable safe is in contradiction to the whole reason why computers had been placed into the public spotlight. You have to be a certain age to remember some things I guess.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    piloteer said:
    @BonitaVanhooser If it's not a topic where people get to try and offend others, and demean them, then they don't wanna be involved. 

    My G, @Plaffelvohfen makes a good point. No law firm is perfectly safe from being hacked. Also, if there's a fear that a law firm is trying to get information about your case so they can possibly get an upperhand, let me put those fears to rest. Both the plaintiff(Or prosecution), and the defense, are required by law to share all information that they have before the trial begins, so all sides involved know how the opposing party will argue their case before it even goes to trial. It's not really like anybody can slip in any "surprise" arguments. Maybe on law and order that happens, but in real life, a judge wouldn't allow that. So any leaked information will not give anybody else an advantage in court, because the other party will already know all the information anyway.


    http://rickacker.blogspot.com/2009/03/legal-stuff-are-surprise-witnesses-real.html

    Right………… no-one ever finds new evidence……….



  • piloteerpiloteer 368 Pts
    edited June 25
    @John_C_87

    Right……… no-one ever finds new evidence……….


    New evidence usually applies to criminal trials, but it's certainly not limited to them. If new evidence is found, it would have to go through the process of scrutiny which determines if it's applicable or can be used while the trial is happening(don't quote me on that though, because new evidence may not be allowed at all, and for the trial to commence, the new evidence may need to be left out, or a new trial may be required). Regardless, new evidence, or witnesses  need to be determined by both sides before any of it can be used in the trial. It's not like law and order, all parties will know what evidence is being submitted, and what witnesses will be testifying. Hacking into the opposing parties legal representatives computers to get juicy info and gain an advantage is useless, because both sides are legally required to present all the evidence and the list of witnesses expected to testify before the trial begins(pre-trial hearings).

    We all know that cliche scene in movies or tv shows when the lawyer is desperate and has run out of anymore options, but suddenly they have an epiphany and call a surprise witness, or make a surprise argument that turns the tide and puts the ball in their court. But that's not real life. The lawyer would need to ask the judge for the lawyers of both parties to approach the bench and discuss the legality of the evidence, or argument, or testimony of the surprise witnesses. That one legal matter could tie up the proceedings for days or weeks, while both parties try to come to an agreement on the new evidence, or testimony, or arguments. All side will know what the other side has to offer.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    @piloteer ;

    Keep in mind when saying new evidence as a united state it includes accusations not just...……..alibi...….in the balance of whole truth as far as computer security goes. 
  • piloteerpiloteer 368 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Accusation or no, ALL new evidence needs to go through the process of scrutiny, before both parties(defense and plaintiff or prosecution), to determine it's applicable and legal.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    piloteer said:
    @John_C_87

    Accusation or no, ALL new evidence needs to go through the process of scrutiny, before both parties(defense and plaintiff or prosecution), to determine it's applicable and legal.
    All you are saying is a truth must be substantiated as a whole truth, provable to the Court of law holding the trial, or group of people taking part in the hearing, and or tribunal. 
  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    piloteer said:
    @John_C_87

    Accusation or no, ALL new evidence needs to go through the process of scrutiny, before both parties(defense and plaintiff or prosecution), to determine it's applicable and legal.

    Are you talking of Civil Trials and hearing as well?

  • piloteerpiloteer 368 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Hearings aren't actual trials themselves. Hearings do take place before trials to determine what evidence can be presented, and who will testify (minus small claims court, or contesting a parking ticket). Of course any witness could potentially give testimony that nobody expected which would be an unexpected outcome, but still this doesn't justify hacking into a private law offices files to obtain information on a trial. The surprise testimony of a witness will be a surprise to everybody. This is true in civil trials also. 

    I am not arguing that "a truth must be substantiated as a whole truth, provable to the Court of law holding the trial, or group of people taking part in the hearing, and or tribunal." I am simply saying that all evidence that is presented at a trial, and all potential witnesses are predetermined by both sides before the trial begins. Any information that could be obtained by hacking into the opposing sides files would give you no benefit, because you will learn all that information anyway before the trial begins. It's the law.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    @piloteer ;

    The attorney-client privilege is a rule that preserves the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients. Under that rule, attorneys may not divulge their clients’ secrets, nor may others force them to. The purpose of the privilege is to encourage clients to openly share information with their lawyers and to let lawyers provide effective representation.

