Comments for The Law Lab http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab extending the conversation Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:37:53 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 Comment on Meta-currency: a step towards the Rheonomy By Eric Harris-Braun by ReputationCurrents » Rheonomy – Flow Management http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/2009/07/01/meta-currency-a-step-towards-the-rheonomy-by-eric-harris-braun/comment-page-1/#comment-46 ReputationCurrents » Rheonomy – Flow Management Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:37:53 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/?p=46#comment-46 [...] core participant in the open money project, and board member of the E. F. Schumacher Society posted to the Berkman Center Law Lab: Eric Harris BraunMoney, as a medium of exchange, a unit of measure, and a store of value is the [...] [...] core participant in the open money project, and board member of the E. F. Schumacher Society posted to the Berkman Center Law Lab: Eric Harris BraunMoney, as a medium of exchange, a unit of measure, and a store of value is the [...]

]]> Comment on Cloud Law- Can it be Engineered? By Ray Garcia by J-P Voilleque http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/2009/06/23/cloud-law-can-it-be-engineered-by-ray-garcia/comment-page-1/#comment-29 J-P Voilleque Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:46:57 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/?p=24#comment-29 The conundrum in my view is that the two communities are so divergent in their "traditional" (read: socially expected) modes that it will take a series of summits to even define terms. This is worthwhile work, however, and can itself utilize the cloud. Case in point: My own fumble-bumble discussion of "law as code" can be found <a href="http://voilleque.com/2009/01/drafting-as-coding/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The much more provocative and useful <a href="http://positivelyglorious.com/software-media/drafting-as-coding-jpv-pdx/" rel="nofollow">response </a> this elicited from John Metta, programmer par excellence, gave me great hope. This is brilliant. Can't believe I'm the first to comment. The conundrum in my view is that the two communities are so divergent in their “traditional” (read: socially expected) modes that it will take a series of summits to even define terms. This is worthwhile work, however, and can itself utilize the cloud.

Case in point: My own fumble-bumble discussion of “law as code” can be found here. The much more provocative and useful response this elicited from John Metta, programmer par excellence, gave me great hope.

This is brilliant. Can’t believe I’m the first to comment.

]]> Comment on Some scenes from the robots-vs.-lawyers future by Daniel Collis-Puro http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/2009/05/13/some-scenes-from-the-robots-vs-lawyers-future/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Daniel Collis-Puro Fri, 15 May 2009 22:04:39 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/2009/05/13/some-scenes-from-the-robots-vs-lawyers-future/#comment-10 I'm not sure how it fits in, but I was involved in http://www.livejustice.org , an initiative designed to help pro se litigants via: * live legal help from attorneys, * through a self-serve knowledgebase and * with a form assembly system (that I wrote). I'd be happy to discuss at some point. This was back in 2004, probably a bit ahead of its time. I’m not sure how it fits in, but I was involved in http://www.livejustice.org , an initiative designed to help pro se litigants via:
* live legal help from attorneys,
* through a self-serve knowledgebase and
* with a form assembly system (that I wrote).

I’d be happy to discuss at some point. This was back in 2004, probably a bit ahead of its time.

]]> Comment on Some scenes from the robots-vs.-lawyers future by JG http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/2009/05/13/some-scenes-from-the-robots-vs-lawyers-future/comment-page-1/#comment-8 JG Thu, 14 May 2009 00:59:36 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lawlab/2009/05/13/some-scenes-from-the-robots-vs-lawyers-future/#comment-8 If I understand the propositions here, the first fields to be impacted will be institutions of law that people should be able to do themselves, but the legal code or emotional situation has made it necessary for lawyers as mediators to the law. I do not see the fear in this, nor do I see a sense of robots versus lawyers. The risk is when legislators and lawyers get together and unintentionally create new, even more complex laws that surreptitiously make the software difficult to manage. However, like piracy - as a form of civic rebellion - of any kind, the codes will merge and catch up with each other. These scenes of robots versus lawyers do leave one major question: accountability. Who will be responsible when the software fails to properly advise a client, who then depends upon it, and is hurt by it? Will someone who does have a license to practice law have to ultimately vouch for the software? Should the software itself have to be granted some form of legal license? If I understand the propositions here, the first fields to be impacted will be institutions of law that people should be able to do themselves, but the legal code or emotional situation has made it necessary for lawyers as mediators to the law. I do not see the fear in this, nor do I see a sense of robots versus lawyers. The risk is when legislators and lawyers get together and unintentionally create new, even more complex laws that surreptitiously make the software difficult to manage. However, like piracy – as a form of civic rebellion – of any kind, the codes will merge and catch up with each other.

These scenes of robots versus lawyers do leave one major question: accountability. Who will be responsible when the software fails to properly advise a client, who then depends upon it, and is hurt by it? Will someone who does have a license to practice law have to ultimately vouch for the software? Should the software itself have to be granted some form of legal license?

]]>