Digital White Papers

52 WWW.ILTANET.ORG | ILTA WHITE PAPER KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Let's Stop with the Robot-Lawyer Memes Long Ago, But Not So Very Long Ago This view of technology as an enabler rather than a job displacer or eliminator has historical precedent. Sure, we all know about the buggy whip makers and blacksmiths whose occupations were disrupted — okay, prey much eliminated — by the shi from horses to automobiles and trucks for transportation. The automobile industry created hundreds of new jobs: from gas station aendants to auto mechanics to auto assembly-line workers. But history does not reflect how many farriers made it onto Henry Ford's assembly line. Consider the infamous Luddites. You have heard this epithet; it is the term techies love to use for non-techies and senior partners who ask how to use WebEx or LinkedIn — or worse still, email. But who were the original Luddites? While tossing about this handy metaphor for those who rebel against digital technology disrupting our current legal service methodologies, we only vaguely recall the early 19 th -century cloth weavers who destroyed stocking frames and automated looms, hoping to preserve their cra-based, highly skilled jobs. While historians disagree over whether the Luddites represented an actual movement — or instead a fellow named Ludd who bristled at his supervisor's stringent demands — the consensus suggests that the Luddites did not oppose new weaving technologies; rather, they opposed manufacturers who turned out low-quality goods using improperly apprenticed and trained employees. One of the interesting points that Thomas Friedman makes about the Luddites in his recent and terrific book, "Thank You for Being Late," is that aer weaving technologies like the stocking frame were widely deployed, demand for weavers actually increased. We need to stop here and reframe that point: following a means of production's automation, employment of skilled crasmen did not decrease. Skilled crasmen were even more heavily valued. Why? Before weaving was automated, most families made their own clothes. Only the wealthy could afford to buy clothing, which had to be handmade by skilled weavers until then. Once technology enhanced the process and introduced store-bought clothing to the masses, a gradual process began that would eventually lead to where we find ourselves today, with virtually no household making its own clothing. But the demand for weavers –– particularly those who designed paerns and operated the new technologies ––exploded because of the increased market demand for store-bought clothing. To be clear, with automated looms, weavers would not make as much money per garment, but they would sell far more garments overall. And the market for experienced weavers and their earnings would invariably increase. An entirely different but parallel discussion of the Singer Sewing Machine Company could also be had. Although Singer sewing machines made producing clothing so much easier for homemakers for over a century, these machines eventually passed into obsolescence as mass-produced clothing (primarily in low-cost economies, such as China, Vietnam and India) rendered homemade clothing more of a hobby than an economical way to clothe one's family. Friedman cites bank tellers and ATMs as yet another example. In the late 1970s, when ATMs started becoming ubiquitous, many predicted that bank tellers would go the way of the buggy whip maker. In fact, more people are employed today as bank tellers than ever before. Why? Before the computer networks were developed –– in part, to support ATMs on practically every corner –– most banks were regional. Within their region, banks had few branches (one for every We need to present innovations as sustainable technologies — ones that foster improved performance.

• Cover