cryptography eliminates lawyers?

>From: "Cortland D. Starrett" <cort@bioanalytical.com>
>Subject: cryptography eliminates lawyers?

>As a follow-up to the article reference I posted, I pose the
>following question:
>
>Will cryptographic technology and information (communication)
>technology reduce the need for legal services in the future?
>(especially regarding contracts, buying/selling, patent law, etc.)
>Will legal services just look different?  Will they be more
>efficient (cheaper)?
>
>Put bluntly, will cryptography put lawyers out of business?
>Any comments would be appreciated.
>
>Cort.
>
How could crypto put lawyers out of business?  People would still
have disagreements; plans would still go wrong; cars would still
crash.  More important, transactions would still need to be 
structured to carry out the desires of the parties while minimizing
risks.

Good communications technology, including crypto, could make lawyering
more efficient, but I suspect the savings would be minimal.

Communications technology will no more put lawyers out of business
than CASE put programmers out of business.
Buford C. Terrell                       1303 San Jacinto Street
Professor of Law                              Houston, TX 77002
South Texas College of Law                voice   (713)646-1857
terrell@sam.neosoft.com                     fax   (713)646-1766

On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Buford Terrell wrote:

> How could crypto put lawyers out of business?  People would still
> have disagreements; plans would still go wrong; cars would still
> crash.  More important, transactions would still need to be 
> structured to carry out the desires of the parties while minimizing
> risks.
> 
> Good communications technology, including crypto, could make lawyering
> more efficient, but I suspect the savings would be minimal.

Well, if crypto reduces the role of government in human affairs, it will 
reduce work for lawyers.  Telecoms will certainly break the professional 
monopoly of lawyers (and other professionals).

DCF

On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, Duncan Frissell wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Buford Terrell wrote:
> 
> > How could crypto put lawyers out of business?  People would still
> > have disagreements; plans would still go wrong; cars would still
> > crash.  More important, transactions would still need to be 
> > structured to carry out the desires of the parties while minimizing
> > risks.
> > 
> > Good communications technology, including crypto, could make lawyering
> > more efficient, but I suspect the savings would be minimal.
> 
> Well, if crypto reduces the role of government in human affairs, it will 
> reduce work for lawyers.

This first, I see....


Telecoms will certainly break the professional 
> monopoly of lawyers (and other professionals).

This I don't.  How do you mean exactly?

> 
> DCF
>

On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:

> Telecoms will certainly break the professional 
> > monopoly of lawyers (and other professionals).
> 
> This I don't.  How do you mean exactly?

Licensing requires the ability to outlaw unlicensed transactions.  
Since the Net trumps censorship and allows consultations at a 
distance, it cracks licensing,

DCF

On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, Duncan Frissell wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> > Telecoms will certainly break the professional 
> > > monopoly of lawyers (and other professionals).
> > 
> > This I don't.  How do you mean exactly?
> 
> Licensing requires the ability to outlaw unlicensed transactions.  
> Since the Net trumps censorship and allows consultations at a 
> distance, it cracks licensing,


But won't clients insist on proper credentials in one form or another?  
Doesn't the practicality and accountability of a centralized authority 
(or several authorities) provide the best answer to this?  Who is going 
to accept my signature promising that I did indeed get a law degree and 
pass the bar?

I don't see how the net will eliminate the basic need for highly 
qualified professionals and the proof that they have credentials.  
Perhaps diplomas and such will be transfered into digital signatures for 
the institutions, but I can't see how this "cracks" any "monopoly."  
Perhaps the monopoly is shifted to those who have diplomas, rather than 
those "licensed to practice" but so what?

> 
> DCF
>

On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:

> But won't clients insist on proper credentials in one form or another?  
> Doesn't the practicality and accountability of a centralized authority 
> (or several authorities) provide the best answer to this?  Who is going 
> to accept my signature promising that I did indeed get a law degree and 
> pass the bar?

An educational institution can certify its own graduates --- it does 
now.  Competing credentialing institutions is exactly what I would be 
looking for as opposed to today's coercive monoply.  

No matter how skilled, it is illegal for an unlicensed person to practice 
law, medicine, or many other professions in any state.  The nets weaken 
these restrictions because they allow action at a distance.

Note the other effects of the nets.  They make it hard to tell that you 
*are* working which reduces the impact of regulations of work by 
"illegal aliens."  Thus if I am wandering through the South of France 
while writing the 'Great American Novel' I am unlikely to get busted for 
violation of work restrictions.  The nets expand the number of jobs I 
can do while innocently wandering the South of France.  I can or will 
soon be able, for example, to manage a large international corporation 
from anywhere.

DCF

"Who actually prefers Le Massif Central to those hot and crowded southern 
climes."

