Lambert, J. T. (2008). Lawyers and their use of technology. The Entrepreneurial Executive, 13, 83. In this article, the terms “legal technology” and “legal technology” are used interchangeably. Within their scope, they include IT solutions for the legal services sector. A separate thematic category is “Law Tech”, which refers to IT tools designed exclusively for consumers. The use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in the field of legal services has led to the emergence of a new category of services known as Legal Tech.

This article aims to define the current state of research on this topic, confirm its interdisciplinary character, and examine the degree of its popularity. The strategy adopted for the article influenced the order and order of the topics covered, starting with an introduction to legal technology as well as the analysis of the context of the definition of the term (section “Introduction”), through a detailed discussion of the methodology of systematic literature search, its results and an evaluation of the popularity of the terms (“Materials and methods” and “Bibliometric analysis” sections), the application of the thematic analysis method (“Thematic Analysis section of the Reference Framework”), the Google Trends analysis (“Analysis of the popularity of the terms “Legal Technology” or “Legal Tech” (Google Trends)” and finally the conclusions (“Conclusions Section”). The research methodology includes a systematic literature search, a quantitative bibliometric analysis, the thematic analysis method and – complementary – a popularity analysis carried out with the Google Trends analysis tool. The article confirms the multidisciplinary nature of legal technology as a subject and indicates the thematic categories corresponding to the term studied. It describes geographical segmentation and the difference in geographical segmentation at the global level. The author proved the existence of publications on legal technology and showed that the future of legal services lies in an interdisciplinary comparison of classical law with entirely new fields such as computer science, artificial intelligence and data analysis. As of November 21, 2019, Google Scholar offers 21 publications from 2019 with the term “Legal Technology” in the title and 35 with “Legal Tech”. I must admit that the first thing I thought of when I learned that my colleague Bob Ambrogi, a columnist for Above the Law, was introducing a new legal technology directory was, “Do we really need another software directory?” Let`s face it, the internet is flooded with software directories, and most of them aren`t very useful.

The approach mentioned to identify search criteria is consistent with survey triangulation principles, allowing for a higher degree of reliability and transparency of the entire search process. The form entered is: ProQuest and Ebsco (“Legal Technology”) OR (“Legal Tech”) and JSTOR (“Legal Technology”) OR (“Legal Tech”). Fact: People are reluctant to trust technology to do a better job than humans when it comes to reviewing litigation-related documents, even though studies prove otherwise. A study by David C. Blair and M.E. Maron in 1985 found that ART software outperformed human verification in accurately identifying relevant documents. Paralegals supervised by a lawyer believed they had found at least 75% of the relevant documents using search terms and iterative search, but found only 20%, while the TRR identified 75% of the relevant documents. This shows that while the perception that people can review documents better than technology remains, it has not been proven. Since ART is widely used in daily practice and continues to prove its accuracy, people are likely to trust it more as a reliable tool. Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B.

A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., & Khalil, M. (2007). Lessons learned from the application of the systematic retrieval process in the field of software engineering. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(4), 571-583. Myth: ART is very complex Fact: While the backend part and statistical programming of ART can be complex, the basic premise of how it works is fairly simple. Examiners use a series of documents called seed sets to “train” the ART software. Reviewers encode documents as reactive or unresponsive based on their relevance and entries into the predictive coding software. During the training, reviewers check whether the software correctly identifies documents and enter other codes if necessary.

The software analyzes the coded documents and creates its own algorithms to check and identify the responsiveness of the documents. Gerami, M., & Hawes, A. (2018). Justis: At the forefront of legal technology development in the UK. Legal Information Management, 18(2), 86-92. The following part of the article contains a detailed explanation of the systematic literature search process that led to the creation of this repository. In March, the Virginia state legislature passed a bill allowing the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) by local police departments and college campuses. If passed, the law will lift the temporary ban on such use that was introduced in 2021. While the data shows that the public is aware of the use of the FRT by […] Bourke, J., Roper, S., & Love, J.

H. (2020). Innovation in Legal Services: Practices that influence ideation and coding activities. Journal of Business Research, 109, 132-147. Fact: While the idea that technology can replace humans is taking a dramatic turn, it`s an unrealistic scenario.