top of page
Search

Practitioners Trapped Between the Techy and the Fairness (1)

Updated: Feb 1

Reflections on Legal Cultures, The Future of Law and the Legal Practise in a Globalised World


Part One: Hit the Practitioners' shape that will best cover the demand of the future.


For the average legal practitioner with a few decades on their shoulders, reading Luca Moratal Romeu's book, "El Ocaso de la Abogacia" ("The Decline of the Legal Practising", far today unpublished in English; Unión Editorial, 2024) may seem somewhat unsettling, starting with the title itself, which foreshadows a drama. A reflection inevitably emerges about the transformation of the legal profession in the face of the challenges of modernity, globalisation and automation. From my perspective, the book highlights issues that resonate in everyday practice, which, in a few words, could be described as the progressive distancing from traditional paradigms of the legal profession towards a more interconnected, efficient and, at times, depersonalised model. That is the thesis. Was it wrong?


Overall, it must be accepted that the evolution of the legal profession cannot be stopped and that resistance to change is both futile and harmful. Rather than lamenting the "decline" of a romantic model of the lawyer as a central figure in the legal system, I would view this transition as an opportunity to redefine and refine our role as facilitators of understanding and guardians of justice in transnational and multicultural contexts.


The book, which, due to its length of 94 pages, in the 2024 edition of Unión Editorial, cannot be anything other than a pamphlet*, seems to be an invitation to rethink the role of the lawyer as something more than a legal technician, urging the adoption of a more strategic, adaptive vision with a renewed ethical commitment. An opportunity to take advantage of its reading is to consider the experience in ADR tools that would embody this evolution of the professional's role in the need to understand the laws and the economic, political and cultural dynamics that underlie conflicts. Although more complex, this holistic approach also offers and demands a more profound and significant professional fulfilment than that usually provided by higher education.


* Opuscle that should not be taken as a demerit work. With the aim in rigourous commitments, if things can be explained more than well and decently with fewer words, the better for its dissemination, for those who read it and for those who reflect about the reading.

Some might feel that reading this would prompt them to ask themselves how they could actively contribute to the "renaissance" of the legal profession rather than remain stuck in its decline. Someone with a moderate and liberal spirit would believe in the capacity of the individual and the professional community to innovate and adapt as long as the ethical core of the profession is preserved: serving justice and the client with integrity. Ethics, Justice and Integrity do not presuppose exhaustive knowledge, erudition, or even intellectual merit; they presuppose character, rigour and temperance.


In short, El Ocaso de la Abogacía (say, The Decline of the Legal Profession) has not led me to pessimism but to a critical introspection on how the profession must evolve in a globalised world. I would reinforce a commitment to actively participating in this transformation, embracing complexity with determination and always seeking a balance between tradition and innovation. It is a perspective. Let us now look at some of the details of this perspective.


This set of articles focused of three areas for reflection each: the first, on the training of suitability for the professional who embarks on the provision of legal services; the second, on the dichotomy between a litigation lawyer and a business lawyer; the third, on the matter of particular concern of the author of the book read: the lawyer who responds to the profile of a technician in legislation, rather than that of a jurist. There will be gray areas that will be left untreated or untreated in a tangential or insufficient way. Gaps more than justified to learn from what others want to say about it in comments or in other posts that come to me.

first

Should legal professionals be trained in disciplines that are usually far removed from law practice, such as history, philosophy, or social sciences, such as economics or finance, or in particular, engineering or STEM training that falls into the 'hard' sciences?


Yes, a lawyer who aspires to be relevant and effective in today's globalised world should train in disciplines outside the traditional practice of law, both in the humanities and the social sciences and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). This broadening of the educational horizon is not only advisable but is becoming necessary to address the multidimensional challenges facing the legal profession.


What reasons could be given to integrate complementary disciplines?


  1. With the Humanities and Social Sciences, we need to understand the context and anticipate problems.

- The disciplines of History and Philosophy help lawyers place legal institutions in a broader temporal and conceptual context. Understanding the roots and transformations of laws and principles allows one to foresee trends and provide ethical depth in decision-making.

- The disciplines of Economics and Finance are in a world where the interrelation between law and economics is fundamental. A solid knowledge of economic and financial systems gives an advantage when advising international clients, negotiating complex contracts, or mediating conflicts with economic implications.


  1. With STEM profiles, the challenges of technology and the standardisation of solutions can be addressed.

- Engineering and Data Science are involved in the digital revolution, artificial intelligence, and blockchain technology; they are transforming areas such as dispute resolution, contract drafting (smart contracts), and data protection. A lawyer with basic knowledge can dialogue with engineers and programmers, assess technological risks, and design more efficient legal solutions.

- Hard Sciences (Mathematics, Physics), although they seem distant from law, encourage logical and structured thinking and are helpful for legal analysis and the construction of arguments. Not long ago, I discussed the argumentative scheme of the instruction' if, then' as a paradigm for the sequencing of conditionals for a segmentation of reasons. Precisely because of the above, a derivative issue arises here:


What practical applications does the use of these backgrounds and training have, not only as complementary but as supporting the value they provide?


I can think of a few applications as samples:


1. In Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Understanding conflict's economic and cultural dynamics improves mediation and arbitration skills. A STEM background can be crucial in technical cases (e.g., disputes over engineering projects).

2. In Compliance and Cybersecurity: Regulating emerging technologies requires hybrid knowledge that integrates law and technology. In this particular field, it is shocking to listen to great professionals who have been overwhelmed and occasionally insist on highlighting their lack of quality knowledge in these aspects.

3. Implementing Complex Contracts: In sectors such as energy or telecommunications, a lawyer with technical understanding can better negotiate clauses and foresee specific risks. This has always been considered the proper field to give meaning to professional specialisation.

