Report comment

Dominic, I have not said that the computer will decide the case. What the computer will do is perform tasks and provide information at a rate and to a depth that no human can do as effectively and speedily but which will aid significantly the decision making/negotiations by the lawyer.

The examples you give of assessment as to fairness and reasonableness would still be undertaken by lawyers but could be aided by a system that has been programmed with rules and standards as well as an ever growing multiplicity of examples , scored for relevance and mutual impact, that come within and without the definition. But don't forget 'reasonableness' is not owed by us but we leave to that guy on the top deck of the Clapham Omnibus. Importantly such knowledge base would grow with each case fed into it. Such would be an aid to the lawyer/mediator/arbitrator/judge not a replacement.

You may also be missing the point here that the real value provided by ODR is not in decision making but in facilitating resolution between the parties themselves. Resolution is not just about a decision based on a view taken on the truth and relevance of facts as alleged in the context of an interpretation of the law. But whatever the view taken, disputes are settled also in the context of other, mainly personal, factors, as well as projected future scenarios that may not be relevant to the events the subject of the dispute, but are to settlement, and its here where technology has most to offer, facilitating more mediation over arbitration and helping the parties better to assess litigation risk and cost.

The technology is here. It's the will to create and build these dynamic databases that is all that is needed. Fortunately there are teams now undertaking such tasks around the world. The door is open for those wishing to play a part in building the future of justice. Don't expect it to be handed down on a plate.

Anonymous - I was not 'rattled' by Stephen's comments. He is entitled to his view. I just think he is wrong to have such a narrow perspective. I just think such negative talk is dog whistling for 'our jobs will go'. Almost every major modern innovation has had its naysayer Neds.

The role of the lawyer has to be redefined but, instead of the criticisms we hear all too often of lawyers and the law, if we redefine by exploiting the contribution and value that technology can offer, our work will be better appreciated and, as a result, better entrenched into our justice system.