人工智能会颠覆全球律师事务所排名吗?

Will AI Disrupt Global Law Firm Rankings?

ISSUE 5 LEGAL TECH

本文的作者兰斯·埃利奥特博士是斯坦福大学法学院和计算机科学系法律信息中心学者，曾任南加利福尼亚大学教授。埃利奥特博士专业精湛，享誉全球，他的畅销书《人工智能与法律推理精要》目前盛行世界，乃是此领域最高水平之作。

本文发表于《瑞中法律评论》第5期。本文由瑞中法律协会及瑞中卓越国际研究院编辑。原标题为《Will AI Disrupt Global Law Firm Rankings?》

摘要：律师事务所排名或排行榜一般被认为是展现律师事务所地位、成就、能力、稳定等重要指标。其呈现出了大量指征，可以推测某项法律业务的整体价值。潜在律师事务所排名会影响到客户，引导其据此选择一家律师事务。法学院新毕业的学生常常参考排行榜决定申请哪家律师事务所开启职业生涯。

Introduction

引言

Ranking law firms is a very serious business.

律师事务所排名是一项相当重要之事。

Law firm rankings or league tables are generally perceived as a vital indicator of status, achievement, capability, stability, and so on. They represent a plethora of characteristics about the presumed overall worthiness of a law practice. Clients are influenced by where a potential law firm ranks, and aim to select one accordingly. Fresh law school graduates frequently use ranking lists to decide where to apply for their starting job.

律师事务所排名或排行榜一般被认为是展现律师事务所地位、成就、能力、稳定等重要指标。其呈现出了大量指征，可以推测某项法律业务的整体价值。潜在律师事务所排名会影响到客户，引导其据此选择一家律师事务。法学院新毕业的学生常常参考排行榜决定申请哪家律师事务所开启职业生涯。

However, the various ranking services use a wide array of metrics. Little if any standardisation or even concurrence exists regarding which metrics ought to be used.

然而，不同的排名服务使用各种各样的衡量标准。应使用哪些相关标准，并没有标准化实践，或者说甚至也没有共识。

Results according to method?

方法决定结果？

Sometimes metrics are ostensibly transparent and consist of strident quantitative measures. These include the number of lawyers employed, profit per partner, revenue per partner, and other countable elements. For example, the annual Global Law Firms 200 listing produced by Law.com states that they undertake their ranking by collecting stats of “the world's largest firms by revenue, headcount, and profits per equity partner.”

有时，衡量标准在表面上看起来是透明的，包含严格的定量标准。诸如雇佣的律师数量、合伙人人均利润、合伙人人均收入以及其他可量化指标。举例而言，Law.com每年会发布全球律所200强排名，他们表示通过收集“全球最大律师事务所的收入、律师人数、权益合伙人人均利润”数据，据此进行排名。

But there are also less quantitatively buttressed measures that are primarily qualitative; client testimonials, opinion surveys, and the like. Rarely is just a single metric utilised. Instead, a broadly based composite is devised. The result tends to produce rankings based on a proprietary and at times byzantine methodology.

然而，也有定量程度不高的支持标准，主要即指定性指标；诸如客户证明、意见调查等等。但是，几乎不会只使用单一衡量标准。相反，而是会使用基础广泛的组合标准。从而往往是根据专有方法以及有时使用拜占庭式方式得出排名结果。

For example, the U.S. News – Best Lawyers ranking is vaguely described as using an “evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process.”

例如，美国新闻—最佳律事务所排名（ U.S. News – Best Lawyers）模糊地称，使用了一种“评估程序，包括收集客户和律师的评价、律师领袖的同行评议以及律师事务所通过正式递交程序提供的其他信息评估。”

The popular and revered Vault Law 100 rankings similarly indicate that they create a shortlist of ‘top law firms’ by reviewing responses to past surveys and published rankings (their own and others), as well as consulting other legal publications and professionals. They ask their shortlisted firms to complete an online survey of their associates. The final rank is based on the average score of these surveys. Vault overtly indicates that their approach is subjective: “Remember that in the Top 100, Vault is not assessing firms by profit, size, lifestyle, number of deals, or quality of service; we are ranking the most prestigious law firms based on the perceptions of practicing lawyers at peer firms.”

颇负盛名和声望的Vault Law 100排名也有类似的说明，他们通过审议以往问卷调查的响应情况以及公开出版的排名（自己及其他机构排名），并征询其他法律出版物和专业人员的意见，从而编制出“顶尖律师事务所”名单。该排名机构要求其入选律师事务所完成所内律师的问卷调查。最终排名结果则依据上述问卷调查的平均得分。Vault公开表示，其所用的是主观性方法：“请注意，在百强顶尖律师事务所排名中，Vault并不是根据利润、规模、行事方式、交易数量，或服务质量来评价律师事务所；我们根据同行律师事务所执业律师的认知为基础。从而对最具声望的律师事务所进行排名。”

The odds are that approaches to rankings will continue somewhat unabated and will, like a meat grinder, be used axiomatically to routinely churn out updated sets of rankings year after year.

令人感到奇怪的是，排名所用方法会继续使用下去，而且在某种程度上而言，这种势头不会减弱，就像绞肉机，自然而然地每年定期用于编制出最新排名。

That said, new methods will emerge, shaped around gradual evolution in the legal profession and present-day practices. Consider a novel ranking scheme discussed by researchers Leonardo Ribeiro and Daniel Figueiredo: it involves examining the potential of ranking law firms and lawyers’ case effectiveness using statistics. ‘Can the network structure alone reveal the most effective and also influential lawyers in the labor court of the state of Rio de Janeiro?’ they asked in the Journal of Brazilian Computer Society in 2017. Applying a modified version of an algorithm used by Google to rank websites they sought a method for discovering effective and influential lawyers based on how many times they had defeated their peers in court.

