Designing technology for legal work: A case study on boundaries and legal expertise
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2263Keywords:
legal professionals, digitalization, legal experts, IT system design, boundariesAbstract
This article discusses how legal professionals perceive the change in their work practices and work-related boundaries as they participate in the design and implementation of a new information system. By looking empirically at a large-scale IT development project within the judicial system in Finland, the paper contributes to debates on how technology development affects the key elements of legal work and how legal expertise is perceived when designing IT systems for the public judiciary. Drawing from research literature on science and technology studies (STS), particularly literature on expertise and boundaries, the article suggests four main findings. First, IT design is seen as an additional task with clear boundaries between legal and technological knowledge. Second, the embodied aspects of legal expertise are connected to issues of autonomy and individual work practices. Third, IT design and use affect organizational flexibility and boundaries between and within organizations. Fourth, there are changes in hierarchical relations and work divisions between judges and legal secretaries.
Downloads
Metrics
Global Statistics ℹ️
|
12
Views
|
5
Downloads
|
|
17
Total
|
|
References
Abbott, A., 1993. The sociology of work and occupations. Annual review of sociology [online], 19(1), 187–209. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.19.1.187 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.19.1.187
Abbott, A., 1995. Things of boundaries. Social Research, 62(4), 857–882.
Armour, J., Parnham, R., and Sako, M., 2022. Augmented lawyering. University of Illinois Law Review, 71–138.
Blasi, G.L., 1995. What lawyers know: Lawyering expertise, cognitive science, and the functions of theory. Journal of Legal Education, 45(3), 313.
Blomgren, M., and Waks, C., 2015. Coping with contradictions: hybrid professionals managing institutional complexity. Journal of Professions and Organization [online], 2(1), 78-102. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jou010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jou010
Braun, V., and Clarke, V. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise & Health [online], 11(4), 589–597. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Braun, V., and Clarke, V., 2023. Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health [online], 24(1), 1-6. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597
Byrne, W.H., Gammeltoft-Hansen, T., and Stappert, N., 2023. Legal Infrastructures: Towards a Conceptual Framework. MOBILE Working Paper Series [online], no. 33. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/yjkeb DOI: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/yjkeb
Caserta, S., 2020. Digitalization of the legal field and the future of large law firms. Laws [online], 9(2), 14. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/laws9020014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/laws9020014
Caudill, D.S., Collins, H., and Evans, R., 2024. Judges should be discerning consensus, not evaluating scientific expertise. University of Cincinnati Law Review [online], 92(4), 1031–1079. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4940782 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4940782
Chew, S., Armstrong, N., and Martin, G.P., 2022. Understanding knowledge brokerage and its transformative potential: a Bourdieusian perspective. Evidence & Policy [online], 18(1), 25–42. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16149632470114 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16149632470114
Christensen, C., 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
CoggonI, J., 2024. Legal expertise and its subject matter within common law adjudication. In: M. Farina and A. Lavazza, eds., Philosophy, Expertise, and the Myth of Neutrality [online]. New York: Routledge, 203–220. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003374480-15 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003374480-15
Collins, H., 2013. Three dimensions of expertise. Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences [online], 12, 253-273. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-011-9203-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-011-9203-5
Collins, H., Evans, R., and Gorman, M. 2007. Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A [online], 38(4), 657-666. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.09.003
Collins, H., Evans, R., and Gorman, M., 2007. Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A [online], 38(4), 657-666. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.09.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.09.003
Contini, F., 2020. Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation of Humans, Law and Technology Interactions in Judicial Proceedings. Law, Technology and Humans [online], 2(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.v2i1.1478 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.v2i1.1478
Corrall, S., 2008. The emergence of hybrid professionals: New skills, roles and career options for the information professional. Online Information 2008 Proceedings, 28, 67–73.
Crisci, F., and Romanello, R., 2023. “How Matter Matters”:“Translations”, Boundary Objects, and Digital Innovation in the Public Reforms. In: A. Mocciaro Li Destri et al., eds., Rediscovering local roots and interactions in management. Conference proceedings [online]. Bari: Sinergie-SIMA Management Conference Proceedings, 533-540. Available at: https://www.sijmsima.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/conference-proceedings-short-paper-bari-2023_compressed.pdf
Currie, G., and White, L., 2012. Inter-professional Barriers and Knowledge Brokering in an Organizational Context: The Case of Healthcare. Organization Studies [online], 33(10), 1333–1361. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612457617 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612457617
Davis, R., and King, J., 1975. An overview of production systems. Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Memo AIM-271, October 197S Computer Science Department Report No. STAN-CS-75-52. Stanford University.
