保护和促进竞争以应对法律服务中的“破坏性”创新:经合组织背景文件

J. Mancini
{"title":"保护和促进竞争以应对法律服务中的“破坏性”创新:经合组织背景文件","authors":"J. Mancini","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3862531","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite traditional resistance to change in legal professions, pro-competitive “disruptive” innovations are beginning to transform legal services and the manner in which they are delivered. Online service delivery is allowing both legal professionals and unlicensed providers to serve clients remotely while taking advantage of the scalability of digital platforms. In addition, ranking and review information regarding legal professionals is becoming increasingly accessible, and is allowing clients to assess the quality of professionals before retaining them – a previously difficult proposition. Further, the unbundling of services, partially driven by increasing client awareness and fee pressure, is transforming the distribution of tasks in legal services and ending traditional “black box” models of service delivery. As a result, standardized activities are being outsourced to low-cost providers (including unlicensed ones), and new billing models are being introduced. Finally, automation is changing the nature, and volume, of tasks that legal professionals perform. Although the extent to which the work of legal professions can be automated is subject to debate, automated systems have been introduced which offer new capabilities and, in at least some instances, improved performance relative to legal professionals.<br><br>As a result of these innovations and the new competition they bring, the regulatory framework in which legal professionals operate is under pressure. The exclusivity enjoyed by legal professionals, and the precise scope of activities to which it applies, is becoming unclear as unlicensed entrants offer a widening range of services. Restrictions on the quantity of professionals that can operate in specified regions are being questioned at a time where the services they provide could easily be made available online. Further, legal professional self-regulators may be unable, or ill-suited, to identify accommodations that permit innovative entrants to serve consumers.<br><br>Competition authorities, which may have limited experience in legal services markets given that enforcement issues have been rare, should be aware of the challenges described above. Authorities can play a role in advocating for regulatory systems that reflect current market realities and ensure market access for pro-competitive disruptive innovations. Such a role could include advising policymakers who may be seeking to balance the benefits of competition with other policy objectives such as consumer protection. This process will require consideration of the objectives of legal professional regulations, particularly those addressing market failure, as well as the current design of those regulations.","PeriodicalId":113726,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Competition Policy (Sub-Topic)","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Protecting and Promoting Competition in Response to ‘Disruptive’ Innovations in Legal Services: OECD Background Paper\",\"authors\":\"J. Mancini\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3862531\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite traditional resistance to change in legal professions, pro-competitive “disruptive” innovations are beginning to transform legal services and the manner in which they are delivered. Online service delivery is allowing both legal professionals and unlicensed providers to serve clients remotely while taking advantage of the scalability of digital platforms. In addition, ranking and review information regarding legal professionals is becoming increasingly accessible, and is allowing clients to assess the quality of professionals before retaining them – a previously difficult proposition. Further, the unbundling of services, partially driven by increasing client awareness and fee pressure, is transforming the distribution of tasks in legal services and ending traditional “black box” models of service delivery. As a result, standardized activities are being outsourced to low-cost providers (including unlicensed ones), and new billing models are being introduced. Finally, automation is changing the nature, and volume, of tasks that legal professionals perform. Although the extent to which the work of legal professions can be automated is subject to debate, automated systems have been introduced which offer new capabilities and, in at least some instances, improved performance relative to legal professionals.<br><br>As a result of these innovations and the new competition they bring, the regulatory framework in which legal professionals operate is under pressure. The exclusivity enjoyed by legal professionals, and the precise scope of activities to which it applies, is becoming unclear as unlicensed entrants offer a widening range of services. Restrictions on the quantity of professionals that can operate in specified regions are being questioned at a time where the services they provide could easily be made available online. Further, legal professional self-regulators may be unable, or ill-suited, to identify accommodations that permit innovative entrants to serve consumers.<br><br>Competition authorities, which may have limited experience in legal services markets given that enforcement issues have been rare, should be aware of the challenges described above. Authorities can play a role in advocating for regulatory systems that reflect current market realities and ensure market access for pro-competitive disruptive innovations. Such a role could include advising policymakers who may be seeking to balance the benefits of competition with other policy objectives such as consumer protection. This process will require consideration of the objectives of legal professional regulations, particularly those addressing market failure, as well as the current design of those regulations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":113726,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IRPN: Competition Policy (Sub-Topic)\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IRPN: Competition Policy (Sub-Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3862531\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IRPN: Competition Policy (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3862531","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

