University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 66, Number 4, Fall 2016


University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 66, Number 4, Fall 2016


In this Focus Feature, we argue that machines will perform many of the tasks currently performed by lawmakers, judges, and lawyers. However, rather than offer a dystopian vision of a legal world run by machines, we suggest that the changes will be mostly beneficial. … Anthony Casey and Anthony Niblett explore how the dichotomy of rules and standards will vanish in a world of such vast information. Rules are simplistic and precise, but they are rarely ideal because they do not factor in particular circumstances. They are often too strict or too loose. Standards are vague and create costly legal uncertainty and risk aversion. …  Benjamin Alarie explores the transition from an analogue world with slow and costly communication to a digitally connected world with real time and nearly costless communication, and he predicts that it will bring with it significant societal advantages. In the long run, Alarie predicts the advent of ‘legal singularity.’ With the realization of legal singularity, a complete specification of tax law (and, indeed, all of the other areas of law) is predicted. …  Albert Yoon argues that the technology will augment, rather than replace, lawyers. Lawyers will need to adapt as particular tasks become automated. Yoon argues that in the same way that electronic spreadsheets changed the nature of accounting, the effect of augmenting technologies will be a net positive for the legal services industry. Innovative law firms will be able to provide cheaper, faster, and more accurate legal advice. (excerpt from “Law in the future”)

Law in the future
Benjamin Alarie, Anthony Niblett, and Albert H Yoon

Self-driving laws
Anthony J Casey and Anthony Niblett

The path of the law: Towards legal singularity
Benjamin Alarie

The post-modern lawyer: Technology and the democratization of legal representation
Albert H Yoon

Acquisitive prescription and fundamental rights
Neil Duxbury

Rethinking original ownership
Yael R Lifshitz

Quantifying Dunsmuir: An empirical analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s jurisprudence on standard of review
Robert Danay

Full text of the University of Toronto Law Journal is available online at UTLJ Online, Project Muse, JSTOR, HeinOnline, Westlaw, Westlaw-CARSWELL, LexisNexis and Quicklaw.

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. Orin Kerr says:

    In the spirit of the articles, I am going to instruct my computer to read this issue and perfectly, accurately, and instantly update my understanding of the law. 🙂