Summer is here and Norway is closed for business. This gives time to reflect on the state of legal tech in Norway: a who’s who to the legal tech actors in Oslo and the rest of Norway.
Corporations and high net worth individuals spend large sums of money on legal services. This post explores how legal tech will be used to provide those services, and how it might alter the competitive landscape of the legal market. The legal tech that is relevant to this post broadly can be divided into two groups. First, there is “efficiency enhancing” legal tech: this type of tech makes lawyers’ jobs easier and often saves them time as well. Second, there is “quality enhancing” legal tech: this type of tech does not necessarily reduce hours worked, but simply makes lawyers better at what they do.
Tax planning and the structuring of transactions are fairly central to the work of many tax lawyers. There are aspects of tax planning and the structuring of transactions that a computer would be extremely good at. In particular, once a client’s situation is properly understood (e.g. the client’s assets, family relationships, and goals), a computer could be programmed to identify how that client should structure his or her affairs so as to achieve the desired goals in a tax efficient manner. In this post, Zack Korman outlines a simple program that can do just that, a task that he refers to as “designing tax efficient solutions” for the sake of simplicity.
Legal technology is starting to attract serious attention, but the legal tech space is plagued by some truly bad ideas. In this post, Zack Korman takes a closer look at two bad ideas. The first bad idea is that legal tech is about innovation, and that we can apply the lessons of the tech sector to see returns in the legal industry. The second bad idea is that blockchain is relevant to legal tech.
There has been a lot of hype lately around smart contracts, driven by an interest in blockchain. In this post, Zack Korman argues that smart contracts are kind of lame and that using code to formally represent a contract (but not execute that contract) is far more interesting.