即便如此，随着法律职业以及现行执业实践的不断发展，也会形成和出现新的评价方法。学者莱昂纳多·里韦罗（Leonardo Ribeiro）和丹尼尔·菲格雷多（Daniel Figueiredo）讨论了一种新的排名方案：即利用数据评估入选 律师事务所的潜力以及律师的办案效率。“仅依赖网络结构是否可以在里约热内卢的劳工法庭上找到最具有效率且最具影响力的律师？”2017年，他们在《巴西计算机协会杂志》上提出了这个问题。他们通过修正谷歌用于网站排名的算法，根据在法庭上打败对手的次数，找到了发现高效和有影响力律师的方法。

In short, innovative technology, such as large-scale databases and algorithms, is likely to inexorably provide new ways to calculate rankings. One technology that could have a similarly demonstrative impact on law firm rankings is Artificial Intelligence-based Legal Reasoning (AILR).

简而言之，诸如大规模数据库和算法之类的创新技术，必然为评估排名提供新的方法。对于律师事务所排名具有类似示范效应的一项技术是基于人工智能的法律推理（AILR）。

AI’s impact on the practice of law and on ranking law firms

人工智能对法律实践及律师事务所排名的影响

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is gradually becoming a handy tool for aiding lawyers in myriad ways, including being able to find viable solutions to vexing legal problems. There are AI-based e-Discovery apps that can rapidly search legal documents and ferret out crucial legal discoveries for a given court case. There are Natural Language Processing (NLP) front-ends available for lawyers to use when accessing voluminous datasets of prior legal cases. The AI-based NLP can ease the burden on non-tech-oriented attorneys and accelerate a review of legal precedents.

人工智能逐渐成为一种有用的工具，在诸多方面可以协助律师，包括可以为棘手的法律问题找到切实可行的解决方案。基于人工智能的e-Discovery应用程序可以迅速检索法律文件，找出既定法庭案件中的重要法律事项。若想评估以往法律案件的大量数据库，律师则可以使用自然语言处理（NLP）终端。基于人工智能的自然语言处理可以减轻非技术方向的律师，加快审议法律先例。

AI will enable faster lawyering, make it more productive, improve its quality, lower its cost, and have other similar substantive impacts, as I argued in the Robotics Law Journal in 2020. This will have considerable impacts on law firms.

人工智能可以加速律师职业的发展，可让律师的工作更富成效，提高执业质量、降低执业成本，此外，正如笔者2020年在《机器人法律杂志》提出的观点，人工智能还具有其他类似实质性影响。对于律师事务所影响深远。

Just imagine a law firm that is well-armed with appropriate AILR versus a law firm that eschews its use by remaining rooted in everyday conventional means. The AI-infused law firm can potentially do as much if not more legal work than the unarmed law firm, at least on a per-lawyer basis.

一家完善配备相应自然语言处理系统的律师事务所，与一家每日仍根植于传统方法的律师事务所，想象一下会出现怎样的不同情况。运用人工智能技术的律师事务所处理的法律工作可能多于没有运用人工智能技术的律师事务所，至少以每位律师为基础，情况确是如此。

How would these two firms compare in league tables? If a metric such as the number of lawyers is used to rank them, the results would potentially miss the mark because the headcount is an insufficient measure of efficiency. Depending upon the multiplying factor of AI-using lawyers, the tech-savvy law firm could have fewer lawyers but be more productive than the firm with more professionals on the payroll. Law firms rankings will inevitably be revamped to reflect the AI-infusion advantages.

那么，这两个律师事务所在排行榜上会有何差异呢？若使用诸如律师数量之类的标准进行排名，结果可能遗漏重要的事项，因为人数不足以衡量效率。根据使用人工职能的律师的多面能力，比起律师人数更多的律师事务所，精通技术的律师事务所虽然人数更少，但成果更为丰富。

Surveys will likely begin to include questions about whether a given law firm is using AI. Clients are bound to express favoritism toward AI-using law practices as the expectation is that AILR will decrease the cost of legal services and boost responsiveness and the speed of their legal guidance. Law firms that drag their feet on AI are likely to be perceived as stodgy and outdated and slide down the rankings accordingly.

如果要调研一家律师事务所，可以先问这家律师事务所是否使用人工智能。客户必然喜欢使用人工智能的法律执业人员，他们期望自然语言处理系统可以降低法律服务成本，增加响应度，快速提供法律指导。而没有使用人工智能的律师事务所可能被认为是古板而迂腐的，排名因而也会靠后。

Conclusion

结论

Admittedly, we have not reached this point yet. The factoring of AI into rankings is still in its early days.

诚然，我们还没有达到这个水平。排名考虑人工智能因素仍处于早期阶段。

Nonetheless, in the future AI will become a cornerstone for practicing law and will ultimately be disruptive to the existing lawyering practices. This disruption will transform ranking services’ structures and methods to include AI adoption factors. Expect a shake-up in how law firms are stacked and racked in the eyes of the legal community and the general public at large.

然而，在未来，人工智能将成为法律执业的基石，最终将突破现有法律执业格局而实现创新发展。这种突破将纳入人工智能因素，重塑排名服务结构和方法。在法律界和广大公众看来，律师事务所正在蓄势待发，迎接巨变。

（责任编辑：David Dahlborn）