4. In International Law, global regulatory policies require an interdisciplinary vision addressing digital rights or cross-border trade.


Thus, the lawyer of the future appears as a bridge between disciplines. A lawyer trained in humanities, social sciences, and STEM acquires technical skills and becomes a well-rounded professional capable of empathising, reasoning, and solving problems from a broad and adaptive perspective.


This approach does not imply abandoning the legal foundations but rather enriching them. Multidisciplinary training reinforces the lawyer's ability to act as a bridge between diverse actors, helping to ensure that law is not an isolated discipline but an integrating element in an increasingly interconnected and technological world. But before concluding this first section, it is essential to describe the place that a lawyer dedicated to forensic practice would occupy, a conventional 'practising lawyer' who did not incorporate this other integration of knowledge, specialisation or integration of skills.



What role would a lawyer have if they limited themselves exclusively to litigation in its broadest, but also most conventional, sense, even if combined with arbitration?


Indeed, a lawyer who focuses exclusively on conventional litigation and arbitration—I am simplifying—could maintain relevant and successful recognition (and many are well positioned in their particular niche of activity and clientele). Still, his role would be limited compared to those who embrace interdisciplinary training. However, this limitation does not necessarily mean irrelevance. Instead, this lawyer must redefine his role with a clear strategy and recognise his strengths and limitations. Let us look at some of the consequences regarding strengths and challenges.


1. The strength of specialisation:

The lawyer who focuses on litigation and arbitration can play an essential role as a technical specialist within the framework of the traditional legal system and in Alternative Dispute Resolution environments. This profile continues to be in demand due to (i) the technical complexity of many judicial and arbitration processes, (ii) the need for lawyers with extensive knowledge of procedural rules and the ability to argue cases in depth, and (iii) the trust of clients in lawyers who master litigation or arbitration strategies in their jurisdiction or specialised field.


This approach can be valuable in sectors that demand high levels of procedural expertise, such as commercial or international litigation, or in specific sectors, such as construction, energy or insurance.


2. Challenges in a changing environment:

However, limiting oneself to this traditional scope has significant risks: the first and easiest to identify are (i) Displacement by technology: the rise of digital tools, such as litigation and arbitration management platforms, is simplifying many aspects of the legal process, reducing the need for human intervention in repetitive and documentary tasks; (ii) Increasing Interdisciplinarity performances: modern conflicts often involve technical or economic elements (e.g., intellectual property disputes, blockchain or environmental compliance). A lawyer who does not understand these elements may be disadvantaged compared to hybrid specialists. And (iii) a Change in client expectations: firms are increasingly seeking advisors capable of offering legal representation and a strategic vision covering multiple areas.


3. Can it be considered a necessary adaptation within litigation and arbitration?

Indeed, the lawyer who wishes to remain exclusively in litigation and arbitration could maximise his impact by adapting in the following ways: (i) acquiring an advanced technical specialisation, becoming a reference in areas such as investment arbitration, international disputes or specific sectoral litigation. A path that many quality professionals are already following, having abandoned the need to save on a broad-spectrum professional profile. (ii) addressing a strengthening in ADR, expanding their skills in mediation and negotiation to offer complementary alternatives to formal arbitration. (iii) The integration of technological skills must be accepted so that the legal professional, although not directly involved in a STEM profile, must become familiar with artificial intelligence tools, data analysis, and digital platforms that optimise litigation and arbitration. At this point, it is most common for such integration to occur in the opposite direction: STEM profiles that address high-quality specialisations in acquiring legal and assistance tools and background in law and relevant procedural techniques. Here, undoubtedly, barriers arise that - by their very qualification as 'corporate', would be de facto absolutist even if they are not yet so de lege lata by listening with more attention to clients and not so much to market prescribers. The last expression of the aggiornamento to which the lawyer submits is that of (iv) Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Working in a team with experts in economics, technology or finance to address cases that require specialised knowledge. In this type of alliance and commitment, it is more than likely that the exact mechanics of organised service provision will bear its best fruit. And, perhaps also, where those teams that first advance in a solid and sensible scheme change the game's rules and bring their business model closer to a desirable and desired success.


4. I now venture a possible redefinition of the role of the litigation lawyer:

The traditional litigation and arbitration lawyer could be the guardian of legal and procedural rigour, acting as an essential counterweight in an increasingly interdisciplinary environment. This type of lawyer would (i) offer stability and legal certainty in a world where legal innovations seem volatile or ambiguous. But also (ii) represent a trusted figure for clients seeking solid solutions within the established procedural framework. At the same time, (iii) could combine his focus on arbitration with the ability to act as an arbitrator, providing perspective from both sides of the process. However, this is part of the regular activity of the one who performs arbitration regularly.


Any conclusions at this point?

The lawyer who sticks exclusively to litigation and arbitration may still have a significant role in the future. Still, they must accept that their scope will be more limited and depend on their ability to delve into specific areas and collaborate with multidisciplinary professionals. The biggest obstacle is the lawyer's natural individualistic temperament.


This specialised approach can be a strength if executed with excellence. Still, it will have to be complemented by strategic adaptations to remain competitive in a radically changing legal environment that should not be approached as if it were a generational conflict (although in part it is also), but fundamentally of the breadth of mind and acceptance of inadequacies in the scale in which the lawyer of the future will have to compete.


In the following post, I will offer my opinion on what priority should be given to a Litigation Lawyer compared to a Business Lawyer and vice versa when the contexts in which they operate, the needs of the client in each case, and the legal challenges they face differ frequently.


Lawyers for the future.

Comments

bottom of page