Talk:Legal technology

Section removal

An entire section of legal tech companies was deleted in entirety defying the purpose of the page itself. Legal tech is a term popularized by start up companies providing software services to a specific sector and which is clearly specified in the intro text quoted as under:

"Legal Tech companies are often startups founded with the purpose of disrupting the traditionally conservative legal market" 

I am in agreement that wikipedia ain't a directory, but will legal tech exist as a whole without these companies promoting it it! This is deliberate vandalism to the subject page itself!! --Rawwbots (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"defying the purpose of the page itself", the purpose of this article is not to list legal tech companies. Also, someone disagreeing with content is not vandalism. Greyjoy ^talk 05:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk) Beg to differ. Removing content in view that a reviewer's disagreement remains with agreement to all is purported vandalism.The beginning of legal tech itself was marked by lexis Nexis in 1974 and with the introduction of their little red UBIQ terminal. Wikipedia's terms clearly state that the wiki site is a directory of its own contents and contents that are relevant to the subject itself. I am of high opinion that the absence of these companies, given their role in the evolution of a rather vague technological segment, had make this article obsolete.≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawwbots (talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Some things are off-mission for Wikipedia. We're not a company directory, so making lists of vendors on associated article topics is not something we do here. This is like saying the article on Plumbing should contain a list of local plumbers. - MrOllie (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Plumbing is a generic term. In legal industry, the term legal is generic, legal tech is not. If lexis Nexis remains the brainchild behind the origin of this segment of technology, what's the harm in giving them credit? Its like an article on Windows software, without Bill gates!! Rawwbots (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Nah. this technology was pioneered at the University of Pittsburgh in the 50s. LexisNexis came around a couple decades later. - MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

New introduction

I want to include this as an introduction:

> Legal Tech companies are often startups founded with the purpose of disrupting the traditionally conservative legal market. Scholars, lawyers, and government bodies have argued that use of technology is law has the potential to reduce costs, increase efficiency and improve access to justice, but warn of risks including bias and undermining the processes and values of law.

But this is an utter pain to cite properly, and I decided to I wanted a break while finding citations. Here's the beginnings of a cite table for this. I'm not sure if collecting all the citations in support of this sentence is getting close to OR. It would be nice if I could find a reliable source that says something close...

Citations for this sentence

	Scholars	Lawyers	Government bodies
Reduce costs
Increase efficiency
Access to justice
RIsk of bias
Undermine process of law
Values of law

Writethenread (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Some good sources

I found a few good sources that could give this more of a sociological / legal angle rather than an AI angle. The first is this Susskind book. Speeches by supreme court judges in the UK seem to be another good source of commentary. I would quite like to get some sources out of the US, and maybe some international comparative literature into this (should it exist). I think there's quite a lot of stuff going on in germany. Writethenread (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Topics it might be good to add

This is a list of topics that I might want to add:

History of virtual courts and a discussion of virtual courts

AVL has been used in courtrooms since at least the 1990s (Wallace, 2008), most commonly for vulnerable witnesses, expert witnesses, and persons in custody.

In the UK video hearings pilot involving select civil matters (Rossner & McCurdy, 2020), participants (defendant or claimant) see three faces on the screen: the judge on the top left of the screen, the other party in the right, and a (removable) self-view at the bottom of the screen (Figure 2).

"Improving ritual practice" <-- This is pretty interesting.

History of practice management software and a dicussion of practice management

Writethenread (talk)

References

No coverage of the field's main operational risk

Hi all. The article discusses AI-assisted contract review and generative tools for non-lawyers, but never mentions fabricated citations — which is, by volume of coverage and by professional consequence, the defining legal-technology story of the 2020s.

Disclosure: I'm an editor at Silent Room, a magazine about AI, so per WP:COI I'm putting this on talk.

Suggested for "Societal issues":

The adoption of generative AI for legal research has made fabricated authority a recurring problem. A public database maintained by the legal researcher Damien Charlotin at AI Hallucination Cases recorded roughly 1,300 court filings containing AI-generated citations by mid-2026, with consequences for attorneys ranging from fines to disbarment. The risk is not confined to small practices: Reuters reported that in April 2026 Sullivan & Cromwell apologised to a federal bankruptcy court after opposing counsel found hallucinated citations in its filings in a $15 billion asset-forfeiture action. Examining that case against the firm's own published AI policies — mandatory training, an instruction to "trust nothing and verify everything" — the magazine Silent Room concluded that the failure is structural rather than individual, since a firm with exemplary written controls produced the same outcome as attorneys with none.

Enthusiast1874 (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2026 (UTC)