Dickhaut, E., et al., 2024. Lawfulness by design–development and evaluation of lawful design patterns to consider legal requirements. European Journal of Information Systems [online], 33(4), 441–468. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2023.2174050 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2023.2174050
Doherty, M., 2021. The relationship between legal and design cultures: tension and resolution. In: M. Corrales Campagnucci et al., eds., Legal Design [online]. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 32–55. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839107269.00010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839107269.00010
Epstein, S., 2011. Misguided boundary work in studies of expertise: time to return to the evidence. Critical Policy Studies [online], 5(3), 323–328. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2011.606306 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2011.606306
Faulkner, A., and Poort, L., 2017. Stretching and challenging the boundaries of law: varieties of knowledge in biotechnologies regulation. Minerva [online], 55, 209–228. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9326-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9326-0
Flood, J., 2019. Legal professionals of the future: Their ethos, role and skills. Role and Skills [online], 15 January. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3315855 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3315855
Francis, A., 2020. Law’s boundaries: Connections in contemporary legal professionalism. Journal of Professions and Organization [online], 7(1), 70–86. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa003
Galison, P., 2010. Trading with the Enemy. In: M.E. Gorman, ed., Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration. Cambridge, MA/London: The MIT Press, 25–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014724.003.0003
Glöckner, A., Towfigh, E., and Traxler, C., 2013. Development of legal expertise. Instructional Science [online], 41, 989–1007. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9266-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9266-5
Guihot, M., 2018 New Technology, the Death of the BigLaw Monopoly and the Evolution of the Computer Professional. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 20(3), 405.
Hildebrandt, M., 2023. Boundary Work between Computational ‘Law’ and ‘Law-as-We-Know-it.’ In: D. Curtin and M. Catanzariti, eds., Data at the Boundaries of European Law [online]. Oxford University Press, 30–65. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198874195.003.0002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198874195.003.0002
Hunter, D., 2020. The death of the legal profession and the future of law. University of New South Wales Law Journal [online], 43(4), 1199–1225. Available at: https://doi.org/10.53637/DVVX3898 DOI: https://doi.org/10.53637/DVVX3898
Jiménez, F., 2024. On Legal Expertise. The American Journal of Jurisprudence [online], 69(2), 141–162. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/auae017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/auae017
Kerosuo, H., 2003. Boundaries in health care discussions: An activity theoretical approach to the analysis of boundaries. In: N. Paulsen and T. Hernes, eds., Managing boundaries in organizations: Multiple perspectives [online]. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 169-187. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230512559_10 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230512559_10
Kirkpatrick, I., Altanlar, A., and Veronesi, G., 2023. Hybrid professional managers in healthcare: an expanding or thwarted occupational interest? Public Management Review [online], 25(5), 859–878. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1996777 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1996777
Kontiainen, L., Koulu, R., and Mäihäniemi, B., 2021. Oikeuden digitalisaatio ja juristityön arkipäivä [Digitalization of Justice and the everyday life of legal work]. Lakimies [online], 119(2), 173–199. Available at: https://journal.fi/lakimies/article/view/90972
Korkea-aho, E., and Leino-Sandberg, P., eds., 2022. Law, Legal Expertise and EU Policy-making [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108909099 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108909099
Koulu, R., Koulu, R., and Koulu, S., 2019. Tuomarin roolit tuomioistuimissa. Alma Talent. Helsinki.
Kronblad, C., 2020. Digital innovation in law firms: The dominant logic under threat. Creativity and Innovation Management [online], 29(3), 512–527. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12395 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12395
Kronblad, C., and Jensen, S.H., 2023. ‘Being a professional is not the same as acting professionally’—How digital technologies have empowered the creation and enactment of a new professional identity in law. Journal of Professions and Organization [online], 10(2), 99–119. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joad005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joad005
Kujala, S., 2003. User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & information technology [online], 22(1), 1–16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290301782 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290301782
Kyratsis, Y., et al., 2017. Health systems in transition: Professional identity work in the context of shifting institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal [online], 60(2), 610–641. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0684 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0684
Lam, A., 2020. Hybrids, identity and knowledge boundaries: Creative artists between academic and practitioner communities. Human Relations [online], 73(6), 837–863. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719846259 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719846259
Leino-Sandberg, P., 2021. The Politics of Legal Expertise in EU-Policy-Making [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108908757 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108908757
Lohr, S., 2018. M.I.T. plans college for artificial intelligence, backed by $1 billion. The New York Times, 15 October.