     

    Generally, the attorney-client privilege applies when:

    • an actual or potential client communicates with a lawyer regarding legal advice
    • the lawyer is acting in a professional capacity (rather than, for example, as a friend), and
    • the client intended the communications to be private and acted accordingly.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretendant




  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    @piloteer ;
    The concern might be clearly stated this way. Confidential information of value may be details unrelated to a trial and its sharing process directly, statements of whole truth made in confidence to be kept in confidence.
  • piloteerpiloteer 368 Pts
    @John_C_87

    I fail to see how private discussions between lawyers and their clients are some kind of information that could help the other parties. It's just legal advice between lawyers and their clients, and none of that is documented. Lawyers don't keep transcripts of personal legal advice. Hackers wouldn't even be able to get that information anyway. It's private discussions.
  • piloteerpiloteer 368 Pts
    edited June 30
    @John_C_87

    There's no stopping the tide of progress. Legal representation will be made cheaper and more accessible for all because of technology.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    piloteer said:
    @John_C_87

    There's no stopping the tide of progress. Legal representation will be made cheaper and more accessible for all because of technology.
    It's not legal representation. Not all things set in motion are provable by everyone as in untied state to be progress.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    piloteer said:
    @John_C_87

    I fail to see how private discussions between lawyers and their clients are some kind of information that could help the other parties. It's just legal advice between lawyers and their clients, and none of that is documented. Lawyers don't keep transcripts of personal legal advice. Hackers wouldn't even be able to get that information anyway. It's private discussions.

    In basic principle it is not helping the other party it helps a unknown third party in corporate espionage, along with government espionage, this is by way of state licensing of the practice of law. In principle we have a difference in what can be proven to others is a hacker performing hacking. Hack is an action that takes place on programing code to mix it like sampling music is done for some musicians, basic a harmless process where someone does not get paid for typing on a computer. The most complete and efficient know form of hacking takes place on low level programing in the language of binary. Corporate Espionage and other principles of crime can be assembled using hacking but for the most part the hacking itself is not relevant. It is a process of saving time in typing only programming takes place with principles that are fixed in patterns.

    There's no stopping the tide of progress. Legal representation will be made cheaper and more accessible for all because of technology.
    No, the truth is legal representation will appear cheaper and accessible to all by way of lowing state, federal, and international standards, not by technology. 



  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    I have to give credit there are lawyers who address the ethic of there craft personally those people are timeless in their service to others and the process of constitutional separation.
  • piloteerpiloteer 368 Pts
    @John_C_87

    None of this addresses the fact that the discussions that are protected by attorney-client privilege are not documented, they are spoken. This is done so the client knows that what they're discussing will not be shared with anybody else. If those discussions were ever found to have been recorded, the lawyer may find themselves being the subject of a lawsuit, because the client could potentially have a case against the lawyer for recording them without their permission. That could be considered a violation of the attorney-client privilege. If the client agrees to be recorded, they are waving their rights to have private discussions with their lawyers, because the recording itself can be considered another witness of those discussions. 

    Whether those people are "timeless in their service" or not, it's of no value if the job can be done cheaper by a computer.
  • TKDBTKDB 187 Pts
    Man wants his technology, like he wants his marijuana, his alcohol, his meth, his cocaine, his Opioids, his casual sex, his excuses, and his lawyers. 


  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    @piloteer ;

    So all that is said is a lawyer can be charged with treason, espionage, or corporate espionage in general as the lack of lawyer client privilege doesn't provide them protection on documented information they collect, and the others they then let have access to, Patent right etc. A single lawyer is not a Law Firm you are minimizing the risk in who is represented by the topic of debate. By law a secure computer by legal definition is a computer which is unplug and held in a secure location like a safe, untouched. The security of that information is only secure as the volt in which the computer container as file is held in.

    In state of the union.

    In basic principle the computer advances the technology of the file not information held by file. Is this explanation clear to you?
    A computer does not have license nor can it receive one by its resident state. The threat of legal malpractice is assumed by government by this type approval over the council.

    To make something clear what you are talking about is called coaching and the client is then representing themselves before the court.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch