首页 微博热点正文

海洋公园,秘塔视界 | 协作仍是对立?德国律师狙击法令科技渠道,乔振宇

汉堡汉萨律师协会(Hanseatic Bar Association)看似打赢了一场官司,有用阻挠了合同途径在没有律师直接参加的状况下向客户供给服务。这一诉讼是由汉萨律师事务所针对一个名为Smartlaw.de的顾客法则途径提起的,该途径由大型合法出版商和科技公司Wolters Kluwer(威科先行)具有。

The Hanseatic Bar Association in Hamburg appears to have won a court battle that effectively prevents contract platforms from offering their services to clients without lawyers directly involved. The action was brought by the Hanseatic Bar against a consumer legal platform called Smartlaw.de – which is owned by the massive legal publisher and tech company, Wolters Kluwer.


The case has caused shockwaves in some parts of the German legal community, with several experts telling Artificial La海洋公园,秘塔视界 | 协作仍是敌对?德国律师狙击法则科技途径,乔振宇wyer the potential ban raised serious questions about legal tech regulation in Europe's largest economy.


The Bar claims that tech-based platforms like this cannot provide sufficient legal certainty for a client as the彭伯里庄园y rely on an automated Q&A expert system to fill in a contract or other legal document template. In short, unless you have lawyers involved in contract creation then it should not be allowed, they say.

区域法院的悉数书面判定没有发布,但从理论上讲,这或许会阻止 Rocket Lawyer、 Legal Zoom等公司以及其他运用专家体系在没有律师的状况下完结合同的公司在该区域开展业务。现在还不清楚这是否会有用地制止"非律师"运用"自助服务"门户网站在公司内部创立合同,或许是一家公司运用 Neota Logic或 Bryter等专家体系为职工树立的合同。

The full written judgment of the regional court has not yet been made public, but in theory, this could potentially prevent companies such as RocketLawyer, LegalZoom, as well as others that use an expert system to complete contracts without a lawyer, from operating in the region. It's not clear yet if this would in effect also ban 'non-lawyers' from using 'self-service' portals to create contracts inside of corporates, perhaps that a company has built for its staff using expert systems such as Neota Logic or Bryter.


At the same time, there is an ongoing case in Berlin, also brought by a local Bar, against a tech-based company that helps residents fight against unfair rent, (see more below).


With two cases now made against legal tech platforms in Germany, it's fair to say tha中华手赚网t not all German lawyers are embracing the idea that technology can help improve legal services for society, especially when they 敖胥are cut out of the process. It's a position that many other lawyers across the world will no doubt empathise with.


In relation to the case in Hamburg, on winning their case against Smartlaw, the Bar published a press release (in German) claiming that what the company did was 'an inadmissible legal service and therefore a violation of the Legal Services Act (RDG)'.


It went on to say that a core reason for their case was 'the protection of the legal profession from unqualified competit海洋公园,秘塔视界 | 协作仍是敌对?德国律师狙击法则科技途径,乔振宇ors苗蜂婆'.


Perhaps most importantly for legal tech companies is this part of their statement, which in effect says that digital contract systems are incapable of offe好递讯美ring a reliable legal document on their own.


'When drafting legally secure … contracts, it is usually necessary to clarify the relevant facts in cooperation with the client…. This can not be provided by a computer that asks different questions about the desired contract design in a question and answer system and then delivers a contract that has been compiled considering the answers,' they said.


The Bar also pointed out that there was a pricing aspect, with the tech pla上海联彤网络通讯技能有限公司tform offering services at a very low cost compared to regular lawyers.

由德国的 WoltersKluwer公司运营

因而,他们的终究结论是:"该等合同生成器不应由未获得法则界答应或在海洋公园,秘塔视界 | 协作仍是敌对?德国律师狙击法则科技途径,乔振宇 RDG项下以其他方法合法化的公司运营。"

So, the end conclusion for them is: 'Such a contract generator should not be operated by companies that are not admitted to the legal profession or otherwise legitimised under the RDG.'


Artificial Lawyer asked several German legal experts what their thoughts and feelings were about the case.

Hogan Lovells的助理律师、法则技能方面的常客尼科库尔曼说:"从法则的视点来看,法院的证明或许是有道理的。但对另一方也有很好的论据。归根到底,真实的问题不是区域法院是否正确,或许上诉中的判定是否会被推翻,而是《德国法则服务法》(RDG)是否仍能担任这项作业?

Nico Kuhlmann, an associate at Hogan Lovells and a regular commentator on legal tech, said: 'From a legal standpoint, the argumentation of the court is probably justifiable. But there are good arguments for the other side as well. At the end of the day, the real question is not if the District Court is right or if the ruling will be overturned in the appeal, but if the German Legal Service Act (the RDG) is still up to the job?'