On Thu, 14 Sep 1995, Duncan Frissell wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> > But won't clients insist on proper credentials in one form or another?  
> > Doesn't the practicality and accountability of a centralized authority 
> > (or several authorities) provide the best answer to this?  Who is going 
> > to accept my signature promising that I did indeed get a law degree and 
> > pass the bar?
> 
> An educational institution can certify its own graduates --- it does 
> now.  Competing credentialing institutions is exactly what I would be 
> looking for as opposed to today's coercive monoply.  

Yes, in the context of competing credentialing institutions I agree, but 
even now there is a base certification for such institutions 
(accreditation) which is delved out by a central authority, or common 
standards.  What the other writer's approach missed was that one could 
not, in the end, do away with the basic requirement for some kind of 
standardization, even if it was market driven.

While I too prefer the market approach, I still contend that a floor of 
credentials will exist, and indeed, should exist.

> 
> No matter how skilled, it is illegal for an unlicensed person to practice 
> law, medicine, or many other professions in any state.  The nets weaken 
> these restrictions because they allow action at a distance.

But I believe there will still be a demand for an objective, or trusted 
authority in the market.  This was my point when I asserted that 
certificated from Bob and Alice that I was a decent attorney would not be 
sufficent for most unless Bob and Alice were trusted in the "attorney 
credential" area.  So in the end, isn't a trusted authority required to 
some degree?

I think the difference here, as opposed to the Web of Trust in e.g., PGP, 
is that you are talking about legal talent, or any professional talent, 
for which payment is being made.  It's easy to accept a signature from 
Mr. Mar indicating that Bob has (in Mr. Mar's opinion) decent key 
management habits, but it's asking a great deal to extend that trust in 
Mr. Mar to his opinion of Bob's legal skills.  For that there will be a 
demand of more detailed and certain expertise in Mr. Mar, and also a 
trust that Mr. Mar is not just helping an upstart friend of his make some 
money in consulting for nuclear physics projects.

i.e. it is very difficult to estlablish the objectivity of a certifier 
without some kind of public and significant risk on the part of the 
certifier coupled with some verifiable skill in appraising nuclear 
physics skill- a situation I would argue is almost impossible without a 
certificate from an institution which meets some base credentials, which 
are set up publically by a objective process, or nearly so.

> Note the other effects of the nets.  They make it hard to tell that you 
> *are* working which reduces the impact of regulations of work by 
> "illegal aliens."  Thus if I am wandering through the South of France 
> while writing the 'Great American Novel' I am unlikely to get busted for 
> violation of work restrictions.  The nets expand the number of jobs I 
> can do while innocently wandering the South of France.  I can or will 
> soon be able, for example, to manage a large international corporation 
> from anywhere.

This I understand and applaud.

> DCF
> 
> "Who actually prefers Le Massif Central to those hot and crowded southern 
> climes." 
>

On Thu, 14 Sep 1995, Duncan Frissell wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> > But won't clients insist on proper credentials in one form or another?  
> > Doesn't the practicality and accountability of a centralized authority 
> > (or several authorities) provide the best answer to this?  Who is going 
> > to accept my signature promising that I did indeed get a law degree and 
> > pass the bar?
> 
> An educational institution can certify its own graduates --- it does 
> now.  Competing credentialing institutions is exactly what I would be 
> looking for as opposed to today's coercive monoply.  
> 
> No matter how skilled, it is illegal for an unlicensed person to practice 
> law, medicine, or many other professions in any state.  The nets weaken 
> these restrictions because they allow action at a distance.
>
That's certainly true.  But what about liability insurance?  That's one 
of the key aspects of my retention of a professional.  Being cynical, and 
somewhat knowledgable about human error, I want to be sure there's 
someone to turn to if the advice/treatment/whatever turns out not only to 
be wrong in hindsight, but in foresight.

Having taken, and passed, bar exams in three states (3 for 3 for those of 
you thinking I was forum shopping), I can tell you that they weren't that 
big of a barrier.  You can flunk (over several tries) by failing to 
prepare at all, panicking, being an extremely poor test taker, or, well ...
 
> Note the other effects of the nets.  They make it hard to tell that you 
> *are* working which reduces the impact of regulations of work by 
> "illegal aliens."  Thus if I am wandering through the South of France 
> while writing the 'Great American Novel' I am unlikely to get busted for 
> violation of work restrictions.  The nets expand the number of jobs I 
> can do while innocently wandering the South of France.  I can or will 
> soon be able, for example, to manage a large international corporation 
> from anywhere.
> 
> DCF
> 
> "Who actually prefers Le Massif Central to those hot and crowded southern 
> climes." 
> 
Just wondering about liability issues after state accrediting is dead.

EBD

Not a lawyer on the Net, although I play one in real life.
**********************************************************
Flame away! I get treated worse in person every day!!