Lupo, G., and Bailey, J., 2014. Designing and Implementing e-Justice Systems: Some Lessons Learned from EU and Canadian Examples. Laws [online], 3(2), 353–387. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/laws3020353 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/laws3020353
Lynch, M., and Cole, M., 2005. Science and Technology Studies on Trial: Dilemmas of Expertise. Social Studies of Science [online], 35(2), 269–311. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705048715 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705048715
Mania, K., 2023. Legal technology: Assessment of the legal tech industry’s potential. Journal of the Knowledge Economy [online], 14(2), 595–619. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-00924-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-00924-z
Pakarinen, P., and Huising, R., 2023. Relational expertise: What machines can’t know. Journal of Management Studies [online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12915 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12915
Parsa, A., et al., 2023. Legal Tech, the Law Firm and the Imagination of the Right Legal Answer. Law and Critique [online], 34(3), 381–394. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-023-09363-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-023-09363-4
Pawlowski, S.D., and Robey, D., 2004. Bridging user organizations: Knowledge brokering and the work of information technology professionals. MIS quarterly [online], 28(4), 645–672. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/25148658 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/25148658
Reiling, D., 2009. Technology for Justice: How Information Technology Can Support Judicial Reform. Leiden University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5117/9789087280710
Reiling, D., and Contini, F., 2022. E-justice platforms: Challenges for judicial governance. International Journal for Court Administration [online], 13(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.445 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.445
Ribes, D., et al., 2019. The logic of domains. Social studies of science [online], 49(3), 281-309. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719849709 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719849709
Rowley, J., 2002. Using case studies in research, Management Research News [online], 25(1), 16– 27. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170210782990 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170210782990
Saks, M., 2012. Defining a Profession: The Role of Knowledge and Expertise. Professions & Professionalism [online], 2(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.v2i1.151 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.v2i1.151
Sandefur, R.L., 2015. Elements of professional expertise: Understanding relational and substantive expertise through lawyers’ impact. American Sociological Review [online], 80(5), 909–933. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122415601157 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122415601157
Schmidt, J., 2023. Mitigating risk of failure in information technology projects: Causes and mechanisms. Project Leadership and Society [online], 4, 100097. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2023.100097 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2023.100097
Scupola, A., and Mergel, I., 2022. Co-production in digital transformation of public administration and public value creation: The case of Denmark. Government Information Quarterly [online], 39(1), 101650. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101650 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101650
Seear, K., 2017. The emerging role of lawyers as addiction ‘quasi-experts’. International Journal of Drug Policy [online], 44, 183–191. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.05.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.05.008
Star, S., 2010. This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, technology, & human values [online], 35(5), 601-617. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624
Susskind, R., 1986. Expert Systems in Law: A Jurisprudential Approach to Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning. Modern Law Review [online], 49(2), 168. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1986.tb01683.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1986.tb01683.x
Susskind, R., 2023. Tomorrow’s lawyers: An introduction to your future. Oxford University Press.
Thornton, M. 2019. Towards the uberisation of legal practice. Law, Technology and Humans [online], 1, 46-63. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.v1i1.1277 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.v1i1.1277
Vapnek, J., 2013. 21 Cost-Saving Measures for the Judiciary. International Journal for Court Administration [online], 5(1), 55. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.7
Viapiana, F., Van Dijk, F. and Diephuis, B., 2023. Pressure on judges: How managerialisation and evolving professional standards affect judges’ autonomy, efficiency and stress. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 13(S1), S347–S385. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1672 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1672
Webb, J., 2020. Legal Technology: The Great Disruption? University of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper [online], No. 897. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3664476 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3664476
Webley, L., et al., 2019. The profession (s)’engagements with lawtech: Narratives and archetypes of future law. Law, Technology and Humans [online], 1, 6–26. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.v1i0.1314 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.v1i0.1314
Yao, Y., 2022. One Foot in the Online Gig Economy: Coping with a Splitting Professional Identity, Journal of Professions and Organization [online], 9(3), 273–290. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joac015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joac015
Yin, R.K., 2009. Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Terhi Esko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence and it regulates how others can use your work. Further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