尽管传统上抗拒法律行业的变革,但有利于竞争的“颠覆性”创新正开始改变法律服务及其提供方式。在线服务提供允许法律专业人士和无证提供商在利用数字平台的可扩展性的同时远程为客户提供服务。此外,有关法律专业人员的排名和审查信息越来越容易获得,这使客户能够在聘用专业人员之前评估他们的素质——这在以前是一个困难的问题。此外,在客户意识增强和收费压力的推动下,服务的分拆正在改变法律服务的任务分配,并终结传统的“黑箱”服务模式。因此,标准化的活动被外包给低成本的供应商(包括未经许可的供应商),并且正在引入新的计费模式。最后,自动化正在改变法律专业人员执行的任务的性质和数量。虽然法律专业人员的工作可以自动化的程度存在争议,但自动化系统已经被引入,它提供了新的能力,至少在某些情况下,相对于法律专业人员而言,它提高了性能。由于这些创新及其带来的新竞争,法律专业人士赖以运作的监管框架正面临压力。由于无证进入者提供的服务范围越来越广,法律专业人士享有的排他性及其适用的确切活动范围正变得越来越不明朗。在他们提供的服务可以很容易地在网上提供的时候,对可以在特定地区开展业务的专业人员数量的限制正在受到质疑。此外,法律专业的自我监管者可能无法或不适合确定允许创新进入者为消费者服务的住宿条件。由于执法问题很少,竞争主管部门在法律服务市场的经验可能有限,它们应该意识到上述挑战。当局可以发挥作用,倡导建立反映当前市场现实的监管体系,并确保有利于竞争的颠覆性创新获得市场准入。这种角色可以包括向决策者提供建议,这些决策者可能正在寻求平衡竞争的好处与保护消费者等其他政策目标。这一进程将需要审议法律专业条例的目标,特别是那些处理市场失灵的条例的目标,以及这些条例的现行设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Protecting and Promoting Competition in Response to ‘Disruptive’ Innovations in Legal Services: OECD Background Paper
Despite traditional resistance to change in legal professions, pro-competitive “disruptive” innovations are beginning to transform legal services and the manner in which they are delivered. Online service delivery is allowing both legal professionals and unlicensed providers to serve clients remotely while taking advantage of the scalability of digital platforms. In addition, ranking and review information regarding legal professionals is becoming increasingly accessible, and is allowing clients to assess the quality of professionals before retaining them – a previously difficult proposition. Further, the unbundling of services, partially driven by increasing client awareness and fee pressure, is transforming the distribution of tasks in legal services and ending traditional “black box” models of service delivery. As a result, standardized activities are being outsourced to low-cost providers (including unlicensed ones), and new billing models are being introduced. Finally, automation is changing the nature, and volume, of tasks that legal professionals perform. Although the extent to which the work of legal professions can be automated is subject to debate, automated systems have been introduced which offer new capabilities and, in at least some instances, improved performance relative to legal professionals.

As a result of these innovations and the new competition they bring, the regulatory framework in which legal professionals operate is under pressure. The exclusivity enjoyed by legal professionals, and the precise scope of activities to which it applies, is becoming unclear as unlicensed entrants offer a widening range of services. Restrictions on the quantity of professionals that can operate in specified regions are being questioned at a time where the services they provide could easily be made available online. Further, legal professional self-regulators may be unable, or ill-suited, to identify accommodations that permit innovative entrants to serve consumers.

Competition authorities, which may have limited experience in legal services markets given that enforcement issues have been rare, should be aware of the challenges described above. Authorities can play a role in advocating for regulatory systems that reflect current market realities and ensure market access for pro-competitive disruptive innovations. Such a role could include advising policymakers who may be seeking to balance the benefits of competition with other policy objectives such as consumer protection. This process will require consideration of the objectives of legal professional regulations, particularly those addressing market failure, as well as the current design of those regulations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信