Knowledge tools for legal knowledge tool makers
Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (4) (2002)
| Abstract | Business theory suggests that knowledge intensive professionslike law would devote major attention to knowledge management (KM) activities. Afterall, since a firm's combined knowledge is a key differentiating asset, one wouldexpect the exploitation of that asset to be a high priority. Yet new lawyers are oftensurprised at how little of such activities take place within firms. One might also expect tofind rich connections between academic research in knowledge management and law firmsusing that research. The rarity of such connections stands in sharp contrast to thebreadth and depth of use of substantive legal research and analysis. These disappointmentsare not unrelated: a firm that allocates little time to systems for leveraging its intellectualcontent is unlikely to invest in staying up to date with externalresearch relating to such systems.The authors believe that significant progress nonetheless may bemade both in applying KM methodologies to law firm work and better connecting theacademic and practice sectors. To those ends, this article explores three theses: (1)Legal technologists can and should lead by example in utilizing KM tools and methods; (2) Theeconomics of legal practice still pose substantial challenges to even those knowledge technologies considered by some as truly ``disruptive''; and (3) Focussing onareas that could yield a tremendous economic harvest may help forge richer connections betweenthe work being done in academic and practice spheres. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJohannes Gadner, Renate Buber & Lyn Richards (eds.) (2003). Organising Knowledge: Methods and Case Studies. Palgrave Macmillan.
Andreas Hamfelt (1995). Formalizing Multiple Interpretation of Legal Knowledge. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3 (4):221-265.
Gary E. Marchant & Lynda L. Pope (2009). The Problems with Forbidding Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (3).
Erich Schweighofer & Doris Liebwald (2007). Advanced Lexical Ontologies and Hybrid Knowledge Based Systems: First Steps to a Dynamic Legal Electronic Commentary. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (2):103-115.
Joost Breuker, André Valente & Radboud Winkels (2004). Legal Ontologies in Knowledge Engineering and Information Management. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):241-277.
Graham Greenleaf, Andrew Mowbray & Peter Dijk (1995). Representing and Using Legal Knowledge in Integrated Decision Support Systems: Datalex Workstations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3 (1-2):97-142.
Anja Oskamp (1992). Model for Knowledge and Legal Expert Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (4).
Marc Lauritsen (1992). Technology Report: Building Legal Practice Systems with Today's Commercial Authoring Tools. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (1):87-102.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads2 ( #232,316 of 549,010 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
