| | |
|
ShawnFettyFirstPaper 6 - 27 Oct 2011 - Main.ShawnFetty
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Open-source law envisions the coordinated effort of dispersed, freely collaborating lawyers. The idea builds on the same premise (simplified here) as open-source software: the product of free and easy sharing is superior to proprietary products. Open-source law promises the pursuit of justice where there is none—or at least cheaper legal services. | |
<
< | To-date, implementations of open-source law have tackled 1) legal reference materials and 2) collective brief writing. Nevertheless, a sustainable model for open-source law remains undeveloped. In the first case, a number of Wikipedia-law-clones have been published on the Web, but none have been even modestly adopted. Moreover, while Cornell's Legal Information Institute is a credible legal reference, it falls short when it comes to promoting actual advocacy. As for the second approach, Harvard’s experiment in “[harnessing] the distributed resources of the Internet” to draft briefs appears to have been effectively decommissioned some time in 2002, just a few years after its inception. The Berkman Center’s Openlaw site is rife with dead links and other signs of neglect. | | | | |
<
< | In contrast, Wikipedia and open-source software are, by this point, more-or-less self-perpetuating. Where a hole exists in either, someone somewhere will fill it, probably sooner than later. Free collaboration has clearly worked well in these contexts. Here, I sketch what happened with open-source law. Law is not inherently incompatible with the open-source model. Moving forward, any successful open-source law methodology must address the array of sociological and professional elements working against lawyers collaborating. | >
> | Striving for those goals, proponents of open-source law have been chasing the tails of three very different dragons: 1) treatises and practice journals, 2) Wexis, and 3) lawyering itself. In the first case, a number of Wikipedia-law-clones have been published on the Web. For the second, we have PreCydent, an open-source competitor to Wexis. And finally, we have Harvard’s experiment in “[harnessing] the distributed resources of the Internet” to draft briefs.
Despite these efforts, a sustainable model for open-source law remains undeveloped. None of the Law-Wikis have been even modestly adopted, Precydent went belly up, and the Berkman Center’s Openlaw site appears to have been effectively decommissioned (given the dead links and other signs of neglect) some time in 2002, just a few years after its inception. Here, I sketch what happened with open-source law.
Moreover, while sites like Cornell's Legal Information Institute Justia.com may eventually become credible legal references, they fall short when it comes to promoting actual advocacy.
Law is not inherently incompatible with the open-source model. Moving forward, any successful open-source law methodology must address the array of sociological and professional elements working against lawyers collaborating. | | |
Section II |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |