An article featured in the New York Times is creating a lot of buzz. This article bluntly declares that armies of “expensive” lawyers will be replaced by cheaper software.

Aside from the fact that the attorneys this software seeks to replace do not work for pricey law firms, but rather work for agencies as “contract” attorneys, there is no evidence to support whether this software cost savings will be passed on to the client.

To be clear, in a typical high volume document review, the high priced law firms contract with agencies. These agencies in turn hire the contract attorney at the going rate of $25 - $30 per hour, slightly more if the document reviewer has special skills such as a background in finance or engineering expertise or foreign language skills. Thus, while these attorneys are referred to as contract attorneys, they are really subcontractors since it is the agency that contracts with the pricey law firm. What kind of cost that is passed on to the client is anyone’s guess since attorney’s fees (the pricey law firm’s fees) are often protected by attorney-client privilege.

So, back to the buzz. That’s all that it is, buzz.

Thirty years ago I was preparing to go to law school. My undergraduate degree was in Latin American history, I had an MBA and I was licensed as a California general building contractor. I got the inspired idea to go to law school where I could toss all my skills into one pot, stir it up and become a tax lawyer (maybe for Spanish-speaking real estate developers, who knows now!).

Everyone, I mean everyone, told me don’t do it. Ronald Reagan was newly elected, the tax code was going to be completely re-written, and the only tax imposed would be a flat tax. It was going to put tax lawyers and tax accountants out of work.

The tax code was indeed re-written in 1984 and 1986. (Technically “amended”.) Prior to the changes, the Internal Revenue Code fit into one book and the corresponding Regulations consisted of two volumes. After “simplification”, these materials grew. Today, the Code is two volumes and the Regulations are six volumes ... and growing. There were so many changes at a rapid pace that tax professionals were begging Congress to stop making changes. Taxpayers had timing issues for transactions applicable to the old set of rules, the new set of rules, and maybe even rules which were merely proposed. Everyone scrambled. Simplification became a guaranteed work program for far more tax professionals than if Congress had left the Code alone.

Now, we hear that computers are going to replace lawyers. (Do the computers sign the pleadings?) I would venture to say that as with the re-written tax code, this new computer software will create an entirely new niche law practice, that of ediscovery compliance.

Imagine computer coders gaming the system so that corporations are given guidelines (written by lawyers, of course) as to how to write emails in the event those emails are ever part of discovery in a lawsuit. Imagine discovery requests for those guidelines. Imagine real human lawyers comparing those guidelines to those emails to glean the real meaning of the emails. Another growth industry created by making things simple!

Tags: economics, law practice