On the Digital Future of the Legal Profession
The topic is fresh – so fresh that, like a fine wine, it calls to be discovered, savored, and understood. We notice that it sparks passions and attracts opinions, some more informed than others, expressed in the most diverse ways. This very aspect makes it, why not, suitable for “decanting.”
Perhaps discussions should be structured along the coordinates of Awareness, Acceptance, and Perspectives (I wonder what acronym we might obtain?).
Theodor Paleologu once said that “the fear of putting yourself in the position of having to learn, as an admission of weakness, may be an explanation.” That is why I argue that debate is not only good, but mandatory. It must be clarified to what extent and in what way issues such as professional secrecy, independence, and the freedoms of lawyers will be affected or safeguarded. At the same time, we must acknowledge that understanding a disruptive concept will remain an exceptionally difficult exercise for those with long and successful careers in practicing law the way it has always been done.
Although debatable, the claim that this new legal framework will not transform the profession is not enough. It is up to us, as a professional body, to want to remain relevant in the transformation implied by the Fourth Industrial Revolution, characterized by the merging of the physical, digital, and biological worlds. Digital transformation is here (like a blanket that already covers us up to the neck); it cannot be denied, and it certainly impacts the 21st-century lawyer’s ability to adapt to new paradigms, to diversify the legal services offered, and to continuously upskill and reskill in emerging technologies.
Cioran comes to mind: “all conversions are sudden, although they lie for years in a slow and mysterious preparation.” For now, thank God, we are lucky – we are safe.
A first question should be: how do we remain relevant as a profession, not just as individuals? What skills must we acquire? Do the existing projects, or those in the testing phase – such as MyJustice or TaxaTimbru – have a real impact on the profession? Maybe not today, but in the near future, who knows? Again, Cioran: these independent projects are like “the sudden projections of long-lasting germinations.”
Transformation will happen anyway, whether we like it or not, individually or collectively, with the profession as part of a larger system. The material world and the digital world are still separate, but they coexist, and as such, a unified legal treatment does not fully cover them. We are in a situation where we must define actions – and sometimes even inactions – that take place in the virtual space but have tangible impact in the material world.
Returning to acceptance, which seems closely tied to perception.
It is naïve to believe and argue that we do not already have a digital identity. Each of us exists in the world of numbers, in the vastness of cyberspace – whether we call it an avatar, a digital “Self” (perhaps disciples of Rudolf Steiner will soon emerge to study this new “Self”), or simply a lawyer with a digital identity.
We must accept and acknowledge that digitalization is part of our lives. The main concern and debate should revolve around how to make the practice of law more efficient and how to expand competencies. What and how much can we digitalize? How can we achieve more with fewer resources? Will we swim freely in the pool of databases, or will we cling tightly to a “lifebuoy” held from the shore?
Of course, we are also interested in how lawyers will gain time and, why not, additional income – while avoiding mechanisms that create frustration or make life more difficult for the many. Looking ahead, digitalization will maintain and even increase competitiveness, broaden horizons, and allow lawyers to anticipate the options available to them. If only a little, perhaps all of us would like to be digital nomad lawyers.
And to look at the picture more closely, it is worth examining and bringing to light the counterarguments, if any, in order to draw conclusions about how the profession as a whole will evolve. How will we practice law in 10–15 years without being absorbed entirely by digitalization – not as sentient machines or cyborgs, certainly not?
Thus, digital transformation should be seen as a means, not an end. Its implementation must begin in a coordinated way, from within the profession itself.
Returning to projects with a legal component: attention must be paid to the size and proportion of initiatives initiated and controlled by lawyers compared to those of third-party investors. It is only a matter of time before a collision of interests arises.
Perspectives
At international conferences on the digitalization of law, I have noticed that either there was just one “Mann aus dem Osten” or, at most, two Romanians. This shows a low level of interest in the field. Instead, we like to hear ourselves talk: “I hear myself, therefore I exist” might be a fitting paraphrase. This raises the question: are we once again missing the train? Instead of being at the forefront, even regionally, do we risk remaining stuck in endless projects simply to fit the conclusions of Daniel David in The Psychology of the Romanian People? He argued that Romanians often exercise power in a feminine paradigm (not misogyny, but a scientific observation) – characterized by endless discussions in pursuit of consensus, while the actual implementation of plans often remains utopian.
When it comes to security, assuming the mandate is limited to preventing system breaches, attention should turn to the level of detail in the agreement between UNBR and STS/SRI, and the clear understanding of technical parameters, so that control of the “control key” is preserved and interference is kept to a minimum. Beyond the framework of such collaboration, the protection of confidentiality and professional secrecy may involve a mix of internal legal service providers and private external providers. To prevent unauthorized access, cooperation between a private provider and STS/SRI may be needed – otherwise, we risk losing access to the governmental cloud.
We must certainly maintain trust in the UNBR Council, which will make decisions with a higher degree of wisdom.
As Seneca would say: “Just as the enemy destroys those who flee, so too does every misfortune of fate weigh heavier on the one who retreats.”
I conclude that the project must move forward: maior pars trahit ad se minorem – the greater part draws the lesser to itself. The more digitalization there is in the wider world, the more we will follow it.
Av. Paul Vargan
Managing Partner, VARGAN & VARGAN S.C.A.
Coordinator of the MyJustice – Digital Legal Solutions® project
Ideas presented at the debate conference “The Digital Future of the Legal Profession,” organized by juridice.ro on March 9, 2023.
