Hello Friends in the Computer,

Every time there’s a new technological gizmo on the market, someone opines “…maybe this will replace lawyers” to which I always almost respond, “don’t threaten me with a good time.”

Don’t get me wrong, I love lawyers. That’s why I work to make their lives easier. Better living through technology, if you will. And I truly and deeply believe that they (we?) hold an important place and responsibility in a society supposedly founded on the Rule of Law.

(But I also work to get them out of the way when they inhibit the rule of law and progress in justice. “Thems that’s going, get on the goddamn wagon. Them that ain’t, get out of the goddamn way.”)

But also…I find it incredibly interesting when people want to “replace lawyers” and not…augment their work and make them more efficient. Or have technology do tasks that don’t need high-touch human work. Why do you want to get rid of the guardians of the rule of law? Makes you wonder….

ANYWAY.

I had one of those bugs in my butt that I get and I wondered if I could see how long ago this idea started, especially since The Quattro and similar tools are really bringing that idea out to play again.

I guess I could finally get around to reading those Susskind books and see if he cites anything, but….well.

waitaminute

My quick and dirty work around was to check out the Google Ngram service. It’s lots of fun (but as with all things google, don’t get too attached because they’ll kill it.) This post is not meant to be a comprehensive review of the phenomenon, just an initial check to satisfy my curiosity and amuse myself.

Now a lot of this is Bureau of labor statistics stuff and other non-relevant material, so don’t get hopped up on the chart. But let’s see what we find…

1943

So actually saying the opposite, but if they feel the need to emphasize it, I assume someone else said it. Also interesting to note that this is about legal research functions. From Shepard’s Citations, to UBIC terminals, to Casetext Co-Counsel and every iteration in between, legal research functions are always the first domino to fall when a new tech is available to lawyers.

Source: Municipalities and the Law in Action. (1943). United States: National Institute of Municipal Law Officers.

1963

This is a letter to the editor in the February 1963, ABA Journal referencing articles in the November 1962 issue. That sounds like a banger, tbh. Need to dig it up.

1966

From August 1966 ABA Journal. Once another great article to dig into later.

1968

From November 1968 ABA Journal. This is a letter to the editor about an article that I am too time pressed to look up right now, but again, on the defense against the idea.

1976

(I couldn’t get the snippet or page, so just have to work off of the google summary)

I feel like there’s some ground being conceded?

1983

More of a defrost of the replacement idea? This article looks good and I need to read it. My fun little newsletter idea is amounting to a pile of reading. ABA Journal, January 1983

1993

I literally just heard a variation on the “computers won’t replace lawyers, but lawyers with computers will replace those without them” w/r/t Generative Text tools. ABA Journal, April 1993

1999

It’s that line again!

btw, what is that computer set up??? Is that a specially designed briefcase to hold a laptop?

ABA Journal, April 1999

2001

<opening strains of Jaws theme>

O HAI LEGALZOOM!

CIO Magazine, May 2001

Okay, I think you get the point.

Susskind’s “The End of Lawyers” was published in 2008 and I think we all know what’s happened since thing.

I never did see an explicit “computers will replace lawyers” just push back on that idea but also the source material being searched is a lot of publications aimed at lawyers.

This was just a quick half hour in google. But it was fun, for varying definitions of fun. I may throw an in-depth and more serious analysis of this phenomenon on the pile of projects along with my history of legal tech advertising that I’ve been plugging away on in the evening and weekends.

(uhhhh, I should also probably do a lit review just to see if anyone else did this.)

and finally, not about technology….1965

Now to take a sip of water and read this ABA Presidents letter and marvel at how far we’ve come with regards to allied professionals….

(There’s actually a lot of these types of sentiments that popped up too…maybe another post.)

Be well,

Sarah

p.s. There’s a true crime podcast that apparently signs off episodes with “stay sexy and try to not get murdered” and I may have to start signing off my posts with “stay sexy and don’t get replaced by a computer”

Thank you for reading Sarah's Commonplace Book. This post is public so feel free to share it.