For the legal profession to stay afloat and continue to thrive, it needs to adapt, says Prof. Achilles C. Emilianides, Executive Chairman, Partner, A. & E. C. Emilianides, C. Katsaros & Associates LLC. And looking ahead, he considers that LegalTech and RegTech, along with AI and financial services regulation, will be seeing rapid growth.
In a recent interview with GOLD magazine, Emilianides discusses the legal profession, past and present, his take on the e-Justice system and reveals which aspect of the legal industry he expects to be most disrupted by technology over the next five years.
Evolving client expectations, disruptive technology and growing competition are forcing law firms to rethink the way they deliver legal services. How is your firm adapting to this new reality?
We are living in an era of liberalisation and unprecedented technological change and we need to be as open-minded and innovative as possible, in order to effectively address the challenges and opportunities that these developments present. Since our field deals with the provision of specialised services, it cannot be immediately fully replaced by technology, although its effect on how services are offered is already evident and will become more poignant in the immediate future. In order to stay afloat and continue to thrive, our field needs to adapt. We can aim for more jobs only if we innovate instead of automate, i.e. we should aim to engage in fields previously not thought possible and to adjust our working and educational practices accordingly, in order to become pioneers in the field of law. Since the launch of its current structure in 2013, our firm has innovated by introducing new fields of legal and advisory services, especially in the real estate and banking sectors, and by introducing AI solutions while, at the same time, maintaining its focus on more traditional legal services. On the other hand, we need to be cautious. We can technically have artificial intelligence (AI) take decisions on law but we cannot leave law in the hands of AI; if we were to do so, there would simply be no reason to have societies anymore!
How have client priorities evolved and, looking ahead, which areas do you expect to demonstrate the most rapid growth?
Clients have high expectations. This is fair and allows law firms to both innovate and invest in their personnel. In recent years, we have seen significant growth experienced by larger law firms, as opposed to the traditional model of single-lawyer firm. This is part of the need to expand in order to be in a position to meet growing client expectations. I think that LegalTech and RegTech are two of the fields that will see rapid growth, as well as AI and financial services regulation.
The local legal profession is facing internal headwinds, from the stalled e-Justice system to the uncertainty surrounding the proposed Single Supervisory Authority. In your view, what are the most pressing challenges that need to be addressed?
The problems you mention are, indeed, important but I think that the most pressing challenge concerns trust in the system by both lawyers and clients. Clients need to be able to trust the justice system, the courts, the judges, the lawyers and their ability to care about the cases brought before them. We routinely deal with people who are facing personal/family tragedies or financial collapse or need advice in order to become more competitive or to simply safeguard their current status. A person should have the right to expect from all actors in the justice system to be knowledgeable of the law, to have common sense and to care about the specific case they have to deal with at any given point in time. Continued delays and the lack of adaptability are some of the most important problems that practising lawyers are facing today.
How are international geopolitical tensions, trade-related uncertainty and other problems shaping the business and investment landscape in Cyprus?
The current geopolitical climate is extremely problematic but let me stress the importance of the future of European competitiveness, which has been at the forefront of debate in recent years and has recently become even more poignant due to the fundamental change in the US policy towards the EU. Unfortunately, this debate has so far mostly focused on how the EU is unable to compete with the US and China, rather than applying solutions for changing this trend. A recent Report, commissioned by the European Commission and authored by the former ECB President Mario Draghi, urged the EU to foster more investment to increase European productivity and warned that if the EU failed to keep pace with its rivals, it would face “slow agony”. While the report has been in circulation for 18 months now, progress remains slow in the implementation of its recommendations. The shift in US policy, coupled with the EU’s new emphasis on defensive priorities, may imply that the recommendations might not be implemented, despite their existential tone. In my view, the Draghi Report has correctly acknowledged that this is an existential crisis. The EU’s raison d’être is to safeguard the fundamental values of peace, democracy, freedom and prosperity in a sustainable environment and it cannot achieve these objectives unless it becomes more productive. The EU remains weak in the tech sector and this is the main reason for the productivity gap between the EU and the US. When the US was investing in research, we were focusing on austerity and failed to grow.
Finally, which aspect of the legal industry do you expect to be most disrupted by technology over the next five years and how are you preparing for it?
I think every industry will be further disrupted by technology. The main concern is, clearly, how to maintain jobs and the future of European competitiveness. The objective of having the most comprehensive system of regulating AI, digital currencies, financial markets, etc., might be sufficient as a secondary aim but not as a primary one. The primary goal should be to have global tech companies located in the EU to reignite growth and to increase productivity, not to be the leaders in regulation. Regulation is useful to allow progress but it cannot be the goal in itself. Science and innovation promote business and prosperity, foster independent, critical thinking and reflection, strengthen vibrant and resilient democracies and, accordingly, safeguard the maintenance of our shared fundamental values.
This interview first appeared in the August edition of GOLD magazine. Click here to view it.
