Against Reinvention: More Forward Not Backward

Legal technology needs to move forward from the past, not reinvent the wheel.

, Legaltech News


Technology veteran Marc Lauritsen takes issue with the "Reinvent Law" movement, and suggests rather than starting from scratch, legal needs to move forward with improved legal technology that builds on the past.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

  • Brian Focht

    I tend to agree with the concept that "reinvention" necessarily suggests that something went awry with the current iteration, and as such, needing to go back to see if a different evolution of the same idea could occur. However, I actually think the most dangerous element of those promoting the concept of "reinvention" or "disruption" are those seeking to capitalize on the disruption at the expense of the profession. Although many legal services are too expensive now, the deregulation of the legal industry and the introduction of a-la-carte or unbundled legal services provided by non-lawyers is a dangerous turn for our country, particularly if access to justice truly is the ultimate goal. We can fix what exists without completely removing the safeguards and protections that are in place. Want to see true "disruption"? See what happens when unscrupulous corporations without the oversight of state bar organizations are the providers of legal services.

  • Jim Hazard

    A system of precedents for legal docs? Marc, as usual, hits the conceptual nail on the head. Thanks for the shout out.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202617586795

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.