Bucerius法学院法则技能部履行主任 DirkHartung说:"科隆区域法院的一审判定是有争议的。

Dirk Hartung, Executive Director Legal Technology, Bucerius Law School, said: 'The first instance decision by the region死刑犯2充血al court of Cologne is controversial.


'While the case rests on legal technicalities and mixes competition law and unauthorized practice of law questions, the general direction is troublesome.


'The German Legal Services Act is primarily intended as consumer protection. Instead of achieving this goal, the court does responsible consumers a disservice and hinders innovation and access to justice to protect an outdated monopoly.


'To me, it seems rather n刘忠巍aive to believe that the users do not understand how this combination of an expert system and a document generation solution on the basis of template document works. Rather, the users are simply happy with an affordable solution in sufficient quality. However, as the defendant can still appeal the decision, there is a good chance that this worrying course will be corrected.'

此外,闻名法则技能专家 Markus Hartung (与上述无关)和 Bucerius法则专业中心的 Markus Hartung告知人工智能律师:"这是今日的抵触,由昨日的法规处理。诉诸司法和维护顾客需求律师和非律师法则服务,而不是曩昔几个世纪的职业独占。

And, Markus Hartung, the well-knhklabown legal tech expert, (no relation to the above) and at the Bucerius Center on the Legal Profession, told Artificial Lawyer: 'This is today's conflict which is dealt with by yesterday's regulation. Access to justice and consumer protection require lawyers and non-lawyer legal services, not a guild-like monopoly from past centuries.'

别的,另一位闻名的德国法则技能谈论员和律师汤姆布雷格尔曼(Tom Braegelmann)在承受网站采访时说:"这个决定是在一个关键时刻做出的,其时德国政府和议会正在谈论是给法则技能更多的回旋余地仍是进一步约束它。

And, Tom Braegelmann, another well-known German legal tech commentator and lawyer, told this site: 'The decision comes at a crucial time, when the German Government and Parliament are debating whether to grant more leeway for legal tech or restrict it further.

此外,德国最高民事法院现在正在审理另一同或许进一步约束法则技能或在德国敞开法则技能的案子:柏林律师协会正在申述wenigermiete.de (一家旨在下降租金的草创企业)。

'Moreover, there is currently another case in this regard pending at the highest German civil court, that might further restrict legal tech or open it up in Germany: the Berlin Bar association is suing wenigermiete.de (a start-up for lowering your rent).'


Interestingly, the initial case against the rent lowering app was lost, as the court ruled, among other reasons, that it was fair competition. However, this month it has now gone to appeal, so the local Bar could still win.

并且,当你看到公司是怎么解说自己的时分,似海洋公园,秘塔视界 | 协作仍是敌对?德国律师狙击法则科技途径,乔振宇乎很难敌对它的供给,由于它好像也供给了很多的人类法则投入,而不仅仅是一个孤立的技能途径,他们说他们"依照德国法则服务法案"运作。

And, when you look at how the company explains itself, it does seem rather hard to object to its offering, given that it appears to offer a lot of human legal input as well, and is not just an isolated tech platform, and they say they 'operate under the German Legal Services Act'.

"咱们是一家立异的法则技能公司,使用现代技能,在经验丰富的律师和 IT专家的支持下,以便利客户的方法快速、高效地处理案子。你所要做的便是填写咱们的在线调查表,给咱们发送联络信息,剩余的咱们就做了。咱们代表你履行对房东的法则索赔。

'We're an innovative Legal T夯先生ech company that uses modern technology, backed by experienced lawyers and IT experts, to handle cases quickly, efficiently and in a customer-friendly manner. All you have to do is fill out our online questionnaire, send us contract information and we'll do the rest. We enforce legal claims against landlords on your behalf.


'A legal service provider, we operate under the German Legal Services Act with the supervision of the Berlin Supreme Court. If claims come to court, we will cover the costs and provide you with one of our contract lawyers at our expense. Our wenige海洋公园,秘塔视界 | 协作仍是敌对?德国律师狙击法则科技途径,乔振宇rmiete.de promise: you only pay if we're successful. You can find clear information about our service fees here.' – Source: company site.

人工智能律师也约请Wolters Kluwer宣布谈论,但还没有收到谈论。

Artificial Lawyer also asked for a comment from Wolters Kluwer, but has not yet received one.


What do you think? Is this reasonable, i.e. people cannot be trusted to make contracts with expert systems without a quali朱圣伟fied lawyer sitting with them? Or, is this just protectionism dressed up as concern for the日本同性 clients? Or perhaps a bit of both?


Either way, as the experts a圆圆大光头bove noted, this and the other case look likely to test the boundaries of what is acceptable in Germany in terms of legal technology.


It's also interesting that t海洋公园,秘塔视界 | 协作仍是敌对?德国律师狙击法则科技途径,乔振宇his comes not long after the French judge data ban – in what is another move against legal tech's capabilit海洋公园,秘塔视界 | 协作仍是敌对?德国律师狙击法则科技途径,乔振宇ies.